Talk:Joe Scarborough/Archive 1

Resignation
Did Joe Scarborough say at the time of his resignation from Congress that that he was leaving in part to launch a cable news show? If not, then I think the line "He left to spend more time with his children, practice law, and launch a cable news program" may be a bit misleading. Lorem Ipsum 08:43, Sept. 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Scarborough told the Pensacola News Journal in May, 2001 that he would be leaving Congress to spend more time with his children, practice law, and start a cable TV show. The only thing misleading is suggesting otherwise.


 * Also, the second paragraph is libel piled high on top of hearsay. Anyone who knows Joe and his family knows it is all a lie. Is this really what this website is for? Character assasination, libel and hearsay? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.198.100 (talk &bull; contribs).

I met one of Joe's former law clients who said, in a casual conversation, that Joe was discovered to have had an affair with a woman while he was married to his first wife. The former law client claimed that Joe's personal problems were caused by the affair and his first wife's announcement of her intent to divorce him, which she did. That was the reason for Joe's tearful news conference shown in Pensacola when he claimed that he needed more time with his children. The former client also said that she and her husband had to find another lawyer because Joe wasn't handling their case in a timely manner and, as a result, they were in danger of losing their case. His former law client didn't indicate any animosity about Joe, but she insisted that media reports were avoiding any mention of his extramarital affair. As I listened to her account, I remembered that Joe, while a Republican member of Congress, had been very vocal against former President Clinton because of his alleged affair with Monica Lewinski. I am a local resident in Pensacola.

Lori Klausutis
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

JPotter, I personally don't feel the paragraph implies anything nefarious, but apparently you do since you added an NPOV notice. While some people believe that Scarborough is guilty of something, I'm not interested in implying anything of the sort, just in reporting the fact that something happened. If you think the wording of the para. is inappropriate, please suggest some other way we could present these facts. Gamaliel 00:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

This is Joe again. This time I actually spelled my last name correctly. "Gameliel" (did I spell that wrong?), despite what you write below, anyone following the history of this page see that there have been three obvious themes that have been in question. As stated below, one had to do with my leaving Congress. The explanation regarding starting a cable news program was questioned repeatedly as possibly being misleading or false. I find it interesting that even after citing a Pensacola News Journal article that clearly stated in 2001 that I was leaving to spend more time with my family AND start a cable news program, you choose to once again delete that factually accurate information. It is not even that big of a deal. But it must be to you for some reason because you keep deleting it despite the fact that it is a matter of public record.

I really don't care, but I would like to know what your agenda is for deleting this factually accurate information from my bio. Why does it matter so much to you? Why delete it?

Secondly, the issue of who is identified as my mentor may not mean much to others, but it does mean something to me. I would suspect that you would not want Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush to be identified as your mentors if they were not.

And finally, your argument regarding dragging the death of a woman into my bio is laughable. Your motives are betrayed by linking my bio with an internet conspiracy site that says the employee who passed away in my office was the other Shandra Levy, if my memory serves me correctly.

So tell me, Gameliel, why do you insist on putting this info into my bio when no news organization regardless of its political bias would do that? What is your agenda? How is it relevant? Of all the speeches I have given, of the thousands of votes I have made in Congress, of the hundreds of articles I have written, of the hundreds of news shows on which I have appeared, can you really suggest with a straight face that the passing of an employee in an annex office that I met a few times and with whom I had no personal relationship should be in my bio?

Your comparison of me to Gary Condit (see comments below) again betray your bias and agenda. Unless you failed to follow the Condit case, Mr Condit and Ms Levy had a physical relationship. He lied about it. He was questioned by police. He was a suspect in the death. He was at the center of the story. No one with any knowledge of that case and the passing of Lori have made ANY similar comparisons. This has nothing to do with my feelings or Gary Condit's (as you mentioned below). This has to do with relevance to my life story.

Would you like the names of people I have known and loved whose deaths are relevant? Would you like to hear about my grandmother, or best friend, or others whose deaths were actually relevant to the development of my character and life story? Of course not. Again, like my real mentor Ed Moore, these stories are not controversial despite the fact they are more relevant to my bio than the inflammatory info you are trying to attach.

I suggest you pick up another hobby other than trying to attach her death to my bio and then glibly suggest that you are not implying wrong doing, while linking my bio to inflammatory sites. You are acting in bad faith.

And this is "the real Joe." If you would like, I would be glad to have my attorney send you a letter. unsigned comments from User:Joe Scarborough

I doubt the real Representative Scarborough would be petty enough to purposely misspell my username in a lame attempt to annoy me. And why would the real Scarborough need an attorney if he is one already? Most likely, that comment in a thinly vieled legal threat. Please take note of No legal threats.

I deleted a sentence that was a copyvio violation. Are you seriously suggesting that I want to hide the fact that the real Scarborough left the US House to be on cable TV? How ridiculous.

Some other links you should probably be aware of:


 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * Assume good faith
 * Username policy
 * Copyrights Gamaliel 03:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel,

You of all people bring up Wikipedia guidelines on personal attacks and civility after spending great energy attaching slanderous material to this website and comparing Condit's affair and obstruction of justice actions to the passing of Lori? And stop deleting important portions of the bio and claiming you are doing so because that material is copywrited. There are simple facts being laid out there and again, for whatever reason, you do not want them on the bio site. Your obsession seems fixed on fanning the flames of a conpiracy theory by linking it to this bio and linking a slanderous website to this one. You are the one who needs to read the guidelines on civility and fairness. BTW, any copywrited work contained in this bio is printed with the permission of the applicable sites.

Again, I suggest you choose a new hobby and instead focus on being intellectually honest in all bios you edit. unsigned comments from User:Joe Scarborough


 * 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 (&#5839;) 21:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Suggest cutting down the Klausutis paragraph
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)

copyvio material
I've just noticed that parts of this article are copied directly from http://www.joescarborough.com/about.aspx. I will attempt to remove them and replace them with non-controversial rewrites. While there are controversial issues involving this article, this shouldn't be one of them, so I'd ask that no one restore the copyvio material purposely or accidentally as a result of reverting. It would be easier to do it this way that to go through the hassle of listing this on Copyright problems. Gamaliel 20:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Responding to the note on WP:AN. The Klausutis paragraph is a bit heavy, it could use some trimming but it definitely deserves a mention. I wouldn't give too much thought to the disruption of this article by User:Joe Scarborough. I started a username RFC on this user since they are obviously not the real Scarborough, see Requests for comment/Joe Scarborough. Anyway the copyvios and personal attacks are unacceptable. I don't believe the neutrality dispute tag is justified by the minor problems with the Klausutis para. In short, I see no real problems with this article. Rhobite 21:52, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to Gamaliel for his civil discourse on this issue and attempting to bring in fresh eyes to the subject. --JPotter 23:07, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Poll
Should the paragraph on Lori Klausutis be included in this article? This poll will conclude on Feb 1, 2005

Option 1 - Yes
 * 1) But trim it. Also, do we really need a poll? Rhobite 23:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) No question, but willing to discuss alternative wording. Gamaliel 17:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, but make the language stating Joe's nonimplication stronger. --Bletch 20:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) "Never forget." Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, definitely.  Tever99 23 January 2006 11:38 (UTC)

Option 2 - No


 * 1) --JPotter 23:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot just resort to polls as soon as a dispute emerges. Polls are a last resort in cases that were discussed over and over, and all positions are perfectly clear. WP is about consensus, so try to build one. dab (&#5839;) 09:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It has been discussed. Neither side sees the virtue in the other side's arguments. A poll is perfectly legitimate here in order to reach a concensus. --JPotter 16:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only thing that has been discussed has been the extreme alternatives - keep it all in or take it all out. I'm willing to discuss meeting in the middle somewhere. Gamaliel 17:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I decided to be bold. I trimmed down the Klausutis paragraph. The first sentence was grammatically incorrect, the subject was "he" but it referenced Klausutis. There was no investigation to speak of, so I took out the part about "the investigation was never pursued" And troublingly, I couldn't find a single reference to "Theopholis" or "Steve Salmon" aside from Wikipedia. Could be vandalism. So, are my changes OK? Rhobite 18:17, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

