Talk:Joe Scarborough/Archive 1

message: This is Joe Scarborough again. My son called me from school today asking why people were so hateful as to put this into my site. I told him I really didn't know what caused people to hate so much but they do. Everyone knows this is a lie to slander my name. Why wasn't it publicized more? Because I only met the woman a few times and never worked in the same office with her. And yet, hateful people have been attaching this to my bio for the past several years. It is the same as doing a bio on Peter Jennings and making the majority of it about a woman who died in ABC's accounting department while he was anchor. It makes no sense. I didn't know the young woman hardly at all. And to include even a mention of this tragedy in my bio, while attaching libelous articles as you have done in the past, is just terrible. My children should not be made to pay for your hatred, Gamaliel. I do not know what I have ever done to you or your family, but I ask that you show some restraint and stop spreading lies and false insenuations about me. 
Anonymous editors have been repeatedly deleting this paragraph.  For some of them their only wikipedia edits are to delete this: 
:Nearly two months after announcing his resignation, on July 10, 2001, one of Scarborough's aides, Lori Klausutis, was found dead in the congressman's office in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The official cause of death was a heart failure, although her initial autopsy suggested severe fractures in the skull. The investigation was never pursued further, and Scarborough was never implicated in Klausutis' death. Two suspects, Theopholis and Steve Salmon were initially questioned by police. Both men have been released, but are still considered "persons of interest".
I'd like at least one of them to stop by here and tell us why they keep deleting it.  Do they deny this happened?  No one is accusing Scarborough of murder in this paragraph, just reporting the fact that his aide died.   Gamaliel 06:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't edit anything; I just read this article for the 1st time today. However, I don't think the paragraph is warranted. If he had nothing to do with the death, why is it being mentioned in an encylopedia article about him? If a co-worker of yours died and you had nothing to do with it, would you want or feel that it's necessary for it to be mentioned in your entry? --JPotter 03:17, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know. How does Gary Condit feel about it? I don't think anyone's personal feelings are of any relevance. His office, his aide, thus relevant to him. Reporting the facts is not an accusation of any wrongdoing. Gamaliel 07:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was going to mentioned Gary Condit. It is relevant to mention Chandra Levy in the Gary Condit article, because he was implicated in her murder. Lori Klausutis should not be mentioned in the Joe Scarborough article because there is no implication of wrong doing on his part. It is similar to a co-worker/employee of someone. Because my co-worker/employee goes missing and the cops don't think I had anything to do with it, that incident should not be mentioned in an enyclopedia article about me. Also, a search on google for Joe Scarborough and Lori Klausutis produces exactly 1,360 hits. Gary Condit and Chandra Levy produces 31,200 hits in the Google test, 10x more. --JPotter 18:20, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
So what's the verdict folks?  No one has yet proved relevance in my eyes... --Boisemedia 20:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Reporting the facts that it happened seems more journalistic rather than encyclopedic. I don't see the relevance, so I don't believe the paragraph or the link (especially the link) should be in the article. I could be wrong, I'd like to see what others think and build a concensus. If more people feel this event should be mentioned, no problem. --JPotter 17:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Hey. This is Joe. There are a few things that concern me about this page. And since you all are talking about me, I would like to add a few thoughts.
1. Concerning the question below regarding my departure plans from Congress, I told the Pensacola News Journal that I would be leaving Congress to spend more time with my children, to practice law, and to launch a cable news program. This is not misleading. It is a matter of public record. For those concerned about the veracity of this statement, simply search the Pensacola News Journal records and look for articles around May or June 2001 when I left Congress. It is clearly stated in black and white. I am surprised someone would question this without doing the most basic of research.
2. Fred Levin as my mentor. This is simply not true. I know and like Fred, but he is neither my legal nor personal mentor. We have dramatically different world views regarding the law, politics, and matters regarding faith. Though no one knows him, and therefore he is not controversial enough to warrent attention and controversy on this website, my mentor is an attorney named Ed Moore. A man of great character, Ed was my first boss and taught me a great deal about the law and life. Again, this is not to suggest that I do not have positive feelings for Fred. It is simply that we come from two radically different points of view. To say he is my mentor would be like saying that Ted Kennedy was George W. Bush's mentor. Not slander but simply not true.
