Talk:Joe Scarborough/Archive 2

message: The section Career shift to television was a mess and I have spit it into two sections: "Post-congressional career" and "Recent controversies". I reduced the material devoted to the reasons for his resignation into a compact line; there was too much speculation about his motives. Question: is he still a practicing lawywer?
Both the Moore and the Schwartenegger paragraphs in the new "controversies" section remain exceedingly weak, but I leave them as is for now, but would vote for their deletion, as they reveal nothing meaningful about JS. Viajero | Talk 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general: Should there really be a paragraph "Recent controversies"? It's better then putting the stuff elsewhere in the article but isn't our aim to write something that also holds in 5 years time? (Let history judge, hihi, no seriously, for now the paragraph might be okay, but on the first chance of it not being "recent" anymore, there paragraph should be deleted. -- Jan 81.173.254.85 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV career section 

message: On behalf of the Mediation Cabal, I've been asked to offer informal mediation concerning this article's treatment of the death of Lori Klausutis and its aftermath.  If you would like to participate in this with a view to reaching an amicable, mutually agreeable solution, please join the discussion here.  Much thanks! Fishhead64 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I did some research on the Scarborough and Lori Klausutis situation. I came up with some interesting information, indeed, and have edited the arcticle accordingly. It looks like there is need for an investigation, but Scarborough's part isn't what warrants the investigation. Scarborough, if I'm correct is the fall guy here. Please check these links (only a few) that are available.
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/911WidowQuestions.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.05B.Klausutis.1.htm
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030721Baker.html
thewolfstar 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there isn't.  There was an attempt to smear Scarborough by trying to make a tragic natural death into a suspicious death.  Mostly becuase at the time Gary Condit was under fire because of his evasive answers about Chandra Levy.  There is no evidence of any foul play in Klausutis death.  Go to the Klausutis page for the reference.  --Tbeatty 05:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just went to the article which states
Soon after her death, Scarborough complained about allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved. [1] Critics have complained about the handling of the investigation[2], the failure to release relevant records[3], and disputed Berkland's conclusions and his past.What's your point? Go to, especially the first reference I just listed here. thewolfstar 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not quite sure what to comment on.  There simply is no evidence of foul play.  The articles you cite dance around that fact but it is fact.  TomFlocco's opinion notwithstanding.  --Tbeatty 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from thewolfstar 

message: I agree that this issue must be included. 
I agree that to make a statement without providing context or why it is relevant only invites reader inferences that there is an actual connection between the incident and Scarborough. 
However, to exclude any mention of the accident would cause a reader to infer that any connection has been suppressed. 
Even the Clinton page has sections on the spurious accusations about killing 60 people. (Thank you Jerry Falwell).
Even if the pantomime Joe Scarborough who loves to disrupt the Talk pages were the real Joe Scarborough, it is inappropriate to of him to give such harangues; Wikipedia (I believe) is not the Congressional Biography Section. 
Therefore, I am suggesting this modification to the paragraph. Thoughts?
Scarborough has aroused hostility by some on the left. As one result, a largely discredited accusation, spread on the internet, accused him of an involvement in the death of an aide. Lori Klausutis died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office while the Congressman was in Washington, DC. This was ruled an accident [2] and no major news outlet gave credence to the rumor. This rumor has dogged Scarborough. According to Scarborough, soon after her death, allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved [9], although there was no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program [10]. In 2004, Scarborough claimed that Michael Moore had accused him of murder, but offered no footage or proof that Moore had made the statement or had referred to Klausutis.[11]
: The stable, consensused version of this paragraph has been up for about a year after nearly 'two' years of infighting. I don't suggest rehashing it now. JPotter 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly can't leave mention of it out now that Katherine Harris has tried to use the issue to promote her Senate campaign by keeping Scarborough out of the race (even if he was never going to get in it in the first place). bd2412 T 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went to an earlier consensus version that doesn't have the Original Research that he didn't provide any evidence.  Not sure how you could source the negative.  In any event, it was inaccurate to claim it as it was in the Vanity fair article and Michael Moore's website 'Joe Scarborough Killed His Intern" is pretty straightforward.  Also, I left the article where the death was described and ruled an accident as a reference.  No real point in saying "it was an accident" and then the next sentence saying "The ME ruled it was an accident." --Tbeatty 00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lori Klausutis (for another round) 

