Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Investigation of Rudy in lead

Occurring, I disagree with this removal and subsequent change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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 [diff]. 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" [your opening talkpage post]. 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" [diff]. 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)

@Soibangla: Your accusations continually reflect severe, fundamental confusion and misrepresentation. Succinct doesn't mean "short on words", let alone "short on words while wasting words". As Merriam-Webster reveals, Succinct means "marked by compact precise expression without wasted words". Accordingly, my first post criticized your insertion, into the lead, of "vacuous verbiage merely hinting at how 'big and important' this statement is". I added, "It's beyond me why you're adding all these details on the talkpage, not to an explanatory footnote with citations in the article"—more specifically, in the lead—where, I elaborated, "you leave the sentence without a footnote at all and add verbiage that dances around the crucial point. This contradicts basic editing principles". In my second post, I said, in part, "I suggest that you add merely a few words of specific, central facts and an explanatory footnote with citations".

I even explained that your advocated "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)." So, now, on a second topic where you have alleged my statements to be selfcontradictory, not only is there no selfcontradiction, but your arguments actually dispute basic editing principles.

One can readily cover both "the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which Giuliani had once led" (excess details that you insist to put in the lead) and the various, quoted, potential charges, namely, "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" (which you insist to vaguely but sensationally over-summarize in the lead as "multiple felonies") into categories both concise and informative, for example, "federal investigation for lobbying, funding, financial, and related crimes". And I asked you to place the full details, not into the lead's layout, but instead into an explanatory footnote with citations. Your failure to even suspect these possibilities despite my clear statements perhaps suggests why the article section of your focus is egregiously overwritten with a level of detail fitting a political biography on Giuliani, not an encyclopedia article on Giuliani.

Meanwhile, even after I twice asked you to cite the investigation of "multiple felonies" in the lead, you refused to. At last, checking the relevant subsection, I found the citation absurdly bad, claiming that the Wall Street Journal reported it, but citing only Mediaite, which itself said WSJ, but named no WSJ author, article title, or even date. And rather than dig to properly cite what you assert but refused to properly cite, I recognized that, even further, the Wikipedia article's sentence misuses the source. Mediaite reports, on 25 Nov 2019, merely that multiple associates of Giuliani were subpoenaed to potentially investigate some persons, plural, who seemingly include Giuliani, for the collective sum of those potential charges. Whereas readers may then speculate which potential charges could go to Giuliani, the Wikipedia article's sentence that I deleted directs them all to Giuliani. Perhaps that is true, but the source does not indicate that. And here on the talkpage, your post likewise asserts this leap to conclusion. But on 2 Dec 2019, CNBC reports federal prosecutors saying merely that Giuliani associates would likely face new charges [Mangan D & Breuninger K]. It's now 9 Jul 2020, still with no update that Giuliani even has been investigated for these potential charges, but you call my behavior "surreal" and blame me for "wrecking the article". That suggests that I'm not the one whose edits are tendentious (WP:TE).

As to the investigation of Giuliani, I acknowledge that I did somewhat blur, in my background knowledge and in my recent edit summaries, whatever the federal investigation of Giuliani and the impeachment of Trump. Yet I have never done so in the Wikipedia article itself. I added the context of the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which formed the basis of Trump's impeachment, because that is the context of the allegations against Giuliani. It's a mainstream consensus that it is Giuliani's becoming Trump's personal attorney and Giuliani's resulting role in the Trump–Ukraine scandal whereby Giuliani fell under federal investigation for his other, earlier Ukrainian activities. In fact, the New York Times article that's cited to introduce the federal investigation of Giuliani's Ukrainian activities indicates that the laws premising this investigation are some 50 years old, but had lain basically ignored until Russia's tampering in the 2016 presidential election [Schmidt MS, Protess B, Vogel KP & and Rashbaum WK, 11 Oct 2019, updated 17 Dec 2019]. This is a key point omitted from the Wikipedia article's subsection, which is otherwise excruciatingly detailed, offering step-by-step reporting of anything potentially incriminating of Giuliani while violating Wikipedia guidelines to do so (WP:NOTNEWS & WP:EXCESSDETAIL). In any case, either the investigation was fruitless—as I perhaps prematurely called it in merely an edit summary—or else the investigation, as you yourself now suggest, is ongoing. Either way, then, the subsection bears egregious undue weight and recentism (WP:UNDUE & WP:RECENTISM).

To top it off, your placement, now, of a better citation makes no attempt at all to to even format it: you add a naked URL. And you use this to, in the lead, replace a clearly stated investigation aspect reliably attributed toward Giuliani himself ("political bribery") with a vague but sensaitonal speculation ("numerous other major charges") that your cited source does not indicate are specifically toward Giuliani, but rather toward a group: multiple Giuliani associates and thus possibly including Giuliani himself [diff]. So, until I return to better treat the lead, I have but mildly moderated your vague but grandiosely incriminating wording [diff] Occurring (talk) 02:20, 10 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 Wikipedia’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)

@MelanieN and Soibangla: Wikipedia guidelines against edit warring clarify that "reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring"—while I have clearly explained my edits in that regard while citing the policies by name and wikilink—and the Wikipedia guidelines on edit warring add, "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page" (WP:EW).

Meanwhile, even until now, despite Soibangla's allegations' continually escalating emotionality and misrepresentation—now allegedly my "surreal" behavior "wrecking the article"—the only content that I outright deleted from the article was a sentence venturing numerous, potential felony charges against Giuliani, although the cited source never says that, but instead ventures them against several individuals who merely might include Giuliani, while this source, additionally, was extremely poor, and yet remained the only source even after I repeatedly asked Soibangla, here on the talkpage, to cite this information in the lead, where it remained uncited, but Soibangla refused to. So this was potentially libelous but uncited claims in the lead.

Perhaps Wikipedia guidelines protect longstanding content even against WP:BLP, but I have never seen them. So that I may better heed Wikipedia policy in the future, I ask, respectfully, that you cite them. So far, I have seen the contradictory Wikipedia guidelines that indicate, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (WP:ONUS). Meanwhile, I maintain that although I and Soibangla have serially disputed, our combined efforts have continually improved the article, namely, its lead, by my integrating Soibangla's concerns with Wikipedia's guidelines. Yet I think that Soibangla's talkpage assertions have, by now, proven to be overwhelmingly emotional, contradictory to Wikipedia guidelines, and even deceptive. – Occurring (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Occurring, as I read the history, you began adding, deleting, and rewriting material on July 2. Here’s your first series of edits, second series of edits. The first time you deleted the last sentence of the lead, about him being under investigation. The second time you changed it to a vague “fell under investigation”. Since then you and soibangla have been going back and forth, IN THE ARTICLE, changing that sentence and others to your preferred versions. Working out disagreements on the article page is not how it is supposed to work. That kind of edit warring messes up the article. Instead, use the talk page to work out a wording you can both agree on. One of you propose something, the other propose something else, reach a compromise. Something I have learned at Wikipedia: it’s amazing how often a controversial situation can be resolved by setting aside arguments and focusing on the wording.

And - very important - discuss the content, not the other person’s motivation. Your repeated accusations of “emotionalism” are inaccurate and uncalled for, and are poisoning the process. Stop it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

My repeated attempts to reason with the editor on Talk have proved futile, so I will now step away from the article and hope others will prevent him/her from trashing it, lest I be sucked into further dumb drama. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rudy Giulani & Hunter Biden

I am not a lawyer, but it occurred to me that Rudy Giuliani's act of distributing the media supposed contents of a computer allegedly abandoned by Hunter Biden is in violation of legal principles or even criminal law. As I understand it, evidence is for the eyes of the police and prosecutors only and that it is a violation to share alleged evidence and that it is the judge who decides what (if anything) can be made public at trial or after trial (if it gets that far). Also, if this is unproven or disproved, I would expect Giuliani (and others) could be found guilty of defamation. Is Giuliani in legal or civil jeopardy? Enquire (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It's off topic here, but it seems totally unlikely Giuliani is in jeopardy for releasing material whose accuracy is currently undisputed, is not covered by any privacy laws, and that he (apparently) took adequate steps to verify came into his possession legally. There is no officially announced case or investigation, and Giuliani is a third party who would not be subject to any gag order related to a case. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no law against giving things to the media, absent some kind of court order not to do so. I suppose there could be some kind of civil action if the owner of the laptop objected, but since nobody has claimed ownership of the laptop that's probably not an issue either. In other word, nothing needs to be said about this. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

So are there no plans to make any mention in this article of the laptop that Rudy Giuliani is discussing in numerous media appearances and newspaper interviews? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

We can cover that but any allegation that Giulani has broken the law or violated legal principles would not be allowable under BLP restriction which as far as I can tell is what Enquire was specifically asking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Not suggesting we impugn Giuliani at all. But if you're interested in seeing smear of Giuliani, the talk page for the Hunter Biden page is chocked full of it.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the dominant faction here won't be too keen, but if someone wants to give it a try, the Wall Street Journal, a top-notch reliable source, has an article about the firestorm out today. It's an opinion article, but much of what is said in the article is stated as fact, not as opinion. It's titled: Now Corruption Story Is About Joe, Not Hunter | How long can the media blackout continue? Here's the first paragraph:

At this hour many news consumers remain trapped behind the Silicon Curtain. Nevertheless word continues to spread about the Biden family business, thanks to an underground publication founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1801. The latest story from the New York Post, which shares common ownership with the Journal, comes courtesy of veteran columnist Michael Goodwin. He reports a statement from a Biden business partner who says that Joe Biden was involved in the family influence-peddling racket, including with China.