3, The third and most troubling issue regards the continued insistence of someone to attach the tragic passing of a former staff member to my bio. Soon after announcing that I was leaving Congress, Lori passed away in our congressional annex office in Okaloosa County. I learned the news while in Washington and though I did not know her well, I was obviously saddened by her passing. Soon after, Internet conspiracy theorists started writing blogs suggesting that I had quit Congress because of this messy situation (ignoring the fact that I had resigned before her death.) Still, to far left Democrats, the fact that Gary Condit was hounded by the press and I wasn't proved there was a right wing bias.
Though I can't believe I even have to write this, for the purpose of forever exposing those who would continue linking her death to me in any way, the reason the press didn't link me with Lori was that unlike Condit and Levy, I had no personal relationship with Lori. In fact, since she worked in my annex office, I only saw her a few times and in public events. Comparing Lori with Ms Levy is insulting to the memory of Lori and is extremely hurtful to her widowed husband and parents. While I understand that such hatefulness is part of the price of being involved in politics, they do not and have had to deal with ugly rumors along with their loved one's tragic death.
For those who suggest that, gee whiz, we aren't accusing Joe of anything. We are just putting the facts in his bio, I would suggest that you find out who died at ABC News in the past ten years and put that in Peter Jennings' resume. Or put the Clinton intern who was killed at Starbucks in the 90s in his resume. Or see who has died while working at the  Bush White House over the past four years.
Actually, I don't recommend you do that. I suggest that you look at their public work and any private actions that reflect on their bio and put that in. To put other info in simply shows a bias and a great insensitivity to the family of Lori. Also, someone once wrote that no one was charged with the crime yet. As someone noted, no one has ever suggested there was a crime involved here.
I believe Wikipedia is a great public service and I use it in my research for the show. But I would hope that internet conspiracy theorists would stop attaching Lori's death to my bio. Again, it is a tragedy, but it does not belong in my bio simply because she worked in my office for a few years. Again, Gary Condit was having an affair with Ms Levy and was a suspect in that case. The suggestion that I was either is a lie and is slanderous.
I hope those using this site will do the right thing and try to be accurate and informative, as well as relevant.
Thanks
Joe comments from User:Joe Scarborugh
Dear "Joe",
I have no doubt the real Mr. Scarborough would be able to spell "cabel news program" properly, much less his own last name.  So I've blocked you for impersonating the real Joe Scarborough.  Regardless, you make some points worth addressing. 
1. Levin's role aside, the article already stated Scarborough's reasons for leaving as pretty much what you state they are.  I don't know why you bring this up as it doesn't seem to be in dispute at all. 
2. I don't know whether or not Fred Levin is Scarborough's mentor, and I don't see it as much of an issue in any case, so we can leave that point out. 
3. On this issue of the late Ms. Klausutis' death, to suggest that merely mentioning her death is some sort of insult to her family or memory is ludicrous.  Prior to your comments, no one even mentioned or suggested the possibility of a relationship between Scarborough and Klausutis.  While the idea of some sort of leftist conspiracy theory is constantly floated, it is the people who want to delete these facts who suggest that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot to slander Scarborough.  This article does not suggest even the slightest possibility of a personal relationship, nor does it suggest or imply that Scarborough resigned because of Klausutis.  In fact the latter scenario is flatly ruled out by this article as it clearly spells out that Klausutis died after Scarborough announced his resignation.  The analogies keep getting more and more bizarre and irrelevant:  an employee of Starbucks is not an employee of President Clinton and the death of a barista is not relevant unless s/he died in the White House Starbucks.  In this case: an employee of Scarborough died in an office of Scarborough. This is clearly and directly relevant regardless of how she died or what Scarborough's fans think of it. Gamaliel 20:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no clue what this is about, but let me chime in that I find it inconceivable that anybody who has been to any law school would spell "copywrited" (on top of misspelling his own name). otoh, I cannot imagine why anybody else would take such an interest in this article. But luckily, it doesn't matter one bit whether this user is JS. The principles of npov and 'cite your sources' apply regardless. dab (ᛏ) 21:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a liberal and don't even think the NPOV tag is merited for this article. I also don't claim to know if we banned a minor celebrity from using Wikipedia and commenting on his own article. But what I do know is that pointing to small typographical errors (they could easily be such, rather than "misspellings") to "prove" that he could never be Joe Scarborough, since everyone knows famous people don't make mistakes, is a silly and elitist precedent to set - so let's not. --BDD 20:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lori Klausutis

