| Revision as of 00:49, 10 July 2020 editSoibangla (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,482 edits →Investigation of Rudy in lead← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:59, 7 January 2025 edit undoTuckerlieberman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,686 edits →Turn some low-level headings into higher-level headings: new sectionTag: New topic |
| (473 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=activepol|class=B|listas=Giuliani, Rudy|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid|listas=Giuliani, Rudy}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=B |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law |class=B |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |class=B |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=low |USPE=Yes |USPE-importance=Low |listas=Giuliani, Rudy}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=low |USPE=yes |USPE-importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{merged-from|Helen Giuliani|6 February 2017}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Helen Giuliani|6 February 2017}} |
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp}} |
|
|target=Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive index |
|
|
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|minthreadsleft = 10 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024 == |
|
== Giuliani called an unidentified man and butt-dialed a reporter (to voicemail) on Oct. 16th 11:07 p.m. for three minutes: can be heard discussing overseas dealings, add anywhere? == |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
] (]) 20:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::It sounds bad -- but it's hard to nail down what the conversations mean. I'd omit it unless something comes of it later. ] (]) 20:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== add more Romania? == |
|
|
* {{YouTube|id=ofs7b6w1Pts|title=Rudy Giuliani involved in legal controversy in Romania}} ] Nov 3, 2019 |
|
|
* https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/giuliani-hunter-biden-romania.html |
|
|
* Oct 30, 2019 |
|
|
* (29 Aug 2018) |
|
|
] (]) 22:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== add Republican donor, Trump supporter Long Island attorney Charles Gucciardo investing $500,000 in Fraud Guarantee ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
* https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/politics/ukraine-giuliani-charles-gucciardo.html |
|
|
* https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-giuliani-idUSKBN1XH29L |
|
|
See ]. |
|
|
Gucciardo paid Giuliani on behalf of Fraud Guarantee; $250,000 in September, and October 2018. |
|
|
... Fraud Guarantee, which does not appear to have any customers. |
|
|
] (]) 20:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== add director of the integrated gas division at Naftogaz Andrew Favorov ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Add director of the integrated gas division at ] Andrew Favorov ? |
|
|
* {{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/196b3007d9db4747b55f9019f0f9da91 |title=Ukrainian gas executive cooperating in US probe of Giuliani |authors= Michael Biesecker, and Desmond Butler |date=19 November 2019 |website=apnews.com |access-date=20 November 2019}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Giuliani present during phone call? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was astonished just now to find this in the article lead: |
|
|
<blockquote>In July 2019, Giuliani was present during President Trump's telephone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (]) which included a discussion of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter's Ukrainian activities. That call was later the subject of a ] complaint which formed the basis for the ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Times |first1=The New York |title=Document: Read the Whistle-Blower Complaint |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html |website=The New York Times |date=26 September 2019}}</ref> |
|
|
{{sources-talk}}</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
I have never seen that allegation before - that he was present during the phone call. As far as I could tell, that information is not in the article text and is not supported by any reference in the lead. Can anyone show me that this actually happened, so that we should put it back? -- ] (]) 22:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've also never seen it alleged that he was on the July 25 phone call. I highly doubt that he was. It should've only been government people on that call. – ] (]) 00:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas received $1 million from a Russian account in September, add? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Parnas (an account in ]' wife's name) received $1 million from a Russian account in September, according to a court filing; during the same month that Parnas and his partner Igor Fruman received the first request for documents from the Congressional committees investigating the Trump administration's actions in Ukraine. In the past three years, Parnas has received more than $1.5 million from Ukrainian and Russian sources. |
|
|
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-11/giuliani-associate-parnas-got-1-million-from-russia-u-s-says |
|
|