There's been no discussion for about a week. Are Rhobite's changes acceptable? Can we table this issue? Gamaliel 00:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think his changes are fine. --JPotter 05:18, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lori Klausutis (still)
Although it has been watered down a little from the original, it's still POV cruft. Take a look at the web link. It's an extremely biased political opinion site. And one of the points of the piece was to complain that the mainstream press doesn't think this is newsworthy. Mirror Vax 19:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The NPOV requirement doesn't extend to links. Many articles on Wikipedia have links to "biased" opinion pieces.  And contrary to your edit summary, it is my understanding that this dispute was resolved with Rhobite's compromise version.  Gamaliel 19:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm objecting to the text, not the link. But the two are related. The link is the "explaination" for the text. Mirror Vax 20:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by that. Gamaliel 20:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The article does not say why it's important that somebody died of natural causes in the office. The reader is left to wonder if there is some implied scandal or controversy. The only "explaination" is found in the biased web article. Mirror Vax 20:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * His employee, his office, relevant to him. It clearly states that he is guilty of nothing.  Nothing is implied.  Nothing implicates Scarborough other than what is read into it by people determined to find something.  Gamaliel 20:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The mainstream media did not think it was relevant at the time, but it is relevant in a 200-word summary of his entire life? As for "nothing is implied", that is false. Importance is implied. And importance further implies scandal or controversy. Add to that the biased link which claims that there is (or should be) scandal and controversy. Mirror Vax 21:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Why does importance=guilt? An employee of his died in his office - that's important to him and his career, I don't see how it can't be important, but the fact that it is important to his life doesn't mean he played a role in her death.  As far as guilt, the fact that some people think he is guilty is significant, no?  I personally think he is not at all guilty and by advocating the inclusion of this information I don't intent to imply anything, but there is a significant POV that needs to be documented in some fashion. Gamaliel 21:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll notice I didn't use the word "guilt". I said "scandal or controversy" is implied.
 * If you think it's important, then explain why. How did it affect his personal life? His career? Be specific, cite sources.
 * I'm not aware of anyone who thinks he is "guilty" (of what?) But if they exist, and they are credible, then that view should be mentioned in the article. Mirror Vax 21:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, you didn't use the word guilt. I still don't see how even scandal is implied merely by mentioning a factual event that no one disputes actually happened. And I don't see the fear that someone might infer scandal as a reason to remove this event. Gamaliel 07:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Watered down POV cruft is still POV cruft. The relevance needs to be explained. It might be relevant if, for example, it caused a media sensation. But it didn't, because there was nothing particularly sensational about the fact that an employee died of natural causes in a Congressman's office. Mirror Vax 14:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything sensational about it at all. But the relevance is easily explained. His employee, his office, relevant to his life and career. Gamaliel 17:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The articles makes no mention of any relevance to his "life and career". It certainly isn't self-evident that the natural death of someone unrelated to him would affect him in any major way. Again, if it has some relevance, the article should say so, and explain in specific detail how it changed his life. Mirror Vax 19:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Mirror Vax. The four-sentence paragraph about Klausutis is an appropriate length, and neutral. Please point out specific changes you'd like to see made to the paragraph. I don't think removing it would be the correct action, so please suggest specific changes which would improve the paragraph, in your opinion. I also agree with Gamaliel, I'm sure Scarborough had nothing to do with the death but it should still be mentioned here. Rhobite 17:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The paragraph needs to explain the relevance. Otherwise, in connection with the link, it's POV. Did it cause a media sensation? Did it affect his life in any way - if so, how? Just letting it sit there with no explaination as to relevance (other than the link) is not appropriate. Any intelligent reader will ask himself, "Why are they telling me this? It must mean something, but what?" Mirror Vax 19:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the relevance of saying where Scarborough was born? Does that sentence need to explain itself too? What's the relevance of anything in any article? Ordinarily on Wikipedia, we don't require every sentence to explain its importance to the reader. Should we remove the mention of Vince Foster from Bill Clinton's article? Remove Chandra Levy from Gary Condit? If not, why are those cases different? Rhobite 02:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's what the Clinton article says about Vince Foster: "Clinton was viewed with intense personal animosity by some on the far right. Several lurid accusations were leveled by conservative talk radio. Among these were rumors of involvement with drug traffickers, personal cocaine use, and involvement in the death of long-time friend and aide Vince Foster (ruled a suicide)."


 * Here's what the Gary Condit article says about Chendra Levy: "In 2001, Condit became the subject of considerable news coverage, after Chandra Levy, a Washington, D.C. intern originally from Condit's district, disappeared. Condit, a married man, did not intially disclose that he had been involved in an ongoing affair with Ms. Levy." [etc]


 * See? In each of the cases you mentioned there's an explaination provided. I guess you think those words should be deleted as superfluous, because it is all self-evident, just like a birthday? Mirror Vax 05:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added that Michael Moore put registered the domain in reponse to Scarborough frequently saying that Moore "hates America." It wasn't that Moore was trying to investigate conspiracy theories, he was trying to one up Scarborough. I dont think the registration thing should even been mentioned. It has very little to do with who the article is about and much to do with Michael Moore.

most liberal/most conservative?
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)


 * 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)

Lori Klausutis (STILL!)
It's POV even to mention it. No mainstream, non-partisan sources believe there's a story. I'm meeting you halfway. Mirror Vax 08:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Two problems 1) Why are you removing those particular facts? 2) Don't you see the pov problem with the contemptuous tone of that sentence and the word "scandal" in quotes? Gamaliel 08:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, the tone was a bit contemptuous. Fixed. Mirror Vax 08:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, I really don't like making an issue of this since I think we're pretty near a compromise, but you haven't even attempted to explain why you keep removing those facts and you are insisting on a POV characterization of Scarborough's critics, which is clearly unacceptable. Gamaliel 08:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not insisting on a "POV characterization". I'm insisting on a neutral characterization; you're insisting on no characterization. Why shouldn't the "some" be characterized accurately? I notice you haven't argued that the "some" are not biased, partisan, sources. It's highly relevant. We are talking about an ultra-partisan fringe complaining that the New York Times is soft on....on natural deaths, I guess.


 * As for the other lines I keep deleting, I'm trying to keep this concise. "Scarborough was never implicated in Klausutis' death" is completely redundant (and confusing) once it is mentioned that the death was by natural causes. Mirror Vax 06:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the problems I thought you had with this article was that you thought it implied Scarborough was guilty of something, so I favored that particular sentence because it says straight out that he was not involved. But I see your point, and we can agree on tossing out that sentence.


 * I think it's ironic that in an article about a partisan cable tv hack that we can't describe the subject of the article as such, but you propose we apply similar labels to his critics. Sorry, I can't abide by that sort of double standard. Gamaliel 22:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Mirror Vax, please stop removing the Klausutis paragraph. There's no consensus to remove it. You're removing factual content from an article, an unacceptable action. Nobody has agreed with this removal, and you've given no real reason for it other than calling the entire paragraph POV. Rhobite 01:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is non-newsworthy material that serves no purpose other than to promote a fringe POV. Still, I was willing to accept it, provided that the POV was accurately and neutrally characterized. Gamaliel did not accept this. So I'm going to once again demand that you explain the relevance. Nobody has cited any credible, non-partisan sources who think there's a parallel between this and Gary Condit. Mirror Vax 15:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly willing to accept all of your changes provided they are actually "neutrally characterized". "Commentators who favor democrats" is not a neutral characterization but a POV way of dismmissing these views as partisan griping. Gamaliel 17:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, it is partisan griping. So if the reader gets that impression, that would be correct. On the other hand, if the partisan nature of the POV is suppressed, as you favor, the reader will get the wrong impression that the "some" are credible, non-partisan sources. Mirror Vax 18:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your personal judgement that these sources are non-credible and partisan is POV. Gamaliel 18:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Passing judgement on credibility of sources is something we do here. The New York Times really is more credible than a drooling mental patient, for example. Do you disagree? Mirror Vax 21:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, the rules of NPOV do not allow us to use a phrase like "drooling mental patient" in an article. Gamaliel 07:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So your view is that every source is equally credible? And furthermore, that any hint of non-credibility (no matter how neutrally stated) must be suppressed? Mirror Vax 18:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this entry
Why is the largest paragraph on Joe Scarborough's page about the death of a woman from natural causes that he had minimal connection to? The mainstream media has deemed this as being not newsworthy with regard to Mr. Scarborough, but at Wikipedia people seem to have their own agendas.

There's also a huge innacuracy at the end of his entry. He is listed as a political moderate. That's just silliness. He's a Republican from the conservative panhandle of Florida. On his own show he often comments on representing the "Redneck Riviera (sp?)" and the conservative veterans and military families in the area. He has also said on his show on numerous occassions that he likes to think of himself as being libertarian more than conservative. He is also a member of a fairly conservative Baptist denomination.

These are unacceptable mistakes considering people come to this website to get quickly consume information that they are likely to repeat to others. If people leave this website telling their friends about the connection between Lauri Klausitus and Mr. Scarborough or about his moderate politicl stance, then this website has done a disservice to all those unwittingly involved in a stupid feud between some people on the Internet passing their poltical beef off as NPOV.