message: I tidied up the Lori Klausutis paragraph, and added a link re Berkland. I stayed away from more serious edits, but I do think some of the information (e.g. details of dispute with Moore) are not justified here. Perhaps they could be moved to the Michael Moore page. 
I can't see any credible arguments that there was foul play, but if there is relevant information, then link it. Wikipedia's not the place for insinuations. (I might add that I'm a member of the Australian Greens and by American standards I'm a raving liberal. But fair's fair. Opinion is my own of course, not necessarily that of any organisation.) --Singkong2005 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest cutting down the Klausutis paragraph

message: Can we get some sort of citation for which description is more accurate?  It's been quite amusing watching this go back and forth but we really should get some sort of resolution here. Gamaliel 17:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first problem with the statement is the use of "known as", which implies common knowledge. But Scarborough was only in Congress a few years and didn't have a high profile. Mirror Vax 17:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  most liberal/most conservative? 

message: I have requested RFC against these three for revert warring, personal attacks, and POV pushing. See it at . 67.18.109.218 22:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Against Gamaliel, Rhobite, and Ruy_Lopez

message: Just to see where everybody stands, I'd like to do a non-binding poll on how to handle the Klausutis issue.  Below are several options on how to mention and detail the incident.  Please specify all options that you deem acceptable.
Complete omission with written apology to the Klausutis family and the Congressman
# Coqsportif 04:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klausutis poll 

message: These two guys are getting annoying, both of them revert for either way however they do not discuss anything on this page. Who's enabling these two? I assume Gamaliel is enabling Viriditas. Ray Lopez 03:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth are you talking about? Gamaliel 16:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I apologize for rushing to judgement. Ray Lopez 16:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viriditas and 138.180.100.whatever 

message: Someone has reverted the controversial section to a much older version. I have changed the paragraph to the more palatable, yet still controversial version. Please do not revert back to the "skull fractures and Steve and Theophilus Salmon" version. --JPotter 17:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Another revision to the unacceptable version. Admins pls watch this activity. --JPotter 18:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, I didn't read the Talk page before I jumped into the revert war. --Habap 18:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision  