* https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-say-giuliani-associate-parnas-hid-income-should-be-detained-11576121113 |
|
|
] (]) 00:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== include ''The rise and fall of Rudy Giuliani, explained'' ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
* {{YouTube|id=7ds2eh2_Un0|title=The rise and fall of Rudy Giuliani, explained}} |
|
|
] (]) 00:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== add Oleksandr Dubinsky ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Per |
|
|
* Dec. 29, 2019 |
|
|
Giuliani met with {{ill|Oleksandr Dubinsky|uk|Дубінський Олександр Анатолійович}}, a ] known for his close ties to controversial Ukrainian oligarch ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
**This is supposed to be a Misplaced Pages article not a Democratic Party hate site.] (]) 20:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Honorary knighthood == |
|
|
|
|
|
Honorary knighthoods do not go in the infobox. , and you'll note their infoboxes do not include the honorary letters, because they are Americans. The ] of the U.S. Constitution is clear that Americans are forbidden from holding these titles in a real way. – ] (]) 20:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think the UK also doesn't allow the suffix to be used by those outside the UK, even though they allow the honor. ] (]) 21:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Separate section for Ukraine controversies == |
|
|
|
|
|
There should be a section for that on this article instead of including it in the first section. This article is very biased and needs reform.] (]) 20:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've moved two very detailed paragraphs, which I believe are to what you referred, from the lead section to an associated section within the article. —] 03:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Investigation of Rudy in lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Occurring}}, I disagree with this removal and subsequent change: |
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rudy_Giuliani&diff=965676465&oldid=965663368 |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tq|it's insignificant that "multiple sources" reported it. If only one source reported it, it'd likely be fiction}} is contradictory: the reason "multiple sources" is mentioned is precisely to show that it wasn't simply one source, and therefore it wasn't likely to be fiction. It is also significant that he is being investigated for numerous felonies, per WSJ, and by the SDNY, of all places. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tq2|“Obstruction of justice, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements to the federal government, serving as an agent of a foreign government without registering with the Justice Department, donating funds from foreign nationals, making contributions in the name of another person or allowing someone else to use one’s name to make a contribution, along with mail fraud and wire fraud.”}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I disagree with your entire rationale for rewording the sentennce. |
|
|
|
|
|
I recommend this be restored: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rudy_Giuliani&diff=965663368&oldid=965614651 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Rudy Giuliani|answered=yes}} |
|
] (]) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Change "he was indicted for prosecution related to the 2020 election in Arizona" to "he was indicted on charges related to the 2020 election in Arizona". ] (]) 18:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 21:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Good point. I have made the change requested in two places. ] (]) 19:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism section needed == |
|
:{{ping|Soibangla}} If you expect a response from me on the talkpage, then notify me. There is nothing contradictory about what I stated. Is there any doubt that he was being investigated? No, there isn't: it's an accepted fact. So you simply state it, not inflate the word count with vacuous verbiage merely ''hinting'' at how "big and important" this statement is. It's beyond me why you're adding all these details on the talkpage, not to an explanatory footnote with citations in the article. In the article, you leave the sentence without a footnote at all and add verbiage that dances around the crucial point. This contradicts basic editing principles. – ] (]) 18:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A criticism section is needed in the article. Trump's Muslim allies slammed Giuliani as an "unhinged lunatic" for his anti-Palestine statement that Palestinians "are taught to kill us at two years old" in a speech at a Trump rally. ] (]) 12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::{{u|Occurring}}, {{tq|notify me}} I did. And I continue to disagree with your entire rationale, as another editor has concerns about your edits here. ] (]) 18:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)D |
|
|