Amen. Just because someone was at odds with Newt Gingrich during his tenure in the House does not make him a "moderate". And although he currently is at odds with Senate leader Bill Frist, John McCain is not a "moderate" either. I think there is a conspiracy among knee-jerk Democrats to slap "moderate" and "conservative" labels on Republicans in the hope that the party will magically crack in two and all the "moderates" will start voting Democrat. But I guess if I thought George W. Bush was stupid and he beat me in three straight elections, I'd be saying some pretty incoherent things as well.


 * This is insane. It is not OK to remove verified, factual information from articles. Please stop. I'm very open to a compromise on the wording, and I'm sure Gamaliel is too. Completely removing mention of the Klausitis incident is not an option. Rhobite 00:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I listed this dispute on WP:RFC (again), since some editors have taken to simply deleting information that displeases them. Rhobite 00:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history, I bent over backwards to appease the fringe POV pushers, but it was not accepted (the sticking point was stating that Michael Moore "favors Democracts", which is about as controversial as calling the Pope a Catholic). You are welcome to add any material that is factual, neutral, and newsworthy. And I will delete anything that is not factual, neutral, and newsworthy. Fair enough? Mirror Vax 02:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I honestly think that people are insisting on including this snippet in order to create a sense of a "conspiracy theory" within the media with regards to the Klausitis death. It was not an incident that is even comparable to the whole Condit situation, and to be honest, its just a POV attempt to discredit Joe Scarborough. This is not how a typical encyclopedia article is written - if Joe Scarborough was involved in her death, I could understand; however, he had NOTHING to do with her death, and barely even knew her. The constant desire to keep this in the article is putting politics into this article. This should just be a SIMPLE article about Joe Scarborough, yet various parties are insisting into turning it into a POV assessment that meets presents a non NPOV. If we're going to document deaths of aides that are completly unrelated to a person, why don't we mention the deaths of aides for John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and even Fred Thompson? These people had aides die in their office, in fact, Nancy Pelosi's aide died of a suspcious heart attack as well, yet NO MENTION in her article. This is a gross attempt at discrediting someone. Anonymous

This is absurd. MV, I was willing to agree with every single one of your changes once you finally explained them, with the exception of three words which constitute a POV dismissal of a particular argument, something which you pretty much openly admit on this page. That's hardly bending over backwards for consensus or NPOV or anything else. Gamaliel 15:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Why have you refused to address any of my points above, and only Mirror Vax's? Anonymous


 * Despite my repeatedly stating my reasoning for supporting the inclusion of this material in the article on this talk page, you have labeled it "just a POV attempt to discredit Joe Scarborough" and thus have accused me of attempting to slander Scarborough and lying about my motives. I don't think that accusation is worthy of a response. Gamaliel 19:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but I won't retract or apologize for what I said. You have three other famous people/politicians whose aides deaths aren't mentioned, on top of that, you have many famous people documented on Wikipedia whose aides/employees deaths aren't documented here, yet you never answer why we must document Joe Scarborough's aide's death in his article explicitly. Your responses to why it should be included means we should include employee deaths in every single article about some who was the boss/superior of another person.


 * I think we should take it on a case by case basis, and in this particular case I think it merits inclusion. I have no idea why the articles for the three people you mentioned do or do not include a particular piece of information as I have never edited those three articles and do not have any knowledge of those cases. Gamaliel 19:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "How does Gary Condit feel about it?" - Gamaliel


 * "Should we remove the mention of Vince Foster from Bill Clinton's article? Remove Chandra Levy from Gary Condit? If not, why are those cases different?" - Rhobite


 * We don't have to guess at motives. The POV pushers have stated their motives, which is to promote the (false, non-newsworthy) view that there is some analogy with the Gary Condit thing. Mirror Vax 19:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Gary Condit wasn't did not answer direct questions about Chandra Levy, plus Condit has an affair with Chandra Levy that ruined his political career - since it was discovered after her death. That does apply to his article. Joe Scarborough aide's death did not expose any affair, since their wasn't one, plus Joe Scarborough has been honest and direct about her death; he wasn't even in the area when she died for crying out loud! For Vince Foster, his suicide was a result of an investigation into the Clinton's pre-presidential political activities, as well as improper fund raising practices. His suicide was to avoid questioning, as established by the mainstream media. Joe Scarborough's aide does not meet the critera for even being COMPARED to these two other people. Think about it. I'm trying to make a point - that the mention of her death does not apply to an ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE. Anonymous


 * There is no evidence that I'm aware of to make the claim that Vince Foster killed himself "to avoid questioning". If anything, it was because of the public slander in the Wall Street Journal, as he mentioned in his suicide note. It's pretty well established that he was clinically depressed and was taking medication at the time of his suicide. Gamaliel 19:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Still, he was being slandered over activites DIRECTLY RELATED to the Clintons (ie stuff he was ordered to do). However, do you admit the point then that Gary Condit/Chandra Levy really can't be compared to Joe Scarborough? You failed to answer that question.

Request for comments
This sounds interesting, but before I can make any comments I really need to know what's going on... and I haven't got a spare hour or three to read all the above :-). So if the keepers and the cutters could clearly and briefly outline their respective positions, that would be great! Dan100 21:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. One of Joe Scarborough's aides died in his office while he was a congressman. Outside of some brief mentions, there was hardly any media coverage. Nobody (here or elsewhere) has suggested that Scarborough had anything to do with the death. Gamaliel and I feel that the incident should still be briefly mentioned in the article, in a neutral manner. A couple months ago, there was a disagreement about the paragraph's neutrality. We ended up rewriting the paragraph to emphasize that Scarborough was not involved in the death. That dispute was resolved amicably.


 * Now, Mirror Vax has demanded that "the paragraph needs to explain the relevance", claiming that even mentioning the incident is a NPOV violation. He has continuously edit warred to remove the paragraph entirely. I have always been open to a compromise, but Mirror Vax has never suggested ways the paragraph could be improved, he just deletes it every chance he gets.


 * This has descended into a sterile revert war, so your comments are very appreciated. Thanks. Rhobite 23:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Honestly, looking at the RFC and the history of the edits of this page, I feel that this little edit war warrants a protect until it is sorted out. Now, the paragraph does not seem to be a NPOV violation IMO, but I do have to agree, the death of someone in an office *MAY* not warrant the attention of this article. I am inclined to agree with the above point that many other articles here don't detail the deaths of aides/employees in the respective person's office. Perhaps I'm kind of being naive in the matter but that is one point I do tend to agree with. Maybe this could be resolved by a separate article about the incident. The only reason why I see that this incident should be mentioned in this article is in fact what Michael Moore did state - that the mainstream media didn't bother covering this incident as much as Condit's little incident. Was their a rumor of a sexual relationship going on though? Perhaps Mirror Vax should come in here and explain why he insists on deleting the paragraph instead of discussing it, especially if their was an amicable resolution beforehand. Conradrock 01:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was one of the people involved in this dispute a couple of months ago and we worked out a compromise. In the end I didn't feel the paragraph was justified, but we changed it substantially from its original form to make it much less indictful. My problem with the paragraph, is that it reeks of partisan bias and sensationalism. The reason that Condit's aide's death is notable, is because there were rumors of an affair and he was a person of interest in the disspearance. Neither of these two circumstances are present in this case.The only people who have made an issue of the death, are highly partisan. The "his office, his aide" holds absolutely no water, in my opinion, barring some mitigating factors that would make it note worthy that someone's employee died at their place of work. Barring those factors, people die at work everyday and I see no reason to include that in an encylopedia article about the employer. --JPotter 21:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. You thought Rhobite's compromise paragraph was fine back in January, but now you think it "reeks of partisan bias"? All along we have been more than willing to discuss alternative wording of the paragraph, and if you thought it was worded in a biased manner, why did you not mention it in January? Perhaps you could suggest some alternative wording which you feel is appropriate. Gamaliel 18:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Rhobite for the reply. I'd really like to hear from the other party too :-) Dan100 07:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm still hoping MirrorVax will put his side too - it's always good to hear from everything. But from what I've heard so far including a simple paragraph mentioning that the aide died in Scarborough's office, but that Scarborough himself had nothing to do with it. I'd say mention it, because it's interesting. Beyond that though, we must stick to what is verifiable, which seems no more than that Scarborough had nothing to do with the death.

I can understand editors wanting to include judgements on the relative media attention given to this and similar incidents. I do feel that that is original research. If, however, someone like Michael Moore did comment on it, I think it's reasonable to say that, given Moore's status as a, struggling for the right word here, pundit?