message: Make of this what you will - 
And then there's Joe Scarborough. Because I have a heart, I removed a couple of pages from by book Attack Poodles about the death of Lori Klausitis, a young staffer for then Republican Congressman Scarborough whose body was discovered in his district office. He was in Washington, DC at the time of her death, but there were some iffy aspects about her case and unlike the Gary Condit situation, this mini-mystery got no play in the national media since it didn't plug into the horny Clinton Democrats-interns meme. I wrote about it in a Vanity Fair column but when I reworked the column for the book, its inclusion bothered me; there was something tonally wrong about it that clashed with the rest of the text, and I heard that Scarborough had been upset about it when it came out and that it caused distress to his new family. I had also heard from more than one person that he was not a bad guy off camera, funny and unpretentious, which also tilted towards leniency. I felt I could make my points about him as a TV personality without the passage, so I cut it, and hearing second-hand he was concerned about the book, called him up to tell him so. We had a very pleasant, brief conversation, and that was it.
I still don't regret cutting it, but I really think it's the last time I'm cutting anyone on the other side the slightest slack. Joe Scarborough may be a nice guy off-camera, but his performance in the Schiavo case has been one of the most disgusting stretches in cable-news history--the biggest blotch on MSNBC's record since the hiring/firing of Michael Savage, and you would have thought Rick Kaplan would have learned something from the blunder of his predecessor instead of letting Scarborough lash and trash night after night. He has become such an odious, poisonous joke that his own guests are telling him, "You should be ashamed of the show you are running" (scroll down), and asking, "How can you possibly be so stupid?"
 --JPotter 00:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I found this on a secondary source, cannot confirm this actually comes from Vanity Fair as they have no archive system. 
"In July of 2001, Lori Klausutis, a 28-year-old aide to Scarborough, was found dead on the floor of his (Scarborough's) district office in Florida... The preliminary findings revealed no foul play or evidence of suicide, and she had seemed to be in good health.  She appeared to have hit her head on the desk, but what caused her fall?  The timing of her death was the stuff of pulp novels... `Klausutis's boss, Joe Scarborough, had recently resigned from Congress prematurely and unexpectedly, amid rumors about his marital infidelity and soon after a divorce'... The reporters also noted that the murky circumstances bore eerie similarities to the Gary Condit-Chandra Levy case, and yet this one received no national notice whatsoever."
by James Wolcott
Vanity Fair, October 2003 --JPotter 01:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
What is ironic as hell is that so much rigor is going into the development of a page for a guy who uses none himself.  Let's be honest, this guy's show is horrible, and does nothing to advance reasoned discussion.  He is nothing more than an ignorant Republican ideologue.  Unfortunately, Bush makes him look like a centrist. 
Nevertheless, the person who kept pressing for support for "leaving congress amid rumours," pressed me correctly.  I could find no sources I believed to be valid supporting that claim.  I relent.  I will keep an eye on this page though.  As a Florida resident, I have been victim to this man's ideas.  As a TV viewer, I have been victim to his caustic and acerbic rhetoric.  He is an asshole. (Does that need sourcing?)
:Be that as it may, we are writing an encyclopaedia, so we need rigour.  Simple enough.  The nature of the subject isn't the point.  Guettarda 15:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A public fued between two promienent commentators seems notable enough to deserve a mention. Gamaliel 19:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to sound antiseptic, but doesn't listing the actual domain name read like endorsement of the accusation? I'm no fan of either of the ideologues, so don't blame my politics for this thought. I think I'd be more comfortable with a link that hid the name, if the website existed. I wonder if Moore hasn't created the website because he's worried about a lawsuit. --Habap 20:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how mentioning the domain name endorses anything. Gamaliel 03:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google turned up this gem 

message: Gamaliel, why are you allowing Calton to engage in his personal attacks and misleading edit summaries without warning him? That is completely unfair that you utilize your administrative power on the side that you oppose. 138.180.100.171 11:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that all of Calton's reverts are marked as such, so I don't see how they are misleading in any way. Gamaliel 20:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate edit summaries/personal attacks 

message: This is not the place to air greviences over the media's treatment of Gary Condit. If anyone believes the Lori's Klausitis's death proves that the media mistreated Condit please take it to the Condit page where it might have some relevance. It has nothing to do with Joe Scarborough.--Heathcliff 04:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it the opposite way - that the comment here is not on how the media treated Condit, it's on how they treated Scarborough.  I have heard the argument several times that given the way the media treated Condit, why did they give Scarborough a free pass.  I am not in a position to evaluate the validity of that statement, but if it is a valid statement, it belongs here.  On the other hand, it may be an apples to oranges comparison, in which case it just isn't a very meaningful, and thus shouldn't be in the article.  But I disagree with Heathcliff's read of the statement.  Guettarda 14:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article does not make it clear that these accusations were what you might term "counter-accusations" in comparison with Scarborough, then that part of the article needs to be strenghtened, not weakened, in order to make that clearer.  Suppose for the sake of argument that Scarborough runs for some position in a few years and all of this crap is resurrected but in the mainstream media, Wikipedia could have an NPOV take on things.  Given the exhaustive research and debate that is on this talk page, it would be a shame to just get rid of things. --Bletch 12:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gary Condit

