Talk:Anthony Scaramucci

Comparison with Kellyanne Conway's abilities
Seems that his rising status in the Trump orbit is increasing; perhaps, time for a separate section? --Wikipietime (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @Wikipietime lol 75.174.99.87 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Section persistently removed by WP:SPA users
Perhaps a discussion is warranted re the following passage:


 * In January 2017, he told New York magazine that the "thing I have learned about these people in Washington is they have no money. So what happens when they have no fucking money is they write about what seat they are in and what the title is. Fucking congressmen act like that. They are fucking jackasses".

This has been removed by several single purpose accounts, so the inevitable impression is that someone with an association to the subject wants to keep this out of the bio. That, of course, won't work, but the larger question is whether it merits inclusion. Coming at a time when he was being considered for a White House position, it seems relevant. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of profanity
Lets discuss the larger question of whether this sentence "merits inclusion." We can discuss his abilities, and his opinions, which are relevant to his consideration for a political position, but there seems to be no need to quote him at his worst. I removed the sentence containing the profanity, not because of the profanity per se, but because the quote does not do anything to further the reader's understanding of Scaramucci. I believe this issue falls under the purview of Wikipedia's policy of "Undue weight." It is a gratuitous quote placed there only to make the subject look bad. If you disagree, please discuss here. Otherwise, please do not re-add the quote. You will have to convince me, and I hope other editors as well, why this quote is so important to the article that we need to have profanity here. Yes, I know he "said it," but there are many, many things he said that are not in this Wiki article. Please tell me why this quote MUST be here. Thanks. Pangera (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems relevant enough to quote the man's opinion of congress, at a time when his appointment to the Office of Public Liaison was being considered. We can manage this without quoting every word, though - that he considered non-rich congress members to be "jackasses" seems to be the main focus, from press coverage at the time. --McGeddon (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * With a few days of silence and an apparent history of SPAs removing this quote, I've restored it without the profanity. --McGeddon (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The inclusion does seem politically biased. I'm unaware of a Wikipedia policy or guideline to indicate that the biographies of high-ranking political figures should include their most embarrassing public comments, even if those are the only comments included. 96.95.24.246 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

so... who is it that thinks the quote absolutely must have the profanities in it? & can you explain- per the above- why it has been restored verbatim? personally, I find the profanity tells me almost as much about the man (that he talks like this to interviewers) as the general meaning of the sentences, but I still think it needs some justification, some more context perhaps.

duncanrmi (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The content at WP:CENSOR seems applicable here. —ADavidB 11:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

JUL 20 2017, 11:42 PM ET Anthony Scaramucci Expected to Be Named White House Communications Director
July 21, 2017; Due to BLP and after this appointment, a more detailed inclusion of his statements and history would be notable. He has stepped into the "limelight" where an expectation of privacy has been removed. A complete and detailed "tick-tock" section is warranted for encyclopedic, historical purposes.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/anthony-scaramucci-expected-be-named-white-house-communications-director-n785076

"...Prior to throwing his support behind Trump, Scaramucci was a Scott Walker and then a Jeb Bush booster....The source said Trump has known Scaramucci for years and likes him.....Scaramucci was a supporter of Trump's during the campaign, dealing with fundraising and appearing on cable TV as a frequent defender of the president...."

--Wikipietime (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Philanthropy
This section includes nothing but that he paid an exorbitant amount for a baseball jersey. How is this philanthropy? Where did proceeds go?


 * I agree. How was that philanthropy? Peter K Burian (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Per the source, the shared purchase was to keep the jersey local and accessible to Mets fans via museums. The paragraph was moved to an "Other activities" section. —ADavidB 17:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For whatever it's worth, the 9/21/01 game was the first baseball played in New York after 9/11, not the first baseball game played after 9/11. I would edit this but the page is temporarily locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.161.182 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This clarification is now reflected in the article, with an additional source. —ADavidB 04:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.arabnews.com/node/1120881/media?page=3. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk  18:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Piazza's famous home run
His home run did not help to lift the city after the attacks in September 2001, as it is told in this article right now. That is some kind of magic thinking and should not be in an article in this project. Home runs make fans happy and in a good mood, not more than that. Calle Widmann (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's been reworded. The sentence has two sources. You're welcome to add sources to support any insignificance of the action. —ADavidB 14:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole section about pizza should be deleted..irrelevant Beaglemix (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Piazza* Beaglemix (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Why do you consider the $365K purchase and display of the jersey to be irrelevant? —ADavidB 14:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The purchase and display of the jersey is relevant to the life of Mike Piazza, tho not mentioned on his WP page. Beaglemix (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The home run was the subject of a source citation within Piazza's article. I've added a paragraph in its "New York Mets" section to cover the run and jersey. —ADavidB 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

