Talk:Joe Scarborough/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lori Klausutis (for another round)

Joe Scarborough again. Though I am pleased that 50% of my life as described by Wikipedia no longer involves an event that I had absolutely nothing to do with, I am surprised that Wikipedia continues to allow Gamaliel to remain an administrator when she has shown such bad faith in this matter. The following sentence she wrote in this section is simply false:

If national magazines, newspapers, and radio programs can mention this, why can't Wikipedia? Gamaliel 23:06, 16 March 2006

One magazine mentioned Lori's death and it issued a retration with an apology from James Wolcott. Why? Because they were facing a libel lawsuit if they did not. No newspaper has EVER suggested I had anything to do with Lori's death. There has never been a hint of my involvement. I can't speak to radio programs but I would guess they would have called me if they had broached this subject. I brought it up on Don Imus's show three years ago. But of the hundreds of thousands of words I have uttered on TV, radio, on the floor of Congress and in speeches all across America, I hardly think a throw away line in 2003 justifies 7% of my bio being polluted by your suggestions that have placed me in a false light on Wikipedia for years. I continue to ask why you are so obsessed when your history of activity on my sight casts Wikipedia in the worst of light.

Gamaliel, your Feb 1 edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Scarborough&oldid=37780031) has the comment: "Congressional career - Restoring Klausutis with some tweaks in wording to insure that nothing is implied. This is NPOV and sourced and has been discussed fully on the talk page for over a year" and here is the paragraph you made the claim about:

In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Responding to some of Moore's public comments, Scarborough said to a guest on his program: "tell him to stop going around calling me a murderer or I'm going to have to call my lawyers." [5] Scarborough was involved in a right-wing documentary attack of Moore called Michael Moore Hates America.

Now you seem to object to the following paragraph:

In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Three years earlier, on July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis, one of Scarborough's aides, was found dead in his Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Police found no evidence of foul play and her death was the result of a previous medical condition. Moore believed Scarborough was involved in a documentary critical of Moore called Michael Moore Hates America.[citation needed]

What is so different from these two versions that you insist on a 3 paragraph version that insinuates there is something sinister about Lori's death? --Tbeatty 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The first version is the fourth paragraph of a four paragraph section while the second is the only information on the issue in the entire article. So it's a bit disingenuous for you to put them side by side and say, "Hey, they are the same, what's wrong?"

The single (not three) paragraph version I inserted is sourced, NPOV, and has been poked, prodded, and trimmed for over a year. It does not insinuate anything of the sort and clearly exonerates Scarborough in three different ways (his location at the time of death, the police findings, and the forensics). I have no interest in insinuating any wrongdoing on Scarborough's part but I see no need to protect his reputation from the fact that someone somewhere once thought ill of him. Gamaliel 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Three days without posting here, but less than an hour to revert me. Whatever form you think the paragraph should take, it belongs in the congressional section as that is when it happened. It did not only become an issue when MM registered that domain, it received news coverage years before that. The domain only gets 41 google hits. A search for "lori Klausutis" -"michael moore" (hits for LK without mentioning MM) gets 1670 hits, while a search for both names together only gets 154 hits. It's pretty clear that the claim that it this issue only became relevant or newsworthy before MM is false. While MM's involvement makes the issue more newsworthy and important, to definitively link LK and MM, to the exclusion of any other critics or commentators, and bury it in a later section seems like an effort to write this issue off as partisan spin. While it may very well be that, it's the reader's job to come to that conclusion themselves, not for us to spell it out for them. Gamaliel 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

IT only became noteworth in Scarborough's life when Michael Moore mad an issue of it. Otherwise, it's just like a staffer that got in a car accident or died from cancer. Tragic, to be sure, but NOT anything of substance in Scarboroughs life. Only when Michael Moore made an accusation did it make it newsworthy and that didn't happen until Joe Scarborough did an interview with the makers of the film. Wikipedia is not a collection of search hit statistics, it is an encyclopedia. Nor is a biography a list of people the person knew that died. They are relevant points in their lives. Klausitus was not particularly relevant to Scarborough. She was a staffer in a remote satellite office who died from natural causes. We can try to list all the people who Joe Scarborough knew that later died, but why? --Tbeatty 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that her name gets over 10 times as many google hits without MM as it does with MM does not substanitate your claim that the matter was only noteworthy when MM became tangentally involved. Gamaliel 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, this is not a google hit stats page. PLease explain how the death is relevant to Scarborough with credible facts. Personally, I don't even think it deserves to be mentioned, however, as Rhobite said it is relevant because of the spat with Moore. Google stats are not relevant. "Bill Clinton molested small children" gets a significant amount of google hits as well but it doesn't belong in his bio. Nor would a coherent argument argue it's worth by how other events in his life compared to the google hits of "molested". --Tbeatty 23:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't get any google hits, but that's besides the point. You're right, a Wikipedia article is not a collection of search hit statistics, but we can certainly weigh those hits as evidence when making content decisions. To counter those statistics, you mention nothing except your own opinion about what is noteworthy and relevant and what is not. Gamaliel 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am asking you what is noteworthy. So far, I have heard that a) Joe had nothing to do with her death b) there was no controversy surrounding his involvement (although you make mention of controversy surrounding the ME and his handling that has no bearing on Scarborough) and c) Michael Moore made a stink about it. I think it is reasonable to conclude that a) and b) don't deserve mention at all and c) makes it mentionable as a spat between Moore and Scarborough and nothing more. Personally I think it would be reasonable to only mention the spat and leave the death out of it but I defer to Rhobite and others who think the death is a significant fact in the spat. I think a small mention in his career as a journalist, focusing on the spat between Scarborough and Moore is the NPOV, encyclopedic description. A long paragraph about the competence/incompetence of some medical examiner or extensive details of her death is both irrelevant and in poor taste. It reads as an attempt to drag Scarborough through the mud in the hope that posterity may believe there is some coverup or involvement that simply doesn't exist. And you need to check your google settings if you didn't get a hit. I got over 200,000. --Tbeatty 00:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I cut and pasted the exact phrase you typed here into the search box. Just now, I tried again it without quotes and got the same number as you, but such an unguided, clumsy search is pretty useless. On the first page is, among other irrelevant hits, an ACLU page about welfare reform. But this is all pretty irrelevant.

The paragraph is not about the competence of the medical examiner. Half a sentence mentions some people questioned his credentials. The details of those challenges and the ME's loss of his license have long been excised from the article. The paragraph is not about "extensive details of her death". One sentence describes exactly how she died. We can trim that further if you like. I understand that we don't see eye to eye on this, but it's disingenuous of you to represent the nature of the NPOV and sourced material in dispute. There is nothing salacious or excessive about it and the sole justification for removing it seems to be the paranoid fear that somewhere, someone, sometime might get the wrong idea about JS. God forbid! I have no interest in dragging JS through the mud (thanks for the implication though!) but I do have an interest in preventing this article from being sanitized by people who are eager to protect him, whatever their motives are.

But this is not the matter at hand, the matter at hand is where in the article the material should be placed. Whatever their position on the issue of LK, no other editor in the last year plus suggested that the material belongs somewhere other than the congressional section, so I think it's incumbent upon you to come up with some justification beyond your opinion. Ten times as many google hits without MM as with MM clearly shows that the evidence doesn't support this opinion. Gamaliel 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The justification is that it became an issue in JS' life when he became a journalist, not when he was a congressman. It became an issue when Michael Moore made it an issue. Before that it was simply an employee who died. There does not need to be any reference to the ME at all. There doesn't need to be any reference to the lack of press coverage of a non-event. You disliked the sentence that said Moore "never apologized or retracted his statement." How is it that you can take issue with that statement as POV and not see the same thing with the statement about the ME, the "murder" quote, the "right-wing attack" and questioning the lack of media coverage? I can only conclude (as you concluded about the apology statement) that it is designed to leave doubt or suspicion in the mind of the reader. That is unacceptable. --Tbeatty 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no wish to sow doubt in the mind of the reader, I simply wish to present documented facts. You could just as easily take these facts and conclude JS is the victim of a left-wing smear campaign. The difference between these things and the "MM apology" is that these things are facts discussed in documented news articles, while I never read any news article that was headlined "Michael Moore doesn't apologize for intern flap". If you don't like how any of these things are worded, feel free to tweak the language until you find a form that is acceptable to you. I'm going to try editing that paragraph down yet again (note that I've removed the "extensive details of her death" you found so offensive) and hopefully that will satisfy you. None of that has anything to where this material should be placed in the article. Gamaliel 18:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned the reader might conclude that Wikipedia is a left-wing smear campaign because of statements like the ones you make.

The material should be located when he became a journalist. You have not cited why the controversy with Michael moore should be anywhere but in the journalist section. Cited material is not the only criteria for Encyclodpedic entries. There are plenty of articles that were written about CLinton being involved in the shooting of Vince Foster but it gets one sentence in his very long bio. This event for JS became significant when he becamse a journalist. If Michael Moore hadn't made it into an issue in 2004, it would simply not be in his bio. The lack of press coverage and the ME's credentials are simply not relevant to JS bio and it is inappropriate to expound on them here. --Tbeatty 20:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the MM controversy is about something that happened during JS's congressional career, and because news coverage and commentary of the matter predated MM's involvement by three years. Gamaliel 20:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you are completely mistaken. There was no controversy until MM took it public and forced JS to respond. Someone on the internet making an allegation or insinuating a crime is not a controversy. Lack of press coverage is not an indication of a cover-up. Death by natural causes is not a controversy. MM made it news. Certainly, Klausutis death was local news. And tragic. But it had NOTHING to do with JS. Mentioning it as such is a disservice to the encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 02:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He's complaining about it in interviews, he talks about it on Don Imus, it shows up in Vanity Fair, all years before MM shows up. Ten times as many google hits without MM as with MM. Yet I am "completely mistaken" and to refute all of this, you present...nothing. Nothing but your own opinion.