(Who knew that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post are owned by the same entity? Funny how one is viewed by the the controlling faction in Wikipedia as completely reliable while the other is viewed as completely unreliable. How paradoxical.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

In general opinion pieces cant be used on WP:BLPs. I’m not sure I see a point in there, what is the Ministry of Truth? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Ministry_of_Truth

(edit conflict) Opinion articles are not reliable and that one is no exception. Michael Goodwin is an opinion columnist, not a journalist. Check out his record. And don't refer to us as the "Ministry of Truth". That's not assuming good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

the Wall Street Journal, a top-notch reliable source for news. Its opinion pages? Not so much. “Opinion’s lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources.” soibangla (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek: Senate Committee Looking Into Tony Bobulinski After Allegations Hunter Biden's Business Partner Confirmed China Deals. Reliable enough? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The source, which you did not link, says very little. "The committee is working to validate information being revealed by multiple sources. As part of those efforts, we have reached out to several individuals named in recently revealed emails, including Tony Bobulinski. We look forward to their cooperation in helping us uncover the truth," There's nothing here yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. Thank you for your indulgence.

Borat, sourcing, full film vs initial release

The material about the Borat prank is sourced to an LA Times film review, but all that the source says about Giuliani is: "After all, the news that Rudy Giuliani called the cops in July in response to a Baron Cohen prank is already a matter of public knowledge".

Even if other sources could be found for the narrative currently in the article, there is a disconnect between reports from people who have seen the film and those who have not. The film will be commercially released Friday, tomorrow. People who have seen it are making much more limited statements, or opposite statements, compared to what has circulated based on the pre-release snippets. The LA Times is an extreme example (critic saw movie and doesn't dwell at all on Giuliani portion), but as another example here is what a Mother Jones editor reports after obtaining a screener from Amazon.

https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1319001450597396480

It seems prudent to just delete mention of Borat until the film comes out tomorrow. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Related comment from video production company. https://twitter.com/mediaoffthegrid/status/1319256517036658688 . As one might expect with Borat/Cohen, a lot of this looks exaggerated for purposes of promoting a film, and the media narratives about it are driven by their political stance for or against Joe Biden rather than a clinical assessment of the film evidence. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

We'll stick with what is found in WP:SECONDARY sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You have misread the comment. There is no suggestion to use Twitter as a source for the article. Twitter is, however, a reasonable source of evidence for the observation that seeing the film matters. And regardless of Twitter, the only source used in the article, the LA Times, does not say anything at all resembling what is in the article, so that section needs to be edited, removed, or other sources added. Currently it is peddling narratives that violate BLP and are questionable in light of what has been reported so far. Why not wait 24 hours? 73.89.25.252 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is another film review, that directly makes the point that excerpts are deceptive. https://nypost.com/2020/10/21/borat-2-review-sacha-baron-cohen-tries-to-make-rudy-giuliani-a-joke/ says: "The moments that will have people talking are when Borat sneaks into CPAC 2020 ... and a later scene in which his daughter interviews Giuliani in Manhattan. That part claims to show the former mayor in a compromising position in bed with Tutar, but after rewatching it 10 times, it looks to me like an exaggeration through editing. Funny, though." I think that in this case, any pre-release article other than a film review (or by an author who has access to the full scene) should be considered unreliable for description of the content of the film. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That review is from the New York Post. I have added a pre-release article from a WP:RS that is not a film review, are you happy now? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

No. The Guardian article, not being a review, has exactly the problems indicated above from not seeing the relevant portion of the film in its entirety. e.g. it peddles the narrative of an "invitation to the bedroom", but the Mother Jones editor who watched the whole segment says it is obvious that words to the effect of "let us now come to the bedroom" were added in post-production, not spoken to Giuliani. The original film footage was edited, confusingly (according to Mother Jones guy) or to exaggerate (NY Post), and snippets of this already edited thing have been driving the pre-release media articles, in addition to the obvious politics. The politics will still be there after tomorrow's release, but articles will be more accurate as to the content of the film. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

How about we just wait until tomorrow, when the movie is actually released, and we have a flood of reviews come in from the reliable sources? We're on WP:NODEADLINE to add this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I've suggested waiting for the release, but also that after the release, we should not treat pre-release (non film review) articles as RS for the content of the film. Even in cases where they agree with future articles that will have access to the full scene, they earlier pieces might have been written differently had the authors seen more than snippets. As you say, there will many more sources in a few days than currently exist and (IMO) we should work from sources that are clearly based on the actual film and not the snippets since there is substantial evidence of a difference in what those show. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

We can update the article with continuing coverage but what we have there now is going to stay. Its impeccably sourced, also look... You were objecting to this when a large part of that section was completely unsourced, why object to a sourced appearances in popular culture when there are multiple unsourced ones (before I removed them per WP:BLP)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I find this article lacking critical information in regards to how it describes the Borat scene. The article currently states "When invited to Tutar's hotel room, Giuliani proceeds to lie on her bed and reach inside his trousers". If you actually watched the movie you would know that this occurs after their interview was finished, and then you clearly see "Tular" is removing a microphone setup which Giuliani was wearing. The mic setup was clipped to his waist and went under his shirt. "Tular" almost aggressively tore it out and she clearly untucked his shirt in the process. Giuliani then put his hand in his pants, with his defense of just tucking his shirt back in. Regardless of how you want to imagine Giuliani's motives, it's very clear he didn't just immediately shove his hand down his pants after entering a hotel room. It's very disturbing that this information is already lacking in the article. Please edit the article and put this in. KeenHorizon (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen sources giving this take on things. You? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous news agencies which published articles about this. It's very easily missed because everyone is blindly believing this piece of crud satire film as reality. Here are two news articles on it: Reason (https://reason.com/2020/10/22/the-rudy-giuliani-scene-in-the-new-borat-movie-isnt-what-you-think/) and the Washingtonian (https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/10/22/rudy-giuliani-really-was-just-tucking-his-shirt-in-but-almost-everything-else-he-did-in-the-new-borat-is-really-gross/). To quote from Reason "She then removes his microphone—again, shot in a way to emphasize the intimacy of their contact—and in the process, the front of his shirt comes untucked. At this point, he leans back, appearing to briefly lie on the bed, and reaches a hand into his pants. But it's fairly clear he's tucking his shirt back in—which is what Giuliani himself says was happening.". Please edit the article immediately to reference this. I am really truly disgusted with how everyone can't recognize the terrible scene editing and blatant disregard for truth in this movie. KeenHorizon (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

There is Freudian slip, there is improper behaviour and most of all a man cannot have sex with a torn bone. Thouching and rubbing have complete opposite effects.2A02:810A:10BF:AA58:C51D:3A28:B6A4:A200 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? You must be a troll. First off, if you bother actually watching the movie, you would see that "Tular" (a 24 year old actress) was not only posing as a fake reporter to get access to Giuliani, but she was also putting hands on Giuliani's legs during the interview repeatedly in a sexual manner. Second, Giuliani is not married currently. Third, are you blind to think that old people don't have sexual intercourse? Retirement homes are huge hotspots of STDs. Are you going to ban old people form having sex? Are you going to not allow an old man to have consensual intercourse with a 24 year old woman who is repeatedly feeling up his legs? Grow up.KeenHorizon (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Why does the article not mention that Giuliani farted twice during the election fraud hearing on December 2?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This fact was posted on Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed is, according to Wikipedia's standards, a **reliable**, **trusted** media outlet with **high journalistic standards**. Therefore the farts **must** be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:248E:BB00:98F2:80C:D5A:31DE (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there some significance to Giuliani's having passed gas? It's a normal biological function that we all do. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly the same reason that Fartgate hasn’t made it to the Eric Swalwell article. DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In this household, we wouldn't say farted, we'd say "trumped." -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Something Giuliani has been doing non-stop for weeks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The farts were as significant as anything else produced in that hearing. Which is to say none of it is worthy of an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

add director of the integrated gas division at Naftogaz Andrew Favorov ?

Add director of the integrated gas division at Naftogaz Andrew Favorov ?

• "Ukrainian gas executive cooperating in US probe of Giuliani". apnews.com. 19 November 2019. Retrieved 20 November 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

Cousin wife

@Adavidb:

Why did you revert the addition of the cousin information? It seems relevant

Psychlohexane (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The cousin part is mentioned in the next few sentences. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

Remove "attempting to delegitimize the succession of Joe Biden as president." from "In November 2020, Trump placed Giuliani in charge of lawsuits related to alleged voter fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election, attempting to delegitimize the succession of Joe Biden as president." as it represents an personal opinion and not a fact. Popovici.andrei (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done - used more neutral language. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cybersecurity Advisor?