message: This article is under a temporary  due to rampant revert warring.  Please use the discussion page rather than the edit summaries to express your changes if you cannot come to a resolution otherwise.  Please feel free to remove the protection notice once this dispute has been resolved. Hall Monitor 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I advocate anything like continuing a revert war indefinately, but I honestly don't know how to resolve this.  There seems to be a clear consensus of 12 registered users for inclusion, as opposed to 11 votes for exculsion, which consists of 4 legitimate users, 3 usernames that have been blocked for trolling, disruption, or sockpuppetry, and 4 IP addresses, at least one of which has a long history of vandalism. This isn't a matter of an edit war, but an article which has been under consistent attack by at least one vandal. Gamaliel 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary vprotect

message: I have swapped the MSNBC photo of Scarborough with one that is PD. I do this to keep the wiki "clean". I realize it's BW, so if anyone has a better photo, pitch in! - Hoshie |  14:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo swap 

message: Yesterday on Dec 2 Mr Scarborough dedicated part of his MSNBC program Scarborough Country to wikipedia. In particular he critized wikipedia for lack of credibility and responsibility. He interviewed a friend of the Kennedy family who had been outraged that information -apparently incorrect- had been put on wiki about him that he had briefly been considered a suspect of -I believe- the murder of Robert Kennedy. Of course, incorrect and libellous information is the last thing that any decent wikipedian wants to allow on our project and I think we should all renew our commitment to scrutinize edits for such damaging material even if submitted by an anonymous source. On the other hand I wish Mr Scarborough would have done a bit more justice to all of us serious authors and explained a bit better how the wiki-process actually works. Instead of allowing anyone from wiki to answer or explain, he simply discouraged anyone -particularly schoolchildren- to ever use our information. It would seem that professional journalists are not always free of the kind of lack of responsibility they like to accuse others of themselves.
:af:Gebruiker:Jcwf
152.1.193.141 21:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't mention his personal experience editing as "User:Joe Scarborough", as seen earlier on this talk page? Gee, how interesting. Stan 22:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that really was Joe Scarborough posting here.  Note on his first try he spelled Scarborough wrong. Gamaliel 20:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia on Scarborough country

message: User:Siegenthaler2 seems to have made some valid additions, but mangled the article so thoroughly I regretfully had to revert the whole body of changes. Someone should go through those diffs and try to pick out the good bits. Stan 13:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions reverted 

message: I have just spoken to Mr. Scarborough on the phone. We had a very friendly chat, and a very productive conversation. While I was happy to speak to Mr. Scarborough on behalf of the Foundation, it should never have come to that. To all people who have engaged in editing this article, our foremost objective is to write Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) coverage of the subject matter. This is especially true when writing about a noteworthy living person, such as Joe Scarborough. Any allegations about Mr. Scarborough--if they are indeed encyclopedic--should be reported exactly as such, allegations, and properly sourced and properly countered if such information is available, or else they have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind when editing this article. For people with a bone to pick, this is not the place. Danny 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job of whitewashing! It's not actually true that there are no sources on Lori, as a quick Googling demonstrates, but if the new Wikipedia way is to only allow hagiography, I don't suppose that kind of detail matters. Stan 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  But there is no reason or link to scarborough except in the vaguest terms.  At best, this might be mentionable on the michael moore page under the slander section.   I have found nothing that links her death, which was apparently related to a known medical condition that she had, and scarborough.  Tbeatty 03:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention Editors and Edit Warriors