You complain about the medical details, I remove them. You complain about the "right-wing attack" language, I remove it. You are still unsatisfied and I am out of ideas, so I've created an article on LK and put all the relevant details there and scrubbed this article free of any thought crime and salacious trivia like, say, how she died. This should satisfy anyone troubled that the size of the paragraph overwhelms such important and riveting biographical details as his winning of the "Taxpayer's Hero Award" from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. If this doesn't satisfy you, I don't know what will. Perhaps mediation will be necessary. Gamaliel 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-06_Joe_Scarborough --Tbeatty 03:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad that Lori Klausutis paragraph is finally gone. 166.82.150.154

Lori Klausutis paragraph

Does this paragraph need to exist? It's an extremely minor incident on the internet, which is overflowing with extremely minor incidents. The fact that Don Imus devoted a couple minutes to it, and Michael Moore allegedly started a domain name about it is not enough to warrant as much space in the article as it is currently allotted (7% of the article). The only reason it persists is because Wikipedia attracts people who live on the internet, and would push to include extremely minor, but internet-based, factoids in articles. I would say, at the very most, this content should be merged into Michael Moore, since he instigated this nonsense. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 21:58

Wow, it's not enough that all minority opinions have been removed from the article, but now you are pushing to remove it altogether. Michael Moore did not "instigate" anything, that POV is only pushed by those who want to see the LK paragraph go. As I have repeatedly shown above, the issue was around for years before MM even knew about it. The issue was discussed not just on the internet, but in traditional media: newspapers, national magazines, radio programs. The paragraph has been trimmed to the bone. You added material to the paragraph, and then claim it is too long. Why not work on beefing up the rest of the article if you think that 7% figure is too high? Gamaliel 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for abusing the rollback button. Haven't you seen the RFC that was put out for admins who do this? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 22:19

As for the the rest of your reply, I think you're making this a political matter, which articles should never be. See my user page if you want to know where I am politically. I'm just trying to keep minor crap out of articles, that's all. I don't understand why you are focusing on keeping this content while not caring about expanding the rest of the article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 22:19

It's sad that you've chosen to make this persona and lie about me not caring about expanding this article. I've done as much work on expanding the non-LK sections of this article as any other editor here, possibly more. I've gone to the library to look through old copies of the Almanac of American Politics, I've spent hours looking up news articles on JS and adding material about his legal career, his band, his legislative career, etc., etc. I've read about two or three dozen articles alone from the Pensacola News Journal and added material from a number of them. How many have you read? What contributions have you made to this article, aside from fighting to protect the reputation of Joe Scarborough out of fear that someone might come to a different conclusion than you do? You were the one who complained the LK section was too big while adding material to it. Efforts by myself and others to add to this article have been going on for almost two years. Why don't you contribute instead of using that as an excuse to remove material you personally dislike? Gamaliel 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally like/dislike the content. I was asked by the foundation to keep that paragraph from being as POV as it originally was, and have been working to do so. I'm sure you've done a lot of research on this topic, as I have on my featured articles, but I don't need to do hours of research on the guy to recognize POV. The original version of this paragraph was extremely skewed, while the current version is much more neutral. I am now questioning the usefulness of the entire paragraph, since the act of including accusations can be an indirect method of pushing/validating those accusations. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 22:54

We have very different views on POV, because it appears to me that you feel to even the fact that certain people have minority viewpoints is to act as an advocate for those minority viewpoints. I couldn't disagree more with that approach to NPOV, and in fact that is in my opinion a way of pushing POV by eliminating those minority opinions altogether. Most of the versions of this paragraph have been NPOV, and it's insulting of you to those people who have worked hard on this article to claim otherwise. I don't want to push any of those minority viewpoints, and in fact I disagree with them, but I think it is important to note that they exist, as they have received significant media coverage. We have entire articles on ridiculous minority viewpoints like creationism, UFOs, the "fake" moon landing, the JFK "conspiracy", etc. To even have half a sentence on the fact that someone questioned the medical examiner's conclusion is judged too dangerous for Wikipedia by you and Tbeatty despite the existence of all these other articles. We now have a "neutral" paragraph sanitized of this dangerous viewpoint, but that still isn't enough. Now you come to the supposedly new conclusion which was your POV all along, to exise the entire paragraph. If national magazines, newspapers, and radio programs can mention this, why can't Wikipedia? Gamaliel 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparing this situation to UFOs, creationism, JFK, etc, is a bad analogy, as there have been hundreds of books written on those subjects, whereas this has received comparatively negligible coverage. If we gave every minority opinion its own paragraph in the article on Physics, the article would become a total mess. Wikipedia is not a collection of factoids, but a compilation of detailed but concise, useful information on topics... I think the best thing to do for now would be to expand the other sections of the article, as there is still much that could be covered, and then come back to this issue at a later time. The current article has a huge gap from 1963 to 1994 that needs content. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 23:22

We're not giving every minority opinion its own paragraph. We're talking about half a sentence that has already been removed in a paragraph about something which no one denies happened, hardly the same thing. I'm quite aware that articles are not collections of factoids. Concise is all well and good, but not particularly relevant. The paragraph is already concise, the article is already concise, and the motivations of those who want to remove this have nothing to do with being concise, but with the nature of the material. If we are seriously talking about being more concise, which we obviously are not, there's plenty we could trim, such as that pointless list of "awards" inserted by Tbeatty.

It's interesting that you propose expanding the article immediately after discussing the necessity of conciseness. If we are serious about expanding the article, then we should just expand the article, and treat the LK matter as a seperate issue entirely. The sparseness of the early life paragraph has bothered me for a while, but there isn't much of encyclopedic note in JS's life before his congressional run (which was his first run for office). The Almanac of American Politics has only two sentences on the subject. However, with some effort, it shouldn't be too hard to collaborate on a substantive paragraph or two. Gamaliel 01:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that once the article covers more of his life, this one incident will be negligible, so it won't matter whether you keep it or remove it. Right now, the article only covers these last 10 years of his life, for the most part. "Conciseness" doesn't simply mean "short"; it means saying a lot in little space. My suggestion to expand the article didn't mean "say a lot in a lot of space", as I already made clear when I said that the article should be concise. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-17 02:41

I agree. I don't think it needs to be here at all. It's a minor spat between Scarborough and Michael Moore. I support deleting it entirely as being a very minor incident tangential to Scarborough's life. It's like he was a witness to a car accident. --Tbeatty 04:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a better case for removing it would be made once this article becomes a thorough biography, or is nominated for FAC, but who knows... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-17 04:26

Meanwhile, because others believe the MM/JS controversy is significant, I have put in my compromised version. I believe it belongs in the journalism section since that's the timeline where MM made it a controversy. I think it reads very NPOV considering that it probably shouldn't even exist. --Tbeatty 04:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have is the way it presents her death. We should assume, given no better evidence, that the police got it right. So, instead of saying "she was found dead.. policy say it was an accident", we should say "she died from hitting her head while fainting". This wording is much less open to interpretation, and it is always better to be less ambiguous. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-17 04:38

I've mixed together your version with Gamaliel's previous version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-17 04:43

It is time to add the proper detail to this paragraph. A women dies in unusual circumstances in the office of a prominent congressman and now extremely well known conservative Republican commentator. Why is the only detail included some information that makes this absurd death sound so natural. Don't people smash their skulls every day in several places and die in empty offices - especially really fit people? We are "assuming" the terrible coroner and the local police using his information got it right. Why? What are we basing that on? I think we should provide the neutral info we have and state what the disposition was by the police.

On July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis,28, one of Scarborough's aides, was found dead at Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Fort Walton Beach Police Chief Steve Hogue stated that a preliminary investigation into Lori Klausutis' death did not indicate any evidence of trauma to her body or signs of suicide. An autopsy report issued by Associate Medical Examiner Michael Berkland ( a controversial figure who was subsequently fired) on August 6 showed clear evidence of severe trauma to the head: a 7 1/2 inch long fracture stretching from the right temple across the top of the head, a contusion in the occipital region (at the base of the skull), a subdural hematoma on the left side opposite the fracture. The coroner concluded that Lori had passed out from a heart condition and had hit her head on the desk. Lori had been an athlete that competed in 10k's with no diagnosed health conditions. The police after this report was issued completed their report and closed the investigation ruling the death an accident.

Scarborough was in Washington, DC at the time and flew to Florida upon hearing the news. The national media, despite the ongoing frenzy on the Chandra Levy case ( involving Rep. Gary Condit), virtually ignored the death of Lori Klausutis. According to Scarborough, soon after her death allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved , although police found no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program and in 2004 it was the subject of a public spat between Scarborough and filmmaker Michael Moore.