US president Donald Trump describes Rudy Giuliani as a “great crime fighter,” yet almost three years after multiple shortcomings with Giuliani’s corporate website were first pointed out, the president’s personal lawyer has not brought it up to even the most rudimentary security standards. Mozilla Observatory, an online site-scanning service operated by the nonprofit company behind the Firefox web browser, rates Giuliani Security & Safety’s website an “F” for basic connection security, with a score of 0 out of 100. In a suite of 11 tests, the Giuliani Security & Safety site passes just 3, according to Mozilla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Christopher Heinrich (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Stephen Christopher Heinrich: Are you suggesting a change to this page? Or is this just a comment? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles on Giuliani's children

Neither of Giuliani's children seem notable in their own right but they have Wikipedia pages. Should the content at those pages be pruned and merged into this page so that the childrens' pages can be deleted? 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There is now a discussion of this at the Talk page of Caroline Giuliani. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Also under discussion at the Andrew Giuliani Talk page.73.89.25.252 (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

what is a "Giuliani supporter" and who are they?

Article currently has this sentence: "Giuliani's supporters cite studies concluding that the decline in New York City's crime rate in the 1990s and 2000s exceeds all national figures and therefore should be linked with a local dynamic that was not present as such anywhere else in the country..."

This seems dumb. The studies exist, they don't need to be "cited" by a "supporter" (whatever that is??) in order to be relevant to the article. This is just divisive nonsense. Can we not reword this to say "Some studies have concluded that the decline in New York City's crime rate …." - and then actually cite the studies? Then it is Wikipedians citing them, not some partisan supporters/opponents.198.161.4.44 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to "Giuliani's supporters", using "Some studies conclude ...". —ADavidB 00:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"

He's not a conspiracy theorist. The claim that he is one goes against the stated rules for biographies regarding living persons. Adding that bit in the overview and then locking the article is an attack on his character and an attempt to persuade others that he is untrustworthy. One should expect an encyclopedia to relate objective facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:3c01:f05b:c5c5:618:8568:c073 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he is a conspiracy theorist, and he is notable as a conspiracy theorist, so that descriptor is accurate and relevant. Virtually all media coverage of him in recent years has been about him pushing increasingly far-fetched conspiracy theories, for which he has been widely ridiculed. His political career was twenty years ago, so he's primarily associated with promoting conspiracy theories these days. --Tataral (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I also found this characterisation odd for an encyclopaedia article. The conspiracy theory he enounced was done in a capacity as legal counsel. A lawyer would present whatever case they think would be most effective at holding up in court in favour of their client, not necessarily one they personally believe to be true.

Also, I only see one actual conspiracy mentioned in the article and that's the one from yesterday's press conference about the Communist conspiracy. Surely there needs to be a more notable track record to characterise a figure in the article preamble?

Lastly, I would think that an encyclopaedia should give an objective view on a topic, not inordinately influenced by the "hot issue today" (literally yesterday). NewWorld101 (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

May have WP:UNDUE weight to have "conspiracy theorist" in opening line of this BLP. This needs full discussion before adding. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

An encyclopedic entry has no business using slurs to cast aspersions on people. This is nothing but a blatant, apparent attempt to dismiss someone as unreasonable and demean them without allowing them to present their evidence. It should be removed because it is not a neutral statement, period. 2600:4040:1347:2E00:68A0:E968:C196:2446 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

We just use reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] O3000 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is an opinionated dismissal, not a fact or even an argument based on facts. I don't care whose opinion you consider "reliable." It's an insult, nothing more. If neutrality is a goal, it has no business on anyone's page. 2600:4040:1347:2E00:E88B:2141:E4CC:61BA (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. We use sources deemed reliable by the community, not your personal opinion.

Using "consensus" about sources as a replacement for fact to justify using smears and insults is not neutrality. It's mob bias. Just because a headline contains the phrase "conspiracy theorist" doesn't mean it should appear in this article. The source, which is nothing more than a caption on a video, also calls his claims "baseless" despite containing a video in which he specifies the precise factual basis for his concerns. Now, you might want to argue that his basis is somehow insufficient, but the source in question certainly doesn't do so. Heck, the main purpose of that source is to make fun of hair color running down his face. Irrespective of the organization's reliability, this is clearly a ridiculously low quality source, and Wikipedia citing it as such flimsy justification to launch an insulting smear only degrades its reliability. The second source cited there doesn't even address the same topic. 2600:4040:1347:2E00:2836:B16:402C:CF8A (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

O3000 (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• We can put conspiracy theorist in the lead, heck we can put it in the first paragraph but for the love of god not in the first sentence... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the first sentence -- yet. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The first lead paragraph seems to summarize key roles served throughout his career. The last paragraph talks about his more recent events and 'promoting conspiracy theories'. I believe this is sufficient. I do not believe this carries due weight to be placed in the opening sentence, nor the opening paragraph. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP needs to be respected, its an Encyclopedia, so lets not try to cast him in a certain light. Highlight relevant information and that's it, that's your only job as an editor. EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There's ample well-sourced article text to put the conspiracy theories in context at the bottom of the lead. There's no disagreement about it being unsuitable for the top at this point, but Vaselineperson, please don't keep reverting this. I suggest you put it back. There is no reason to keep removing it and we really don't want to go to a month-long RfC to confirm what's obvious here. You can ask at BLP or NPOV if you really think there's any valid reason to keep erasing this. It's all over the article with top sources. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There are several voices who disagree with you here. Also, the process is WP:BRD which means when someone adds something controversial, and it is reverted by another, we discuss it here before readding. I think putting it in the first paragraph is both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM—also given it is still an ongoing investigation. There are a lot of sources, yes, but how does that translate to adding it right up in the front? Do the sources tell you to do that? Right now, it belongs in the last paragraph where it is. Also not sure if writing "Vaselineperson" is being civil. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Not in the lead sentence or lead paragraph. That is to sum up what the person is primarily noted for. "Conspiracy theorist" does not belong there. There is a mention of conspiracy theories in the final paragraph of the lead, and that's where it belongs. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. If this nonsense continues, perhaps it can be elevated. He is off the map at them moment which may save him from himself. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The text keeps being removed from its agreed spot at the end of the lead. This should be undone and the stick dropped. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, agreed where and by whom? I see many people in this section disagree that it should be in the lead. NewWorld101 (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: many, perhaps most, people in this section say it should not be in the lead sentence or lead paragraph. At the same time, mentioning conspiracy theories in the last paragraph of the lead does not seem to be controversial. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wording of the last sentence of the lead

@Valereee: Can we talk about this edit to the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead? It does not appear to me to be an improvement, and IMO makes the sentence more convoluted and hard to follow. Let's talk about what you were trying to achieve, and come up with a consensus wording. (For reference, the original sentence was During the 2020 election Giuliani attempted to assist Trump by promoting conspiracy theories about the Biden family and other political opponents; following Trump's defeat in the election he tried to argue, without evidence, that the election was stolen by a secret international Communist cabal. The new sentence says During the 2020 United States presidential election, following Joe Biden being named President-elect, Trump placed Giuliani in charge of lawsuits related to alleged voter irregularities through unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving a Communist conspiracy, rigged voting machines and polling place fraud to claim that the election had been stolen from Trump.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I think you meant to direct that to me as I had altered that edit (I've got a few more e's attached to my username :p). The last sentence used to look like this as of the edit by Muboshgu before it became more convoluted and pov-y in the coming hours by several others. Some of this was also not reinforced in the body, particularly about the Biden family (seems that this related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal but not directly to the current news during the 2020 election) and used buzzwords such as 'promoting', 'tried to argue', etc. There may be an obsession to include the term 'conspiracy theory' in the lead by some given several news stations are using the term, but I personally think this is much more succinct and appropriate for a lead, then is expanded upon in the body. But since RS' use the term, I had kept it there in my last edit. Perhaps the list in the sentence is still too long and uses 'conspiracy' twice to try and force 'conspiracy theory' into the sentence. Perhaps something like this is better. Following the 2020 United States presidential election, Joe Biden was named President-elect, and Trump placed Giuliani in charge of lawsuits related to contesting election processes through an unsubstantiated Communist conspiracy. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to both of you. Haven't had my coffee yet. I'll have to look further into the history of the sentence. I think we are agreed that we need to come up with something that is not convoluted and not POV, and is well supported in the body. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

