Talk:Rudy Giuliani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Claims of voter fraud.[edit]

Mr Giuliani claimed that there were cases where "the dead" cast votes against him. This is not mentioned anywhere in his named article or in his various campaign articles.

If true, wouldn't this be valuable information to include in one of those places? And with his history of being a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, what did he then do about it? How did he find out about this to begin with? Was he successful in exposing the wrong-doing and correcting the situation? He further alludes to have prosecuted voter fraud cases. Is that true? So far, I can't find a contemporaneous account of the situations that he described.

"Giuliani on rigged election: 'Dead people generally vote for Democrats'" - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-rigged-elections-donald-trump/index.html

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that FactCheck.org was on the job. The organization has made an evaluation about these claims and the further Giuliani claim that there were "busloads of people voting numerous times in some big cities."
The FactCheck.org report, in part: "Allegations of “busloads” of people going from polling place to polling place — such as Giuliani described — is a common urban myth, [Lorraine] Minnite said. She has heard tales of busloads of college students coming into New Hampshire to vote, and about busloads of Mexicans from Oklahoma voting in Kansas. And in every case — including Giuliani’s, she said — there is no evidence for them."
Incidents of 2016 election misinformation by Giuliani should be noted in this article. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/ Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Opening Sentence[edit]

The fact that Mr Giuliani was the Mayor of New York should be in the opening sentence, as it's the highest office he's achieved and an office of great significance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.160.159 (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and done. —ADavidB 13:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Mayoralty[edit]

There you go again Bbb23 replacing my properly sourced piece with the non-existent linked and autobiographical sourced piece. This is an embarrassment to wikipedia claiming the mayor (dinkins) who presided over the 4 bloodiest years in NYC history "lowered crime more dramatically and rapidly than anyone in history". Why don't you argue facts bbb23? Because you HAVE NONE to stand on. Aceruss (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbbb23 is relying main on Dinkins' autobiography. Aceruss's changes cite RS. In such a case, RS clearly take precedence. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll add my opinion that Aceruss' recent reliably sourced edits should be allowed to stand. If there are reliable opposing sources, include them as well, but don't simply remove the sourced information and claim a lack of consensus. —ADavidB 12:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see where any of them mention the subject of this article, Giuliani. Looks like WP:SYNTH. Objective3000 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
As she/he usually does, Aceruss cherry-picks. Murders notwithstanding, violent crime in New York City declined for 36 consecutive months under Dinkins. Giuliani can (and has) tell whatever lies about his predecessor that he'd like to, but Wikipedia editors don't get to erase history to suit their hero's narrative. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Objective3000 and MShabazz. General Ization Talk 15:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
MShabazz you'll note I did not erase the part about crime lowering at end of Dinkins term, I ADDED the fact with RS that violent crime went up the first part of his term for factual balance.Aceruss (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless backed up by RS, Mayor Dinkins' self-serving, extraordinary claims have no place in this article. How did this blatant propaganda creep into the article in the first place? Scaleshombre (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
How's this for an RS. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/poa_crime.shtml General Ization Talk 15:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
And this. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-en-us-city.pdf General Ization Talk 15:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Very Good General Ization this RS you posted shows the point exactly. Dinkins term ran from 1-1-1990 until 12-31-1993. Even if you ignore that violent crime went way up from 1989 to 1990, the total drop in crime from 90-93 is only an 18% drop, Giulianis ('94-'01) term saw a 62% drop. This is NOT cherrypicking, MShabazz, this is fact that invalidates the disputed Dinkins claim about lowering crime more than anyone else in history.Aceruss (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know who added that. But, it appears to have been written by Leonard Riggio, not Dinkins. I think the point of the current text is that the self-serving narrative from Giuliani that he is the source of a crime drop in NYC is highly controversial. Some articles: [1], [2], [3]