• Yeah.. no. This is about as extreme a POV wording as one could write. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, so stop presenting it as if there is. You've also not provided any sources for the statements in the first paragraph. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-21 00:35
  • You don't know what you are saying but you feel it intensely, now that is extreme POV."This is about as extreme a POV wording that one could write." You maybe haven't read widely or you don't know what an extreme is. Don't use jargon to get your way. Make a case calmly. There is no evidence of wrong doing if you are talking about murder but there is evidence of less than thorough investigating and perhaps unprofessional work by the coroner. Please tell me what this sentence is communicating that if of value if we can't add any detail to the circumstances of her death or the details of the autopsy:"Scarborough was in Washington, DC at the time and flew to Florida upon hearing the news."
    • Intensely? I was just stating a simple fact; you appear to be attaching emotions/attitudes to my words. You've provided no sources for your first paragraph, nor any evidence that the allegedly controversial circumstances of the investigation were related in any way to the subject of this article, Joe Scarborough. Once you have provided both, then you will have my attention. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-21 00:59

The question is whether this belongs in JS bio. JS is not responsible for the investigation. He is not responsible for her health. He has nothing to do with the coroner. THis is an attempt to smear by association. It ias an attempt to make a case that the death was "mysterious" and by association that makes JS's involvement "mysterious". The facts as we know them are that a) she died as the result of a previously undiagnosed medical condition and b) JS's only link to her was as her employer. There is nothing to implicate him. Mentioning this death at all implies his role in it is more than his role in any other death. It is not and so it should be removed. --Tbeatty 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your tiresome accusations that this is an attempt at a smear violates Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Legitimate questions have been raised. Mentioning her death or those questions implies nothing and JS is clearly exonerated by mentioning that he was out of the state. Gamaliel 01:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have said this has the effect of smearing his name. And it doesn't violate Wikipedia:Assume good faith guideline because it is trumped by the blatant Wikipedia:NPOV Official Policy. I am sorry that you are tired of hearing it but it is simply the truth. The damage done to JS good name by this very weak association of implied responsibility far outweighs any Encyclopedic value of including it. --Tbeatty 05:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV covers article content, assume good faith covers your interactions with other users. One cannot trump the other, nor can NPOV give you license to accuse others of intending to smear JS. Apparently that was not your intent, but please be careful about biting newbies. NPOV is, as you say, official policy. Protecting the "good name" of Joe Scarborough may be your personal mission, but it is not official policy. Gamaliel 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not imply that I have a "personal mission". That violates [Wikipedia:Assume good faith]. I strive for an accurate account of JS life and it simply doesn't include Lori Klausutis. Lori Klausutis paragraph leaves the reader wondering if there is "something more." There isn't and it shouldn't be mentioned. No other death in JS life is mentioned and this death does not warrant mention. When the final effect is a smear, the content should be questioned. It adds no insight in JS life at all. --Tbeatty 15:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. It doesn't violate AGF to say you're here to prevent people from smearing JS's "good name" when you said as much yesterday. Gamaliel 19:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixing unwarranted smearing of someone's reputation should be the goal of every editor. NPOV is the goal. Working to include or simply allowing tangential information in order to insuate or imply some sort of wrong doing is a violation of NPOV. Accusing those who work to exclude the unwarranted information as being on a "personal mission" is a violation of AGF. I have never claimed to be here to prevent people from smearing JS's good name. I am not here to "prevent people" from doing anything and please stop making accusations. I am here to uphold wikipedias standard on NPOV. Please stop the personal attacks and try to adhere to AGF especially in the talk page of the article.--Tbeatty 20:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain the difference here to you. You accused an editor on his first day on Wikipedia of attempting to smear JS. I said you wanted to protect JS's "good name" after you complained about people allegedly smearing JS and "The damage done to JS good name". In the past when I've complained about you doing something inappropriate (such as your use of GOP spin language) you've immediately attempted to turn it around on me by accusing me of the same thing, but really, do you expect anyone to believe I'm "violating" AGF by essentially quoting you?

"Fixing unwarranted smearing" and NPOV are not the same thing. We shouldn't be concerned about the effect what we report has on the feelings and reputations of others. We should report verfiable facts in a neutral way and not eliminate potentially unflattering facts for fear that someone might reach the "wrong" conclusion. If we do NPOV properly, then we shouldn't have to worry about articles "smearing" people because they'll already be netural. If JS has a problem with people supposedly accusing him of something or other, then JS should take it up with those people. We should just report that so and so said such and such and not eliminate that verifiable fact out of deference to JS. We should not treat NPOV and "Fixing unwarranted smearing" as the same thing and airbrush all the warts and contrary opinions out of an article. Gamaliel 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse any person of smearing. I said the result of having that paragraph was a smear and I followed up and made sure that it was interpreted as such. The result is a smear. Wikipedia is not a collection of "verifiable facts." In fact that is a policy Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." And there is this from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility." This is a bio in an encyclopedia. You didn't like the statement "Michael Moore never apologized" but that was a fact. I presume you didn't like the implication that he should have apologized but it is a fact nonetheless, but I agree it should have been removed. If we do NPOV correctly than esoteric facts (that leave impressions of wrongdoing where none exist) will be eliminated. Lori Klausutis is so tangential to JS life that it does not warrant inclusion. And it is not a violation of AGF to quote me. Do so as often as you like. Please do not assign motive (i.e. the third accusation today is that I use "GOP spin language"). That is a violation of AGF and it's the third time today you've made an accusation at me directly. Please stop. --Tbeatty 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons is a guideline, not a policy, as you dismissively noted about AGF before you eagerly picked it up and attempted to club me with it. Gamaliel 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have mischaracterized what I have said. Policy trumps guideline. I think that's a pretty easy concept to understand and is why there is a distinction between policy and guideline. But that does not mean the guidelines are ignored nor did I act in that manner. In fact, I clarified the AGF statement you complained about. And, if I recall correctly, this thread started when you started "clubbing" me with AGF, biting newbies, etc, etc. But I don't understand why you would want to re-stear the discussion in this direction as opposed to addressing the concerns with the article as it relates to the Wikipedia guidelines and policies.--Tbeatty 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want to be asked not to bite newbies, don't accuse them of attempting to smear JS. That appears not to have been your intent, so we can let that issue go. As far as the guideline, while it should be given some consideration, I don't agree with treating it like it is the most important criteria for judging material's suitability for inclusion and I don't think protecitng someone's "good name" is sufficent reason for deleting material that has repeatedly appeared in national media and has been discussed by major commentators, including Scarborough himself. I only started this discussion since I thought you were attacking a newbie; I don't see any point in rehashing this mess all over again. Gamaliel 08:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Brian0918 is more than equipped to respond for himself and I don't think he qualifies as a "newbie" and that's who I responded to. This is a living biography and I think the obligation of Wikipedia is not to defame the people it lists. COnsidering Wikipedias' history with biographies, namely the living person who was wrongly profiled as having fled the country because of his involvement with the Kennedy assassination, I think an awful lot of deference should be made to remove defamatory information. The defamatory nature of including Klausutis far outweigh it's value to understanding JS life. What exactly do you learn about JS by including this paragraph? --Tbeatty 17:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we have an obligation not to defame, and in the Siegenthaler case we clearly did, by stating false information as fact without any reference to sources. In this case, people want to document alleged discrepancies without reference to allegations (and in fact the information clearly exonerates Scarborough of any wrongdoing) and the information is fully sourced and presented neturally. Hardly the same thing. If we applied your expansive standard of "defamation" to all of Wikipedia instead of this little corner, a great deal of significant and relevant information would be removed. I'm curious what would happen if you applied this standard to articles like Bill Clinton. Gamaliel 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is isn't "tit for tat", it's an encyclopedia. And it should be applied to Clinton. And if you look at the page it is. There is no reference of the "Clinton Arkansas Murders". But it shows up a lot of Google hits. Books have been written about it. Even an "exonerating" statment that mentions it would be most likely be removed without discussion and rightfully so. Even Vince Foster (which was a long-time friend) only had a part of a sentence in passing out of a huge bio page and didn't mention anything about the investigator incomptence or anything else and it was prefaced as being POV from a specific group. So, yes, the same standard should be applied to JS as is applied to Clinton and this paragraph should be removed. The Clinton Arkansas murders aren't worthy of his bio, and the Klausutis doesn't belong in JS bio. You can enter this into Clinton's bio and see how long it lasts [[1]] --Tbeatty 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't accept rumor and allegations. The new user's additions placed all the emphasis on allegations and none on the official evidence. This would be the same as letting the Discovery Institute write the Evolution article, or Greenpeace write an article about the history of whaling. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-22 19:52

arbitrary section break to make editing easier

Please tell me what this sentence is communicating that if of value if we can't add any detail to the circumstances of her death or the details of the autopsy:"Scarborough was in Washington, DC at the time and flew to Florida upon hearing the news."

Northwest Florida September 02, 2001 Daily News.

EDITORIAL - An untidy wrap-up for Klausutis case

Despite weeks of furious speculation on the Internet, it's likely that Lori Klausutis died exactly the way investigators say she died: She collapsed because of a heart condition, struck her head and suffered a fatal blood clot.

That much is clear from this newspaper's examination of Fort Walton Beach police reports and interviews with the medical examiner, Dr. Michael Berkland.

Less clear are two significant aspects of this strange tale: why authorities initially misled the public about Mrs. Klausutis' injury, and whether police seriously considered other explanations for Mrs. Klausutis' death.

Let's look at the first question.

Mrs. Klausutis, a 28-year-old aide to U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough, was found dead in the congressman's Fort Walton Beach office on the morning of July 20. Within a few hours, police were telling reporters there was no sign of physical trauma.

About 3:30 that afternoon, Detective Dan Sequeira attended the autopsy. "I observed a fractured skull," he wrote in his report.

From the first day, authorities knew that Mrs. Klausutis' skull had been cracked. Yet, publicly, they let stand the fiction that her body bore no sign of trauma.

The truth came out Aug. 6 - more than two weeks after the body's discovery - when Dr. Berkland issued a news release outlining the likely cause of death: "A previously undiagnosed valvular condition of the heart ... caused Lori to fall and strike her head ... acute subdural hematoma (blood clot) ... ruled as accidental."