lol...I was like "what did I do before coffee this morning or after wine yesterday?" :) —valereee (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Added some more to my above post. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Actually there is much MORE in our article about the Biden conspiracy theories (a full section of more than a dozen paragraphs) than about the election lawsuits (3 paragraphs), so I think a mention of Biden conspiracy theories in the lead is WP:DUE. After all Giuliani was the prime “investigator” and promoter of those claims, which were his primary focus of activity for more than a year. The sentence you replaced included two parts: the Biden stuff during the election, and the Communist stuff post-election. I think that format should be restored. We could add the rigged machines and polling place fraud allegations to the post-election stuff. How about something like this: During the 2020 election Giuliani attempted to assist Trump by promoting conspiracy theories about the Biden family and other political opponents; following the election he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making unproven allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy. What do you think? If you don't like "promoting conspiracy theories" we could say "claiming improper actions" or "illegal actions" by the Biden family and other political opponents. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, looking again at that paragraph, I see he is already mentioned as "a central figure in the Trump-Ukraine scandal", which is pretty minimal but it's there, so maybe we could leave it out of the last sentence. That would leave us with Following the election he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making unproven allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN, I think your final version, with 2020 United States presidential election linked to specify which election we're talking about, is fair. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Done and done. (BTW that Communist stuff is so crazy it almost makes Joseph McCarthy look reasonable.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Question to User:Soibangla: You replaced "unproven" with "false and unsubstantiated", saying "per talk, consistent with body". Could you point me to where in talk we agreed to use that wording? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

by “per Talk,” I referenced what you said above: “is well supported in the body” soibangla (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, but that section in the body of the article begins In November 2020, following the election he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making unproven allegations. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity also, who seems to be 'living in the real world', one that has no regard for Wikipedia policies. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That should change, because the subsequent wording is supported by five refs. soibangla (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Must we regurgitate every 'baseless', 'without evidence', unsupported', 'unsubstantiated', 'false', 'unproven', term that the media uses or will one suffice to be succinct? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Vaseline, please undo your instantaneous revert of my edit of 6 minutes ago. You need to calm down. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I was online. Instead of saying 'I need to clam down', maybe you should have a bit more respect for the WP:BRD process and let it play out, hm? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Vaseline, please catch your breath. I am not engaged in disruptive editing, but good-faith editing that relies on policy and consensus.

For example, I wanted (and still want) to refer to Giuliani as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first paragraph, because that is how reliable sources describe him. But I am not trying to edit-war this in, since there is no consensus for such a change.

However, there is a consensus for mentioning (in an anodyne way) his work for Trump in the first paragraph. There is also consensus for mentioning his promotion of conspiracy theories in the last paragraph. So you are the one POV-pushing here by removing it.

Lastly, your deprecation of the media is misplaced because Wikipedia articles rely entirely on what media sources ("reliable sources") say about people. There are plenty of sources that would endorse Rudy's views, with which you may be familiar; however the "reliable sources" Wikipedia uses characterize his views as half-baked conspiracy theories. CozyandDozy (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You've made a lot of assumptions there, none of which are true by the way. I think you should take another look at WP:CONSENSUS, because one was not established for your proposed wording (from a couple days ago or now). MelanieN and I were trying to come up with a wording that would work, respecting WP:BRD. I hadn't changed it. Perhaps we should wait a bit longer before instating it, but reverting back to previously undiscussed wording is not helpful during this process. Maybe you could suggest other wordings? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Vaseline, you are edit-warring and falsely claiming "consensus" to keep verified and NPOV content out of the article. It can continue to be improved, but you are not the gatekeeper of this page, and in fact you did nothing to correct the awkward language that MelanieN previously pointed out. You need to stop reverting. @MelanieN: I was surprised to see no 1RR and/or additional sanctions on this page. If you think that would be helpful, please consider adding or asking an uninvolved Admin to evaluate. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Truth Mhurst140 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

EVERYBODY needs to stay polite and co-ooperative, please. Comments like "calm down" and "take a breath" are rude and out of place. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, "calm down" I think means exactly the same as what you've just said above. What's more concerning is stuff like this when combined with aggressive reverting. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, let’s review the bidding. That last sentence for the first paragraph was added by CozyandDozy, complete with the “conspiracy theories” material, less than 48 hours ago. [5] In the same edit they added “conspiracy theorist” to his list of occupations in the first sentence, which was promptly removed, as it should have been. I then removed the “conspiracy theories” part of the new sentence, pointing out that it is already in the lead in the last paragraph. CozyandDozy restored the conspiracy material; Muboshgu removed it. That left “Over the last several years, Giuliani has served as an attorney and aide to President Donald Trump” which is what we are discussing here. That was soon removed by Vaselineeeeee saying “needs discussion”. That should have settled it, per BRD, but CozyandDozy restored it, Vaselineeee removed it again, CozyandDozy restored it again, rinse and repeat. CozyandDozy has added it five times, Vaselineeeee has removed it four times. Both of you are in violation. I am going to remove it pending discussion here, and that should be the end of the edit warring. This is a simple case of BRD. CozyandDozy added it; it was challenged; that should have settled it, pending discussion. And it should not be restored until there is consensus to keep it. There is a discussion below started by CozyandDozy; let’s discuss it there, since this thread has gotten kind of hot and heavy. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Back to the wording of the last sentence of the lead

The last sentence is still with CozyandDozy's undiscussed version. Anyway, maybe we need !votes to get this settled and/or other versions proposed and discussed. For now, support MelanieN's version above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

After discussion here Vasilineeeee and I agreed on a wording for the final sentence of the lead: Following the election he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making unproven allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy. Two people changed “unproven” to “false and unsubstantiated”; that can be discussed. Then it was completely rewritten by CozyandDozy,[6] without any discussion, and now reads Following President-elect Joe Biden's victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election, Giuliani has filed over twenty unsuccessful lawsuits on Trump's behalf in an attempt to overturn Trump's defeat. He has also promoted numerous conspiracy theories on Trump's behalf, making false and unsubstantiated allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy. I’m going to revert that undiscussed change and then we can discuss it here. I’m not totally opposed to it but it would need tweaking; for example I don’t see any need to stress “Trump’s defeat” twice in the same sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest re "unproven" that this word needed amending, because it isn't used in the source provided. The words used in that source (with reference to the allegations) are "false[ly]" and "debunked". I've amended the sentence accordingly. Happy to discuss further. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I also thought C&D's text was better, at least as a starting point. SPECIFICO talk 09:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I support the use of the term "unsubstantiated" or "unproven" over "false and debunked". I feel more of us can agree that the allegations have at the very least not been proven to be true, which is different than them having been proven to be false. Yes the sources cited use the terms "debunked" etc but these terms are somewhat loaded and contentious. You can find just about whatever terms you want simply by alternating between CNN and Fox News, let alone any number of other reliable sources. In this modern hellscape of intensely divisive tribal "politics" I feel the most neutral and inclusive language is required. My two cents (Canadian, so 1.57 cents USD. Hah.) Vernal Bogneris (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove Conspiracy allegations.

This is absurd. The article you have to back your conspiracy claims is from a very well known “radical leftist” news site. Who has been known to twist the truth to fit their narratives. Mhurst140 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The allegation is factual, and The Guardian is a highly respected RS. If you have a problem with it, then take it up at WP:RS/N. There is a discussion above about this matter. -- Valjean (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the conspiracy theory nonsense. CNN breaks news to Reuters, of course it's left leaning. Breitbart and Newsmax covered the press conference, and I'd link here, but Wikipedia is blacklisting the links. Regardless, none of these claims are factual. It's all editorial preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.98.106 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

CNN and Reuters are both considered, by consensus of Wikipedia editors, to be generally reliable. Newsmax and Breitbart are both deprecated sources: that is, "The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited." If you would like to argue about the descriptors, I would recommend using reliable sources. WP:RSP is a handy guide if you're unsure if a source is reliable or not, and if it's missing from there you can do a search in the discussion archives of WP:RSN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You know who everyone can agree is nonpartisan and objective? C-SPAN. Look at their description: The Trump campaign provided an update on its election legal challenges from the Republican National Committee. Rudy Giuliani, personal attorney for President Trump, said the campaign would likely file a lawsuit in Georgia and was looking into filing lawsuits in New Mexico and Virginia. https://www.c-span.org/video/?478246-1/trump-campaign-alleges-voter-fraud-states-plans-lawsuits No mention of "conspiracy." He made allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegation). Spinning it as a conspiracy is misleading and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.98.106 (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

He alleged a conspiracy, with no evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect the weight of views published in reliable sources. We do not model articles after a singular, cherry-picked source, and the lack of mention of conspiracy theories in the C-SPAN article does not contradict the many reliable sources that support that Giuliani has promulgated conspiracy theories. If you have reliable sources that contradict that Giuliani has spread conspiracy theories, please present them and we can certainly discuss them, but a source that doesn't mention that the sky is blue does not contradict sources that do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia now judge and jury?

