Talk:Joseph diGenova/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

I don't see anything about Brock Adams on Victoria Toensing. What are you referring do?

I think it has enough coverage in WP:RS to belong in the entry. Why not? --Nbauman (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

+1, Lewinsky is mentioned on Victoria Toensing, diGenova is not yet mentioned on Brock Adams, and if you found a RS for the latter it would be relevant here. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Career in law and politics

This is so absurd. His entire career is summed up in three sentences, and the rest of the article is devoted to his commentary on Fox News during the Trump administration. Not that this stuff shouldn't be there, but his occasional appearances as a TV talking head are nowhere near as important as his career in government. The fact that he helped prosecute John Hinckley, a would-be presidential assassin, isn't even mentioned. People come to bio articles like these looking for information about what the person did, not the opinions they've expressed in their retirement. Wikipedia is such a joke. 2601:445:380:5D00:E0B6:BDC7:5077:3095 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

So write something. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2019 (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)

I didn't start a new section. Robert McClenon did. So why are you telling me? And, for the record, he started a sub-section, not a section. And his doing so was perfectly acceptable since this lengthy discussion was solely between you and I, and he was introducting a third opinion. And there you go again with needless links. Anyone can easily figure out what you are talking about even if you got rid of almost all of them. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Just in case if anybody cares (I don't): You started #Tucker_Carlson_interview instead of continuing #Brazen_plot. –84.46.53.57 (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If Carlson's Fox News interview is not encyclopedic, then neither are almost any of the 24 other references from almost exclusively left-leaning media outlets either, especially since they don't even interview the man that the article is about, but rather they focus primarily on the opines of biased sensationalists and "talking heads", right? Does the extent to which a reference is encyclopedic depend on which side of a controversial issue it takes, or are all of the mainstream sides' views supposed to be shown on Wikipedia when the subject is controversial? Better yet, shouldn't most of a Wikipedia article be about facts, maybe peer-reviewed facts with an evidentiary basis? For example, do the crimes exist, or are they non-existent? This is a question of fact and evidence, not an opinion. There cannot be two sides to that question in an encyclopedic article, only either two opinions on something for which there is no evidence, or two sides on something for which there is evidence, where one side is lying, and which side that is should be readily apparent in the article based on which side's side is supported by evidence, while maintaining a presumption of innocence. If there is no proof of guilt, then there is no justifiable reason to claim that there was a crime. Was there ever any evidence to believe there was a crime? What does the Mueller Report say about that question, and what evidence did it uncover, if any, that Trump colluded or conspired with Russia? If there is either no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to rig the election in his favor, and the only crime even being proposed by anyone anymore is "obstruction of justice", then that implies there was never any evidence of the crime that was initially being investigated when the investigation began, those who said there was were lying, and that that claim was indeed an attempt to frame and remove a sitting President of the United States for no justifiable reason, or at least not a reason that was based in evidence of the alleged crime that was being publicly used to falsely justify his removal from office by those parties and groups who wished to remove him from office for other, less overt reasons. Whether that attempt was a justifiable mistake, or a willful wrongdoing with malice aforethought, is another matter entirely, which should now be investigated, since there is evidence that exactly that occurred, the most obvious of which is the now proven fact that those who claimed that there was evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to rig the election, such as John Brennan and Comey, never actually had any such evidence, since they would have been required to and presumably would have been quite eager to surrender that evidence to Muller if they'd had it, which means that they were lying about their primary reason for initiating and perpetuating the investigation for two years, and for defaming the President in public and stirring up popular hatred against him and all of his supporters all over the country. And isn't "conspiracy theorist" a cross between a weasel word and a personal attack?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.169.50 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You make a strong allegation here: "those who claimed that there was evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to rig the election, such as John Brennan and Comey..." Do you have proof of that? Otherwise, that's a BLP violation. They were investigating numerous events which made them suspicious that collusion or conspiracy might be happening, as had been alleged by sources/witnesses for the Trump–Russia dossier, and the Mueller Report does provide plenty of evidence and instances of collusion, but they weren't able to find a formal agreement to "conspire" (conspirators do such things very secretly, so it would be very difficult to prove). Their investigation to learn why so many suspicious contacts were happening is not the same as them claiming "there was evidence of a conspiracy." An investigation's first purpose is to seek evidence to confirm or rule out a suspicion. They weren't able to prove "conspiracy", only lots of collusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2019 (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)