However if that's all in the past and dealt with, I don't want to rake up old, settled disputes. So it really is down to MirrorVax to make his case, or the article should simply be left with the paragraph included. Dan100 22:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

User:Old Right deleted the paragraph now. I'm going to revert it back since no one has made their case. Now, I am open for removing the paragraph because of some of the points made above, not as a partisan issue, but because the death of someone's aide in their office doesn't really warrant too much attention - people die all of the time, after all, and nothing was traced back to Joe Scarborough, other than the fact that it occured in his office. However, I don't know the whole story, nor am I going to participate in a revert war. Rhobite's and Gamaliel's arguments really aren't convincing me to be pro or con removal, but I would love to hear from Old Right or MirrorVax until I completly make up my mind. Conradrock 06:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the paragraph about Mr. Scarborough's aid is completely unnecessary. He was not investigated by the police as a suspect, no one involved in the case has even listed him as a person of interest. As far as the law is concered, he has no involvement in the case other than he knew her. To keep this in there sets a precident that "if the topic of an article knows someone that dies, we have to mention it." It's irresponsible for an encyclopedia to just list everyone who died that knows the subject, especially when reading it leads me to believe he was involved somehow. I am not a registered voter, nor a fan of his program. I honestly don't care what he does, but I am in the criminal justice system. This is inappropriate to put this in there. I read it as "he was involved somehow". Count me on the "take it out" boat. RegBarc 00:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is Joe Scarborough again. I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia would allow "Gamaliel" to continue putting the death of an employee who I barely knew as the central focus of my life and career. I was in Congress seven years, was part of a political movement that dramatically changed government in the 1990s, pushed through landmark legislation (according to President Clinton) on long term health care, pushed through the relocation of over 300 minority families from a Superfund site (US News say the 1st environmental action of its kind), and have done thousands of things more relevant than having a person die in an annex office--again, a person I did not know personally. The comparison between this case and Condit is perverse. It is also cruel to leave the impression that this now-deceased woman had an affair behind her husband's back before dying. She cannot defend herself and her family cannot move past the pain of loss because of hateful people trying to make the point that the press is tougher on Democrats than Republicans. I would suggest they are tougher on Democrats sexually involved with an intern who dies than a Republican who barely knows a annex office worker in Okaloosa Country when the Republican works in DC.

All I can say is get a life and stop being so cruel.

Also, the question below regarding my "misleading" departure from Congress shows bad faith when I explained below in my previous comments that anyone interested in learning the truth could simply look at the Pensacola News Journal article announcing my departure where I say I am leaving to spend more time with my family, practice law, and start a cable news outlet. The fact that so much bad faith and malice has been exhibited in my bio has now convinced me that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a biographical source. Apparently, the inmates are running the prison here. unsigned comment from 65.0.156.132


 * If you have information you feel should be included in the article, please provide links to some sources and we will gladly incorporate it where appropriate. Assuming you are Mr. Scarborough, which is doubtful, it is a shame that you have chosen to, without any evidence, assume malice and bad faith where there is merely a difference of opinion. Gamaliel 3 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]], there was a RFC. The people decided that this paragraph doesn't have a place in this article. Why do you insist on reverting to suit YOUR opinion instead of going with the decision of your peers? 67.18.109.218 5 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't see a consensus for removal nor do I see this 5-2 vote that you claimed happened. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Mr. Scarborough has stated personally here he has a problem with this article. 207.191.7.122 6 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

The paragraph should be removed. In any traditional paper encyclopedia it would not be present, because it has nothing to do with the person's life and is merely an attempt to make the subject look bad. No traditional encyclopedia editor would even remotely consider including this paragraph. That should tell you something. Wasted Time R 6 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

I just regisered as zmom. I watch Joe's show and I think this mention of his aide's death is slanderous and irrelevant. It has no place in the article. By putting it there you lead people to assume things.

The Rhobite/Gamaliel show
I dropped out of this discussion because User:Rhobite and User:Gamaliel (they seem to be joined at the hip) were trying to make me the issue, falsely claiming that it was "resolved" before I came along, and falsely stating that they were open to compromise but none had been attempted. They have continued their revert war unabated in my absence.

Rhobite solicited comments, and then completely ignored them. What does that tell you? It tells me the request was not made in good faith. People who made comments wasted their time. Mirror Vax 09:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It was resolved in January. You reopened the issue in April.


 * We are open to compromise. As anyone can see above, there were no objections to any of the changes you made with the exception of three words. We could have easily forged a compromise had you been willing.  Don't try to blame this on us. Gamaliel 15:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It was never resolved. Even the ONE person you thought you had convinced doesn't actually agree with your position. And what about the others that never gave any hint of agreeing?


 * Your statement that you are "open to compromise" is laughable. You did not compromise one tiny bit. All the compromising was on my side, and I ended up moving within an inch of your position. Even then, you were not satisfied. Sure, we could have "forged a compromise" - just as long as no compromise on your part was required. Anyway, all that stuff is off the table. We're starting with a blank slate. I will entertain your offers. Prove that you are open to compromise by moving far from your current position. Mirror Vax 17:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in your ultimatums. If you have an actual proposal, please offer it so we can discuss it. Your previous proposal was almost entirely acceptable and could have easily let to a satisfactory outcome had you not decided to give up and play the marytr. Gamaliel 17:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * When you offer to consider my proposals, that's being "open to compromise". But you sure don't like it when I offer to consider your proposals. That's an "ultimatum"! I am offering to consider any and all proposals you may have. That's very generous of me, isn't it? I'm so open to compromise it hurts.


 * Again, I agree that a satisfactory - to you - outcome was possible if no compromise was required on your part. I'm sorry, but that only counts as being open to capitulation. Mirror Vax 17:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems you are more interested in talking about how no one but you is open to compromise than in actually finding a compromise. Gamaliel 18:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree Gamaliel, this paragraph has no bearing in an encyclopedia. There really is no compromisable issue here - after all, why does the paragraph belong? Why does the death of an aide to whom someone is not linked, or even suspected of, mentioned in a biographical article? This is no where near comparable to the Condit/Levy incident as Condit was directly questioned, and initially suspected in her disappearance, plus Levy just left the company of Condit hours before her disappearance. The Klaustis case has been closed, determined to be a death caused by natural causes, and Scarborough was determined to be in Washington DC at the time of her death. This paragraph has no bearing and really doesn't belong. Perhaps it could be incorporated into a separate article about her, but a death determined by a medical examiner and the police to not be a homicide does not belong.