About 3 years ago PK800 added the following sentence ("Under Dinkins's Safe Streets, Safe Cities program, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly, both in terms of actual numbers and percentage, than at any time in modern New York City history") to at least SEVEN Wikipedia articles with NO consensus and NO discussion on the talk page. He later expanded on the sentence. He was reverted many times by many users but he just kept reverting. He was warned but just kept it up until he got his way. This isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work.Aceruss (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It goes without saying that Giuliani's claims about reducing crime need to be taken with a grain of salt; Giuliani shouldn't be regarded as an "objective" source on his mayoralty. But it's just as crazy to cite Dinkins' claims as if they were fact. I'm sure it wasn't the intent of the editors, but they've created a situation where "the loser gets to write history." Scaleshombre (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I don't see Dinkins' claims anywhere. And, the General and I have provided five additional cites. Objective3000 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I respect your writing Objective3000, but none of those 5 articles say that Dinkins lowered violent crime more than anyone else in history. In fact some prove it way off the mark.Aceruss (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
By my count, you have made nine nearly identical, removal edits that have been reverted by multiple editors, and now a tenth during a discussion. It’s a wonder that you haven’t been blocked. Are you really surprised that no one wants to have a discussion with you? WP is built upon the concept of consensus. You have failed to build a consensus for a change. Your edits have also wiped out large amounts of text without a rational. Now, if you wish to actually discuss this, I suggest that you self-revert your last revert and try to build a consensus for a change (before you end up at AI). It’s entirely possible that you may gain consensus for removal for one sentence that you don’t like. It’s highly unlikely that you will gain consensus for removal of all the text that you have tried to remove. That’s just my opinion. But, like others here, I’m not really amenable to a discussion with someone that doesn’t follow the guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You say I have made nine identical edits INCORRECT. I have tried every kind of edit imaginable in an effort to work with you guys on improving an article. Each time one of 3 or 4 editors has reverted the ENTIRE piece. I have- Written an entirely new paragraph with a dozen RS. I have edited a sentence or two, I have deleted a sentence or two, I have added a sentence or two, all these different times with plenty of proper RS. I even added "according to Dinkins autobiography" before the most outlandish claims and that was reverted too. I tried recently to add for balance that violent crime went up the first part of Dinkins term again with plenty of RS to balance that it went down the latter part of his term, which I left in. I have tried many different types of edits and tried to work with you guys. Answer me these two questions then:

1) I have used the talk pages right from the beginning. Why was it OK for PK800 to add this Dinkins text to Giuliani's page with ZERO consensus and ZERO discussion on the talk page? And then to keep reverting the reverts of his additions? Why must his improperly added, improperly sourced text stand? 2) Show me sources other than the foreword in Dinkins autobiography that say Dinkins lowered crime more than anyone else in history-the sources you cited above said "he wasn't as bad as they say" "or crime started to drop at the end of his term" and the like, a far cry from the greatest crimefighter NYC has ever knownAceruss (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Today's addition by Aceruss[edit]

Today Aceruss changed a sentence in the article from

During Giuliani's administration, crime rates dropped in New York City,[1] which Giuliani's presidential campaign website credited to his leadership.[2]

to

During Giuliani's administration, crime rates dropped significantly in New York City, with record setting drops in murders and rapes.[3][1][2]

As usual, the sources don't support Giuliani's and Aceruss's inflated claims. His new source is an opinion column by Michael Tomasky. A great source for Tomasky's opinion, but not a reliable source for facts. The Langan and Durose paper is about the remarkable drop in crime in New York City "starting around 1990" during the Dinkins and Giuliani mayoralties, typically using 1990 or 1988 (when Ed Koch was mayor) as its base year for comparison. And Giuliani's campaign website also isn't a reliable source for facts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Patrick A. Langan and Matthew R. Durose, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://www3.istat.it/istat/eventi/2003/perunasocieta/relazioni/Langan_rel.pdf "The Remarkable Drop in Crime in New York City", October 21, 2004. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
  2. ^ a b "Rudy Giuliani". JoinRudy2008.com. Archived from the original on September 4, 2007. Retrieved July 15, 2007. 
  3. ^ http://nymag.com/anniversary/40th/50652/

Wow, Malik, I've respected you and tried to work with you and all you ever do to me is wholly revert my edits, insult me, threaten me, and make up your own rules. OK, you have highlighted here the above 3 sources, which you say I improperly added or misrepresented: 1) The Langan piece which was ALREADY there states (on page 3) the record setting drop in rapes occurred from 1993(2818 rapes,Dinkins last year) to 2001 (1530 rapes, Giuliani's last year) BUT according to Malik these are inflated claims by Giuliani, Aceruss, ET AL 2) The NY Magazine piece I added is from their 40th anniversary edition. Malik, are you kidding? An opinion column? This was a feature story for their 40th anniversary special, covering 8 pages! EVERY STORY IN EVERY NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE HAS A WRITERS NAME ATTACHED. Michael Tomasky was the writer for this one, that's all. You just don't like what was written. If you erase all articles with RS with a writers name attached Wikipedia wouldn't have anything left. 3)Giuliani's 2007 campaign website article. This is where you really leave me puzzled. You say it is not a reliable source. WELL IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS IN THE Giuliani ARTICLE. Why haven't you deleted it? I didn't put it there. I think you like the sentence that infers Giuliani is the only one who credits himself with the massive downturn in NYC crime and you need that "RS" to leave the sentence there. 4) I'm also adding this RS: http://nymag.com/news/features/crime/2008/42603/index5.html Which CLEARLY shows the Dinkins years 1990-1993 were the 4 highest yearly murder totals in NYC history, and that as soon as Giuliani took charge on JAN 1, 1994 the murder totals started plummeting to totals not seen in 30 years. I guess another inflated Giuliani claim, huh?