This last sentence in the lede: "Following the election he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making false and debunked allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy.[22][23]" Since when is it up to Wiki to determine what false and debunked? Ridingdog (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ridingdog Wikipedia is not a judge or jury. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and many if not most of them call Trump's claims false. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. If you have evidence that the allegations Trump and/or Mayor Giuliani make are true, you should give it to them so they can publicize it and get reliable sources to say their allegations are true. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think "making false" is too POV. I would prefer "making unproven claims" Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

22 "Rudy Giuliani baselessly links new election fraud claims to 'communist money' from Venezuela" -nothing said about " debunked allegations about rigged voting machines." That's WP Not Reuters, not WashPost. If the Wash Post and Glenn Kessler can determine truth then who needs a court of law? Who needs SCOTUS when we have the Washed-upPost? And Wikipedia is not SUPPOSED to be Judge and Jury but it is when they don't tell the truth. These sources do not say what you CLAIM they say. They have not debunked allegations about rigged voting machines. Ridingdog (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ridingdog, The Epoch Times is not an acceptable source. See WP:RSP. We summarize reliable sources, and there is no evidence of any of the conspiracy theories pushed by Giuliani. Notably, he doesn't push the same ones in court that he does from a press conference podium. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ridingdog Wikipedia does not make claims about truthfulness, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. See WP:TRUTH. You are free to believe what you wish, but if you only want to be told what you want to hear or what fits with your worldview, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Right. WP is only the place for 'certain people' that think a 'certain way'. Otherwise all your edits get reverted. A waste of time for thinking individuals. Ridingdog (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ridingdog, all of your edits that are based on conspiracy theories will be reverted, yes. Any constructive contributions you would like to make will be welcomed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thinking individuals recognize reliable sources which have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

This wikipedia entry says: "Following the 2020 election, he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making false and debunked allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy."

I take issue with the words "false" and "debunked" NOTHING has been proven as false and NOTHING has been proven as debunked. This statement may have come from a reference such as the Guardian or the Washington Post or other left-wing outlets with an ax to grind. This is irresponsible and is propaganda.

Also, Giuliani did not make claims of an international Communist conspiracy. There is a conspiracy but to call it a Communist conspiracy is so general and vague as to insinuate false information.

Please don't tell me that Wikipedia is the mouth piece for false information. Theknuckleshuffle (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

From Rudy Giuliani's Wikipedia page: "Following the 2020 election, he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making false and debunked allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy."

It has not been proven that Rudy's allegations are false. It has not been proven that Rudy's allegations have been debunked. Furthermore, an "international Communist conspiracy" is a vague statement that is somewhat meaningless.

I realize that this quote is based on references from the Guardian and the Washington Post but this doesn't prove that it is correct nor does it merit the claims and statements are worthy of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theknuckleshuffle (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please review any of the many discussions about describing these claims about the election as false, including at Talk:2020 United States presidential election, Talk:Donald Trump, and elsewhere. This has been asked and answered over and over again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done. I agree with you in part, but this is what WP:RS are saying so that's what we have to go with for now. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Theknuckleshuffle You are free to stay in your bubble and believe what you are told unquestionably; Wikipedia makes no claims as to what is true, only you, the reader, can decide what is true. If you choose to believe that claims dismissed by judges of all ideological stripes as lacking evidence and merit, that is your choice. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and they all state that the claims are false. If you have reliable sources with a reputation of editorial control and fact checking that say the claims are true, please offer them (and you might want to give Rudy a call too). 331dot (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying "You are free to stay in your bubble" sounds like WP:PA violation to me Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf That is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are name calling/insults. People are allowed to stay in bubbles and hear only what they want to hear if they wish to. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

331dot How is it not an insult for you to insinuate something against another editor? If you say someone lives in a bubble, you are implying that nothing to the contrary of what they already know/adhere to, can penetrate. Myself, I think such an insinuation is deeply insulting. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being in a bubble is the personal attack in question; whether someone can choose to be is not. —ADavidB 17:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf It is not a personal attack, it is my opinion based on their comments here. They are free to prove me wrong by demonstrating a willingness to listen to what judges of all ideological stripes have said about claims of fraud having no merit, and retract their claims above. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Expression of one's opinion can still constitute a personal attack. The receiver's option to respond is not the issue in question. —ADavidB 17:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Expressions of personal opinion, if they imply something derisive about the object of the opinion, are indeed a personal attack. It would be far better to say "I feel you are ignoring the facts, here's why...[explain]", than to say "you are in a bubble", which implies they are a blockhead. The former implores someone to reconsider; the latter implies they are incapable of such. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In 1992 Giuliani egged on "the most unruly police demonstration."

I was surprised to find information about this 1992 incident missing from Rudy Giuliani's Wikipedia page. It was well known, well documented, and well remembered by many New Yorkers. This information should be included under "Mayoral campaigns/1993". Here are some information sources you can use: Liberte595 (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Suggestion

I believe that Giuliani's role in inciting the mob ("trial by combat") should be mentioned in the first paragraphs of the article. This is the material that people are going to see. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this is lead worthy? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

not lede worthy Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it should be included, but is not lead-worthy.Lindenfall (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If the event results in his disbarment then that's when I'd say it's lead worthy. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Is nobody updating this Wiki page any longer??

A group of prominent attorneys last week asked New York’s judiciary to suspend Giuliani’s law licence because he made false claims in post-election lawsuits and because he urged Trump’s supporters to engage in a “trial by combat” shortly before they stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. https://worldabcnews.com/torontos-dominion-voting-systems-sues-rudy-giuliani-for-1-3b-us/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dominion-voting-giuliani-trump-1.5886273

Dominion Voting Systems sues Giuliani over election claims ... The lawsuit seeks more than $1.3 billion in damages for the voting machine company, a target for conservatives who made up wild claims about the company ... for defamation for frequently claiming to the public that the machines falsified results. https://apnews.com/article/dominion-voting-sues-rudy-giuliani-e104c6bde1c51bb5f614760a7bfc0c45 Peter K Burian (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter K Burian The article(not just a "page") is not protected from editing at this time, so you are welcome to edit the article. If you don't feel comfortable doing so, you may propose changes as a edit request. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Peter, not sure what you mean because both of those points are already in the article. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Vaselineeeeeeee Those items are covered? The article is SO long ... I do see a lot of space devoted to Awards and Honors... hmmm, may take a lot more searching that I had expected. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: See Rudy Giuliani#2020 election lawsuits and allegations. I agree, it is an extremely long article, though with someone with a career as long as Giuliani's, who has been very involved in many high-profile events, I suppose it is to be expected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Vaselineeeeeeee, maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand the rationale for removing this. Rudy spoke at the rally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudy_Giuliani&diff=1006911954&oldid=1006903954

soibangla (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm no template expert but it seems UNDUE to have a large template about something halfway down an article about a BLP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Up To DFate

Who exactley is keeping this article up to date. Here is another source to be considered.

Why are they not included????

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ny-murder-convictions-vacated-24-years/2021/03/05/d4b2ef16-7db7-11eb-85cd-9b7fa90c8873_story.html

Arydberg (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You are as responsible for keeping the article up to date as anyone else. What, exactly, from this Post article do you want to include in the article here? My take on the story, with attempts to write neutrally: Giuliani considered it beneficial to show he was tough on crime while mayor of New York. In this 'cop-killer' case, evidence that a third party may have been involved was found to have been withheld. The NYT says an article by The Village Voice suggests it was withheld because of Giulani's eagerness to announce that justice was served. Giuliani texted that he did not rush any arrests. Is that it? —ADavidB 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Rudy's work for Trump in First Paragraph?

Currently, there is no consensus to call Rudy a conspiracy theorist in the first paragraph. However, shouldn't we make at least an anodyne mention of his work for Trump? This word is notable and widely covered in RS. We could say something inoffensive like: "More recently, Giuliani has drawn attention for his legal representation and political advocacy on behalf of President Donald Trump." CozyandDozy (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose "More recently" calls for an application of WP:NOTNEWS. Giulilani has had a very long, very notable career. It is spelled out in the article, including his work for Trump. And the lead summarizes his career, including his work for Trump in the last few years. That work is not so definitive to his biography as to require mention in the first paragraph of the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per MelanieN and comments above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Carlstak (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• It also does not mention his presidential campaign in the first paragraph, which is just as notable as his work with Trump. So, unless we add that as well, would not make sense to add his work with Trump. But perhaps we should add both to the opening paragraph. They are more both more notable aspects of his biography than his stint as United States Associate Attorney General. SecretName101 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Work for Trump belongs in first paragraph

Apart from his mayorship, Giuliani is most notable (in terms of his media or "reliable source" coverage) as Trump's political advisor, attorney, and court conspiracy theorist. Giuliani's work in this regard is much more notable (in terms of what WP:RS consider to be notable) than his work as a prosecutor and assistant attorney general. Since those things are mentioned in the first paragraph, Rudy's work for Trump should be too, in keeping with WP:RS and WP:GNG guidelines. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the last three lines in lede as it stands this date should be moved to the sections, if they are kept at all. Activist (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Also disagree. He is most notable as a pol in his own right. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely do agree...there are a lot of very uninformed people in the us who had never even heard of him before trump..read the news today...you`ll never be able to keep this out of the LEAD 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECAE:6827:C0A:C280 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Home and Office Search