Now, if we want to get started about consipiracy theories, that'll open up a whole other can of worms. Conradrock 20:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there is no compromise here. If you say anything, you've said too much. I follow the news pretty closely, but I'd never heard of this "issue" until I ran across it in Wikipedia when looking at the article for another reason. I should still have never heard of it. Wasted Time R 20:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to see that info expanded and moved into a separate article. Wikipedia is not paper, and if we have room for the astrologer who sued NASA, then we have room for a Michael Moore conspiracy theory. --Bletch 01:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There's the slight difference that the astrologer is not defamed by the NASA story (she's the one initiated it) whereas Scarborough is defamed by this "story" (which he had nothing to do with).  Sometimes the strongest thing any publisher can do is to decide not to publish something.  Wikipedia is a publisher.   Wasted Time R 01:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; then how about all of the info be moved to a separate article, expanded to include Scarborough's "alibi" (for lack of a better word), and the presense on this article be reduced to a footnote? I think that it is important to include this sort of info simply because someone may have read the allegation on (just for the sake of argument) Moore's web site and want to find out Wikipedia's (hopefully) neutral take on the story.  If I knew more about the situation, I'd would have tried my hand at this.  Just an idea... --Bletch 01:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Mirror Vax, I am open to any compromise you propose. The way I remember it, you threw your hands up in disgust, blanked the paragraph a bunch of times, and left the article. If you propose a compromise about the Klausutis paragraph I'm all ears. I actually haven't visited this article in a while and I'm disappointed at how the paragraph has become bloated and speculative. I removed mention or Michael Moore (needs cite), the "lack of a sexual relationship" (irrelevant and speculative), and weasel words like Klausutis was "supposedly" alone in the office. I hope this is a step in the right direction. If you continue to insist that the paragraph be removed entirely, I'm sorry, but that doesn't resemble any compromise I've heard of. Rhobite 02:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in playing supplicant to you. Been there, done that. I am willing to consider any proposals you have. So far you have not shown the slightest willingness to compromise. Instead, you repeat your absolute demands while refusing to engage the discussion that YOU initiated by soliciting comments. Is it because of arrogance, or because you can't think of any good arguments in favor of your position? Mirror Vax 04:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * When you're done hurling insults, please let me know what you think of the changes I made today. They're an attempt at a compromise. I'm open to mediation too. Don't want to speak for Gamaliel but I'd be surprised if he wasn't interested. Rhobite 04:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * All you did was put it back the way you like it. Compromise means accepting something you don't like. "Open to mediation"? You've already wasted the time of many people by soliciting comments and then ignoring them. Now you propose to rope in even more people and waste their time too? Mirror Vax 05:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Based on your responses I'm forced to construe that you're not interested in making a proposal of your own, nor are you interested in attempting mediation. The Michael Moore sentence has been here for months - I am proposing that we remove it as part of this compromise. Do you agree? Rhobite 05:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I don't agree. My position all along has been that you need to explain the relevance. Why is the event newsworthy? It certainly isn't self-evident. The Michael Moore sentence is at least an attempt at relevance. So your edits are no "compromise"; all they do is make the paragraph more cryptic. More explaination is needed rather than less (that is, if the event merits any mention at all - which I don't think it does). Mirror Vax 08:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, please post your expanded paragraph here so we can discuss it. Rhobite 14:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is already plenty on this page for you to discuss. You completely ignored the comments you solicited. By not engaging the many cogent arguments offered it appears that you are not interested in meaningful dialogue. Mirror Vax 16:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I like Bletch's suggestion--expanding the topic as a seperate article could actually make it more neutral by providing room to incorporate any alibis or extra information that is relevant. The topic could be virtually removed from Scarborough's main page and thus reduced to an apparent low importance to anyone seeking biographic information about him. Wikipedia is a great source of information, and I think that covering this topic here--especially if couched in the evidence, which appears NOT to indicate any involvement on the part of Scarborough--would be useful to people who may read/have read about the conspiracy theory and are seeking more information. I can't see how anyone can be overly opposed to both adding more information and lessening its relevance to his bio. You can have your cake and eat it too. liquidcycle 02:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess this is an option, if there is enough to write about the incident. I don't think a separate article would give us license to add speculation about whether or not Klausutis was "supposedly" alone, or whether she had a sexual relationship with Scarborough. Those accusations are pure speculation on our part. Rhobite 03:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * While we might not have a license to add our own speculation, it does give us license to report on speculation that others have made. I'm sure that congressional aides die all the time; the fact that this discussion exists implies that something is special, even if what makes this one "special" is (hypothetically) the mere fact that a bunch of conspiracy theories are being thrown around some blogs on the internet.  Reading the paragraph as it stands, it is impossible to ascertain whether that is the case, or whether Scarborough has actually been suspected.  Hell, you learn more about the issue by reading this talk page than the article itself.  --Bletch 12:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The only people who care about this "unexpected event" are people who claim that Scarborough killed Klausitis and that the nefarious "corporate media" had a double standard with regards to Condit. I don't think a "compromise" is possible on material like this. J. Parker Stone 07:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I've skimmed the dispute and I have to agree with MV. Characterizing an accusation from the fringe as an accusation from the fringe is not POV. No mainstream outlet reported on this -- the only time I read about it was on a site ranting about how the "right-wing" media had a double standard with Condit-Scarborough. If a group or individual making a claim has a certain ideological agenda that may impact their judgment it should be noted, just as it is in every other article. J. Parker Stone 08:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am a liberal Democrat, Bush-hater, etc. But I'm also an attorney. I think including the paragraph on Lori Klausitis is grossly unfair - especially since there is NO PROOF Scarbourough was involved in any way. In addition, the entry is huge - it takes up almost half of the "life & career" section - leaving the reader with the impression that this incident was a "defining moment" of Scarbourough's career, which it was not. In addition, mentioning "Gary Condit" leaves a false impression that the two had a relationship, and there's no proof of that either. The whole paragraph just reads like a political attempt to smear Scarbourough - borderline libel. If Wikipeida is going to be a reputable reference source, it needs to be objective & unbiased. I think unless SOME link is confirmed between Scarbourgh & this woman, her death should not be mentioned at all. At the very least, par it down to one sentence, remove the Condit reference, & make clear that Scarbourough was never implicated in her death. Leaving it really makes Wikipedia look bad, IMHO. - Marie

OK, I've deleted the paragrsph, sorry to be so drastic. Feel free to put it back. But I think if you want to include that, it really belongs somewhere else - maybe under Micheal Moore's entry or "conspiracy theories"? - Marie

Wow, someone put back in the whole paragraph 5 minutes after I deleted it. You guys are quick. - Marie
 * Marie, since there is an ongoing discussion here, simply deleting it without others' input won't work. As noted exhaustively in this talk page, the inclusion/exclusion or content of the paragraph are very controversial. If you do something unilaterally, one side or the other is bound to revert it.
 * It does currently use 8 lines as opposed to 14 others on my screen in that section, so it isn't "almost half". In fact, Scarborough's defenders seem to want to put more if anything is included at all, so that it is fully explained.
 * BTW, one's personal politics are not relevant here. I vote for Mickey Mouse every time. (j/k) --Habap 18:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems like a lot of people have said that it doesn't belong, yet it stays. And in looking over the edit history, the thing has actually gotten longer & more in-depth over time, instead of being pared down. I think I can give a somewhat-informed opinion, because I used to work as a news editor. And I can tell you that  no newspaper  would publish this paragraph as it is written. So why is it being published in an "objective" encyclopedia article? Indeed, it looks like no newspaper or reputable media has published this story, which is why the paragraph relies on left-wing blogs & conspiracy sites as its main sources. It's a self-referencing circle - using Internet opinions to supposedly prove a fact. So can I start a web-site claiming Cheney is an alien & later put that info in Wikipedia? People tend to trust the info here (I did) - & this info could easily go up the chain as a "source" for other mainstream articles. Maybe that's how people want to spread these rumors beyond conspiracy sites, but I don't think it's justified or accurate in this case. Just my two cents, I guess. Marie26 22:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The factual data does ultimately derive from newspaper reports and other objective sources, so it's not quite fair to say it's at the level of "Cheney is an alien". Opinions are also represented as opinions too. The paragraph in question has correctly characterized this as a far-out theory with a number of holes. When you it's not "justified" that sounds like you want to make a judgement that the factual information should be removed, but that sounds like imposing POV on the facts (something that news organizations like Fox have gotten all too comfortable with lately, IMHO). Stan 00:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed. That's my preference, but I know that opinion is split & it's not fair to the people who believe it should stay. But on the other hand, I guess you could argue leaving it isn't fair to the people who want it to go. I think it should be a compromise - shorter or maybe in it's own article. Marie26
 * Marie, some people thing it should go, some people think it should stay. Personally, I am pretty much indifferent, but I am curious whether you are a lawyer or a former news editor or both (since they are very different career paths, requiring a number of years to accomplish). It sounds as though you are trying to lend extra weight to your arguments by describing yourself. The arguments really ought to stand on their own. If I claimed to be an alien, it would lend exactly zero additional weight to an assertion that Cheney was one also (and probably convince everyone I was loony in the process). --Habap 13:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've been both. Newspaper copy desk editor for 2 years, attorney now for only one. I just mentioned editing cause part of my job was fact-checking stories & making sure statements were true. With the sources given, this paragraph wouldn't stand in a newspaper bio. But maybe an Internet bio has different criteria, who am I to judge? I'm not sure why I care, maybe just cause it seems misleading & salacious to me. But I know reasonable people can disagree. And I think an alien would be be a pretty good source for the Cheney story! Marie26 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting. As to the alien story, if I claimed to be on on the internet, I expect that people wouldn't believe me and thus wouldn't believe my story. Just as for the facts of the story, claims about my other-worldly roots shouldn't be taken for granted just because I assert them.
 * On the other hand, I suspect that if we said nothing about Klausutis and someone had read something on a lunatic fringe website, they would assume that the "failure to mention" the event (and Michael Moore's groundless charges) would mean Wikipedia was "controlled by the Right Wing Conspiracy" rather than an attempt at an impartial reporting of facts. Thus, I suspect that Internet bios do, in fact, have different criteria.
 * I am not really an alien, as far as I know.... ;-) --Habap 15:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Lori Klausutis (again)
Why is this constantly being inserted into this article? It has nothing to do with Joe Scarborough and looking at the edit history, many people agree, but it keeps getting inserted into the article. Could somone who supports this being in the article explain how it is relevant here? People die all the time and some of them just so happen to work at the same place as someone famous. Are we going to add all of those deaths to the entries of those famous people?--Heathcliff 21:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This section really has nothing to do with Scarborough. And since the editor who keeps putting it in will not explain his reasoning to me I'm going to revert it.--Heathcliff 12:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced that this is deliberate, having this small tidbit in the article could be considered weasel mentioning - inserting just enough facts in the article to detail an incident, but in such a way that presents the reader with more questions than answers. When I first stumbled upon that paragraph, I thought to myself "Why is this mentioned here, when presumably congressional aides die all the time? Other articles on members of congress do not have similar sections, so was this some mini-contraversy that was talked about in some circles?" I ended up learning more about the contraversy by reading the talk page than the article itself. This is a bad thing.