:::{{ping|Soibangla}} For whatever reason, no notice reached me, and so I regret my delay in responding. Although it is admirable that you opened discussion on the talkpage, your points range from confused to irrelevant. The article subsection on Trump–Ukraine scandal is massively overwritten, afflicted by downright ]. That's why I gleaned from my attempt to read it only as far as attempted bribery, which I then stated in the lead as a fact. At least twice the length needed to deliver its payload, the sentence that you favor is vague, dancing around the point with tangential facts, mere hints and suggestions, mere trivia irrelevant to understanding, and actually standing in place of, the core facts essential to swiftly comprehending what happened. That's why I've now trimmed it again ]. I suggest that you add merely a few words of specific, ''central'' facts and an explanatory footnote with citations. – ] (]) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{u|Occurring}} {{tq|the sentence that you favor is vague, dancing around the point with tangential facts, mere hints and suggestions, mere trivia irrelevant to understanding, and actually standing in place of, the core facts essential to swiftly comprehending what happened}} I vehemently disagree with that characterization and submit that you are ] your own behavior. I also suggest that you are engaging in edit warring. I recommend that you de-escalate this by restoring the original, long-standing language. ] (]) 21:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Soibangla}} Your entire argument is emotional. You explain no basic information at all that I've deleted. Here is the sentence that you want: "In late 2019, multiple sources reported that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which Giuliani had once led, was investigating him for allegedly committing multiple felonies relating to his activities in Ukraine." And here is my trim of that: "By late 2019, he was under federal investigation for multiple felony allegations via the ]." Is my version factually wrong? If so, point out where. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:]s impair article neutrality and you have to demonstrate why it would be ] to add his comment from the MSG rally to this page. – ] (]) 13:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::What is the point of saying "multiple sources reported"? By your own argument on the talkpage, you're trying to surmount doubt—after gratuitously suggesting the doubt. Isn't it a fact that ". . . the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which Giuliani had once led, was investigating him for allegedly committing multiple felonies relating to his activities in Ukraine."? Or is his being investigated a mere speculation? If it's a speculation, then it would likely be only one or two sources. That's worded like this: "In late 2019, the ''New York Times'' and the ''Washington Post'' independently reported. . .". The very fact that multiple, reliable sources reported it means that we don't need to merely speculate: we just state it as a fact. The irony of this talkpage debate is that you don't even cite any of the "multiple sources" in the article, although legitimate preoccupation with the lead's quality would favor naming the "multiple sources" in a note (]). Since you're the one familiar with this topic, why don't you cite the sentence with the multiple sources? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Red links == |
|
:::::And the sentence has gratuitous detail: "the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which Giuliani had once led". Utterly redundant, this resembles editorializing to highlight a putative irony. We've already read in the lead that Giuliani once held this very office. We don't need you to point that out. Why, to begin with, are you even spelling out this office's lengthy title? The only basic fact relevant is that it's, as I wrote, a "federal investigation". Please, familiarize yourself with the lead's proper scope, particularly where I now italicize: "The lead should stand on its own as a ''concise'' overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize ''the most important points'', including any prominent controversies" (]). |
|
|
|
Remove the red links of ] and ]! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2025 == |
|
:::::Your favored sentence, rather, is so fixated on "multiple" this and "multiple" that and lengthy title such—once held by Giuliani himself—that we have no clue what any of the multiple, uncited sources or even any of the multiple, important felonies are. Further, what even is the context? That is, what are these "activities in Ukraine"—pursuant to what, for whom, and when? Did he shoot someone? Did he embezzle money from the Italian government? Did he sponsor the Italian mafia? And isn't it odd that a federal attorney covering New York is investigating him for his "activities ''in'' Ukraine"? This is all a lengthy sentence whose payload is nothing but vagueness, because you're fixated on stating fluff. It's not editing warring of me to continually integrate other editor's concerns while heeding not merely their emotions, but basic principles of proper editing. And I believe that the onus is on you, rather, to establish just why we must spell out such tangential trivia in the lead, which is properly designed to ''concisely'' summarize only the ''the most important points'' (]). The irony here is that you would do much better to reveal Giuliani's allegedly felonious deeds if you'd switch focus to ''concisely'' clarifying these allegations, not arguing to include drivel. – ] (]) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{tq|Your entire argument is emotional}} It flatly is not, and that can be taken as a personal attack. {{tq|What is the point of saying "multiple sources reported"?}} I already explained that to you and how your counter-argument contradicted itself. Another editor suggests you are POV pushing and I concur. ] (]) 22:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Rudy Giuliani|answered=yes}} |