CNN interview with Jake Tapper July 23 2017 and first actions as communications director
The transcript of needs an external link. Significant as first major, post assignment as communications director, interview. Noteworthy is “If they’re going to stay on that staff, they’re going to stop leaking,” Scaramucci said. “If you’re going to keep leaking, I’m going to fire everybody." --Wikipietime (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning House
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/25/white-house-purge-im-going-to-fire-everybody-says-scaramucci/

“I’m going to fire everybody, that’s how I’m going to do it,” Scaramucci said.

“If I’ve got to get this thing down to me and Sarah Huckabee,” he said, “then the leaking will stop.”

Chief of Staff
Article currently says he is communications director, needs to be updated to his new status Beaglemix (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Scaramucci is becoming the communications director. Priebus is no longer chief of staff, with Kelly taking that position. —ADavidB 15:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Thx for straightening that out Beaglemix (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Older children
The Wikipedia article mentions only one of Scaramucci's three chilren, his daughter. Here's what the Daily Mail article used as a source for the statement about the daughter says:


 * "This will be the second divorce for the father-of-three, who has a daughter Amelia, 21, and two sons, 18-year-old Anthony Jr and Alexander, 24, who goes by AJ."


 * "Scaramucci was previously married to Lisa Miranda, who is the mother of Amelia."


 * "Scaramucci's first wife Lisa Miranda is the mother of Amelia, his middle child" [part of a photo caption]

Do the other two children have a different mother (one never married to Scaramucci)? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps his sons have a different biological father and were adopted by Scaramucci? —ADavidB 02:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Younger children
In an article about the possible divorce between Scaramucci and his second wife (starting dating in 2011, married in 2014), this was said of his wife: "She has left him even though they have two children together.” (source.) The Wikipedia article has nothing about those children. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A subsequent article says the youngest child is named James, his first wife was named Lisa, and one of his older children is named Anthony Jr. (source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.48.127 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for identifying the sources. Based on their content, Amelia, Anthony Jr, and Alexander 'AJ' are all children Scarmucci had with his first wife, Lisa.  Nicholas and now James are his children with his second/current wife, Deidre. This information is now reflected in the article. —ADavidB 03:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not showing all the children's names anymore, right? For privacy? Supermann (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPNAME does advise caution when including names of family members. Scaramucci's three oldest children are no longer minors, if that makes a difference.  I had considered the names "properly sourced" as mentioned in the policy, though am open to their removal.  Input from others is welcome. —ADavidB 03:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarity
The article should really make clear that he has a total of five children: two sons and a daughter by his first marriage, and two sons from his second marriage. His youngest son was just born, during the divorce from his second wife. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Subheader overload
Do we really need separate subheaders for practically every individual paragraph, sometimes for individual sentences? To me, this disrupts the narrative flow of the article. bd2412 T 19:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, and I've removed four of them. —ADavidB 03:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. bd2412  T 03:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2017
Its mentioned in his soon to be ex-wife's twitter page that they have a 3yo sone Nicholas, which would make 4 children not 3.

Also, who are the biological mothers of AJ and Anthony Jr? Seicats (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * AJ and Anthony Jr are from Scaramucci's first marriage with Lisa (in addition to daughter Amelia). The article is updated. —ADavidB 03:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Treasury investigation regarding Russian Direct Investment Fund
http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-scaramucci-senate-russia-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

The article in Business Insider (link above) refers to a suspicion raised before Treasury by two Democratic Senators. This has been filed formally and officially, and Treasury confirmed they are assessing the facts and considering whether full investigation is warranted.

That merits inclusion next to the CNN section. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any wrongdoing, but clearly officials don't refute it either.

The wording shouldn't be partisan nor imply accusations. What's fair is to refer to the questions asked, especially as those are publicly available concerns documented officially.