On Aug. 9 this newspaper requested the Police Department's investigative report on the Klausutis case. The next day we requested Dr. Berkland's autopsy report. Our requests were refused.

On Aug. 23 we explained, in an editorial, our position that the reports should be released.

On Aug. 24, Daily News Editor Ralph Routon submitted letters to Dr. Berkland and Police Chief Steve Hogue asking them to either release the records or cite an exemption to Florida's open-records law. The records were handed over.

On Aug. 29 we reported on the contents of the police file.

Still puzzling is the earlier reluctance to acknowledge Mrs. Klausutis' fractured skull. Said Dr. Berkland: "The last thing we wanted to do was answer 40 questions about a head injury." But Dr. Berkland should have known that refusing to disclose a head injury eventually would double the questions. There would be 40 questions about the injury, and 40 (or more) questions about the secrecy.

As it was, the Klausutis investigation was handled in a way that only generated rumors.

Which brings us to the second question: Was the investigation handled in a way that assumed an accident had occurred, and shunned contrary information?

This is a tough one. If we accept that the ruling of accidental death is correct, it's easy to say - with hindsight - that conflicting information must be wrong. But investigators couldn't have known this from the beginning.

In at least one instance, police were openly skeptical of a witness whose account differed from the accepted timeline leading to Mrs. Klausutis' death.

Authorities believe that Mrs. Klausutis died inside Rep. Scarborough's office in the Paradise Village complex during the evening of July 19. No one else was in the office; Mrs. Klausutis' husband was out of town on business. The next morning, Mrs. Klausutis' car was still parked outside, lights in the office were still on and the front door was unlocked. A Destin couple walked in and found the body.

But the owner of a security firm hired to check the buildings at Paradise Village told police he had made his rounds around midnight July 19 and had seen nothing amiss. No car. No lights. All doors locked. He stuck to his story. He had even jotted in his log: "All doors secured - no suspicious activity noticed."

The security officer's account was startling. Police didn't believe him.

On Aug. 9, the security officer agreed to undergo a voice-stress test. Just before the test was to begin, he changed his story. He had checked doors at the complex only randomly, he said, and couldn't remember whether he'd noticed office lights or a car.

"It could have been vehicles parked at Paradise Village or lights on inside," he said in a signed statement. "I can't remember."

Investigators were right to be skeptical of the security officer's initial account. We wonder, though, if their skepticism extended to every hard-to-fit fact, every variant version of events that didn't quite jibe with the official conclusions.

For the moment, we'll let others debate those variant versions.

And they probably will. The Klausutis case has fueled imaginative and sometimes inflammatory conjecture on the Internet. We've received hundreds of e-mails about it from across the country. We've taken queries from France and read write-ups from Russia.

The Daily News insisted on viewing official records in this case so that we could report facts, not fantasies, to our readers. We've done that.

We also wanted to spare the Klausutis family unnecessary grief by distancing ourselves from the bizarre speculations that abound in cyberspace. We hope we've done that.

One more link for you: Jennifer Van bergen

Bio: Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D., is the author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America, published by Common Courage Press on September 1, 2004. She is one of the foremost experts on the USA PATRIOT Act and has taught anti-terrorism law at the New School University.

The information I posted on the Coroner, Dr. Berkland, who played a key role in the determination of what occured was erased from this post causing me to add it once again. Is this an example of extreme POV? WEAR3 News Chris George and Denis Wright

And again this shows no connection whatsoever to Joe Scarborough. There is nothing to exonerate or indict because there is simply no relationship. Innuendo and speculation are not the venue of Encyclopedias neither are crackpot conspiracy theories. --Tbeatty 01:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about adding 3 or 4 sentences that detail what happened in perhaps the most unsettling and dramatic event in Joe's life, an unusual death in his political office. No one is asking you to indict or exonerate - what gave you that idea? Rather we are talking about not censoring facts that would concern and interest any fair reader about whether this case was closed too early. Lori was not only a staff member to Joe (According to her obituary in the Fort Walton Daily News) but she had served as President and, later, Treasurer, for the Emerald Coast Young Republicans and as a aide to Congressman Scarborough, she was active during the Florida recounts.This not a biography of Lori but a brief accounting of the events (and how they were handled by the Police and Coroner) which relate to Joe's political life.

This is NOT a biography of Lori so why is it included at all?--Tbeatty 05:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Haven't read any biographies? A person's biography includes the important, dramatic or controversial events and people surrounding those events. This qualifies as dramatic and controversial and could become important. She was a very involved Republican supporter that died under mysterious circumstances. This is perhaps the most dramatic event in Joe's life and you want, for reasons not clear to me, to keep it out.Your trying to keep the facts out will not make it go away.

I don't think that her death was a) important to JS b) dramatic or c) controversial. She died of natural causes. I have seen no evidence that JS knew her as more than an employee. I have seen nothing that makes this a dramatic event in Joe's life. An employee died at work. Tragic to be sure but not worthy of mention on JS's bio and certainly not worthy of all the innuendo of foul play. --Tbeatty 16:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• So your sources are an editorial piece, and truthout.org? Rumors and hearsay are not acceptable in encyclopedia articles. Only verifiable content published in reliable sources is allowed, no matter how small the addition. If you would like to write articles about the medical examiner and the intern, feel free; don't try to cram all these people's "controversy" into another person's article, it just makes the readers think we have ulterior motives. Compare this to a similar situation: someone wanting to add controversy about Scooter Libby to the article on George W. Bush. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-21 03:10

You should quit hidding behind jargon because there is no space there where you can't be challenged. I posted the editorial becaused it summarized the details that the local paper was covering (remember part of the issue is that investigative wing of the national media never took interest). Go to their web site that lists their archives and there are 5 or six articles that detail the on going concerns regarding the quality and secrecy of the investigations Daily News. Go to relevant months and and search under "aide". The other local paper documented similar occurences. I don't think they are in dispute.

Although you scoff,the article by Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D. is well written, ties with the newspapers and includes the details from the autopsy you wanted and medical citaions that challenge the findings of the coroner.

The rest of the items I cite include the reports on the firing of the coroner in his last two jobs for unprofessional conduct that is part of the open record. you can go to the Florida Department of Health and see the displinary actions he admitts to [http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/irm00profiling/ProfileACTIONS.asp?LicId=6083&ProfNBR=1901 Micheal Berkland

Your position is very weak and there is more information that backs all this up to add the three sentences I am recommending. The sourcing exists and it matches the standard set for this website.

• (1) Cite primary sources, not sources based on sources (based on further sources?). (2) Add controversy about a medical examiner to an article about the medical examiner. Any other location would make no sense; as I pointed out with the Scooter Libby example, including the content in other articles might suggest to the reader ulterior motives, which we should avoid doing. (3) Sign your posts on talk pages, so people can follow the discussion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-21 03:49

Please visit and read what I have provided before you respond. The dates on the editorial match the articles they wrote on the topic. I have given you the links to these sources which comprise the primary reporting that was done locally and the rest of the material analyzes and supports the basic premiss. What I have provided is more than enought to support the minor changes I am recommending.

I am not a supplicant but a partner in making this a better article. HTP —This unsigned comment was added by HellToupee (talk • contribs) .

• As I've stated above, your research should be in an article about the medical examiner, or about the intern, not about the intern's employer. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-21 05:33

You are making an arbitrary recommendation with which I strongly differ. I have provided a tremendous amount of backup for the points I think should be included so now you come up with a catch 22 - it doesn't involve Joe. What are you basing your recommendation on? What was potentially more risky or politically more damaging than the death of woman at a time he was quiting his job and getting divorced?

I thought I should add this up here in case people didn't see it at the end of the Talk page. On behalf of the Mediation Cabal, I've been asked to offer informal mediation concerning this article's treatment of the death of Lori Klausutis and its aftermath. If you would like to participate in this with a view to reaching an amicable, mutually agreeable solution, please join the discussion here. Much thanks! Fishhead64 05:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead64 How can I get involved in the mediation Cabel? Helltoupee

Just follow the links I posted above. Fishhead64 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I chanced upon this article while researching another on the development of cable news and opinion. I found some of the details listed in this biographt as problematic and went into the discussion section to find a long history of a very small group determined to delete all mention of the death of this girl. I find this peculiar and inappropriate to the spirit of wikipedia. In any of our lives this would have been memoralble and in the life of a public figure (even if he is alive) it is more so. I wrote a simple NPOV addition that was reversed without comment by one of the two most interested parties in sterilizing this biography.70.132.21.230 70.132.21.230

• I'm sure by now some of his family members have passed away. If all you care about is discussing deaths that were "memorable", then where are the paragraphs on them? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 11:32

My note for the discussion was twice removed and the article was reverted. Is this the level of integrity that followers of Joe ( or Joe) want to demonstrate to the public the relies on Wikipedia for information?

Nobody deleted your message from this talk page. You can verify this by looking at the history of this page. My response to you is that I don't want to delete all mention of Klausutis's death, but I do think that speculation about the medical examiner and foul play have no business in the article. If there were something wrong with the medical examiner's conduct on the Klausutis case, it would have been re-examined. Rhobite 01:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the history of the discussion page??? A controversy is where there is/was a dispute. The reports/notes included in this discussion page amply demostrate that how the police handled the investigation process, the details revealed subsequently about the extent of physical damage that occured that night to Laurie and the questions of the professional reputation (fired twice for professional issues) of the coroner contributed at the time to undermining support for the investigation. The change I recommend only outlines the barest details that there was a controversy (which is a fact) and does not dwell on any particular item nor point to Joe in any way. It is neutral and necessary.