User:Activist - I didn't mention good faith because I didn't question anyone's good faith. What I did was to suggest that for one unregistered editor to refer to another unregistered editor as "the IP" was petty. Your opinion may vary. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So you actually want people to believe that directly telling someone they are being insulting and petty is not questioning their good faith? Apparently, you do not understand how absurd that sounds. What is perhaps even more absurd is your implication that it's acceptable for an editor with an account to call an IP and IP, but not for another IP to do it. In any case, I will continue to always refer to IPs as "the IP" or "IP (#)" as I'm sure most other editors will do, account or not. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

When editing in such a controversial area, it would be useful to register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI. There are no controversies about this interview on RS; The Independent, NYT, WaPo, etc. refer to it, and conservatives (incl. the US president) presumably also like it for different reasons. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)84.46.53.49 (talk) 20:54, 26 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)

Interesting, but not a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an Extremely Unfair and Inaccurate Article

Even though it is no mystery that Wikipedia favors Democrats, this article is shockingly unfair and inaccurate toward a lawyer who has been correct over and over and over again just over the past two years. I won't attempt to edit the article (only Democrats can edit Wikipedia and not be called vandals), but some fair and neutral person should edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Is there certain content you believe should be added, removed, or changed? R2 (bleep) 00:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Agenda-Driven Entry--Extremely Misleading

This is nothing more than a hit piece on one of the most elite attorneys in the U.S. To describe him as a "conspiracy theorist" in the opening sentence is nothing more than a political statement that exposes the agenda of not only the writer, but of Wikipedia, which allows this entry to remain. Joe diGenova was United States Attorney, District of Columbia, where he was the principal attorney on many high profile cases. He was Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the Senate Rules Committee and Counsel to the Senate Judiciary, Governmental Affairs and Select Intelligence Committees. He has served in both Independent Counsel and Special Counsel positions for the U.S. government. Yes, diGeneva has been accusing United States intelligence agencies of many misdeeds over the past year, but his accusations were based in fact and on his own sources (which are considerable), and they are looking more and more possible with each passing day. One question -- Now that U.S. Special Counsel Mueller has determined there was no Russian collusion, does everyone who furthered that accusation against the president now get "conspiracy theorist" written in their Wikipedia descriptions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpete111 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you the same person who left the comment immediately above? R2 (bleep) 00:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2019

Omit conspiracy theorist in first paragraph, this is a biased opinion only, not a fact. CheronSD (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's sourced - FlightTime (open channel) 15:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Italian link

please change ((Italian)) to ((Italian language|Italian)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:24B5:A2F7:26D:43A7 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Mocking Ocasio-Cortez

The Other section is a piffle. The subject of an article mocked the subject of another article. Are we going to report how many times his socks didn't match? It is neither interesting nor notable nor useful and should be omitted altogether. (And were it retained, it needs a better section title.)

Not to mention that the mockery is of a public figure who is mocked daily in print or on air.

It could be germane if the mockery had had substantial consequences, e.g., to a duel between them, the object of the mockery committing suicide, or if she wrote a novel or song that was spurred by it. It is also legitimate to note in the article on the target that she has stirred a strong public response, both in support and in opposition.

Enoent (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources describe diGenova as prominent for promoting conspiracy theories

Reliable sources literally describe him as a conspiracy theorist in their headlines and describe him as someone known for promoting Deep State conspiracy theories.[3] Business Insider: "DiGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, both used to work within the US Justice Department, but later made their reputations peddling conspiracy theories on TV about the DOJ and FBI." WaPo: "Trump just hired a deep-state conspiracy theorist as his lawyer. Here’s what Joe diGenova has said." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I restored it again. It's hard to see an edit summary of "this is apparently an editing war, and I am going to win it" as anything but trolling (or gross CIR issues). Meters (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that edit summary was by user:Houstoneagle when removing the above material for the third time), not by user:Snooganssnoogans Meters (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not a troll. The troll is the person who has OCD and pathologically reverts to extreme liberal bias because that's all they have to cling to having lost the presidency, the House, the Senate, and soon, the Supreme Court. Keep wikipedia neutral, dammit! There, I'm participating on the talk page. Is this good enough for you? Reverting to a deletion of the offensive, biased, untrue comment. Just because you link to sources doesn't make you right; you are linking to sources that are OPINION journalism. And regardless, the WaPo reference has WaPo opining that his LAWYER, not DiGenova, is a "conspiracy theorist." So let's delete it, shall we? I'll go ahead and do that now.Houstoneagle (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not describing the sources correctly. The sources are WP:RS and they identify diGenova as an individual known for promoting conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

eagle blocked after removing this material again. No, simply stating your opinion on the talk page does not give you the right to continue making your edit, particularly when the page is under discretionary sanctions and you have been informed of them. Unless there is some overriding reason this material must be removed we edit by consensus, so it will not be removed unless we reach an agreement to do so here. And since your removal has now been undone by four different named editors, it seems unlikely that we will reach such a consensus. Meters (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist is a pejorative term and has no place here. You know that. Just because you can cite some biased sources doesn't mean Wikipedia should be biased. Wikipedia should not be a liberal or conservative source or it will lose credibility. Cut it out.69.250.5.220 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between saying he is "peddling conspiracy theories" and saying that he has been criticized by some for being a conspiracy theorist. You can use the opinion piece from the Washington Post, but it has to be attributed properly.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

RS widely describe him as a prominent conspiracy theorist. Attribution is unnecessary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

People aligned with one and only one political party may describe him as a conspiracy theorist, but that doesn't make it un-biased to say the same thing they say, and the fact that they appear on television does not make them reliable, much less un-biased. Their point of view is not a neutral point of view, and neither is this article. Will Wikipedia edit the article after the voluminous evidence indicating that there was no collusion/conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but that there was a very real and obvious conspiracy to overthrow the President illegally and in what really does amount to a coup, meddle in our elections (including attempts at meddling by Chinese, Middle Eastern, Ukrainian, Mexican, German and British agents, among others, as well as domestic agents who broke the law to rig the election in their favor), and an ongoing effort to violate and ultimately overthrow the constitution, eventually does result in very real, successful prosecutions and the production of official documents showing that people like John Brennan and Comey sought to indict the President over a lie because they didn't like the results of the election, or will Wikipedia and their editors/admins (many of whom have been peddling that same lie all along on a national, ostensibly "neutral" forum) admit their fault and correct this article to show that Joseph diGenova is a reliable prosecutor who was among the first to sound the alarm about very real, high level, impeachable and indictable offenses committed by prominent Democratic party members. leaders of U.S. government agencies and media personalities? Will those guilty parties' Wikipedia articles be corrected to show that it was they whom the evidence of wrongdoing actually pointed toward all along, and that those who said otherwise were not only biased, but wrong, slanderous, and part of a very real and very heinous plot to reverse our nation's democracy, which was staged by the losing party that has pushed our country to the brink of the worst internal political and social crisis we've faced since the civil war, all because one party decided to falsely accuse the other of being an instrument of a foreign takeover, rather than the reality that Trump actually was legitimately elected, and all of the "establishment" candidates lost because that's what the public rightly and predictably demanded? Probably not. There certainly won't be a correction. If anything, they'll just call everyone who was proven right a conspiracy theorist for another reason, and they'll call everyone who was proven wrong a reliable source. I think I've read this article before. The truth is not an opinion, and being on television does not make what you say true. Reliable sources are not obviously biased, especially not on the topics they are cited on, and especially not on topics that are matters of fact rather than opinion. Remember back when everyone was so sure that the Mueller report would confirm everything we'd been hearing stated as if it was proven fact on most T.V. networks, from the mouths of most actors and actresses, from much of the House and the Senate. and from all the people who were cited as references for the claim that this former U.S. Attorney is a "conspiracy theorist" in this Wikipedia article about a living person? Do Comey's, Brennan's and Loretta Lynch's articles say that they are known for peddling conspiracies about the President, or for being caught in lies about him, and making blatantly false and totally unfounded claims about evidence of collusion, or a conspiracy with the Russians of any kind, or justifications for FISA warrants that they conveniently forgot about their central role in while testifying to Congress (i.e. Loretta Lynch), or the President being elected because he was a Russian pawn, and therefore being "illegitimate", when in reality he was elected because half the voters in 3/5ths of the states voted for him? Remember this little jingle? “Mueller please come through, because our only other option is a coup!” - The Women of Saturday Night Live, singing (obstructing justice?), "[Mueller] All I want for Christmas is You", December 2018 All copies of the video have now been scrubbed from Youtube completely, right after the Mueller report came out, when previously it was all over Youtube. I expect to see something similar happen with this article in the next year or two, for a very similar reason. 174.126.169.50 (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