message: /* Family */  I deleted 
 In a July 2006 interview with Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report, John revealed that both he and his wife are avid viewers of the show. 
I see no relevance. And it was uttered on a show with an audience to win.
and by the way: I came here after watching the Colbert clip and being curios, whether the 1000Dollar check was mentioned. -- Jan 81.173.254.85 08:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert relevance 

message: There appears to be a dispute as to what, if anything, should be contained in a subheader pertaining to the material in the article addressing the death of Lori Klausitis. We must seek to achieve a consensus as to this matter - please discuss which of the following options do you feel are good or bad, and why:
:Subheader titled "Murder of Lori Klausitis" or Lori Klausistis' Murder
Good because...
*
*
*
Bad because...
*
*
*
Indifferent because...
*
*
*
:Subheader titled "Death of Lori Klausitis" or Lori Klausitis' Death
Good because...
*
*
*
Bad because...
*
*
*
Indifferent because...
*
*
*
:No subheader
Good because...
* We've already achieved consensus on this after more than two years of debate. The no subheader was a key compromise and has been stable for over a year JPotter 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lori Klausitis subheader 

message: The inclusion of the Lori Klausutis material violates WP:BLP, as her death has been ruled as "not suspicious", and Scarborough is not considered a suspect by any legal authority in her death.  Appears that the inclusion of the subject here is for biased or malicious purposes intended to smear Scarborough, "pushing an agenda or a biased point of view."  While this was at one time considered an open question, the issue has been put to bed, and has no place here except to smear Scarborough.  Please carefully review WP:BLP before you re-include this material.  Morton devonshire 01:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are changing the subject.  Please discuss WP:BLP rather than trying to attack me for pointing out BLP violations.  I've reviewed the previous debates, and something has changed:  Time.  Scarborough is not a subject of any criminal investigation with respect to Klausutis, and there is no open Coroner or other inquest suggesting that she died by his hand.  That's a violation of BLP.  Morton devonshire 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scarborough's innocence (which the article does not dispute) or the lack of a current criminal investigation (which the article also does not dispute) does not mean that Klausutis's death must disappear from history.  The information is sourced and neutral. There is no BLP violation. Gamaliel 01:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be sourced and neutral, but Scarborough is not involved, so it has no relevancy.  That's why I question its presence here, except to smear Scarborough, which is a violation of WP:BLP.  Also, Wikipedia has had a serious re-evaluation of BLP in the last several months given the potential for liability, so the standards of inclusion have changed in order to protect Wikipedia.  There's no sense fighting battles two years old -- they're not relevant to recent policy.  Morton devonshire 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no BLP issue because there is nothing defamatory about recording a historical incident in a neutral matter using reliable sources.  Your opinion of why other editors advocate its inclusion is insulting, inaccurate, and irrelevant.  Please stop attacking other editors by making insulting assumptions about their motives.  See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.  Gamaliel 02:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're trying to change the subject again.  This is about the article violating BLP, not you.  BLP and Wikipedia's perspective on BLP has changed significantly since these issues were last explored.  Morton devonshire 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See this for an example of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.  --Tbeatty 03:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to continue to attack me, I encourage you to use my user talk page to do so instead of posting irrelevant comments on the talk pages of whatever article I edited last. Or perhaps pistols at dawn? Gamaliel 03:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is attacking you.  I certainly wouldn't attack you.  I simply found it ironic and humorous for you to cite WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when the comments you left on my talk page were still warm.  But you are correct: complaining about personal attacks, civility and assuming good faith do not belong on article discussion pages.  --Tbeatty 05:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get angry when people make attacks and post fabricated 3RR reports about me.  Congratulations, you've proven I'm not Jesus.  Now if you wish to attack me or discuss my lack of saintly qualities further, I ask for a second time that you take it to personal talk pages and don't post such things on the talk pages of unrelated articles.  You've been around here long enough I shouldn't have to make this request a third time. Gamaliel 12:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage you to temper your anger, avoid personality disputes, and focus on editing Wikipedia, rather than its editors.  Morton devonshire 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP Violations