Giuliani just got busted..home and office search...it needs to be in the article and the LEAD 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECAE:6827:C0A:C280 (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources make no mention of Giuliani being "busted", just that a warrant was executed. The article already says as much at Rudy Giuliani#Attempts to get Ukraine to carry out investigations. But it's absolutely not noteworthy enough, at least at this point, to add to the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the order of the Ukraine section. The part about the search today is followed by paragraphs about things that happened in 2019. If they are separate topics, wouldn't it be better to have sub-headings. -- Beardo (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the paragraph later in the section, where it seems to fit better sequentially. —ADavidB 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is gross and disgusting. Makes him looks like a creep. Here's a few suggestions for the new picture:

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.200.228.205 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I've seen some unflattering Wikipedia portraits in my day but I can't say this is one of them... It seems a pretty neutral image of him: head-on, neutral smiling expression, well-lit and in focus. Your first image has poorer lighting and his mouth is slightly open; the second is better but also fifteen years old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses old pictures all the time especially for people who were elected officals like Giuliani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:4080:1660:A8B6:1917:1D91:6D86 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Usually due to a lack of suitably licensed alternatives. I have removed the three additional options you added because all of them are copyright violations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

What's there now is not the most flattering, but I've seen worse. Option A doesn't even look like Rudy. Option B does. Mcfnord (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

Please change

"In 2020, Giuliani made an unwitting appearance in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm. In the mockumentary film, Giuliani agrees to an interview with Borat's "daughter", Tutar (played by actress Maria Bakalova), who is disguised as a reporter. When invited to Tutar's hotel room, Giuliani proceeds to lie on her bed and reach inside his trousers; they are immediately interrupted by Borat, who says: "She 15. She too old for you."[456][457] Giuliani later disregarded the accusation, calling it a "complete fabrication" and saying he was rather "tucking in [his] shirt after taking off the recording equipment".[458] Guiliani won two Razzie awards for his part in the film - for Worst Supporting Actor and, with his pants zipper fot Worst Screen Combo."

to

"In 2020, Giuliani made an unwitting appearance in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm. In the mockumentary film, Giuliani agrees to an interview with Borat's "daughter", Tutar (played by actress Maria Bakalova), who is disguised as a reporter. When invited to Tutar's hotel room, Giuliani proceeds to lie on her bed and reach inside his trousers; they are immediately interrupted by Borat, who says: "She 15. She too old for you."[456][457] Giuliani later disregarded the accusation, calling it a "complete fabrication" and saying he was rather "tucking in [his] shirt after taking off the recording equipment".[458] Guiliani won two Razzie awards for his part in the film - for Worst Supporting Actor and, with his pants zipper for Worst Screen Combo."

The "fot" in the last sentence "Guiliani won two Razzie awards for his part in the film - for Worst Supporting Actor and, with his pants zipper fot Worst Screen Combo." should become "for" as "Guiliani won two Razzie awards for his part in the film - for Worst Supporting Actor and, with his pants zipper for Worst Screen Combo." 98.187.105.3 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Add additional links & reference as follows:

Maintains a Podcast titled “Common Sense” & website at https://rudygiulianics.com/ JJ Cunning (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Fails WP:INHERITWEB. Melmann 19:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The page you linked says that policy was for articles, ie to to determine whether something is notable enough to get an article itself. Unless I am reading it wrong? Hence, "In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person." Is there a similar policy for citations and links? -Lciaccio (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"Former" attorney?

@Soibangla and Jef poskanzer: 1) He is not a “former” attorney. He has been “temporarily barred from practicing law in New York State” but he is still an attorney. He is an attorney because he has a diploma from a law school. You do not need a state license to be an attorney. There are many attorneys who do not have an active law license - say, reporters or professors or business people - but they are still attorneys. 2) His license has only been suspended. It has not been revoked. So he is still an attorney. 3) He is still licensed to practice law in Washington D.C. [7] -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about "non-practicing attorney"? Ray Garofalo; Victoria Zdrok. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. Jef (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Or "suspended attorney". Jef (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• He is still an attorney because he still has a DC law license (they may follow NY's lead, but haven't yet). We can leave it at "suspended" with regards to NY. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• He doesn't have a DC license. As I said, they suspended him because he didn't pay his dues. That was back in 2018. Jef (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was back in 2018, but NYT reported today he's licensed in DC, which suggests he got current on his dues and was reinstated, and it was in 2018 that he began representing Trump in a big way, which likely would require litigation in DC, so he'd need his license back. soibangla (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Not only did he not pay the back dues but he also didn't pay the lower inactive dues. The DC bar switched him from inactive to suspended in late 2020. Really, you people need to stop with the "maybes" and "this suggests" and start actually looking stuff up. Jef (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

An attorney suspended from practice is still an attorney. He will never be a "former" attorney; at best, he will be a "non-practicing" attorney. Even a disbarred attorney is still an attorney (just unable to practice law). General Ization ^Talk 04:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Attorney at law seems to define an attorney as one who practices law. A law degree does not make one an attorney, they have to use the degree in practice, in compliance with whatever rules to practice there are in any given jurisdiction. Many people get law degrees only to discover they have no desire to practice law and do something else. In his NY suspension, he is forbidden from giving any legal opinion to anyone, not simply from filing briefs or appearing in court. If the suspension becomes permanent, that suggests he'd be a former attorney in NY. In any event, he's licensed in DC, per NYT. soibangla (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

He's not though. As I said, his DC bar license was inactivated in 2018 and suspended in 2020 for non-payment. He is not licensed in DC. And even if he were to pay his back dues, he would not get reactivated in DC due to reciprocity with NY's suspension. Jef (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

WSJ yesterday: "He also has a license to practice law in Washington, D.C. where he remains in good standing."[8] NYT yesterday: "Mr. Giuliani is also licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C."[9] Washingtonian today: "Rudy Giuliani lost his New York law license on Thursday, but he remains a member in good standing of the DC Bar."[10] soibangla (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"Member in good standing" is irrelevant. The DC Bar Association's member search page says: "Membership Status: GOOD STANDING / Membership Type: INACTIVE ATTORNEY". Jef (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice cherrypicking there. Maybe someone else can help you with this. I'm done. soibangla (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• So to sum up, now that the nitpicker has been proven wrong and stomped off in a huff: he is suspended for cause in NY, he is inactive for non-payment in DC, and he cannot legally practice law. The article's description should be changed. Jef (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

[11] soibangla (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

He IS still an attorney; he is not a "former attorney". I have changed the wording to "currently inactive attorney" which sums up his situation accurately. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Good. Jef (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC. General Ization ^Talk 01:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate one-sided removal of "his second cousin"?

Our article on Regina Peruggi is much, much shorter than this one, but it explicitly says that she was married to her cousin in three separate places before including a version of this article's very "careful" The Giuliani-Peruggi marriage legally ended ... reportedly because Giuliani had discovered that he and Peruggi were second cousins. I understand that, since Peruggi is best known as Giuliani's wife, her article will place more emphasis on it than this one as compared to (trying to avoid an accidental pun) the entire length of the article. I can also understand that, with this article being much more visible than Peruggi's, the "spirit" of BLP (though certainly not the letter) could be interpreted as permitting this kind of one-sided edit (inappropriately marked as "minor"). But if our article on the female partner in the marriage is going to say On October 26, 1968, Peruggi married Rudy Giuliani, her second cousin, whom she had known since childhood., shouldn't our article on the male partner say On October 26, 1968, Giuliani married Regina Peruggi, his second cousin, whom he had known since childhood. (rather than Giuliani married Regina Peruggi, whom he had known since childhood, on October 26, 1968.)? The wording used in the article currently implies that this was only the reported reason for the annulment, which could easily be interpreted as it having been a counterfactual pretext, rather than what the majority of reliable sources (and our article on Peruggi) say, which is that Giuliani was indeed married to his cousin.

Also worth noting that, prior to Borat 2020 and Four Seasons Total Landscaping, Rudy was arguably best-known internationally for the two things Last Week Tonight focused on during their profile of him -- 9/11, and having married his cousin. And even setting aside the lack of balance with our article on his ex-wife, BLP also applies to his son, another public figure: this is ... a thing, and so it would be in the best interests of both NPOV and BLP to be a lot clearer than we currently are regarding which of Giuliani's marriages was to his cousin, and which others were not.

Anyway, if the concern is that the previous wording implied the familial relationship was already known to Giuliani at the time of the marriage, then maybe we should work out better wording, like On October 26, 1968, Giuliani married Regina Peruggi, whom he had known since childhood and whom he would later discover to be his second cousin. and On October 26, 1968, Peruggi married Rudy Giuliani, whom she had known since childhood and whom she would later discover to be her second cousin.?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

Add to Rudy Giuliani Wiki article: "Received Honorary Doctorate degree in 2015 by St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY."

References can be found in Forbes Magazine, from this past spring, as well as Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, January, 2021. 2603:7080:5A40:25C:2484:2848:B72:280F (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done It isn't anyone else's job to locate references for your proposed edits; please provide them if you have them. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

In the mayoral section, the 1993 section.

