Talk:Joseph diGenova

Brazen plot

If the "brazen plot" makes it into The Late Show with Stephen Colbert ([1]) and is mentioned by The Independent, and if there's a transcript of the interview published by RealClearPolitics, it should be good enough for a BLP. I've reinserted the deleted reference and added a 2nd reference.([2]) –84.46.53.184 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Brock Adams case

As a prosecutor, diGenova refused to prosecute a rape case brought against then-Senator Brock Adams, because he decided the accuser, who said that he drugged her, was "not credible." The Seattle Times investigated the story, and found eight other women who made similar accusations against Adams, who then chose not to run for reelection. It looks like she was telling the truth after all. This has been heavily reported in many WP:RS. Rachel Maddow sums it up clearly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4wYI38aUDo I think it belongs in the entry. Some of Maddow's commentary about diGenova seems to meet WP:RS as opinion too. --Nbauman (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Major parts are about Brock Adams and about Monica Lewinsky covered on Victoria Toensing, wikilinked here as Joe diGenova's spouse in the infobox. A rather small part is about the brazen plot discussed below. –84.46.52.169 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson interview

The content that 84.46.53.184 added about some random interview diGenova gave on a cable talk show is clearly not encylopedic. I removed it, but the IP restored it within minutes, claiming it's important simply because it's sourced, and also citing a Wikipedia essay, which of course is an opinion that carries no weight. As I explained in my edit summaries, diGenova has been a talking head and interviewed on cable political shows for many years about an endless number of topics, many of which have been written about in newspapers and magazines, etc. So cherry-picking some random topic of the many has no particular importance at all. He was interviewed about something; so what? There are millions of things in this world that have reliable sources, but only a small percentage of them belong in an enyclopedia. IP 84 should not edit war, but instead try to gain consensus from other editors if they want the content restored. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

For google:brazen+plot I get as first hit a page about this interview, not some random interview. Search hits for brazen plot include NYT, NBC, and Foxnews, among others. That's significant coverage of this interview in various reliable sources. You can also google:frame+trump, same effect. –84.46.53.184 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The content being debated here is, "he was interviewed on Tucker Carlson Tonight about the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server". So? Who cares that he was interviewed about that? Almost everyone heavily involved in U.S. politics has opined to the media about that topic, including the vast majority of people who work in the Trump administration? There's zero context to the content. You could change that line to, "he was interviewed on (fill in the blank) about (fill in the blank)" and be able to fill in the blanks with dozens of different shows and hundreds of different topics. That's what diGenova does. He goes on these shows and gives his opinions on the topics of the day. So? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we are both missing the point. I don't really care about the statement here, I'm only interested in the references for his brazen plot conspiracy theory published in this interview. Any NPOV on this interview will do, and the transcript by RealClearPolitics appears to be as helpful (for readers), correct and neutral as possible. –84.46.52.169 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the point is clear. Content must be encylopedic, which includes having context e.g. a noteworthy purpose. So, contrary to what you're saying, we are required to "care about the statement" (the content). We don't simply add sources and then find a reason to do so. It's content first, then sources. So, what overall point are you trying to inject into the article about diGenova? That he's controversial? That's he's a conspiracy theorist? That he supports many of Trump's views? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

E.g., In an interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight he claimed, that FBI investigations were a brazen plot to frame Trump. With the two references.(see above) –84.46.52.169 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

All you've done is replace one line of content about a topic he opined on in an interview (Clinton email server) with another line of content about a different topic he opined on from that same interview (plot to frame Trump). You're inappropriately focused on sources rather than content and context. Forget all the unnecessary linking in all your comments and just answer the questions I asked you in my previous reply. By the way, the name of the program or media outlet to which a bio subject said something is typically irrelevant; what matters is what he said, did, or believes. Readers can always link to the source(s) for that information. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

He claimed that FBI investigations were a brazen plot, that's the same topic stated verbatim in the title of the RealClearPolitics transcript of the interview: DiGenova: Strzok Texts Prove A "Brazen Plot" Inside FBI To Exonerate Clinton, Frame Trump. I'm not interested in the wikilink to the media outlet. His rather odd conspiracy theory published in this interview (and maybe earlier, but that's not covered by the references I found) is the topic. –84.46.52.169 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop the needless linking. It's perplexing that you've linked to your "Brazen plot" comment/thread three times already (only needed once), the RealClearPolitics article twice (never needed), plus all the other unnecessary ones. Please, just stop all the linking and, for now, forget about his conspiracy theory that there was a big plot by the FBI to help Clinton and hurt Trump. I get it. He is well known for his polarizing views about many political issues. The "plot" theory is just one of them. Just focus on finally answering my question (and sub-questions) from two comments ago. I'll repeat it: "What overall point are you trying to inject into the article about diGenova? That he's controversial? That's he's a conspiracy theorist? That he supports many of Trump's views?" The key words of my inquiry are "overall point". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my edit summary. I don't know why you started a new section. The links were intended to help WP:3O volunteers, when they try to figure out what this discussion was about. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I see no particular reason to consider the interview to be notable. Being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. This particular interview is not particularly significant in an article that is only a stub. Also, please do not insult another editor by calling them an IP if you are yourself editing from an IP; it just seems petty. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

In terms of the content issue, well said. Beyond that, no one insulted anyone! Referring to someone who doesn't use an account as "the IP" or, as in this case, "IP (number)" is perfectly acceptable, cordial, and in no way an insult. I'm also "the IP" or "IP 2605" and it's perfectly fine for anyone to refer to me that way, rather than having to repeatedly type the full IP address. This is why I used the full IP address to open my original comment to the other editor, but used the abbreviated version thereafter. Next time, please nix the condescension and assume good faith. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, "Good faith" is a two-way street. Activist (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. JFTR, the recently added NYT reference here contains “There was a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn’t win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime,” he had told Fox News in January. With a link to the RealClearPolitics transcript of the interview, so folks interested in the text (instead of the video) can now find it starting here. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)