1) Business Insider article "he White House's new communications director has been in senators' crosshairs" as of July 21, 2017 http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-scaramucci-senate-russia-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

2) Original request to the Treasury Secretary-Designate: "We are writing to bring to your attention" as of January 19, 2017 https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2017-01-19Letter_to_Mnuchin.pdf

3) Subsequent request to the same: "Last month, I sent you a letter" as of February 22,2017 https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/20170222_Warren_Letter_To_Mnuchin.pdf

Both (2) and (3) include extensive links to other sources that might also warrant inclusion in this article (perhaps with a reasonable review of their direct relevancy to Mr Scaramucci of course).

80.5.5.243 (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Oleg Mihailik July 30, 2017


 * I added a paragraph about his trip to Davos and the subsequent sanctions violations referral. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

it was reported that
can't we meet conscious? it is not a proven fact Trump fired/removed him... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * bump Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Either John Kelly or Donald Trump did, I'm not too sure, see: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/what-really-happened-scaramucci-n788356. M.W.B.A.B. 15:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2017
is a crimnal 85.244.16.246 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted two BLF defamatory statements
1) Her foul-mouthed husband. Vot der dumboozle?! 2) A defamation couched as a denial, like "He denied that he beat his mother." I admit that these statements made the narrative more funny with a ROFL, but they really were uncouth. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017
The following line starts off cut off and should be fixed: "said that Priebus "would resign soon". During the interview Scaramucci also said that he had contacted the FBI and the Department of Justice to investigate Priebus. "

Also, the quotes (both single and double) need to be fixed Wikigenstein (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The fragment is now joined with its original sentence in the prior paragraph. Scaramucci was mockingly quoting Priebus, and single quotes within double quotes are thus appropriate for that portion. —ADavidB 14:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017
Change Trump's chief of staff Reince Priebus also had "vehement objections" to his hiring. To Trump's then chief of staff Reince Priebus also had "vehement objections" to his hiring. Harikrishna.srirangam (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Added "then". —ADavidB 17:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017
Add "He was removed from office on July 31, 2017." Etclove (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The article already addresses his removal from the position before he could even take office. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"The Mooch"
Please discuss before reinstating derogatory term "The Mooch". This appears to run afoul of WP:BLP and is probably WP:UNDUE. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on how it's used. It's his nickname, used by himself. Objective3000 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That fact he used it himself was brought to my attention by another editor. All the more reason to avoid it, five years from now the subject of that bio may not want to be referred to as "The Mooch".  People do things and say things that at the time serve their egos and feel right, but later down the line become an embarrassment to them.  It may deserve mention, but to be honest it's an irrelevant brain fart from the subject of that bio and it's not particularly encyclopedic and sounds trashy.  It makes the subject of the bio look like a stupid dork calling himself a "mooch".  Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Trashy"? It's used, over and over again, by numerous major media outlets.[1 ][2 ][3 ][4 ][5 ] Frankly, it sounds like you have a personal aversion to the nickname. But when it's prominent - as here - it's entirely appropriate to give it mention on his page. Fixed245 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aware of all the press cites for it and I don't dispute what you say is correct about its usage, I just have a different view as to what is or is not low quality materials. I personally don't think it belongs in the article as it is not encyclopedic, but that's just my opinion, and I concede to the consensus of the editors which feel it is notable.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like nicknames are needed(especially in lead) unless it is a nickname that they are more commonly refereed to as than their real name. WikiVirus  C (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Take a stab at placing it in the right context in the article.  I challenged the edit, so it would be better if other editors attempted to correct its placement in the article. I've had my 1RR for today. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Excessive detail in personal life section?
Are all of the details in the Personal Life section really necessary for an encyclopedia page? What is the relevance to Anthony Scaramucci that his already-estranged wife gave birth two weeks early and that he was at an event with President Donald Trump at the time? Funcrunch (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I trimmed this section for now. If others disagree, please discuss here. Funcrunch (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with the trim, which has been reverted. Sounds tabloidish. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Erased again, per this discussion and WP:NOT. — JFG talk 20:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that it sounds tabloidish. Gandydancer (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the claim, cited to The Telegraph, that his wife filed for divorce because she dislikes Trump. The Telegraph article actually lists three reasons (attributed to "friends", not to her), of which dislike of Trump is the least. The others are his "naked ambition" and her unwillingness to move to Washington. The couple had been separated for months so the divorce filing was not unexpected. As noted above, we are not a tabloid, and we should not be going beyond mere reporting to indulge in juicy details about this private matter. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick note - even if his wife filed for divorce, he's still married. So the past tense "was" is inappropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted, and reworded accordingly. —ADavidB 11:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