Before I make any more changes Malik I will give you the courtesy of answering a few questions. Tell me what I am missing. 1) Does the Langan piece say on page 3 the record rape reduction was from 1993-2001 (Giuliani's exact term) or not? 2) Is NY Magazine a reliable source or not? If not where does it say so? And these are FEATURE pieces don't give me any of those "opinion column" lines. 3) If Giuliani's campaign website is NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE as you say, DELETE IT and the accompanying line about "according to Giuliani's campaign website:..." 4) Were the highest 4 years of murders in NYC history: 1990-2245 Murders,1991-2154M,1992-1995M,and 1993-1946M the EXACT 4 YEARS of THE DINKINS ADMINISTRATION (1990-1993) or not?Aceruss (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. The Langan paper from the U.S. Dept. of Justice clearly states that it is a mistake to say that the crime drop started in 1994. It does not credit Giuliani. The study trumps the columnist. And, the columnist also states that the decreases in crime began before Giuliani. The campaign site is clearly not RS. The proposed text is misleading. Objective3000 (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And today Aceruss is at it again. First restoring the Tomasky opinion column, then adding the misspelled and unattributed "at a record shattering pace" to the drop in crime, and deleting a dissenting opinion. I'm sorry, Aceruss, but you can't make shit up and add it to a Wikipedia article. If you wish to quote the source, use quotation marks. In any event, the source refers to the record-shattering drop in crime "starting around 1990" when you-know-who was still mayor, so you can't cite that source as flattery for your guy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, was just about to delete the record shattering addition as it was clearly misleading and not an accurate representation of the source. Objective3000 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Is Crime In NY: A Success Story from the Roper Center's Public Perspective Magazine, RS? The author, a professor at John Jay, looks at what the NYPD accomplished during Giuliani's first term relative to crime trends in America overall. I think the article can be used to highlight Giuliani's successes on their own merits, without pitting them against Dinkins' record on crime-fighting. Thoughts? Scaleshombre (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That article appears to ignore the steep drop before Giuliani took office. An AP article ten yeas later quotes the same author as saying Giuliani takes too much credit for the drop in crime. [4] Objective3000 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't both pieces of information be worked into the article in NPOV fashion? Scaleshombre (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

We are trying to keep the article NPOV, as is its current state. The attempts to push a discredited claim by a political campaign do not belong in an encyclopedia. As explained, the reduction in crime has numerous causes. Let us not include self-serving claims. Objective3000 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly the point I have been making, and many others have been making for over three years now, let's get the self-serving claims from Dinkins auto-biography out of this article.Aceruss (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I see no such claims. And your shouting has become tiresome. Objective3000 (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't see that these sentences are sourced only from Dinkins' book?
  • "Crime rates in New York City had started to drop in 1991 under previous mayor David Dinkins, three years before Giuliani took office."
  • "A small nationwide drop in crime preceded Giuliani's election, and some critics say that he may have been the beneficiary of a trend already in progress. Additional contributing factors to the overall decline in New York City crime during the 1990s were the addition of 7,000 officers to the NYPD, lobbied for and hired by the Dinkins administration, and an overall improvement in the national economy."
Open your eyes. —ADavidB 13:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not a useful comment. Objective3000 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you about not using his campaign claims as RS. My main concern was whether the Roper Center article could be used as RS. Giuliani's "bluster" about crime might have been exaggerated, but that shouldn't negate the impact (as noted in RS) his mayoralty had on NY, and to a lesser extent on law enforcement and urban administration across America. The article might be, as you say, currently NPOV. But it doesn't seem to be worthy of FA status yet. Expanded coverage of his key claim to fame -- i.e., his mayoralty (warts and all, as documented in RS) -- strikes me as a logical place to start. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And today's change by Aceruss[edit]

By my count, Aceruss has had 27 edits reverted by seven editors (MShabazz, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek, Oshwah, General Ization, Bbb23, and WikiDan61) in this article alone. This has been a 7.5 month edit war all with the same subject, credit for the reduction of NYC crime rates. In the last case, they insist that Giuliani added 7,000 officers to the NYPD. But, those 7,000 had already been officers at the transit and housing authorities, and the NYPD then had to take over those functions. The editor also removed the mention of Dinkins in the same paragraph without explanation. And, as usual, no attempt was made to discuss on the talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