What is going on here? TBeatty do you feel you can revert twice without explanation? Is there a small gang here trying to stop a needed and basic change that provides the reader (who was not there) with a fuller, cleare and more honest telling as to why this death is significant as opposed to all other deaths in this politician/cable personalility's life. Frank Boyles

Uh Frank, do you feel you can revert seven times without explanation? The information you added to the article is speculative and opinionated. There was no significant controversy about the cause of death, outside of some Internet conspiracy people. You are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia's three revert rule, and if you continue you will lose your ability to edit here at some point. Rhobite 02:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

        Speculative and opinionated - sounds smart - but you need to look both up. You have a small
        posse here with a pathetic mission: protect Joe Scarborough. I can see something like this being        
        done by Joe or his family or people with nothing to do. I suggest a more noble activity: writing   
        Wikipedia articles that are full of honesty and reflect the life of each character as it was lived 
        with all the twists, turns and the characters that enter and depart shaping it in reality and            
        the perceptions of it. Save your sanitizing for your own lives. Sarah Williams

Making false assumptions makes for false postings. You are assuming I have posted before - I can tell a bully when I read one. The matter of there being a controversy was amply covered by the local papers and the fact it continues to be debated certainly indicated there may still be one. I happen to have just seen that someone in the past actually copied the details of the controversy for your gang. There was a controversy whether you like it or not. The words the other poster used were measured and precise. The opposite of what you term weasely. Your behaviour and that of your posse is weasely. Removing something from the reader sheapens this site if it is done for small reasons. Frank Boyles

Everyone can tell that you're one person, using SBC. The multiple personality act is not helpful. Rhobite 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been too difficutl making improvements on this page so I leave you with a picture of who I had to deal with.Some snipits from Paul "Rhobite's" discussion page that show his style and class.:

[Long excerpts from User talk:Rhobite removed]

70.231.236.252 20:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Sarah Williams

Please don't accuse people of vandalism when it is a content dispute. Your 3RR violation was noted on the 3RR violation page and the article was locked. That is simply history and fact. Please also refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith. Cutting and pasting from archived discussion on other talk pages about different issues does little to add insight to this discussion. --Tbeatty 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the long cut and paste excerpts from User talk:Rhobite. In the future, if you wish to insert long segments of quoted material, please consider just providing a link to the material instead.

I understand from personal experience that editing this article can be a frustrating experience, but please try to focus on the issues instead of personalities and accusations, even if you feel you are dealing with editors who do not have the best interests of the article and/or Wikipedia in mind. Gamaliel 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, Rhobite and Brian (I hope I haven't missed anyone since they will chime in minutes) all have checkered histories on their own discussion pages and on this one. They disgrace the kind of work that needs to be done to get great, free, NPOV information out. I posted the info from Rhobite's page and had like info on the others but I guess just reading this discussion is enough for any fair minded individual. They act as if they own the posting (as opposed to being part of joint effort for truth) and assume we are a PR office for Joe. They have worn me out! 70.132.35.194 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Sarah Williams

Sarah, I'm not ashamed that POV pushers often dislike me. It shows that I'm making a difference. Let's try to keep the discussion on the topic of the Joe Scarborough article, though. I'm sorry that you feel worn-out (that is what edit warring against consensus will do). It would be better if you proposed positive changes to this article, instead of making personal attacks against other editors. Rhobite 21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the whole point. There are those who believe that this shouldn't even be listed as it really has nothing to do with Joe Scarborough except as "employer." There are others who believe there should be pages and pages because of the "controversy." We have a controversial consensus that no one really believes is fair, but it is consensus. There is a Lori Klausutis page if you care to add details about her and controversies surrounding her death. --Tbeatty 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

TV career section

The section Career shift to television was a mess and I have spit it into two sections: "Post-congressional career" and "Recent controversies". I reduced the material devoted to the reasons for his resignation into a compact line; there was too much speculation about his motives. Question: is he still a practicing lawywer? Both the Moore and the Schwartenegger paragraphs in the new "controversies" section remain exceedingly weak, but I leave them as is for now, but would vote for their deletion, as they reveal nothing meaningful about JS. Viajero | Talk 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We can quibble about the importance of the speculative news reports, but I don't see any reason to remove a news report about what he actually said during his resignation speech. In any case, I've restored both. JS appears to be a partner in the firm Beggs and Lane; as far as how much practicing he does currently, I can't say. Perhaps somebody could look him up in that lawyer directory - I think it's called Martindale. Gamaliel 21:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In general: Should there really be a paragraph "Recent controversies"? It's better then putting the stuff elsewhere in the article but isn't our aim to write something that also holds in 5 years time? (Let history judge, hihi, no seriously, for now the paragraph might be okay, but on the first chance of it not being "recent" anymore, there paragraph should be deleted. -- Jan 81.173.254.85 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions by Cavell

Scarborough made many bold statements regarding the war in Iraq in 2003, as the military campain was getting started. He predicted a speedy victory for the US Military, and scolded naysayers of the war:

"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war....

"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.

"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing." (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03) [2]

Pasting a bunch of quotes from 2003 and calling it controversial today is not valid. There are still Fox News pundits claiming the war in Iraq is going well for the U.S., and that we will leave the country respectably. Of course they're wrong, but this doesn't excuse pasting long past quotes into an article and saying that it is controversy today because those statements may no longer be correct; it is still possible, though very unlikely, that the situation in Iraq can be resolved. You need to cite a recent reference that calls him on his past statements. Until then you have not shown it to be controversial, as back in 2003 the U.S. thought everything would go well in Iraq. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-18 16:13

Also there's a distinction between the war, which was won quickly and decisively, and the occupation. There were journalists and pundits who were warning we would be bogged down in a war with Saddam Hussein's military. In fact, if you recall, the first sandstorm brought journalists out and pundits calling it a "quagmire". The army was routed in the next week. --Tbeatty 17:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He does cite a recent reference. The link at the end is to an article dated March 15, 2006 calling a number of pundits to task for their Iraq cheerleading. Gamaliel 19:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that fair.org is a reliable source, but in any case Cavell's addition does not reference any of this "controversy". If he would like to modify the statement to read "In 2006, Fair.org criticized Scarborough for comments he made in 2003", then at least that would be an accurate representation of the "controversy", though I don't believe it is controversy, and I highly doubt it is notable enough to be included in the article, since Scarborough and his views have been criticized all over the internet (just as anyone in the public eye is criticized). The fair.org article is more of a "look at how dumb people were in the past"; if it criticized recent statements of his (now that he knows how the war in Iraq is going), then it would be more legitimate. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-18 19:18

I couldn't disagree with you more regarding "reliable sources"; there's nothing about FAIR that justifies dismissing it as unreliable. I agree that Cavell's addition is inappropriate in its current form, but I object to using excuses like the supposed lack of a current source (when one is clearly provided) or this "reliable sources" nonsense. The other problems you stated are sufficient grounds for keeping it out in its current state, though I think with some other sources and some work on the wording it could easily be made suitable for inclusion. Gamaliel 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a reliable source. I don't know anything about the site, so for me to assume it was reliable or not would be wrong; that is why I said "I'm not sure that fair.org is a reliable source" (see above). Also, he didn't add the link to fair.org until after I said it was unsourced... I highly doubt that this "controversy" should be included in the article without more coverage in the actual press, rather than an organization's blog, regardless of how neutral that organization is. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-18 20:06

Fair enough, I didn't realize it was initially unsourced, sorry about the confusion. I don't think it's fair (no pun intended) to describe the source as a "blog". These "media advisories" are closer to press releases, and I've been reading them for years before I even heard the word "blog". Gamaliel 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears the only difference between their "media advisories" and the average blog is that they source their claims, and they don't have a feature to accept comments. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-18 21:20

The fact that you think something looks like a blog is not a valid criteria for judging something an unreliable source. Gamaliel 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, I never said it was an unreliable source. I reserved judgment about it and still do. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-18 22:19

Fair.org is the left equivalent of the right-leaning MediaResearch.org. THey are generally factually accurate but agenda driven. I would question the value of their conclusions. Since most of their stuff can be sourced to original material, I question the need to reference them at all. They are certainly not NPOV sources. Wikipedia has guidelines on sources and I don't think either MRC or Fair.org would qualify but their citations generally would. --Tbeatty 22:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the need to reference them is because otherwise there wouldn't be anything to write about. If we sourced the original content, we would have to say "Here are some quotes by Scarborough from 2003. We know now that it is not likely that the Iraq war will end as nicely as he believed at the time. That is all." — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-18 23:07

Then it would need to be attributed, I would think. "Fair.org, a left-wing media watchdog, believes..." or "MediaResearch, a right-wing media watchdog, has concluded...". I owuld question their value in an encyclopedia which should be able to simply state facts using primary sources. The guideline for secondary sources is generally a NPOV which I would think rules these types of sources out. Policy excludes secondary sources with extremist views but I don't think either group falls into this category. Since Scarborough is a "living person biography" extreme deference must be made which I think would rule these sources out. Stick to factual primary sources, not secondary sources with bias and agenda. --Tbeatty 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

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

• I would rather the discussion remain at Talk:Joe Scarborough. I have no personal opinion about the validity of the content; my only purpose, as requested by the office, is to make sure the article remains factually accurate, neutral, and well-sourced. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-21 05:48
  • I've withdrawn this case from consideration by the Mediation Cabal, since only the requestor is apparently interested in pursuing this route to resolve the content dispute. There are other, more formal arbitration routes that concerned users may wish to pursue. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Private information

Please consider removing the private information about Scarborough's ex-wife, current wife, and children. He's a very public and controversial figure, and that means that lots of crazy people out there would be interested in getting to him in a way that hurts. By publishing the names of his spouses and children, this puts them at risk, and it's not necessary to identify them in this article to make the points mentioned. User:ShirleyUJest

That's a good point. I don't know how common knowledge it is. JS bio simply says he lives with his wife and three children. I don't know how relevant their names are to his biography. --Tbeatty 03:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's public knowledge through tax records, phone bills, etc. Plus, wikipedia does not censor articles. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Then where is the source? His children are not on his phone bill. Nor are his tax records publicly available. There is a difference between censoring and not inlcuding irrelevant information. For example, there would not be a Wikipedia page on his wife. Or children. Mentioning that he has a wife and children is sufficient information. If they are not worth a page in due to lack of notability, why would they warrant mention by name if there are safety concerns? Why isn't it sufficient just to list them? --Tbeatty 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Tax records, phone bills all that are available through a little investigation, and as a congressman, through all sorts of FOIA requests. Notibility has nothing to do with it, as they're not being given an article, just mention by name.