|
:::::::{{ping|Soibangla}} For clarity, so that readers can identify my reply's thesis, I opened by declaring, "Your entire argument is emotional". And your argument's emotionality now escalates. Meanwhile, please, refrain from suggesting that I have personally attacked ''you'' by characterizing and criticizing ''your argument''. Anyhow, you now quote my rhetorical question—which I've already answered twice by now, first succinctly, and next at length—but frame it alike a sheer question awaiting your answer. In short, you argue that we need this preface—that is, saying "multiple sources reported"—to raise confidence in the sentence's payload. You quote my edit summary saying "it's insignificant that 'multiple sources' reported it. If only one source reported it, it'd likely be fiction". Thereupon, you assert that my criticism "is contradictory: the reason 'multiple sources' is mentioned is precisely to show that it wasn't simply one source, and therefore it wasn't likely to be fiction" . Indeed. So when I delete "multiple sources reported" and, also surpassing "wasn't likely to be fiction", I instead state it as a plain, accepted fact—an event, something that happened, period—it's implied that "multiple sources reported it". Now, please, cite the multiple sources in the lead. That would actually improve the lead. |
|
|
|
Shorten this page's text. ] (]) 08:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
*{{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 ] for them, necessary in this formally designated ]. Please see your user talk page. ] (]) 08:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Turn some low-level headings into higher-level headings == |
|
:::::::Your argument's only other point that I find is your mere sentiment of agreement with another editor. Here is that other editor's full accusation in an edit summary: "The entirety of the changes by User:OCcurring over the past week are extremely POV-pushing and need to be re-examined one by one. 'Civic cleanup' sounds like advertising copy. Absolute balderdash. Reverting to revision by Bender the Bot current as of June 28 - July 1" ]. In response, I cited seven ''more'' sources identifying Giuliani as a recent prominent example of a mayor who led a "civic clean-up", or identifying "Giuliani's cleanup", or stating his "cleaning" the city. About half of the sources are published by university presses. And in fact, some of these sources criticize the cleanup for making New York City bland—how I myself feel—whereas I had initially cited his civic cleanup only with a neutral source, a mildly laudatory source, and an overtly laudatory source. If both critics and supporters indicate that Giuliani led a civic cleanup, what POV is my edit "pushing"? You now say you "concur" with an editor who alleged that the "entirety" of my recent edits here "are extremely POV-pushing", but whose only point to fact is my saying Giuliani led New York City's "civic cleanup" in the 1990s, an editor who called this "absolute balderdash". So, yes, your argument is entirely emotional. – ] (]) 00:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I got this far and stopped: {{tq|And your argument's emotionality now escalates}}. You are now engaged in ad hominem personal attacks. Strike and cease immediately or I will pursue administrative remedies against you. ] (]) 00:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::{{ping|Soibangla}} Please, seek them, so that administration can clarify to you the difference between you and your argument. – ] (]) 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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." |
|
{{u|Occurring}}, {{tq|I repeatedly asked you to name, cite the "multiple felonies" in lead; you refused to}} Make up your mind: first you want the lead to be succinct, but then you want me to rattle off a litany of charges in the lead, which are in the body, but which ''you removed'' because you found the ref bad. And Rudy's Ukraine activities pre-dated the Trump-Ukraine scandal and were not investigated by the impeachment imquiry, which focused solely on Trump. Surreal. You are wrecking this article. ] (]) 23:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
{{u|Occurring}} {{tq|Nor is misrepresenting the source's statements acceptable}} There was never any misrepresentation, I have always characterized it as an investigation, as the sources have — not a finding, not an indictment, an investigation — and the only misrepresentation here is what you're saying about my edits now. ] (]) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
Change "he was indicted for prosecution related to the 2020 election in Arizona" to "he was indicted on charges related to the 2020 election in Arizona". OffTheDeepEnd (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
A criticism section is needed in the article. Trump's Muslim allies slammed Giuliani as an "unhinged lunatic" for his anti-Palestine statement that Palestinians "are taught to kill us at two years old" in a speech at a Trump rally. Wikimicky1 (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)