ummm, is this really the truth / conscious / consciousness??
On July 31, 2017, Scaramucci was dismissed by President Donald Trump from his role as communications director. According to The New York Times, this was done at Kelly's request. An official White House statement indicated that Scaramucci had tendered his resignation "to give Chief of Staff John Kelly a clean slate and the ability to build his own team." Scaramucci's tenure of six days, from his unofficial start date on July 25 through his departure on July 31, is the shortest in history for that position, breaking the former record of 11 days that had been held by Jack Koehler in the Reagan administration. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The information matches the sources provided. If you have other reliable sources that provide different information, please share. —ADavidB 05:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

On the 1st February 2018 the Australian ABC TV ran an interview with Conor Duffy where Scaramucci said he had been in Afghanistan and Iraq. Surprising as he was not in the military. 2001:8003:A928:800:C874:4381:4B3E:20F2 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add a hatnote for the Mooch

-- 65.94.170.15 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅- although some may think that it is unlikely that someone looking for a different Mooch would type "The Mooch" I made a slight alteration as Mooch (disambiguation) redirects to Mooch so I've gone straight to Mooch to avoid the redirect - Arjayay (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had to revert the last bit; WP:INTDAB says we should link to the "(disambiguation)", even when it's a redirect. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Information in the lede about Kelly's involvement in his firing
User:Luckiest0522 added to the lede that Scaramucci was let go "likely due to the recommendation of Trump's new Chief of Staff, General John F. Kelly."  I removed "likely", leaving simply "on the recommendation of" Kelly, since pretty much all Reliable Sources are reporting as fact that Kelly made the recommendation (and that in fact he notified Scaramucci to his face that he was being let go). "Likely" was immediately restored by User:Beaglemix. I am going to remove it again and invite both editors to discuss it here. I don't see any need to use a hedge word like "likely" since the Reliable Sources are reporting it as fact. Also, to User:M.W.B.A.B. who restored a citation to the lede: we don't usually put citations in the lede, which are just supposed to summarize what's in the article. The citations go in the article text. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, someone decided to move the citation to the lede again when it was more appropriate in the article, which led to its deletion. I'll paste it back in the article where it is more appropriate as you mentioned above, since the citation contains updated info. Sorry about that. M.W.B.A.B. 16:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As you noted I had moved it to the text, but when someone reverted my removal of "likely" they also reverted my move of the reference. I hadn't noticed that. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks great. --Luckiest0522 (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Scaramucci as lawyer
"He never practiced law," according to NYT.[1 ] "Scaramucci did not practice after graduating from Harvard Law and went straight to Goldman Sachs."[2 ] So it's inappropriate to describe him as a lawyer. Fixed245 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice. Maybe it should be re-written as something like despite he went to Harvard Law and is currently registered in New York with an active legal license, the NYTimes and ALM have reported that he hasn't practiced law?? I think readers will have a fuller picture then. A non-practicing lawyer. I don't think you should wipe out the fact that he had to pass the difficult bar exam first before he could register as a lawyer. And in order to be eligible to sit for the bar exam, he had to have a Juris Doctor degree. So your edits are not proper. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to that effect in the body. Fixed245 (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

BA degree
Tufts does not have a school of economics.Halpaugh (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Tufts seems to disagree. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Tufts does not disagree. The link you provided specifically states DEPARTMENT of ECONOMICS (within the School of Arts and Sciences, no less), not school of economics.  These are two entirely different things in academia.  71.5.115.194 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link really says: "The Combined B.S./M.S. Degree Program in Economics is offered by the School of Arts and Sciences and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences." So there is no reference to either a school of economics, nor a department of economics. Merely a combined undergrad/grad economics degree offered by the joint undergrad/grad schools of arts and sciences. X4n6 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that it really matters, but I suggest you look at the page's header...it clearly states Department of Economics on the right-hand upper side. 71.5.115.194 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)