Actually, for personal information, we have censored before, and probably should in this case, unless it has been published in newspapers. Just because it is available through tax records doesn't mean it gets to be in the article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 04:20

After some quick research, Scarborough in the past has been open about their names. See his old site: [3]. So this case differs from other examples where we have censored private information. Yes, Wikipedia does censor personal information as it becomes necessary to. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 04:24

Also, realize that Scarborough was once a member of Congress, so I'm sure his whole family got regular attention back then. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 04:32

Yes, in the cases of things like street addresses, but not people's names. That's not private censorable knowledge. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just wrong. Names can be and have been removed as well. This usually only happens when the person actually asks/demands such action from the Wikimedia office. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 05:08

Fair enough. It is obvious that he has changed though in that his current bio on his page does not list his childrens or wife's name (or his ex-wifes name). It would seem that since they are not persons who would have their own wikipedia page (i.e. not noteworthy enough), should we defer to his current "family bio" which is nameless? It would certainly reflect in Wikipedia's history just as it does in web.archive.org. The names are not worthy of a Wikipedia page. The names don't seem to add any insight into Joe Scarboroughs life. He doesn't seem to want to have their names listed in his bio as he has consciously removed them for whatever reason from his own bio. --Tbeatty 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the names would be unencylopedic and detrimental to the article. Seriously, what kind of encyclopedia refers to the names of a freakin radio/tv personality and congressman's family as "K." and "A." ??? Would you make an article named "J.S."? What about Dick Cheney's wife? Would you refer to her as "L.C" in fear for her? This is absolutely ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my version before you rv'd it. I did not use initials. It reads like a lot of Bios of living people where they don't wnat their non-famous relatives listed. If Scarboroughs wife was a public figure. Or his children, I owuld have no objection. I would have the bar set to if they deserve their own Wikipedia page, they are fair game. Lynne Cheney has her own page. So do the Bush children. As does Chelsea Clinton. But none of Scarboroughs children or wives rise to that level.--Tbeatty 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1986, Scarborough married his first wife. They divorced in 1999 after having two children. The youngest was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. While interviewing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in June, 2005, Scarborough expressed concerns about the possibility one of his sons may have suffered vaccine damage, perhaps attributable to the sharp increase during the 1980s in the amount of thimerosal injected into infants, "My son, born in 1991, has a slight form of autism called Asperger's. When I was practicing law and also when I was in Congress, parents would constantly come to me and they would bring me videotapes of their children, and they were all around the age of my son or younger. So, something happened in 1989." [13]

Scarborough married his current wife in October, 2001. They live in Pensacola with their daughter and his two sons from his previous marriage.

Please tell me what information about Joe Scarborough is missing by not naming his family?--Tbeatty 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think because Scarborough has allowed their personal information to be on his site for no less than 3 years, it is allowable. If he complained, citing some crazed nut who follows them around, then I'd probably remove it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 05:09

• • I don't disagree. I am searching more for a guideline. It is not clear when there should be deference and when there should be raw facts. My minimal standard for inclusion was a public reference. It would be bad if something were to happen and the only public source for the information was Wikipedia. As it stands, I personally would defer to JS current bio unless something were to make the names of his family relevant such as criminal activity, or another newsworthy event. --Tbeatty 05:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to leave out the names of his family members. It is basic biographical information, which is already available from many other sources. It's probably on the jacket of his book. Withholding the information doesn't benefit Scarborough's family in any way, it only detracts from the completeness of this biography. Rhobite 05:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does benefit JS family or else he wouldn't have removed it from his bio page. Whatever we may think of the information, he thought it was too much to have publicly available at his website and he thought there was value to reomoving it. Personally, I don't think having the names of his wife and children have increased my knowledge of Joe Scarborough. The are not persons of notability other than being related to Joe Scarborough. There is a standard of whether these people get their own Wikipedia page. There is not a standard on how they can be included in someone elses bio. IT is a very gray area.--Tbeatty 05:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that he actively removed the content. It could be that when he had someone write up a new biography, they just left the info out, intentionally or not. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 05:41

Klausutis Arbitration

Since no one but myself has responded to the request for Mediation, I am going to request Arbitration. To use gamaliel's Clinton analogy: just as we don't list every Clinton acquaintance he was accused of killing according to crackpot internet theories, books, and movies, we should not should not include Klausutis. It is not significant enough to be listed and listing it is a defamation that far outweighs any encyclopedic value. Just as making the CLinton list would be defamatory in a way that is not erased by using "alleged" or by giving exonerating details or accounts, Klausutis is defamatory to list in Scarboroughs bio and is only in place to raise the eyebrows of the reader about Scarboroughs involvement. It gives the reader the improper impression that the death was controversial or that Scarborough was involved. The tenacity with which some users have held on to this very small detail in light of the fact that it is not done on other bios and their declining to engage in mediation, leaves me no choice but to ask for Arbitration. This item simply doesn't belong or else Wikipedia will become a collection of these unsubstantiated accusations in the guise of factoids. --Tbeatty 03:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it's necessary to go into Arbitration. This will only drag out the matter for more months, and it's unlikely that they'll take up the case. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 03:48
  • It appears that this has gone on for over a year. Other users have been chased away it seems after reading their comments. Perseverance shouldn't be the standard of acceptable content. We certainly wouldn't add the 25 or so people that Clinton supposedly had killed according to the internet and other publications. Nor would Wikipedia give the crackpots the satisfaction of even addressing it in the guise of exonerating their target. Scarborough has plenty of factual events in his life that prove controversial simply because he was a politician. Controversy doesn't need to be manufactured. --Tbeatty 04:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The arbitration committee doesn't involve itself in content disputes such as this one. You'll have to work on forming a consensus on this talk page. I didn't participate in the mediation because I felt it was unnecessary. Since there are no user conduct issues here, arbitration is similarly unnecessary. My position has always been that a small mention of the Klausutis incident is appropriate. I think the current version is fine. There is no need to attack the medical examiner or lament the lack of media coverage of the death, but there is also no reason to delete the paragraph entirely. That's always been my position. Rhobite 04:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't mind mentioning in the context of the spat with Michael Moore. That's when it rose to more than just an internet conspiracy theory. It only became relevant when Scarborough became a journalist.
  • Actually, I am not against participating in mediation, I just haven't gotten around to responding yet. I didn't see any particular hurry to write out a long position statement since this has been going on for well over a year. Gamaliel 05:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Three years earlier, on July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis, one of Scarborough's aides, died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Moore believed that Scarborough was involved in the documentary Michael Moore Hates America.

Chronologically I put it in the journalist section. This was my compromise to mentioning it at all. Does this meet what you think is necessary, Rhobite? --Tbeatty 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's awkward to start with Moore's domain name and go backwards in time. I understand that you feel Moore's involvement is the most important point here, but it doesn't read right to me. I support the current version, at the end of the "congressional career" section. Rhobite 05:26, 25 March 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)

What changed? It can certainly be reworded so that the domain isn't first. But chronologically it became notable in 2004. Before that it was only a nutball conspiracy theory. --Tbeatty 05:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine. I would suggest removing the Don Imus bit, since it's not important. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 05:34

There's a lot that's not importantant but it's a start. How about the "allegations all over the internet"? That's like saying there is porn on the internet. --Tbeatty 05:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Wolcott, who is not a friend to Scarborough, still cut the Klausutis bits out of his book "Attack Poodles". There is a reference in the Wiki article to an earlier Wolcott Vanity Fair article. He thought better of including it in his book. --Tbeatty 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. The Michael Moore connection is a sufficient reason to mention Klausutis in this article, but it isn't the only reason. Even without Moore's involvement, this incident would still deserve a brief mention in the article. Rhobite 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar

I did some research on the Scarborough and Lori Klausutis situation. I came up with some interesting information, indeed, and have edited the arcticle accordingly. It looks like there is need for an investigation, but Scarborough's part isn't what warrants the investigation. Scarborough, if I'm correct is the fall guy here. Please check these links (only a few) that are available.

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/911WidowQuestions.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.05B.Klausutis.1.htm
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030721Baker.html
thewolfstar 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually there isn't. There was an attempt to smear Scarborough by trying to make a tragic natural death into a suspicious death. Mostly becuase at the time Gary Condit was under fire because of his evasive answers about Chandra Levy. There is no evidence of any foul play in Klausutis death. Go to the Klausutis page for the reference. --Tbeatty 05:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went to the article which states

Soon after her death, Scarborough complained about allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved. [1] Critics have complained about the handling of the investigation[2], the failure to release relevant records[3], and disputed Berkland's conclusions and his past.
What's your point? Go to, especially the first reference I just listed here. thewolfstar 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, dudes. Can someone actually click one of links above and comment on the information? thewolfstar 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what to comment on. There simply is no evidence of foul play. The articles you cite dance around that fact but it is fact. TomFlocco's opinion notwithstanding. --Tbeatty 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Lori Klausutis (for another round)

I agree that this issue must be included.

