tags, no other HTML. Must not include any mention of source names like Fox News Digital, etc. Must remove all promotional text, etc. Must not include any external links or website references. Must not include "source:", etc. Must not mention any publication names. Must not mention "Fox News Digital" etc. Must not mention "U.S. Ambassador" etc? Actually rule 12 says if article mentions a source, news outlet, publication name, or website, remove that source name entirely. So we must remove any mention of "Fox News Digital", "U.S. Ambassador", "United Nations", "International Criminal Court"? Actually those are not necessarily "source" but they are mentions of external entities. The rule says "If the article mentions a source, news outlet, publication name, or website (e.g., 'TechCrunch reports', 'according to Reuters', 'BBC News says', 'The Verge', 'CNN', 'Bloomberg', etc.), REMOVE that source name entirely." So we need to remove any mention of those names. That includes "Fox News Digital", "U.S. Ambassador", "International Criminal Court"? The ICC is not a source but an organization. The rule only mentions source, news outlet, publication name, or website. It doesn't explicitly say we must remove mentions of organizations like ICC, but it says "source, news outlet, publication name, or website". So maybe we can keep "International Criminal Court" because it's not a source? But it's an organization. Might be safe to keep it, but we must not attribute it. The article mentions "International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants". That's not a source attribution, it's a factual statement. That should be okay. But we must remove any mention of "Fox News Digital", "U.S. Ambassador", "U.N.", "United Nations General Assembly"? Those are not sources but entities. The rule only about source names. However we must also remove any mention of external news outlets, websites, publications, or author names (rule 11). So we must remove "Fox News Digital", "Morgan Phillips", "U.S. Ambassador", "United Nations", "International Criminal Court"? The rule says "external news outlets, websites, publications, or author names". So we must remove any mention of external news outlets, websites, publications, or author names. That includes "Fox News Digital", "Morgan Phillips". Also "U.S. Ambassador" is not a news outlet but a role; but it's an external entity. Might be considered external reference. Safer to remove any mention of external organizations? The rule is strict: "Remove any mention of external news outlets, websites, publications, or author names". So we must remove "Fox News Digital", "Morgan Phillips". Also "U.S. Ambassador" is not a news outlet but an external entity; but maybe it's okay to keep? However it's a reference to a government official; not a source. But we might want to keep it as part of narrative? The rule says remove any mention of external news outlets, websites, publications, or author names. It doesn't say remove all external references, just those categories. So "U.S. Ambassador" is not a news outlet, but it's a reference to a person. Might be okay. However "United Nations" is an organization, not a news outlet. Could keep. But we must not attribute to them. So we can keep factual statements about "U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz" but we must not attribute his statement as "according to". We can just state his remarks. But we must not mention his title? Possibly okay. We must also remove any mention of "Fox News Digital" and "Morgan Phillips". Also remove any mention of "U.S. Ambassador" maybe okay but it's a reference to a person; not a source. But it's a mention of external person; maybe okay. However rule 11 says "Remove any mention of external news outlets, websites, publications, or author names". So "U.S. Ambassador" is not a news outlet, but it's a mention of a person. Not prohibited. However we might want to avoid naming him? Could just say "An ambassador criticized the remarks". But we need to keep content but remove source names. The instruction: "If the article mentions a source, news outlet, publication name, or website (e.g., 'TechCrunch reports', 'according to Reuters', 'BBC News says', 'The Verge', 'CNN', 'Bloomberg', etc.), REMOVE that source name entirely." So we can keep "U.S. Ambassador" as a person, not a source. But we must not attribute his statement as "according to". We can just state his criticism. We must also remove any mention of "International Criminal Court (ICC)"? That's not a source, it's an organization. It's not a news outlet. So we can keep it. We must also remove any mention of "U.N. Headquarters Agreement", "Rome Statute", "World leaders", "United Nations General Assembly"? Those are not sources. So we can keep. We must remove any promotional content, advertisements, marketing text. There's none. We must remove any external links, URLs, website references. There's none. We must remove any "read more", "click here", etc. None. We must remove any affiliate disclaimers, sponsored content indicators. None. We must remove any source attributions, credit lines, bylines. So we must not say "Fox News Digital contributed". Must remove "Fox News Digital contributed to this reporting." So we remove that. We must not include any HTML tags other than
. Must wrap each paragraph in
tags, separate paragraphs with blank line. We must produce only HTML paragraphs. We must ensure each paragraph is 2-4 sentences, short, digestible. We must not include any filler. We must not mention source names. We must not mention "Fox News Digital", "Morgan Phillips", "U.S. Ambassador", "U.N.", etc? Actually we can mention "U.S. Ambassador" as part of narrative? It's not a source name, but it's a reference to a person. The rule about external references only mentions news outlets, publications, or author names. So "U.S. Ambassador" is not a news outlet. So we can keep it. But we must not attribute his statement to him as a source? We can just state his criticism. But we must also remove any mention of "U.S. Ambassador" if it's considered an external reference? It's not a source, but it's a mention of a person. The rule doesn't forbid mentioning persons. So we can keep. However we must not mention "Fox News Digital". That's a news outlet, so must remove. Also "Morgan Phillips" is an author name, must remove. Thus we need to rewrite the article without those references. We need to produce a professional news piece about the mayor's comments, the mayor's office not responding, the ambassador's criticism, ICC arrest warrants, etc. We must not mention "Fox News Digital" or "Morgan Phillips". Also we must not mention "U.S. Ambassador" maybe we can just say "An ambassador criticized". But we can keep "U.S. Ambassador" as a title? It's not a source. Might be okay. But we must also remove any mention of "U.N. Headquarters Agreement", "Rome Statute", "International Criminal Court (ICC)"? Those are not sources, but we can keep them. We must also remove any mention of "U.S. is not a party to the ICC's founding treaty". That's a factual statement, okay. We must remove any mention of "U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz" - we can just say "An ambassador criticized". But we must not attribute to him? We can mention his name? The rule says remove source names, not person names. So we can keep "Mike Waltz". But maybe better to just say "An ambassador criticized". But we can keep the name; it's not a source. It's a person. It's okay. But we must not mention "Fox News Digital". So we must not mention that outlet. Thus we need to rewrite. Let's craft paragraphs: Paragraph 1: The mayoral candidate, identified as a self-described Democratic socialist, raised questions about the limits of municipal authority over foreign affairs and the possibility of legal action against a visiting head of government. Paragraph 2: The mayor’s office has not responded to inquiries about whether the official stands by describing the foreign leader as a war criminal, whether the city is consulting its legal department, and whether the NYPD could be directed to make an arrest if legal authority existed. Paragraph 3: A senior U.S. diplomatic official condemned the remarks as political theater, asserting that the mayor lacks authority to arrest the visitor, that U.S. law does not permit local arrest of a head of state, and that federal authority supersedes local wishes. Paragraph 4: The International Criminal Court had issued arrest warrants for the foreign leader and his former defense minister in late 2024, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity related to actions in Gaza; the leader’s government rejects the allegations and disputes the court’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 5: The situation highlights the diplomatic complexities surrounding visits by heads of state to New York for United Nations meetings, where international legal considerations intersect with municipal responsibilities. Paragraph 6: The official’s comments have intensified scrutiny of the mayor’s foreign‑policy positions, particularly regarding Israel, which have become a focal point of his campaign. Paragraph 7: No public legal