message: The Lori Klausutis article, which contains significant content regarding Joe Scarborough, is up for deletion. Your opinions, including the possibility of merging, are welcome. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination)]] 

message: Beyond just the individual discussion above, certain editors have been removing all "non notable" names from this article, and I have to question why.  Putting names of spouses and children, even "non notable" spouses and children, is common practice in biographical articles, including BLP.  What's the justification to make this article any different? *Sparkhead 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see a problem with spouses but I think we should leave children names out. --NuclearZer0 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the sources linked for the information is a biographical document released by the agency that does bookings for him.  Includes his wife and children's names.  If you "search inside" a copy of his book, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day" at Amazon, you'll note he mentions his wife and children, by name, in both the acknowledgements section and some portions of the main text.  While I don't believe exclusion of a name in a book is reason for exclusion here, I do believe if he includes names in a book bearing his name, that supports the inclusion here. *Sparkhead 17:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering your source I would have to agree. --NuclearZer0 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of names 

message: I'm staying out of the highly unfortunate insistence some editors have on including Lori K's name, but this is a sentence which could use some clarification:
: "In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program ... "
Joked?  About a person who died?  Can someone who has access to that source please provide better context or explanation of this "joke", since it sounds quite strange and callous as currently worded?  Sandy (Talk) 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: James Wolcott, "MSNBC's fox hunt: management and marketing strategies", Vanity Fair 518 (Oct 2003): 140(5) Also see http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030721Baker.html or Google "Lori Klausutis" and Imus On May 29, 2003.
Edison 09:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke ? 

message: Tbeatty, can you please stop with the reversion of relevant material? The incident regarding Arnold clearly is relevant to the subject, even you argued such not long ago.  Now you're arguing it isn't.  Scarborough's actions are on topic.  The actions of someone else commenting on yet some other group are not.  *Sparkhead 19:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either all of the Arnold incident is relevant including Arnold's response or none of it is.  Quit trying to cherry pick information.--Tbeatty 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been explained above.  Only portions related to him are relevant.  I'm sure I could name a few dozen others who had some sort of reaction to the incident, that doesn't merit their inclusion here. *Sparkhead 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please.  Scarborough said something about Schwarzenegger.  Schwarzenegger responded.  It doesn't get any more relevant than that and in some countries the response is required to be published by law.  Nor is it NPOV to exclude it.  Ia am okay with deleting the whole thing as a micro-detail that is non-encyclopedic but it is not okay to only delete the response to the controversy.  --Tbeatty 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. Schwarzenegger's response to and about Scarborough is relevant.  The grand total of that response was "we informed him the next day".  That's it.   That's also how this item originally and correctly appeared in this article.  *Sparkhead 12:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How they respond is not our concern.  His response included a comment about the legislature which is relevant because it's another group that made the same mistake as Scarborough.  --Tbeatty 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with including it only because its directly relevant and shows a relation to his reaction and others. --NuclearZer0 16:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then we should remove the whole comment since it was about Schwarzenegger.  It's trivial anyway.  --Tbeatty 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to remove the whole incident, then make a case on the talk page for its removal, but don't remove it as a petulant response to editors removing irrelevant material. Gamaliel 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the exact opposite.  I am willing to entertain having the whole incident or having none of it.  But not a POV rendition that doesn't present the response of the person about whom the comment was made.  Pick one. --Tbeatty 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your attempt to frame the issue as one of two undesirable choices, and there is nothing POV about not mentioning irrelevant info. For it to be included you can't merely claim "it's the whole incident", you must demonstrate how a second party claiming a third party may or may not have done something is relevant to the subject of this article. Gamaliel 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I think it's unencyclopedic but you've insisted on having it in the past so I added context to make it NPV.  This article is not a blow by blow of every press conference and every quote and every comment.  --Tbeatty 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't recall insisting upon any such thing, though I may have forgotten previous comments on this trivial matter. And this article is, as you say, "not a blow by blow of every press conference and every quote and every comment", which is why I removed the irrelevant quote. Gamaliel 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And is why I removed the whole silly thing anyway.  Tbeatty 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop with the constant reversions 