I agree that to make a statement without providing context or why it is relevant only invites reader inferences that there is an actual connection between the incident and Scarborough.

However, to exclude any mention of the accident would cause a reader to infer that any connection has been suppressed.

Even the Clinton page has sections on the spurious accusations about killing 60 people. (Thank you Jerry Falwell).

Even if the pantomime Joe Scarborough who loves to disrupt the Talk pages were the real Joe Scarborough, it is inappropriate to of him to give such harangues; Wikipedia (I believe) is not the Congressional Biography Section.

Therefore, I am suggesting this modification to the paragraph. Thoughts?

Scarborough has aroused hostility by some on the left. As one result, a largely discredited accusation, spread on the internet, accused him of an involvement in the death of an aide. Lori Klausutis died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office while the Congressman was in Washington, DC. This was ruled an accident [2] and no major news outlet gave credence to the rumor. This rumor has dogged Scarborough. According to Scarborough, soon after her death, allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved [9], although there was no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program [10]. In 2004, Scarborough claimed that Michael Moore had accused him of murder, but offered no footage or proof that Moore had made the statement or had referred to Klausutis.[11]

The stable, consensused version of this paragraph has been up for about a year after nearly 'two' years of infighting. I don't suggest rehashing it now. JPotter 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly can't leave mention of it out now that Katherine Harris has tried to use the issue to promote her Senate campaign by keeping Scarborough out of the race (even if he was never going to get in it in the first place). bd2412 T 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to an earlier consensus version that doesn't have the Original Research that he didn't provide any evidence. Not sure how you could source the negative. In any event, it was inaccurate to claim it as it was in the Vanity fair article and Michael Moore's website 'Joe Scarborough Killed His Intern" is pretty straightforward. Also, I left the article where the death was described and ruled an accident as a reference. No real point in saying "it was an accident" and then the next sentence saying "The ME ruled it was an accident." --Tbeatty 00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Colbert relevance

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

And why is it John and not Joe within this sentence?

Lori Klausitis subheader

There appears to be a dispute as to what, if anything, should be contained in a subheader pertaining to the material in the article addressing the death of Lori Klausitis. We must seek to achieve a consensus as to this matter - please discuss which of the following options do you feel are good or bad, and why:

Subheader titled "Murder of Lori Klausitis" or Lori Klausistis' Murder

Good because...

Bad because...

Indifferent because...

Subheader titled "Death of Lori Klausitis" or Lori Klausitis' Death

Good because...

Bad because...

Indifferent because...

No subheader

Good because...

• We've already achieved consensus on this after more than two years of debate. The no subheader was a key compromise and has been stable for over a year JPotter 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad because...

Indifferent because...

BLP Violations

The inclusion of the Lori Klausutis material violates WP:BLP, as her death has been ruled as "not suspicious", and Scarborough is not considered a suspect by any legal authority in her death. Appears that the inclusion of the subject here is for biased or malicious purposes intended to smear Scarborough, "pushing an agenda or a biased point of view." While this was at one time considered an open question, the issue has been put to bed, and has no place here except to smear Scarborough. Please carefully review WP:BLP before you re-include this material. Morton devonshire 01:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF before you smear other editors. This issue has been discussed by many editors and a consensus was formed. Please review prior debates on this subject before you attempt to stir it all up again with the same two year old smears against other Wikipedians. Gamaliel 01:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. Please discuss WP:BLP rather than trying to attack me for pointing out BLP violations. I've reviewed the previous debates, and something has changed: Time. Scarborough is not a subject of any criminal investigation with respect to Klausutis, and there is no open Coroner or other inquest suggesting that she died by his hand. That's a violation of BLP. Morton devonshire 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough's innocence (which the article does not dispute) or the lack of a current criminal investigation (which the article also does not dispute) does not mean that Klausutis's death must disappear from history. The information is sourced and neutral. There is no BLP violation. Gamaliel 01:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be sourced and neutral, but Scarborough is not involved, so it has no relevancy. That's why I question its presence here, except to smear Scarborough, which is a violation of WP:BLP. Also, Wikipedia has had a serious re-evaluation of BLP in the last several months given the potential for liability, so the standards of inclusion have changed in order to protect Wikipedia. There's no sense fighting battles two years old -- they're not relevant to recent policy. Morton devonshire 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue because there is nothing defamatory about recording a historical incident in a neutral matter using reliable sources. Your opinion of why other editors advocate its inclusion is insulting, inaccurate, and irrelevant. Please stop attacking other editors by making insulting assumptions about their motives. See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Gamaliel 02:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to change the subject again. This is about the article violating BLP, not you. BLP and Wikipedia's perspective on BLP has changed significantly since these issues were last explored. Morton devonshire 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

See this for an example of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Tbeatty 03:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to continue to attack me, I encourage you to use my user talk page to do so instead of posting irrelevant comments on the talk pages of whatever article I edited last. Or perhaps pistols at dawn? Gamaliel 03:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is attacking you. I certainly wouldn't attack you. I simply found it ironic and humorous for you to cite WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when the comments you left on my talk page were still warm. But you are correct: complaining about personal attacks, civility and assuming good faith do not belong on article discussion pages. --Tbeatty 05:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I get angry when people make attacks and post fabricated 3RR reports about me. Congratulations, you've proven I'm not Jesus. Now if you wish to attack me or discuss my lack of saintly qualities further, I ask for a second time that you take it to personal talk pages and don't post such things on the talk pages of unrelated articles. You've been around here long enough I shouldn't have to make this request a third time. Gamaliel 12:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to temper your anger, avoid personality disputes, and focus on editing Wikipedia, rather than its editors. Morton devonshire 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination)

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

Removal of Lori Klausutis' name

What? Reverting the unwarranted and unjustified deletions of factual material is wrong? "Some nameless dead body was found in his office" is pretty muc the OPPOSITE of factual. I don't believe policy has changed on that, but certainly not making veiled threats is still policy. --Calton | Talk 08:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Threats in the edit summary - or anywhere else - are completely unacceptable and repeat violators will be subject to administrative action. Let's play nice please. Gamaliel 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

She is non-notable and her name adds no value. --Tbeatty 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. It adds a verifiable -- and checkable -- fact. It's so obvious, I have to wonder what kind of agenda you have to justify this departure from standard writing style, factual inclusion, encyclopedic standards, and, frankly, common sense. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and does "no rubbernecking" in the edit summary imply that everyone but you should keep out? Allow me to introduce you to this. --Calton | Talk 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Standard writing style is really what ought to govern here, and I think Calton's understanding to be quite right. Whilst the inclusion of a name where simply a sentence apropos of an issue exists might be exorbitantly trivial and necessarily unencyclopedic, the inclusion is quite appropriate and consistent with our practice passim. There seems, at the very least, to be a consensus amongst the editors here in favor of inclusion, and, though one might think such inclusion to be in contravention of WP:BLP, there certainly appear be no persuasive arguments essayed toward that proposition. Even as I fear that we're destined for WP:LAME, ought we perhaps to puruse an RfC exclusively as to the "Klausutis" section in order that other editors might partake of this discussion? Joe 05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is that she is non-notable and her page was deleted for that very reason. The result was Delete not merge. Her name adds no value and the sources have the information for the user looking for that extra bit of information. The rubbernecking comment was allegorical to what happens at a car accident and has nothing to do with owning the article. Her name could be anything and the information conveyed is exactly the same. --Tbeatty 06:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of the community, as noted by the deletion, is that Klausutis is non-notable. No amount of flowery language can assuage that conclusion. Morton devonshire 06:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The "consensus of the community" -- a false statement in and of itself, but let's leave that be -- was that she was not worth an ARTICLE: vigorous handwaving, nonsensical analogies and veiled threats do not change that and says nothing about her being MENTIONED in a relevant article; further dismissing this as "flowery language" all give me reason to question your motives, at the very least. The only way your argument makes the slightest bit of sense -- logically, intellectually, and honestly -- would be if the ENTIRE section regarding her death and its controversy was worth expunging. Unless you're prepared to argue THAT -- and I suspect you know that you wouldn't get far with THAT -- her name and identity is part and parcel of the larger story.