It seems that the consensus even among people that favor inclusion is that this is a minor event, not greatly reflecting on Scarborough. I seem to be alone in this thinking, but why not make a larger Lori Klausutis article that details the events and the surrounding contraversy, even if it is minor in the grand scheme of things? Even if there isn't much to write about and the article ends up being more of a history of the mini-contraversy, it is good if someone that saw this "issue" mentioned on Michael Moore's web site or some equivalent place could read a (hopefully) neutral article on Wikipedia. --Bletch 15:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely convinced that Lori Klausutis is significant enough to warrant a page, but if there really is a cornball conspiracy theory around her death then perhaps that does make her significant enough. A page on her and the conspriacy theory could be useful to explain to people what the theory is, and I suspect debunk it (through unbiased presentation of facts not a POV agenda) in a manner similar to other pages devoted to nutty theories like Vince Foster. In any event I agree that the reference sometimes inserted into this page is a from of weasel mentioning. It's mere mention gives it credibility, where as a complete right up would likely debunk it.--Heathcliff 22:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe Vince Foster was a bad example. The article there is a bit biased toward the conspriacy theory in my opinion. Maybe once this is settled, I'll see if I can improve that page.--Heathcliff 23:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A Lori Klausutis article in a similar fashion as the Vince Foster would certainly do the trick, IMHO. I'd also link to some of the relevant articles where the issue has been raised .  It is important to present how her death was contasted with the ongoing Gary Condit media frenzy at the time.  --Bletch 23:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, but then how do we segue from the Scarbourough article to Klausutis? --JPotter 00:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that is going to be difficult because Klausutis has so little connection to Scarborough. At least Foster was a friend of Clinton and therefore that connection could be used to segue into a reference to the Foster conspircay theory. However, I'm sure someone will figure out a good way to get a redirect to the Klausutis page into the Scarborouh article if one is created.--Heathcliff 00:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If its tenuous, that isn't a problem. If the article was three sentences on what happened, and a larger paragraph describing how people raised a stink about how Gary Condit got lots of flak but Scarborough did not, that would suffice.  --Bletch 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So little connection? She worked for him. Stirling Newberry 00:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Vince_Foster worked for Bill_Clinton and his suicide is a timeline entry. If it must be mentioned, why not a timeline entry instead of a paragraph that seems to indicate involvement on Joe_Scarborough's part? Conradrock 00:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix brought Lori back to the pre-discussion phase. I removed the changes and put it back to the few sentences. There a number of editors who don't think it has anything to do with Scarborough but some believe that the relationship with Moore makes it worth mentioning. I think we have a fair compromise of a few sentences focused on the dispute with Moore.

Wikipediatrix posted the same material as on Feb 5 with no discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Scarborough&oldid=38377290. This is a form of reversion without discussion. Unless a reason is given in discussion as to why we should revert to a 4 week old version, I think it's fair to simply bring the paragraph back to the current version. Tbeatty 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert War
This revert war is stupid. Let's try again at coming to a concensus. There is a group of people who don't want the article included, a group who does and a group who wants to see a separate, linked article. I'm all for having another vote. What say you? --JPotter 18:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Too late Gamaliel has threatend a revert war on Joe Scarborough. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamaliel#Joe_Scarbourough 67.18.109.218 18:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm eager to settle this matter finally, if only to end the constant antagonism from anonymous. I will be honest that I don't see a solution that will satisfy all involved, though I hope someone will suggest one. I am not opposed to the idea of a seperate article, but I'm not sure what difference that would make to the people who say it is POV to mention the incident at all. Would they insist that we not link to that article from here?  Wouldn't an entire article on that be too much for those people?  And I suspect that article would be put up for VfD immediately by someone unhappy with consensus and it would just end up merged back here. Gamaliel 18:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that if a separate article was made, then it would be perfectly fine to link it from a tidbit on this page somewhere along these lines:
 * On July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis, one of Scarborough's aides, died where she worked in his office, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. No formal accusations of foul play have been made, but some media critics questioned why Scarborough did not receive much media attention at a time when Gary Condit constantly generated headlines.

The article could then contain the (comparatively speaking) 'long' version. Is this something that people would find acceptable? --Bletch 18:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not bad, but I think it's still a bit off topic for this article. Accusations that the media handled to death of Levy and the death of Klausutis differently (which of course they did since the two were completely different; one was a missing person case and the other an ordinary death more suited to the obit page than the front page) really don't have anything to do with Joe Scarboruogh.--Heathcliff 22:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I'm not sure how else it could be done. It seems that some brief mention is warranted, but the only way that it could have a smaller footprint is if it was reduced to a "See Also" link.  It might also appear to be a larger diversion than it would otherwise be because Scarborough's article is not one of Wikipedia's larger articles. --Bletch 01:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * How about?


 * ''On July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis, one of Scarborough's aides, died where she worked in his office, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.


 * --Heathcliff 01:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be good, if something along the lines of "Her death has been the subject of a contraversy in certain circles", or something else that hints to the reader why this death is considered notable. --Bletch 02:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess the only question I have is who are "some media critics"? Are we talking just a couple of fringe whiners here, or did a more respectable leftist source (eg. The Nation) have an article on this? If it didn't get that much attention except from certain fringe partisan sites that aren't taken seriously, then it should not be included. J. Parker Stone 03:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the whole point, we're talking about a couple of fringe whiners, no repsectable source has given the incident any commentary. Check the links given in the article and you will see the credibility of the source. --JPotter 04:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your current edits I still don't get why the claims of certain partisan hacks deserve mention in the article, other than to placate the editors bent on keeping it in. J. Parker Stone 04:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * JPotter's edit is better than this paragraph used to be, however, I am still inclined on removing it. Why must we mention the death of an aide in an office? Only fringe sources had a problem with this death not being covered by the major media. However, if the other point of view has the strong desire of mentioning this, keep it the way it is now. Of course I am curious why Gamaliel wants this specific death mentioned, even Vince_Foster's death is given only a timeline entry and half a sentence in the Bill_Clinton article. Conradrock 07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

JPotter's edit looks fine to me, but if it going to be trimmed down, then the rest of the paragraph should be in a separate article. If this incident is to be mentioned, then it needs to be detailed. And such detail must include how Klausutis' notability derives entirely from the alleged conspiracy theories. To not detail anywhere adds implications and invites speculation on the part of the reader. --Bletch 12:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As for Vince Foster's death receiving nothing more than a timeline entry, if there was a timeline in this article, IMHO it would be perfectly acceptable to reduce Klausutis' death to a timeline entry, and detail the rest in a separate article. --Bletch 12:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I still think his part
 * Websites dedicated to underreported news events and left wing blogs questioned why the death of Lori Klausutis was not investigated more thoroughly by the mainstream media. The national media and local Pensacola authorities have apparently accepted the findings of the medical examiner as little national attention and no criminal implication was ever made against Scarborough.
 * has no purpose here, and should be saved for the article on Klausutis.--Heathcliff 22:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC Against Gamaliel, Rhobite, and Ruy_Lopez
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)

Klausutis poll
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
 * 1) Coqsportif 04:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) tbeatty Tbeatty 04:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Complete omission


 * 1) JPotter 19:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Conradrock 20:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) J. Parker Stone 03:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) 67.18.109.218 18:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Including it is just an attempt to Gary Conditize him. Should be completely omitted. Coqsportif 03:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Ray Lopez 11:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Mirror Vax 12:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) 138.180.100.171 22:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) 81.117.200.60 10:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) JS Jr 20:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Does not belong!
 * 11) 4.153.74.189 05:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC) No, it doesn't.
 * 12) tbeatty Doesn't belong.  Too insignificant.  Might as well include every car accident he has seen in his life (even if Michael Moore accuses him of causing the accident) Tbeatty 04:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

External link only
 * 1) Mirror Vax 12:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) JS Jr 20:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC) this is also acceptable