=== 1993 ===

Main article: 1993 New York City mayoral election

Four years after his defeat to Dinkins, Giuliani again ran for mayor. Once again, Giuliani also ran on the Liberal Party line but not the Conservative Party line, which ran activist George Marlin.[68] The city was suffering from a spike in unemployment associated with the nationwide recession, with local unemployment rates going from 6.7% in 1989 to 11.1% in 1992, although crime rates had already begun to decline under Dinkins.[69][70][71]

Giuliani promised to focus the police department on shutting down petty crimes and nuisances as a way of restoring the quality of life:

The bold section is being stated as fact and consensus; the reality is that it is not fact or consensus. At best that is an opinion. The text highlighted in bold should be deleted as it does not add anything of value to the information being provided particularly in this specific section, the sentence is a complete sentence without it.

This "statement of opinion" is also contradictory to the opening of the wikipedia entry it self, and the citations provided Clearly do not support, Citation 70 is at best a far reach as the data shows there was a clearly obvious and precipitous drop in crime during his administration. Citation 71 is an OPINION piece and not factual journalism, opinions are not reliable sources.

Have a great day and thank you.

UglyDogFart (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC) UglyDogFart (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done, taken the whole sentence out because it was original research based on raw data as well as citing an opinion piece (as you said). Thanks for the tip. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References

FYI

 – fixed ref name tag --Maresa63 ^Talk 01:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

Add: Rudy Giuliani received an Honorary Doctorate from St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY at the commencement ceremony in 2015. See: Forbes, 1/14/21; WXXInews.org, 4/12/21; Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 2/22/21; The Hill.com,4/13/21; Independent.co.uk, 4/13/21. Abuelitotim (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Abuelitotim, you provide the links to us, don't tell us where to look for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

I suggest that Wikipedia specifies that Rudy's first wife is his second cousin Mister1000k (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Bias

I believe this article should be reviewed since at first glance it seems dangerously yet somewhat "subtle" biased. Remember this is an online encyclopedia and not a political platform. 2803:9800:9006:7DA1:1440:7FA1:2447:44AC (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Well. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources state. Subtle biased?...against Mr. Giuliana? For Mr. Giuiliani? Just because one comes across something in a media aggregator like Wikipedia that one disagrees with doesn't necessarily mean that Wikipedia or the aggregator is wrong or biased...it just means that one disagrees with others' conclusions. If specific instances of this alleged bias were provided that would be most helpful. Shearonink (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Let's have Trial by Combat!"

I'm surprised to see no mention of his call to violence on January 6, 2021: "Let's have Trial by Combat!" 100.2.225.144 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

New 2021 Audio Files

I was just searching him up on the news and it turns out new audio footage has been recovered of Rudy Giuliani. CNN uncovered an old 2019 phone call of Giuliani pressuring and extorting the Ukrainian government into smearing the Biden campaign as part of the Trump-Ukraine scandal.

1. https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/07/politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-call-investigate-biden/index.html
2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/06/07/rudy-giulianis-pressure-ukraine-trump-heard-cnn-recording/7594457002/
3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/07/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-officials-audio-joe-biden

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcdiehardfan (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Attorney should be former attorney

The article refers to Giuliani as an attorney, but he is no longer licensed to practice law, and therefore is not an attorney 2607:FB91:1002:B921:C7F:7BFF:A65B:94E1 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://news.sky.com/story/rudy-giuliani-shop-worker-held-by-police-after-ex-trump-lawyer-slapped-on-the-back-12641060. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

BIAS

making false and debunked allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud 2603:7081:6801:8252:4C22:8ECD:CFA8:8A97 (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no "rigged voting machines" and there was no "polling place fraud". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Said he was told WTC would collapse.

Around Noon, Sept 11, 2001 by 'phone 'Live' with ABC-TV Peter Jennings, Giuliani said something very revealing (which he has since falsely denied): 01m:50s "We were told the World Trade Center was going to collapse and it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building. So we were trapped in the building for ten..fifteen minutes and finally found an exit and walked North...took a lot of people with us." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arVPrp5OzVs 81.241.224.173 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say that the building in question was the WTC? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

01:52, "We were told the WORLD TRADE CENTER was going to collapse..." 81.241.224.173 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

But what building where they in when they were told that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told ABC’s Peter Jennings in the morning that while he and his Emergency Management team – who were in a building at 75 Barclay Street] where they had set up temporary headquarters after the Twin Towers were struck – had been warned that the World Trade Center was going to collapse, so they had decided to [escape from] leave the Barclay Street building. He later gave the 9/11 Commission a quite different account about which building was expected to collapse. The 9/11 Commission did not ask him about the apparent contradictions, so the account he gave the Commission must be considered the official story."

https://www.consensus911.org/point-mc-10/ 81.241.224.173 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that Giuliani was not in the WTC when told it would collapse but in 75 Barclay Street? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

CLARIFIED! While in the OEM/Office Of Emergency Management, 75 Barclay Street, "He was told WTC would collapse" 81.241.224.173 (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

While in the OEM/Office Of Emergency Management, 75 Barclay Street, "He was told WTC would collapse" which he later FALSELY denied. 212.166.9.248 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This fact is already included at Rudy Giuliani during the September 11 attacks and doesn't need to be duplicated. The towers were damaged and burning, and the possibility that some part of them could collapse was not hard to foresee. Osama bin Laden even stated, after the fact, that he expected them to collapse above the impact points only. A blog pushing crank claims from the usual suspects does not become a reliable source by declaring itself one. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Cristyne Lategano" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cristyne Lategano and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 2#Cristyne Lategano until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Star Mississippi 03:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Run on sentence in summary / request for edit

This sentence in the summary: "Reforming the police department's administration and policing practices, they applied the broken windows theory, which cites social disorder, like disrepair and vandalism, for attracting loitering addicts, panhandlers, and prostitutes, followed by serious and violent criminals." is a bit of a run on. It's also a bit hard to parse. Would it be possible to change the wording of this sentence to something like this?:

"In an effort to reform the police department's administration and policing practices, Giulani and Bratton applied the broken windows theory. The theory states that social disorder attracts panhandlers, prostitutes, and criminals. As a result, Giulani removed panhandlers and sex clubs from Times Square." Xwedodah (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Noelle Dunphy Accuses Giuliani of Addiction, Anti-Semitism, Racism, Sexism, comments on LBTQ community, legal malpractice, retaliation

On January 4, 2023, Noelle Dunphy filed legal papers against Rudy Giuliani. She accused Giuliani of alcoholism, addiction to pills, and remarks that show anti-Semitic, racist, sexist and anti-LBTQ beliefs. She announced that the evidence of this will be introduced at trial. According to a Manhattan Supreme Court summons, she felt forced to give in to his demands for sexual favors in exchange for being his "off-the-books, secret employee” and law client and then retaliated against in a toxic” work environment in which he sought sex from multiple staffers who felt uncomfortable around him and around each other. She has stated her work ranged from business development, procuring multi-million dollar clients for him, and booking $50,000 per speech appearances, to executive assistant duties, such as ensuring he did not run out of scotch, managing his emails and managing his travels, from 2019 through 2021, when Giuliani allegedly ended the work relationship. Rudy Giuliani filed that he is pro se although he initially had his friend Robert Costello reply that Giuliani has denied all the allegations and claimed Dunphy never worked for him, while attacking her character. They are photographed online posing together at his work events, golf, and charity outings. According to articles, they met in 2016 and began a lawyer-client relationship and boss-staff relationship in January 2019. Giuliani and Dunphy are also photographed together with Giuliani Partners work associate and Ukrainian-born convicted criminal Lev Parnas. Dunphy graduated from Columbia College of Columbia University in 2001 at age 21, and worked in business development, communications, and producing, including time at ABC News. Since Rudy Giuliani's legal representation of her began in January 2019, she felt let down. She found his work affected by his alleged addictions: to power, money, drinking, and problems with pills that he mixed with alcohol.

https://metro.co.uk/2023/01/05/trumps-ex-lawyer-rudy-giuliani-sued-as-sexual-predator-and-abuser-18050021/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Research20002000 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rudy-giuliani-sexual-predator-lawsuit-b2256937.html

https://www.noelledunphy.com

https://www.thedonaldtrumpfiles.com

https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/05/report-rudy-giuliani-created-toxic-sexually-hostile-work-environment-lawsuit-claims/

https://nypost.com/2023/01/05/ny-woman-sues-rudy-giuliani-for-3-1m-claiming-he-demanded-sexual-favors-created-toxic-work-environment/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11601225/NY-woman-calls-Rudy-Giuliani-sexist-sexual-predator-abuser-sexual-harasment-lawsuit.html

https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2023/01/ny-woman-sues-rudy-giuliani-for-3m-alleges-sexual-harassment-report.html

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2145745/full_content Research20002000 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Alcoholism

Why in the world does this page not mention the fact that he is and has battled alcoholism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.135.245 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Former President Trumps First Impeachment

The sentence should not stop there, although the link is very helpful, it should stay first impeachment trial. Righttoknowtruth (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

I get that Giuliani's mugshot has been widely reported on in notable sources but is it really the most appropriate photo to use for the infobox? The subject hasn't yet been convicted; only indicted, so using a police mugshot to represent the subject doesn't seem to square up with the idea of neutrality and pressuming innocence until proven guilty. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The mugshot is much more recent than the current infobox image, which is years out of date. WP:MUGSHOT states that a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident ... in question must be cited. Since several reliable sources link the photograph to the specific incident, I believe it should be included in the infobox as a recent image of Giuliani widely distributed in reliable sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's important to have a photo for the infobox that wouldn't contradict our policy of maintaining neutrality. I have linked the mugshot in the appropriate section for the article, but to have it for the inbox would imply a conviction or otherwise prejudice readers into thinking the subject committed a crime. That's for the courts to decide, not us.

