Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MelanieN (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 10 July 2020 (→Investigation of Rudy in lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:53, 10 July 2020 by MelanieN (talk | contribs) (→Investigation of Rudy in lead)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudy Giuliani article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew York City Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
The contents of the Helen Giuliani page were merged into Rudy Giuliani on 6 February 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudy Giuliani article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

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?

X1\ (talk) 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. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

add more Romania?

X1\ (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

add Republican donor, Trump supporter Long Island attorney Charles Gucciardo investing $500,000 in Fraud Guarantee ?

See Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. 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. X1\ (talk) 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 Naftogaz Andrew Favorov ?

Giuliani present during phone call?

I was astonished just now to find this in the article lead:

In July 2019, Giuliani was present during President Trump's telephone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (Trump–Ukraine scandal) 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 whistleblower complaint which formed the basis for the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.

Sources

  1. Times, The New York (26 September 2019). "Document: Read the Whistle-Blower Complaint". The New York Times.

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? -- MelanieN (talk) 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 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 Lev Parnas' 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.

X1\ (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

include The rise and fall of Rudy Giuliani, explained ?

X1\ (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

add Oleksandr Dubinsky ?

Per

Giuliani met with Oleksandr Dubinsky, a member of the parliament known for his close ties to controversial Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.

X1\ (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Honorary knighthood

Honorary knighthoods do not go in the infobox. Many Americans have them, and you'll note their infoboxes do not include the honorary letters, because they are Americans. The Title of Nobility Clause of the U.S. Constitution is clear that Americans are forbidden from holding these titles in a real way. – Muboshgu (talk) 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. O3000 (talk) 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.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:D889:A796:6853:3BE (talk) 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. —ADavidB 03:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Investigation of Rudy in lead

Occurring, I disagree with this removal and subsequent change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rudy_Giuliani&diff=965676465&oldid=965663368

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.

“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

soibangla (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@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. – Occurring (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Occurring, notify me I did. And I continue to disagree with your entire rationale, as another editor has concerns about your edits here. soibangla (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)D
@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 WP:TLDR. 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. – Occurring (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Occurring 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 projecting 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. soibangla (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@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 Trump–Ukraine scandal." Is my version factually wrong? If so, point out where.
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 (WP:LEAD). Since you're the one familiar with this topic, why don't you cite the sentence with the multiple sources?
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" (WP:LEAD).
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 (WP:ONUS). 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. – Occurring (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Your entire argument is emotional It flatly is not, and that can be taken as a personal attack. 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. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@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.
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. – Occurring (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I got this far and stopped: 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. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Soibangla: Please, seek them, so that administration can clarify to you the difference between you and your argument. – Occurring (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Occurring, 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. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Occurring 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. soibangla (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Occurring and Soibangla: The two of you need to STOP the edit warring. Stop doing your arguing and explaining in edit summaries; do your talking here on the talk page. Occurring, since you are the one who keeps trying to change or remove longstanding content, you need to explain and establish your reasons for doing so; you can’t just keep doing it, and edit summaries (while going ahead and making your edit) are not a substitute for discussion. I have been tempted to lock the article, since edit warring is against Misplaced Pages’s rules, but at this point I’ll just ask you, politely, to stick to the talk page, actually talk and listen to each other, and try to work out agreed-upon wording. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Categories: