Talk:Carl DeMaio

New developments

I have argued against going into detail about the allegations against DeMaio by his former aide. However, there are some new developments today which I think should be added to the article, because they provide a kind of closure to several aspects of the story, while also hinting at a possible higher level of significance. Here is what I propose to add to the article. In the interest of calm and civility (since there is so much edit warring going on right now on political articles), I'm going to post it here first and seek some kind of consensus about what to say and how to say it. I do think we should decide quickly (say, within 24 hours) whether my suggested addition would be OK or how it should be modified - because people will be coming here looking for this information.

On October 20 the San Diego County District Attorney announced that her office would not be filing any charges against DeMaio regarding the sexual harassment allegations, and that they were not charging the former aide or anyone else with breaking into DeMaio's office. [1] At the same time it was revealed that the FBI is looking into some of the former aide's charges. [2]

--MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a good start. I propose:

On October 20, 2014, the San Diego County District Attorney announced that her office would not be filing any charges against DeMaio regarding the sexual harassment allegations, and that the District Attorney's office would not be charging the former aide or anyone else with breaking into DeMaio's office. [3] At the same time, it was reported that the FBI is looking into claims from Bosnich that he received anonymous email threats after being fired from DeMaio's campaign.[4][5]

I think it's important to specify that the allegations the FBI is reportedly investigating are about email threats, and not about sexual harassment. Champaign Supernova (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think "anonymous e-mail threats" belongs on DeMaio's BLP, unless they were received before falling-out became public. The gmail hacking is actually more likely to be connected to the campaign office, if Bosnich used the account from campaign computers with keyloggers on them. But I think that the threshold for adding that to this bio would be if the FBI announced the investigation and mentioned involvement of DeMaio or his campaign office. So far, the FBI won't even publicly confirm they are investigating. Thundermaker (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The FBI NEVER confirms or denies that there is an investigation; this report has multiple sources and seems credible, but the FBI itself is not a source and never would be. But that was one reason why I didn't specify exactly what the FBI is looking into. Also because there seemed to be be multiple issues the FBI was considering - the article names three issues, namely harassing email, hacking, and the supposed $50,000 offer to keep quiet - and I didn't want to get into lots of detail, for the same reasons I didn't want to get into lots of detail about the sexual harassment charges. People can follow the link if they want to know. On the other hand I appreciate Champaign's point that we shouldn't imply the FBI is considering the sexual harassment charges (usually not a subject of interest to the FBI anyhow, whereas the possibility of threats or bribery might be). How can we do that without giving the supposed charges too much importance? --MelanieN (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence could be: "At the same time, it was reported that the FBI is looking into various claims from Bosnich, unrelated to his sexual harassment allegations against DeMaio." Re. Thundermaker's comments: do we have a source that specifically states the FBI is looking into DeMaio himself? I think that would be important, because they may be looking into others who worked on his campaign. In other words, is Bosnich accusing DeMaio himself of hacking into his email, etc.? Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that sentence is excellent. It makes it clear that these are different allegations, and it doesn't name DeMaio. I am going to go ahead and add the sentence about the DA to the article since it seems non controversial, and let's see if we agree on this sentence re the FBI. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the investigation is on the campaign and not the subject themselves, does it belong in the biography article, or on the article about the race?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The headline on the source says "FBI Investigating DeMaio Accusations", making it pretty clear where this belongs. Whether the investigation is focusing on DeMaio personally or on his campaign, it clearly belongs in this article. Just as a comment made by a staffer on the Scott Peters blog is included in the Scott Peters article. To some extent the campaign is the person. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think NBC's title is somewhat sensational, when you compare it to the facts and allegations described in the article. MelanieN has a point about the FBI. They MOSTLY refuse to confirm or deny investigations in progress. Given the alleged content -- "you better keep your mouth shut and take the deal", it probably did happen before the sexual harassment allegations went public; otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Still, there is no indication that the threat came from the DeMaio campaign (as opposed to, for example, the "local conservative radio station" which interviewed Bosnich about all this and then never aired it). I would support including the last sentence in the campaign article instead. The anonymous threat is clearly related to the campaign, even if DeMaio and all his staffers had nothing to do with it. I disagree that everything about the campaign belongs in the bio; I think we should limit ourselves to DeMaio's actions (including his staff) and things that affect DeMaio. The anonymous threat is neither, as far as we know. I also disagree with the word "unrelated", so prefer MelanieN's second version for inclusion in the campaign article. Thundermaker (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean this article: United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2014? This kind of detail is never included in the "campaign" pages at Wikipedia; just take a look at them, they are strictly about the election itself, i.e., tables with vote totals and sometimes polling data. We either put the information here in this article (where IMO it belongs, per the Reliable Source as well as what appears to me to be common sense), or else we omit it entirely. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I know we can't use it in the article, but thanks to this latest round of reports, DeMaio is included in Talking Points Memo's list of "The Wackiest House Races of 2014". [6] --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I was thinking there would be something like California's 52nd congressional district election, 2014, analogous to United States presidential election, 2012. Thundermaker (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It can be argued that the race itself, as a separate subject, has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and therefore can be said to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, as a long running event, it can be said to pass WP:PERSISTENCE for event notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should add the sentence "At the same time, it was reported that the FBI is looking into various claims from the former aide, separate from his sexual harassment allegations against DeMaio." to the article, and I have yet to see a valid argument against doing so. (I'm changing "unrelated to" to "separate from"; the allegations aren't totally unrelated to the harassment charges but they aren't about them either.) This followup is clearly related to the other reporting. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for spearheading. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Added it. Thanks for the input, all. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Peters' Campaign involvement

Should content about the Scott Peters campaign involvement regarding allegations against the campaign of the subject of this article be included?

• SDUT 7 November
• KNSD 8 November
• KNSD 11 November
• VoSD 11 November
• KGTV 10 November

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need about one sentence worth of the new information, if someone thinks they can write it neutrally. I would take a stab at it, but I am not able to do extensive editing right now due to lack of a reliable internet connection. MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, I am on the border about including the "smear campaign" statement of the subject of the accusations (KGTV source) should be included. Also, I think it is unnecessary to include that Bosnich was at the Peters Election Day rally (VoSD source).

The relevant content from the KGTV source is:

A thick binder called the "campaign playbook" disappeared in that burglary. According to the search warrant, DeMaio campaign materials were handed over to Peters campaign manager MaryAnne Pintar during a meeting with Bosnich. The document goes on to say Pintar copied the documents and gave the copies to Peters, before handing the originals to San Diego Police, who were investigating the break-in.

The relevant quote from KNSD 12NOV is:

But search warrants unsealed just last week say Bosnich is the one who gave the stolen campaign documents to DeMaio's opponent, U.S. Rep. Scott Peters.

The KNSD article from 8 November, gives in-depth coverage to Bosnich giving Peters the documents.

Therefore perhaps a sentence like:

On 5 June, Bosnich provided the Peters' campaign with DaMaio's campaign playbook, it was copied by Peters' campaign manager, the originals were then given to Peters whose campaign turned it over to police on 9 June; Peters later said "immediately turned over to the police."

Should be inserted into the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't access the sources right now so I am going from memory. But I seem to recall that Bosnich met with the Peters campaign manager before going public with his accusations and I think that's important. If I am remembering correctly, how about something like this: "Documents released after the election stated that the initial accuser met with Peters' campaign manager before going public with his accusation, that he gave her some internal DeMaio campaign documents, and that the Peters campaign copied some of the documents before turning them over to police ." I prefer not to name Bosnich and Pintar as they are not really public figures IMO. MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not bad, should the Peters statement about "immediately turned over to the police", be included? 5 June to 9 June being immediate?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It feels to me like the Bosnich-Peters campaign book stuff is getting pretty far afield of the topic. It doesn't involve the subject (DeMaio) directly, and come to think of it, I'm not even sure what the importance is supposed to be. (Is it just to cast Bosnich and/or Peters in a bad light? Is there any claim that the campaign book itself had a material effect on the election?) As it is, I would think that this would belong more on the Peters page (discussing potential campaign improprieties?) rather than the DeMaio page.KFM2 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's one possible option.

It is about the campaign, and is well sourced, the question is proper placement, here is as good as any, Peters' article is another option.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that merely being well-sourced is a sufficient reason for inclusion of a random campaign fact. I think a factoid also has to meet the bar of importance and relatedness to the subject, and I'm just not seeing how the reader's understanding of DeMaio is improved by knowing a random, inconsequential fact about a campaign book. Perhaps it would help if you could explain the importance of the campaign book given that--to my knowledge--it was not a major issue in the campaign and there were no allegations that the Peters campaign actually used it?

Second, if the campaign book factoid meets the bar for inclusion, then don't many other details in the Bosnich saga equally deserve inclusion, e.g., the bribery allegations, the burglary, the email threats? I would argue the reader would benefit for a more complete, chronological narrative workup of the complete sordid Bosnich saga that provides context and specifics. Presumably, that would make clear why the campaign book is important.KFM2 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you folks are getting ahead of the sources. I can't do a thorough search because of my limited Internet access right now. But the sources quoted here say that 1) a campaign playbook was missing from the office and 2) Bosnich gave campaign documents to the Peters campaign. They do not say that be gave them the playbook. And from what I remember reading back when I had better access, the documents that were cited as going from Bosnich to Peters' campaign to the police did not include the playbook. Just trying to get the facts straight; open to correction if this actually was reported. MelanieN (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

We only found out about this because the files were unsealed only after the election. This is stated in the source. There has been consensus not to include the "many other details in the Bosnich saga" due to WP:BLP and WP:NEU. So I think that's a moot point.

It's not a random detail in that since the Peters campaign were not honest in having the documents (potentially impacting their campaign), kept photo copies of the documents, and lied on air about how long they kept the documents in their possession before turning them over to the police. Come to think about this, that Bosnich was assisting the Peters campaign, as suggested by KFM2 does read like it belongs on the Scott Peters article, which at this time has zero mention of Bosnich.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality

Is it necessary to include a single sentence paragraph of the subject's sexuality? Is categorization enough? Or perhaps it would be better to integrate it into existing content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact it is already there in existing content - with the information that he was the first gay man elected to the city council, as well as a later reference to his "boyfriend". I wondered about this sentence when it was added but decided to leave it until others weighed in. The only thing that is clear from policy is that it should not be in the lead, and we have deleted several efforts to add it to the lead. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is already mentioned, elsewhere, this may be redundant and the reference used elsewhere in the article per WP:CITEBUNDLE, and the sentence removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Followup

Today it was reported that the former campaign aide admitted he had faked the threatening emails he claimed he had received. I gave this announcement the one sentence I think it deserves. If anyone wants to add anything else, let's discuss it here first. --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Now that the "former aide" is convicted of a crime, I'm wondering if we can use his name - which we carefully didn't when he was a "private party" and possible victim. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I see somebody added the name. I think that is appropriate, and it makes the paragraph a lot easier to read (instead of always talking around it with "the former aide"). --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it a BLP concern? Or no since it is now public knowledge following the verdict?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of quote from subject

CRTGAMER (talk · contribs) removed a quote from the subject of the article, which is verified to a reliable source. Just because a term might be considered offensive, is not grounds to remove the content, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Moreover, it is a direct quotation from the subject of the article, about how a false allegation of sexual assault by a gay republican was utilized to damage himself and his campaign for higher elected office.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)