message: Hi. Due to the edit war, the page is now protected. Please discuss the dispute on the talk page & try to work toward reaching consensus. Thx. El_C 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: [Tom Flocco] was deemed not notable for an article.  I find it hard to have him listed as a reliable source in a biography.  --Tbeatty 05:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Flocco 

message: Removing this line:
"Most traditional conservatives now regard Joe Scarborough as just another sell-out, who's sold his soul to keep his job with the failing MSNBC cable TV network."
because it's unsourced and POV. Major Organ 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing line 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
*1a: The quote in "Family" has no apparent relation to the text around it; My understanding of Asperger syndrome was that it was the result of hereditary factors. After some further research, I found Causes of autism#Vaccine theory. You might want to separate the bit about autism into its own paragraph, and take a few more sentences to clarify what he's saying there. Also, consider using  on his quote to make it look pretty.
*1c: "Recent controversies" is too short to be a subsection; "Congressional career" needs more subsections
*2a: The first two paragraphs of "Congressional career" are unreferenced; article has too many "External links"... I recommend using some of the external links as references.
*2b: Use citation templates (, , etc); I was going to suggest fixing the ref spacing (.[1] instead of [1]. or . [1]) but that was just fixed. Good job :)
*5: Article is subject to an ongoing edit war. The other stuff I've mentioned is relatively minor, and can be fixed. However, it is unlikely that you'll Pass GAC until you've taken this article to arbitration. After that point, any deviation from the consensus about her death will be treated as vandalism and offending users will be warned and subsequently blocked.
*6: You only have one image, which has a valid license. I'd recommend trying to find an additional image to place in the article. Not required, of course, but it would improve it.
Overall, this is a well-written article, with only some minor stuff needing help. Once you've taken it to arbitration, settled the edit war, fixed the other minor stuff, renominate it and let me know. I'd really like to see this article become a GA. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Fail

message: The above reviewer pointed out an ongoing edit war that I am not aware of, so as of now instead of immediately sending it to arbitration I put it up in Wikipedia:Requests for comment here. Please check what is going on. Thanks! Wooyi 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up a couple talk topics. It's the bit about the woman dying. There's a big paragraph that people are adding to an removing from the article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note that the article has been protected twice in the last couple months because of that edit war. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't a GA review be done by someone who a) has not been involved with the debate over the mention of the aide in the past, possibly who has read the archives about this issue, avoiding appearances that the GA review is a contrivance and b) is not from Joe's hometown? OK, OK, the latter is irrelevant. Therefore 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made significant contributions to the article or the discussion. Therefore, I'm eligible to review the article. Do you have any questions about my suggestions? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In the meantime, you might go about fixing the other problems with the article that I pointed out, instead of whining about a "contrivance." Improving those things will increase your chances of being passed once you renominate the article, regardless of the reviewer. If they are not improved, chances are the next reviewer will not treat you so favorably. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that you've got an IP attempting to alter that text. If you're sure that what is in the article is the consensus version, then every time they change it without permission, use one of the user talk messages to warn them to stop. If they persist after a third- or fourth-level warning, report them at WP:AIV and have them blocked. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reccomendation: use  at the top of the page, giving the "consensus" version, and stating that using any other version of the Lori Klausutis paragraph will be considered vandalism, and will result in warnings, and if it persists, a block. Then, give instructions on how to revert and warn users that do that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (moved to top of page) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How does that sound? If I grabbed a version that wasn't the consensus text, correct it, please. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's a pretty good summary of my reccomendations... although I strongly suggest you use the citation templates. It won't kill you, and will significantly improve the article's quality (IMO). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and easy enough to do. Therefore 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally use citation templates. However, according to Wikipedia: Citing Sources, "Because they are optional, editors should not add [citation] templates without consensus." The reason: "[some] editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit." I am not one of the editors of this page. Therefore, this change can only be done with the consensus of the editors. The use of citation templates is not a GA criteria. Therefore 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: I've removed the absurd claim that good-faith edits are "vandalism" and replaced it with a statement that edits not first discussed on talk might be reverted. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I just wrote it on a whim, and nobody really gave me any feedback. However, I was referring to edit-warring/pov-pushing users that consistently change that particular section. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning template

message: How is it that there is no longer a single link in this article to the Scarborough Country article?  There used to be a link in the opening paragraph---what happened to it? ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scarborough Country]]