The fact that you idiots couldn't even tolerate an attempt to make this article more balanced and locked the article says much about you and Wikipedia. I used to defend this as a great resource. Not anymore.69.250.5.220 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Wikipedia has devolved into a bad joke.2601:248:8300:3C30:C4A3:7889:B73A:B5DE (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I expected an impartial biographical article, what I found was a clearly biased article making extensive use of double quotes to make facetious comments about Mr. diGenova. This article should be deleted and replaced with the work of someone without axes to grind. As it is, it casts gave doubts upon the reliability of information in Wikipedia. MarvinLuse (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion that he peddles "conspiracy theories" in the plural form is wrong, all sources linked reference one specific case. Where DiGenova is suggesting there is corruption in the higher levels of the FBI and the Justice Department and that Trump was "set up" (using his words). There's no need to use the pejorative term of "conspiracy theory" either, when it refers to a specific case. Nor is DiGenova "famed" for that merely because it is mentioned in a lot of editorials (which are not legitimate sources for facts) just because there's lots of articles where he is mentioned in this regard in the past year.Visf (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The cited sources say that he is known for promoting conspiracy theories (plural) about the DOJ and FBI. We follow the reliable sources. R2 (bleep) 05:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I dispute that all sources referenced refer to a conspiracy theories in plural. Some refer to it in plural, some singular. At the very least it should be singular.

The things he is discussing are conflicts of interests and criminal referrals by congress, which the DOJ are actively investigating. So it is under some dispute. In the interest of NPOV I think it should be removed or be explained by other terms than as "conspiracy theories". All the articles also explain that DiGenova contends there is corruption and political bias within the FBI and DOJ. That would be a better explanation of his views and stance in line with NPOV.

I also contend that editorials should not be considered RS when it comes to evaluating whether something that is under dispute is a conspiracy theory or a legitimate concern (which can refer to the same thing, but gives it very different connotations). There are those that agree with DiGenova on many of his points, like this article from Jonathan Turley . Editorials can merely be used for statement of facts. Just because a lot of editorials also inject their tone, doesn't mean wikipedia should. That's why the NPOV-rule exists.Visf (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

References

None of these sources are editorials. Please identify a single reliable source that disputes that diGenova is known for promoting conspiracy theories. R2 (bleep) 15:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, these "journalists" are editorializing, that makes what they write editorials. Sources don't prove negatives. There are plenty of sources that support specific statements made by diGenova on the subject, I referenced one, but we shouldn't do original research - my point is merely that it is something under some dispute. I think the important part is that it is under political dispute and in line with that, an encyclopedia shouldn't take sides on the matter. I see no need to use the loaded term "conspiracy theory", when using a specific term like "corruption within the DOJ and FBI" would be more specific and follow NPOV. It would add information and better explain what is referenced. The only reason I see to use the term "conspiracy theory" is because it is a negatively loaded term which partisans that use wikipedia for their pathetic information war like. Why use the loaded term instead of a descriptive one otherwise? Visf (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources. I don't believe you've identified a single reliable source that disputes that diGenova is known for promoting conspiracy theories. If you know of one, please post a link here. Btw The Hill contributor articles aren't reliable, and that one doesn't even mention diGenova. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Turley is a legal scholar and the facts in that article he presents are the same as statements made by diGenova which is used as a basis to call diGenova a conspiracy theorist. The point of that is that the subject is under dispute where reputable experts in the field agree with him. There are several active investigations into this subject and it's a very partisan issue. But I concede that you've sufficiently addressed my concerns about RS. Journalism is garbage and I understand that the rule is that if garbage is published a lot it is fact by the rules of wikipedia. I get that.

Why use the term "conspiracy theory" though? It's derogatory and negatively loaded. There are better descriptors to use than a derogatory and loaded term. Why not just say "diGenova have raised concerns about corruption within the FBI and Department of Justice"? NPOV?Visf (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The term is descriptive, not value laden, and we use it all over Wikipedia when appropriately sourced. It has been used by many reliable sources. These are respected newsrooms, hardly organizations have some agenda to discredit diGenova. R2 (bleep) 20:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I would contend that the term is appropriate only if there is a documented history of someone pushing theories without evidence, not merely when someone for the past year have been putting forth a specific theory that is politically contentious. While it can be descriptive, it is always value laden. I think the term should be avoided if possible. All of the sources referenced refer to the same claims made from diGenova over the past year regarding the investigations into Trump and it is something that is actively under investigation by the DOJ and the inspector general. These source, to take some of many: shows that to be the case. When there are politically contentious issues, many people have agendas and the media is often willingly or unknowingly used to push narratives. That why a neutral perspective of such issues should be pursued, which avoid loaded language. I fail to see why wikipedia should not use a less loaded term to describe diGenova's concerns. Calling it a conspiracy theory is not NPOV.Visf (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

References

We must be looking at different sources. The cited sources say he's known for promoting conspiracy theories (plural). Not theories without evidence, not politically contentious theories, not just one.

