This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 plotconspiracy 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