P.S. 2019 isn't what I'd consider "out-of-date". Many other articles use infobox photos far older than that. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - regardless of any of our personal views, setting the mugshot as the infobox photo - mere hours after the subject's arrest, no less - is inappropriate for this encylcopedia. Looks like the image has been deleted anyway, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else uploads another one so someone might want to investigate the copyright status of mugshots from Fulton County... Funcrunch (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Answering my own question: Per the file deletion log edit summary on Commons, "Works of the State of Georgia (and subdivisions) are not in the public domain, see COM:US#US_States" Funcrunch (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The affirmation form at https://fcsoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FCSO-Letter-of-Affirmation-Booking-Photos-8.21.23.pdf reads in part, "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." Access to that form is referenced in the second row of https://fcsoga.org/press-releases/ . Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 10:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

As much as it pains me, no, we're not putting the mugshot in the infobox. That would be a massive violation of neutrality. WP:MUGSHOT also states Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots). While Giuliani's indictment is definitely a notable event in his life, Mr. RICO's judicial and political career spans several decades, and selectively choosing a mugshot in the infobox instead of a more neutral picture would strike a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, not much of his face has melted since 2019 and he's pretty recognizable in the current photograph, so there isn't an immediate need to change it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Shouldnt the mug shot be put where the article describes his Georgia case? 2603:8081:8700:687D:E458:9326:A1DD:FFF8 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It should, if it is avaliable, as it is of encyclopedic value and illustrates the event. Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

Please replace current photo to his mug shot from Fulton County Jail on 8/23/2023 2600:8800:2380:9510:5CD3:FBC6:E075:A72E (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the discussion immediately above your request. Funcrunch (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Mugshot / request for edit

Giuliani's mugshot should be added to his wiki page.

I don't think it should be in the infobox right now soibangla (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

While I did plan on getting enough edits in to add his mugshot *somewhere*, I don't think it should be in the infobox. There should be a separate section added for the Georgia trial.

Perhaps it could be placed following the Attack on the Capitol section? CommissarDoggo (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that'd do it, thanks TheCelebrinator CommissarDoggo (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're most welcome! TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The definitively reliable source of the mugshot compliant with WP:MUG can be obtained through the second item on the list at https://fcsoga.org/press-releases/ "Media Access to the Fulton County Jail on Rice Street & Booking Photo Requests – Aug 21, 2023". You'll need to print, sign and submit the affirmation. Once that form submission has been approved, then you'll be able to get all the defendants' mugshots. Only one Wikipedia user will need to do it. I'd do it myself, but at the moment I don't have access to a printer to be able to print, sign and submit the form. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I submitted the Affirmation form and received the following reply: Thank you for contacting Fulton County Sheriff's Office Communications. We have received your message and will review your inquiry. Someone will respond as soon as possible." Once I get the mugshot, I'll upload it to Wikimedia so it can be used in this article. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 14:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The Fulton County Sheriff's Office e-mailed not just Rudy Giuliani's booking photo that I requested, but she e-mailed me all of the booking photos for defendants processed so far (Cathleen Latham, David Shafer, Floyd Harrison, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Mark Meadows, Ray Smith, Rudolph Giuliani, Scott Hall and Sidney Powell). Here's the e-mail: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FY-UbTJgsrbzKNUEXbrxpROQgX3glJOx/view?usp=sharing . I uploaded all of them to Wikimedia Commons. I only added Giuliani's booking photo to this article. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 21:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to want to open on mobile, but either way I'm glad that they got back to you so quickly on it. Hopefully Donald Trump's will be on his page later tonight. CommissarDoggo (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Art Smart, your signature is broken and just caused the rest of the page to be in very small characters. Is it okay if I fix the error? Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby it looks ok on my Android phone in the Wikipedia app, but yes, please fix. Thanks Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 22:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree he is not a criminal Vaccuumlivingroom (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

He is under indictment. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (2)

In October 2020, following myriad joint public appearances, Giuliani confirmed that he is in a relationship with Maria Ryan, a nurse practitioner and hospital administrator whom his ex-wife Nathan has alleged to have been his mistress for an indeterminate period during their marriage.[524] https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/2018/06/13/rudy-giuliani-denies-affair-with-married-good-friend-maria-ryan/11985173007/ This is completely false. Giuliani and Ryan work together on a popular radio show.https://wabcradio.com/episode/uncovering-the-truth-with-rudy-giuliani-dr-maria-ryan-09-24-23/

Please try to have more truthful information. In every section one could add sources from The Federalist, Gateway Pundit, OAN, etc to rebuke the left wing radical media Vaccuumlivingroom (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

https://pagesix.com/2018/06/14/rudy-giuliani-reveals-hes-dating-a-political-operative-from-louisiana/ Vaccuumlivingroom (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. Most of the outlets you name do not have reputations of basic journalistic standards of fact checking and editorial control. Deeming things you disagree with "radical" is not helpful. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It’s not that I disagree. There is a well documented bias. Vaccuumlivingroom (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

https://nypost.com/2021/05/08/how-the-new-york-times-publishes-lies-to-serve-a-biased-narrative/

https://genbiz.com/the-5-most-destructive-lies-published-by-the-new-york-times

I really want journalist integrity.

List of The New York Times controversies on Wikipedia Vaccuumlivingroom (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

A source being biased does not in and of itself preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless you are alleging that they are so biased that they make stuff up(like WP:OANN, actually). Every source has biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can do as you did- evaluate and judge them for themselves. You are free to read this article and disagree with everything presented. If you wish to allege that the sources used in this article do not have basic jouralistic standards of fact checking and editorial control, that is done at WP:RSN. I suggest you review the archives there before running there, many have tried and failed to impugn the NYT, CNN, etc. just because they disagree with their reporting. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Also you mentioned 2000 Mules has been debunked. I respectfully disagree. They used the same technology the CDC uses. Plus the videos are accurate of the ‘boxes’ being stuffed with multiple ballots. You should watch it. Every American should want voter integrity. I am a democrat and I followed reputable people like John Solomon from Just the News Vaccuumlivingroom (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to debate bias on Wikipedia, where you've already seem to have made up your mind. I've said where you can challenge sources(though many have tried and failed). If you're a registered Democrat, the party left you long ago. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Vaccuumlivingroom, when experienced editors tell you something, such as that 2000 Mules has been debunked, don't object before you have researched the topic. Editors here are usually well-informed, so you need to make sure you are better informed than they are. Read our article, which is now linked for you. There you will find out why it's a partisan and deceptive hit job unworthy of any trust. In fact, anything associated with Dinesh D'Souza is untrustworthy. The same applies to John Solomon and Just the News. They are all unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sir, respectfully you come across bias. As many articles you find that ‘debunk’ something that cannot admit to I can find others who debunk your debunking. Why not include both sides? I am more than shocked to hear you say John Solomon is not reliable. I think he is the ONLY investigative journalist available in our generation. I encourage you to watch 2000 mules for your own growth. Vaccuumlivingroom (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It is is a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia that "both sides" or all points of view are acceptable and all given equal weight. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't say "some people think the Earth is a sphere and some people think it is flat" when the overwhemling scientific and logical conclusion is that the Earth is not flat; as such, Modern flat Earth beliefs correctly states that such beliefs as pseudoscientific, not that is a valid alternative point of view. People are free to think that it is, but that's on them, not us. If most independent sources describe 2000 Mules as a partisan hit job without basis in fact, then we do, too. You are free to feel differently- but then your issue is with the sources, not us.

This has now drifted away from your original edit request; it will be evaluated in due course. If you wish to debate bias in Wikipedia more generally, this isn't the forum to do so. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done The sources listed by the requester are worthless. However, I was unable to find adequate sourcing that this can be verified and removed it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani's Name

Given Rudy Giuliani was knighted, wouldn't his official name therefore be Sir Rudolph William Louis Giuliani instead of just Rudolph William Louis Giuliani? 50.204.222.98 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Honorary knighthoods of those who are not British subjects do not entitle the recipient to style themselves as Sir or Dame. See Order of the British Empire#Styles and honorary knighthoods. General Ization ^Talk 03:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)