Brief inclusion without explaination of the mini-controversy


 * 1) Conradrock 09:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC) If Bill Clinton has only a timeline entry about Vince Foster, why can't this article have the same thing?
 * In the case of Vince Foster, the details are in his article. Wouldn't that be more analgous with the fourth poll entry? --Bletch 11:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * True, however, how would we include it? The only problem I have with a separate article is the fact that the Klausutis issue is so much more minor; only the fringes of the right and left wings make it an issue. The only reason why Vince Foster was materialized so greatly was due to his involvement with Whitewater. I'll support the fourth option and withdraw my support for this one if we somehow create substance that is more than a blurb. Any ideas? I can really only think of something like "Lori Klausutis was an aide for Joe, and she died in his office while he was in DC. Several people were upset that the media didn't seem to cover the issue in the same degree as the Condit/Levy incident." That's the only reason why I'm for a timeline entry, possibly. Conradrock 18:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If the paragraph took up the same amount of space, in percentage, as Bill Clinton's sentence on Foster, it would be okay. But if it were the same percentage, the sentence would be this long -> "Lor". And even then, Foster was more significant in the life of Clinton than Lori was in the life of Scarborough.   Tbeatty 04:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion while including details on the mini-controversy in the main article
 * 1) Bletch 14:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) JPotter 19:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) If we decide to include it, we should have some brief detail like my edit. I think a separate article would just wind up on VfD
 * 3) Gamaliel 04:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Stirling Newberry -  03:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Calton | Talk 03:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Viriditas | Talk 04:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)  See also: the death of Steve Kangas in the Richard Mellon Scaife article.
 * 7) Shem(talk) 09:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)  I'm with JPotter, should consensus land on this side.
 * 8) Flawiki 02:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Stan 23:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Guettarda 13:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Habap 16:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Ruy Lopez 08:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Tever99 11:43, 23 January 2005 (UTC)

Brief inclusion with the mini-controversy's details in a separate article
 * 1) Bletch 14:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 67.18.109.218 13:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) JamesMLane 16:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Stan 23:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)  The fact-gathering done to date is substantial and rather interesting, and if Scarborough really does run, it would be helpful of WP to have an NPOV summary all ready for reporters dropping by to get up to speed on this.
 * 5) Knobunc 03:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Guettarda 13:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) -Hessef 07:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Facts are facts.  A NPOV summary would be a good thing to have.

It may be a bit late to participate in this, but I think this could be reworked by rewriting the paragraph appropriately. I don't think we should hide any information, but I think the way it is presently phrased is very unfortunate. I would like to suggest reworking the last paragraph of the disputed section (I don't feel the other paragraphs are controversial) as follows: This is naturally a delicate area, but i don't think splitting it to a separate article or any of the other remedies are likely to deal with POV or other issues that wrangling over the content could fix. --Improv 20:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Substantiate who "some" and "Critics" are whenever used, becuase this can be important info in this case
 * 2) Use some kind of phrasing to note that there is an effort to "build a case" against Scarborough that does not comment on the validity of said case

Viriditas and 138.180.100.whatever
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)


 * What on Earth are you talking about? Gamaliel 16:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I apologize for rushing to judgement. Ray Lopez 16:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision
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)

Google turned up this gem
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)

I think the verbiage about Michael Moore goes a bit too far. Why does that need mentioning? --JPotter 18:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * A public fued between two promienent commentators seems notable enough to deserve a mention. Gamaliel 19:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I don't understand how mentioning the domain name endorses anything. Gamaliel 03:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit summaries/personal attacks
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)


 * 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)

See Edit_summary: "If a content dispute develops, proper use of edit summaries is critical. Edit summaries should accurately summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it may be controversial; if the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert in the edit summary." Gamaliel 18:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Gary Condit
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Temporary vprotect
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)


 * 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)

Photo swap
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)

Wikipedia on Scarborough country
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Well, you can see how Scarborough would doubt the validity of Wikipedia since he's currently being accused of murder on his own biography here. I personally don't doubt that that was the real Joe Scarborough - he's obviously familiar with the site & would have checked out his own bio. Seeing what's there, he'd probably try to protect his reputation by editing it & commenting. Wasn't he then BANNED? The whole thing hurts Wikipedia's own reputation.

Additions reverted
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)

POV Bias
This page as a whole is incredibly biased - particularly as Scarborough's Congressional career centered around things he was "against", as well as mentioning heresay about the medical examiner's credibility. The Trivia section is also tainted by the writer's biased POV - this article should be deleted as it currently stands. User:Adjuvat 08:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I take it you're new here - the right approach is to add factual material that you have, not to delete what you don't like. Stan 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Adjuvat has not made any edits to this article, nor has he made any edit at all since posting here. Like Adjuvat, I'd like to beef up the "congressional career" section as well. Last year I tried to find some information, but it was difficult to find info on Scarborough's specific contributions, so I welcome Adjuvat, or anyone else's, efforts in this matter. Regardless, tags are not supposed to remain on articles indefinately, so I'm removing the tag unless Adjuvat wants to participate in collaborating on this article. Gamaliel 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not being back soon on this matter, I was on an extended vacation and noticed the storm surrounding this article since I had first posted the NPOV violation on the page. I appreciate Gamliel's defense of my actions and wish that I had time to improve this article beforehand, perhaps avoiding this storm. Hopefully it was my attention to the problem that brought about a meaningful solution to the problem and an increase in the faith of other users and features of articles (like Mr. Scarborough) in Wikipedia's methods of regulation. Adjuvat 13:41, 05 February 2006 (UTC)

This is Joe Scarborough
This is Joe Scarborough. I love how some people abuse this and other pages re me. Read below statements. The first involves a citation from The Pensacola News Journal which stated specifically why I left Congress back when I retired. This cite has been ignored because of the lying, 4th party hearsay garbage that is contained in the paragraph below. Is this what Wikipedia is really about? Hearsay and gossip? That is the basis for contents in Wikipedia articles? I am tired of these lies and am going to expose them on my show. I have been so patient because I know how hateful some political extremists can be, but my patience has really been exhausted. Hey Lorem Ipsum, read the Pensacola News Journal files if you want to know why I left Congress. I am sure it is not as lurid as lying gossip and hearsay, but it is the truth (as if that matters in this space.) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joescarborough (talk &bull; contribs) 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is hard to blame the ignorance of incorrect information on the entire project and userbase of Wikipedia as a whole, simply because anyone can edit (as I'm sure you know), and because it is so easy to add information which may be false and fabricated. We, as a community, always try to remove incorrect information as soon as possible, although hopefully you can appreciate that the scale and popularity of this project often means that doing so every time is sometimes not possible. Wikipedia is not about "gossip", it's about referenced information, and creating an accurate encyclopedia. A lot of the time we get it accurate, and we can only apologise when something slips through that is false. Hedley 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made edits for POV. IT is completely a persons POV to claim success or failure of their calls. It is simply enough to say they called for it. Also, "cuts" "cuts in growth" are different things. Scarborough never advocated cuts. The propose budget for Medicare rose every year. It was just less than other proposed budgets for Medicare and the amount ($270 billion) was over multiple years. Privatization was a hallmark of the RR and the goal was to privatize CPB, not eliminate it. It is misleading to use the term eliminate in any context and conveys a POV. I believe I have used the terms that describe Scarboroughs intentions and are neutral in tone. I have not claimed he was succesful or not or made any claims whatsoever. Tbeatty 16:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not POV to say that someone's goal was unsuccessful if it was indeed unsuccessful. This is not a value judgement or an opinion. The New Federalists called for the elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Development.  You said in your edit summary "Your POV is htat it was unsuccessful."  These departments still exist.  It is not my opinion or POV that they still exist. You can investigate the matter yourself. Gamaliel 09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is politics. It is obvious that the departments still exist.  What is not clear is that a call for their elimination is the end that was desired or that they were unsuccessful in their overall goal by calling for their elimination.  Again, this is politics.  It is enough to say that they called for it and it is obvious that they are still there.  The reader can make their judgement as to whether they were successful.  Politics is compromise and no one gets exactly what they want.  Your characterization that they were unsuccessful is POV.  By your standard, no politician is ever successfull. It is enough to say they called for it.  Tbeatty 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since they publicly advocated for the elimination of these departments, it is clear their publicly stated goal was to eliminate these departments, and it is also clear that this goal was unsuccessful. If their actual goal was, as you assert, different from their publicly stated goal and they merely wished to "start a debate" on these issues, then you must provide a citation to substantiate your claim that this was their true goal. Gamaliel 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can provide that cite. But I would prefer to have it be NPOV (not Joe's POV and not your POV) and let the reader decide whether they were succesful or not.  It is easy to find numerous cites on their desire to balance the budget and reduce spending.  It is easy to find their successes and part of that is negotiating out and compromising.  That is politics.  I think it is more informative to simply say what they introduced and what they believed and what they accomplished.  Characterizing any individual piece as a failure or unsuccessful misses the big picture and inserts POV where it doesn't need to be.  Also, you simply reverted me when I made other edits.  Tbeatty 20:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When we report on the lofty goals of the New Federalists, the reader's next question will be "then what?" The reader deserves an explaination about whether or not they succeeded, and they should not be forced to research the matter on their own.  It is not POV to simply state the fact that they did not succeed in closing four cabinet level departments which clearly still exist. I also objected to your other changes, but I thought it best to address this silly matter before we moved on to the rest of it.  I object to your insertion of GOP poll tested euphemisms like "privatize" and "cut the growth of" typically used to soften the impact of large budget cuts.  On the one hand, you're saying it's POV to even mention whether or not the New Federalists succeeded in their goals, while on the other hand you are inserting POV language into the same paragraph. Gamaliel 18:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I lost an edit in here so this is a recreation. Who has to research whether those departments still exist?  It is POV to broadly claim they were unsuccessful.  It is Democrat election year euphimisms to claim a "cut" when something has grown year-over-year.  "Privatization" and "cuts of growth" may seem like GOP poll tested euphemisms to Democrats but if you ask Joe Scarborough what he voted on or what he proposed, that's what it is.  He voted to privatize PBS, not eliminate it's funding.  He voted to cut the growth in medicare spending over 10 years, not cut spending on it.  It's your POV to unilaterally claim they are "cuts" or that it was "eliminating funding" instead of privatize.  If you like, we can go to the actual title of the bills.  In that sense, he voted to save medicare. Tbeatty 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Who has to research whether those departments still exist?" People not familiar with US politics, for one. There's no reason not to simply state these things did not happen. There is no "POV" in that despite your repeated claims.  What is POV is to claim that eliminating funding for something is an effort to "privatize" it.  Gamaliel 23:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to claim that the New Federalists specifically (as opposed to trends or the GOP in general) are responsible for the "end of big government", welfare reform, etc., please provide a citation for this. Gamaliel 19:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I simply treat him as one of the 40 Freshmen Republican that came in as part of the Gingrich revolution.  It is undisputable that Scarborough supported a balanced budget and a smaller and less intrusive federal government.  They were elected on the "The Contract with America" and they initiated the balanced budget ammendment.  Did you want more than jsut linsk to the "Contract with America" and "The Balanced Budget Ammendment."