For his own reasons, Aceruss is averse to crediting Dinkins with any role in reducing crime in New York. He would like to pretend that the new officers who graduated from the academy during the first years of Giuliani's mayoralty sprang, fully formed, from Rudy's brow—ignoring the reality that Dinkins lobbied the City Council long and hard for the funds to hire them (before Giuliani was in office). Aceruss would pretend that the increase in the size of the NYPD came from the merger of the transit and housing police into the NYPD, as if nobody had ever thought to add the size of the three forces together before saying the size of the police force had increased. Sheesh. On top of that, not one of his sources supported what he wrote. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been on the talk pages many times. You two or three guys never answer my questions. You just hurl insults and revert my pieces entirely. And the sources said exactly what I wrote. Appendix table 3 in the Langan study showed that the ONLY time 7000 officers were added was in 1995 and it was the merger of the 3 departments that was responsible. You guys have been on here a long time, you have been biting the newcomer (me). Instead you could have been working with me on edits to improve Wikipedia. I will try one more time to work with you, I'll ask one question of the many you never answered, and see if we cannot start a productive dialogue.
Let's see... Why have you said this is RS (barrett-gotham gazette)[1] And you always delete this and say it isn't RS (Tomasky-NY Magazine) [2] EXPLAIN WHY...Aceruss (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

References

I'll try to explain, once again, but I have a feeling you still won't hear me. Wayne Barrett was an investigative journalist. Michael Tomasky is a columnist. One man was known for reporting facts, the other is known for his opinions. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I will look into what you have said on that. My next question is simple Malik Shabazz, and it goes to the point of this whole disagreement. Three years ago PK800 added one sided, unsourced extraordinary claims about Dinkins crime fighting achievements NOT ONLY to this page but several others including Dinkins own page. On Dinkins talk page several editors vehemently disagreed with his changes. To my surprise one of those editors vehemently disagreeing with PK800 was none other than you, Malik Shabazz! I agreed with every word you said. Why then have you spent so much time arguing with me on this matter when we both felt the same way about PK800s edits?Aceruss (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Aceruss slow-motion edit war. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Used the next older archive, which displayed properly for me —ADavidB 00:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

seeking consensus for claim in lede[edit]

I saw the Administrator's notice and came over to see what the fuss was about. On the issue of issuing credit for the drop in crime, there appears to be a discrepancy. In the lede, it says:

Within several years, Giuliani was widely credited for major improvements in the city's quality of life, and in lowering the rate of violent crimes. <ref name=Robertiello>Gina M Robertiello, "Giuliani, Rudolph", [https://books.google.com/books?id=N7lyAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA699&dq=crime#v=twopage pp. 687–99], in Wilbur R. Miller, ed, ''The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia'' (Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi, London: [[Sage Publications]], 2012).</ref>

yet in the article we have this:

The extent to which Giuliani deserves the credit is disputed. <ref>Levitt, Steven D.: "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not", ''Journal of Economic Perspectives'', 18(1), 163–90</ref>

I read Freakonomics, where Levitt expands upon that report in a chapter about this exact issue. In the book, greater credit for the fall in crime is given to the availability of birth control. So besides the fact that the two sentences on their own are inconsistent, I question whether we can use the term "widely credited" by itself. I can't read the Miller encyclopedia source, so I have no way to tell what it actually says about assigning credit, but unless it makes that specific claim and cites numerous sources itself, putting in the term "widely credited" likely fails WP:OR. How about a caveat in the lede instead:

Within several years, Giuliani was widely credited for major improvements in the city's quality of life, and in lowering the rate of violent crimes, although the amount of credit due has been disputed.

? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you have a point. But, I don’t think Freakonomics is a great source – certainly not on its own and given the reasoning. There are many other sources that come to the same conclusion with better reasoning; which is a long subject of debate on this talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I didn't make the change myself, not wanting to jump into a fray, but it seems that changing the verbiage is justified. Note my suggested new verbiage doesn't say widely disputed - just disputed - and so Freakonomics does work for that muted qualifier. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Since you brought up the lede, another problem is the word and. Lowering violent crime is one of the improvements (probably the main one) alluded to in the preceding clause. It should be worded "Within several years, Giuliani was widely credited for major improvements in the city's quality of life, such as lowering the rate of violent crimes." Scaleshombre (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Lowering the quality of life for some. Not others. That's another subject of debate about his stewardship. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, if we're going to start tweaking the lede to give a more precise view of Giuliani's mayoralty, then we really need to take a closer look at the David Dinkins lede. The current wording paints a glowing portrait of the Dinkins years, making no reference to the widely held perception at the time of a city increasingly out of control and a mayor incapable of governing it. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
One thing at a time though. I agree that part of what improves quality of life is crime reduction. I think my qualifier can work here too. How about:
Within several years, Giuliani was widely credited for major improvements in the city's quality of life, including lowering the rate of violent crimes, although the amount of credit due has been disputed. 

TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

KBE in infobox[edit]

The info box prominently notes that Giuliani was awarded a KBE... shouldn't that be "KBE (Hon)" or something similar (to indicate that the award was honorary) Blueboar (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

From my knowledge and for future reference, if Giuliani was a British citizen he would be called 'Sir Rudy Giuliani', however as he is American he is referred to as KBE and that exists for all forms of knighthoods and therefore 'Hon' is not required. JLo-Watson (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)