I don't think we're making much progress at this point. If you really want to press this issue I suggest you wait for others to weigh in, or pursue dispute resolution. R2 (bleep) 22:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

They refer to the same set of claims regarding a general concern about corruption within the DOJ and FBI during the handling of the infamous probe into Donald Trump regarding collusion with Russia. There are no other theories referenced. This is now under investigation by DOJ and the inspector general. It is politically contentious, which my cited sources above underline. I can expand on it further as there have also been several criminal referrals on this matter on a partisan basis:. There are many other ways to describe diGenova's position on this which maintains NPOV. I think I've made a fair case for how a) "conspiracy theories" refers to one set of concerns b) How these set of concerns are politically contentious c) That these set of concerns are actively being investigated c) Why wikipedia should not use a loaded term such as "conspiracy theory" to describe something that is both politically contentious and under investigation, according to NPOV.

One more point though, as you contend "conspiracy theory" is not a loaded term. I disagree. This article expands on the use of the term "conspiracy theory" and refers to it several times as a loaded term. Now I understand a loaded term can be used to not give undue reference to a single activist. That's not the case here, as these concerns are serious enough at least for partisans on one side to bring them to the forefront.

If others want to weigh in that would be welcome. I don't understand what the issue would in changing the language to something that sets a more impartial tone.Visf (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Because removing the statement that diGenova is known for promoting conspiracy theories would be whitewashing and contrary to core community standards. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to obfuscate. R2 (bleep) 03:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not whitewashing to use neutral language for a politically contentious issue. One could also point out there's a chronology to this, these investigations were not started a year ago when these journalists out of hand editorialized, dismissed his concerns and called him a conspiracy theorist. The investigations do exist now. There's even a special prosecutor on the case now. The sources I provide above make it clear that he is not a lone activist on this, there's at least a partisan divide on the issue. It would be whitewashing if he was alone in making the assertions, but he is not. Letting the current language stand is taking a side on a political contentious issue. It's prejudging something, dismissing it, before an investigation of it has concluded. Just because some journalists have done that mistake, doesn't mean Wikipedia should.Visf (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References

You have made your position clear. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither citation in the opening sentence even contains the words "conspiracy," or "theorist," this is a joke propaganda website now no different than buzzfeed which is allowed as a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:A201:B9E3:1197:F3DD:151C:B112 (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Read the next sentence and the refs there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Delete description of diGenova as a "conspiracy theorist"

What's the basis? "Conspiracy theorist" is characterization. As used here, it's merely an opinion. There's no basis provided for the term.

Your other descriptions, "Lawyer, Political Commentator... former U.S. Attorney...", those are factual. "Conspiracy Theorist" is indisputably a loaded term.

In the alternative, rewrite to add some words saying, "diGenova has proven through x, y, and z acts to be a conspiracy theorist."

Perhaps the author was relying on this reference: Tibon, Amir (March 20, 2018). "Trump's New Lawyer: The Man Who Sent Jonathan Pollard to Jail". Haaretz. Retrieved August 18, 2018. Joseph diGenova has promoted conspiracy theories about a 'deep state' attempt to 'frame' Trump and his campaign for criminal activities

After the Horowitz report, a deep state attempt to frame Trump isn't at all far-fetched. While it's true Horowitz didn't "find any evidence of wrong-doing", he found 17 things that were done wrong. And he can't/won't explain how a crack team of seasoned professionals in the world's premier investigative organization made those 17 mistakes. The only plausible explanation is they were trying with all their might to dig up dirt on Trump. At which they failed, by the way.

Getting back to my request, simply remove the words "conspiracy theorist." 99.45.149.131 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per the WP:BLP policy, characterizations of a living individual such as "conspiracy theorist" are only allowable if they are well-sourced. There are no less than eight citations for the statement here that drGenova is "known for promoting conspiracy theories" and therefore it is allowed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of this article is hopelessly biased. In addition to the 'Conspiracy Theorist' crap that's noted above, it goes on to denigrate his work on election lawsuits, saying President Trump was defeated in the 2020 election. While he may have been defeated, that determination won't be made until sometime in December when the election is certified. News organizations may think they're all-powerful, but they don't decide election outcomes. There is a legal process that is ongoing right now, including election challenges

208.94.81.226 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We write articles based on what reliable sources say. As for the outcome of the election, please feel free to review any of the many discussions on what we should say about the results of the election at this point in time, such as at Talk:2020 United States presidential election. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)