Attention Editors and Edit Warriors
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)
 * The length and detail of the section alone implied a negative bias. Since others insist on it remaining, I've removed all but the most necessary details, and basically reduced it to links to outside sources, providing the reader the necessary outlets. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-2 06:38

Accordingly, there is no source on the intern who died, nor is the web page that was cited active. I think it is appropriate that this be removed from his Congressional career. It has no merit being mentioned on his bio and it had no impact on his career. There is no "allegation" except in the minds of those who seek to discredit him. Tbeatty 03:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

A very brief mention of Klausutis is all we need. It is notable due to the Michael Moore dispute. I replaced it. Rhobite 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Congresisonal Career
There seems to be debate about the terms used to describe legislation. For example, DailyKOS and Democrats used the term "cut medicare" to describe the changes that Scarborough voted for. The GOP term in the bill is "save medicare". I believe it is accurate to call it a "cut in spending growth over 10 years" as this accurately explains what the bill was about. Similarly, for the PBS bill, DailyKOS and Dems call it "eliminating federal funding", I wanted to call it privatization, and the bill calls it "self-sufficiency". DailyKOS is not known for it's NPOV and Wikipedia should strive for NPOV and accuracy. The fact that more than half of Scarborough's political career biography on Wikipedia almost exactly matches the cited DailyKOS page title "Some of Scarborough's more controversial actions in Congress" does not speak well for neutrality. Tbeatty 00:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can blame this on Kos all you want, but I couldn't care less what Kos says. "Privatize" is a GOP euphemism for cutting funding, and you can't bring up the specter of Kos to distract from the fact that you are inserting GOP buzzwords.  Also, our disagreement on this matter is no reason for you to revert all other minor changes (changing "4" to "four" for example) without explaination. Gamaliel 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the 4 to four change or I would have kept it. As for buzzwords, "cutting" and "Eliminating" are Democrat eupemisms.  I went to direct quotes and the bill titles.  It is Deomocrat talking points, as they were used in the DailyKOS reference.  Look at the language on DailyKOS and the language that you are defending.  The fact that you don't care about DailyKOS is not supported by your unwaivering attempts to defend it.  "cutting the gorwth in spending" is accurate and still includes the word "cut".  "self-sufficient" is the language in the bill.  Tbeatty 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And how would it become "self-sufficient"? By cutting federal funding. The latter is not a euphemism, it's what actually would happen if the bill passed. Gamaliel 19:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But the language you use for PBS is "eliminate", not cut. "self-sufficient" is directly quoted from the bill.  I think it's accurate.  PBS is not being "eliminated".  It's services are not being cut.  Tbeatty 04:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, your version of the Klaustis paragraph is not "the consensus version" just because you keep inserting it, and its loaded POV language is clearly inappropriate. Gamaliel 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4 paragraphs is an excessive amount of space to spend on Klausutis, given that Scarborough has never been implicated in the death. Rhobite 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was willing to let this go and compromise on this, but not if people keep insisting on inserting GOP talking points and POV language insisting that Michael Moore "apologize". (For the record, that anon revert was not me, though I agree with him/her obviously since s/he was quoting my post above.) Gamaliel 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't insist on GOP talking points nor will I be satisfied with Democrat ones. I have tried mutliple versions of language to try and satisfy you, but you seem to insist that your version (which is identical to the words used in the DailyKOS article that was cited for this paragraph and titled "Some of Scarborough's more controversial actions in Congres").  It is not acceptable to repeat the Dem talking point "cut" when talking about the medicare proposal and it is also not acceptable to say "eliminate" when talking about PBS.  It is POV.  Also, I would point out that the term "privatize" was used quite extensively by democrats when talking about social security reforms so I am not sure it qualifies as GOP "talking points."


 * Let's put it this way, if your electric company said they were "cutting" your electric bill by $10 and your next statement it went up by $20 and their excuse was it supposed to go up by $30 so it was a $10 cut, I doubt you would think "cut" was such neutral language. Also, the $270 billion was a reduction in growth off the baseline estimate of growth for 10 years.  The 10 years is an important part of the bill.  Since budget bills are done annually it is misleading to not mention this fact.


 * Also, the Klausutis paragraph does not insist that Michael Moore apologize. It simply noted that he neither retracted nor apologized for his accusation which is clearly unfounded.  He did it to make a point about the "Michael Moore Hates America" statements.--Tbeatty 04:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you have done an excellent job finding links to the relevant legislation (seriously, well done), perhaps we can dispense with the kos link altogther. Perhaps then you will stop bringing it up as it's not at all relevant to this matter.  I don't care what kos said about the PBS legislation, and I don't care what the GOP talking points are.  What is relevant is what the bill does, and how much federal funding would have been left if this bill passed.  If the answer is zero, then "eliminate federal funding" is the proper description of the intended result of the bill.


 * "Eliminate" is Democrat talking points. Simply not referencing KOS doesn't change that.  If I used "privatize" or "self-sufficient", it doesn't seem to be adequate for you.   But I don't have a problem with "eliminate" if it can also be given the context that PBS would still be around.  So "Eliminate federal funding over 4 years while PBS becomes self-sufficient" would be acceptable. --Tbeatty 06:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's utterly absurd of you to claim that you are just "simply noting" the fact that he never apologized. Shall I go around to a bunch of articles and "simply note" a lot of other things people never apologized for?  Henry Kissinger never apologized for bombing Cambodia or the death of Allende.  George Bush never apologized for the death of Cindy Sheehan's son.  Bode Miller never apologized for bumbling the Olympics.  By "simply noting" this lack of an apology is a direct implication that such a thing was required, a POV assertion on your part.  And your assertion that this represents consensus is also false, as I've looked over this entire talk page and I fail to see any discussion of a Michael Moore apology, so I'm going to continue to remove that paragraph you keep inserting until there is an actual consensus for language about a Michael Moore apology. Gamaliel 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus that I referred to was only a single, small paragraph. I stipulate only that a retraction or apology is customary when a false charge is made, just as Scarborough apologuzed to Schwarzenegger when he repeated a false charge.  As I understand the controversy, Scarborough interviewed the person who made "Michael Moore Hates America." Moore then decided, 3 years after her death, "Joe Scarborough killed his intern."  I understand the point Moore was trying to make, but it is clearly false.  There is no serious debate about whether Scarborough was in any way responsible or involved in the death of Lori.  Many people think that Moore owed an apology to Lori's family for even dredging this up 3 years after her death.  Certainly Scarborough thought a retraction and apology were owed.  Should it say that "Scarborough asked for, but never, received an apology?".   As for Bush and Sheehan, Sheehan has her own page.  It is certainly covered there.  --Tbeatty 06:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)