Again, this is so obvious, I have to ask, what IS your motivation here? --Calton | Talk 07:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Including the woman's name is a needless invasion of privacy, and is not useful to the reader. She is not known to the public in any other context. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We just went through the deletion of the article about her:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). On the third attempt some editors did succeeed in getting the article about her deleted. Some the editors presented reasons to keep the article, some to deleted it, even many of those calling for deletion called for her information to be included in this article. If there was a "consensus" in that acrimonious debate, it was to include somewhere in Wikipedia this unusual incident of an apparently healthy young woman who worked for then Congressman Scarborough being found dead in the office from a blow to the head, even if the medical examiner did deduce she had fainted from a previously undisclosed heart problem and fallen and hit her head. The death has been discussed by Scarborough on TV, and by Kathryn Harris in a senatorial campaign, furnishing sufficient reason for mention here, including her name. Now we see an attempt to remove her name from the little information here about the incident. Please leave her name in the article so the sentence about her death is not cryptic, and so a reader can at least seek further info outside Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. There is a clear need for outside, uninvolved editors to take a look at this issue through a RFC. Someone who knows how should invoke that process. Edison 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some editors did succeed"? That's a misstatement of what happened. The Closing Admin deleted the article -- that action is the consensus of the community. No amount of "apropos", "passims", "essayeds", or "partakes" spinning will change that. Morton devonshire 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire, if you're going to revert the inclusion of the name, don't revert to the broken link. I repaired it and in both your and Tbeatty's rush to revert you both replaced it with a broken link. I'll ask that you fix and please check exactly what you're reverting before doing so. Thanks. *Sparkhead 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Morton: I hope you are not saying that the closing editor deleted it without regard to the statements of the editors commenting. Absent that, the choices are that you and others succeeded in getting the article deleted, or you failed, and it is still an article. I see no such article, so voila, you must have succeeded in getting the article deleted. But please note that a clear majority called for either keeping the article or merging the info into this article, and I cannot imagine how her name is not part of that merge. Kudos to Tbeatty for putting the name back in. Regards. Edison 04:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

jmaynardgIt is *astonishing* to me that a dead woman found in a congressman's office, for which there is little news left online and still no reasonable explanation for her death, would be simply removed from that congressman's wikipedia biography. I will not edit the article, because I won't want to waste my time with wikidisputes. But IMO this is utter bullshit. A dead woman was found in a congressman's office. If that's not worthy of note in the man's bio page, fuck if I know what is.

If there can be an entire article about Vince Foster's death and the conspiracy theories surrounding it, why can't Lori Klausutis' name appear even once in this article? Johnskeller (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Her family requested that she not be named. She died in a tragic accident leaving behind her parents and husband. She was not famous and was not a victim of a crime. They preferred that her name not be "used by unscrupulous mud-slingers as fodder for scurrilous aspersions." The event is covered only so far as it affected Scarborough but that event was the comments by Michael Moore. If you believe that the Vince Foster articles contain defamatory information or needs to be rewritten for Undue Weight issues or NPOV issues, feel free to rewrite it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of names

Beyond just the individual discussion above, certain editors have been removing all "non notable" names from this article, and I have to question why. Putting names of spouses and children, even "non notable" spouses and children, is common practice in biographical articles, including BLP. What's the justification to make this article any different? *Sparkhead 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with spouses but I think we should leave children names out. --NuclearZer0 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the sources linked for the information is a biographical document released by the agency that does bookings for him. Includes his wife and children's names. If you "search inside" a copy of his book, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day" at Amazon, you'll note he mentions his wife and children, by name, in both the acknowledgements section and some portions of the main text. While I don't believe exclusion of a name in a book is reason for exclusion here, I do believe if he includes names in a book bearing his name, that supports the inclusion here. *Sparkhead 17:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering your source I would have to agree. --NuclearZer0 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Joke ?

I'm staying out of the highly unfortunate insistence some editors have on including Lori K's name, but this is a sentence which could use some clarification:

"In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program ... "

Joked? About a person who died? Can someone who has access to that source please provide better context or explanation of this "joke", since it sounds quite strange and callous as currently worded? Sandy (Talk) 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

James Wolcott, "MSNBC's fox hunt: management and marketing strategies", Vanity Fair 518 (Oct 2003): 140(5) Also see http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030721Baker.html or Google "Lori Klausutis" and Imus On May 29, 2003.

Edison 09:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the constant reversions

Tbeatty, can you please stop with the reversion of relevant material? The incident regarding Arnold clearly is relevant to the subject, even you argued such not long ago. Now you're arguing it isn't. Scarborough's actions are on topic. The actions of someone else commenting on yet some other group are not. *Sparkhead 19:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Either all of the Arnold incident is relevant including Arnold's response or none of it is. Quit trying to cherry pick information.--Tbeatty 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This has already been explained above. Only portions related to him are relevant. I'm sure I could name a few dozen others who had some sort of reaction to the incident, that doesn't merit their inclusion here. *Sparkhead 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Scarborough said something about Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger responded. It doesn't get any more relevant than that and in some countries the response is required to be published by law. Nor is it NPOV to exclude it. Ia am okay with deleting the whole thing as a micro-detail that is non-encyclopedic but it is not okay to only delete the response to the controversy. --Tbeatty 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. Schwarzenegger's response to and about Scarborough is relevant. The grand total of that response was "we informed him the next day". That's it. That's also how this item originally and correctly appeared in this article. *Sparkhead 12:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How they respond is not our concern. His response included a comment about the legislature which is relevant because it's another group that made the same mistake as Scarborough. --Tbeatty 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with including it only because its directly relevant and shows a relation to his reaction and others. --NuclearZer0 16:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Have to disagree that it's relevant. This article is about Scarborough, not Schwarzengeer or California politics. Gamaliel 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we should remove the whole comment since it was about Schwarzenegger. It's trivial anyway. --Tbeatty 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remove the whole incident, then make a case on the talk page for its removal, but don't remove it as a petulant response to editors removing irrelevant material. Gamaliel 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the exact opposite. I am willing to entertain having the whole incident or having none of it. But not a POV rendition that doesn't present the response of the person about whom the comment was made. Pick one. --Tbeatty 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your attempt to frame the issue as one of two undesirable choices, and there is nothing POV about not mentioning irrelevant info. For it to be included you can't merely claim "it's the whole incident", you must demonstrate how a second party claiming a third party may or may not have done something is relevant to the subject of this article. Gamaliel 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it's unencyclopedic but you've insisted on having it in the past so I added context to make it NPV. This article is not a blow by blow of every press conference and every quote and every comment. --Tbeatty 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't recall insisting upon any such thing, though I may have forgotten previous comments on this trivial matter. And this article is, as you say, "not a blow by blow of every press conference and every quote and every comment", which is why I removed the irrelevant quote. Gamaliel 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And is why I removed the whole silly thing anyway. Tbeatty 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Aide

Does not belong in the article. It is extremely inflammatory and creates a sense that he had something to do with her death, even though he was in his Washington, DC office at the time. Why does it belong in this article? 63.20.149.215 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for this information is discussed in the achives of the talk page. DisneyFreak96 07:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read through them. Seems like a smear campaign to me. 63.20.164.248 06:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here but "...her death was used by unscrupulous mud-slingers as fodder for scurrilous aspersions." [4]. And they continue to fight for inclusion. This is the compromise.--Tbeatty 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This compromise still does not even remotely belong in this article. Should we include the death's of one's employees in every single article about every single boss? It doesn't compare to the Condit situation as it was never alleged that Joe Scarborough was having an affair with this aide.

Furthermore, Gamaliel keeps on insisting on reverting me and isn't responding to my requests for him/her to review this talk page, as you requested I do Tbeatty. Please provide assistance with this matter. 63.20.164.248 06:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Three editors have reverted you. It is clear you don't have consensus. Regardless of whether they respond here, unless the community comes out en masse, your edits will not stand. Right or wrong, this is a place of consensus. Gamaliel et al respects consensus so the next step is to build consensus. A BLP noticeboard would be the next step followed by an RfC. I don't think either will result in the entire removal of the paragraph as you have edited. --Tbeatty 07:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your POV, however, Calton and Gamaliel have just blindly reverted without discussion; I'm attempting to bring this issue to the table as this still does not belong in the article. Joe Scarborough's aide's death was completely unrelated to his career or his life, it was just the unfortunate death of one of his employees. Furthermore, if we must include an entry on this, should we discuss the death of Kennedy's secretary, or the allegations of raping one of his employees? Of course not, that would be completely uncalled for as they are not connected to him by verifiable fact. The insistence that this sentence remain is defamatory and insulting, and it demonstrates a hidden agenda. 63.20.175.129 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not belong in the article because it is not about Joe Scarborough. -- Mgunn 07:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The current wording (which has now been removed and the article protected) is the result of literally years of discussion and compromise. The inclusion is notable and verifiable and represents consensus. Please remove the protection to allow the re-inclusion of the consensus version. JPotter 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This entry does not belong. Again, how is the unfortunate death of an employee related to the person in general? How is this a major life event for this person? What purpose does documenting this serve? 63.20.149.74 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced consensus exists. Perhaps you should hold a straw poll, or get a third opinion. As a last resort, you can go to arbitration. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for a Third Opinion on this matter. 63.20.149.74 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Disputes posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion are for disputes between two editors, for the purpose of soliciting a tie-breaking opinion. The dispute here involves more than two editors, so arbitration might be in order instead.

For what it's worth, in my opinion, the mention of the aide's death is appropriate for the article, provided it's only a mention. It deserves mention because it was made into an issue by a campaign opponent, and that's a notable fact. -Amatulic 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In it's current revision, the aide's death is mentioned as a result of this issue. 63.20.211.55

As the issue is still unresolved, I think it's time for arbitration. Just saying... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a mention is deserved due to the fact that it was brought up in a political context, however, the paragraph that keeps on being pushed on this article is highly inappropriate. I concur with your suggestion for arbitration. Mr. Ray Lopez 06:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is being "pushed". Read the archives before you make accusations. Gamaliel 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For everyones background, I will try to summarize the consensus version. There are three camps that I can recall. The first camp wants no mention of the incident as it is believed to be of no consequence to Scarborough and that it's allusion to impropriety outweighs any probative value it contains. The second camp believes that the incident is noteworthy because it generated publicity about the death during a time when the national spotlight was focused on another high profile death associated with a congressman (gary condit). The second camp believes newsworthiness of the event warrants inclusion, not the event itself. The third camp wants extensive converage of the death including reports about improprieties of the coroner, perceived police irregularities, etc. The current consensus version leans toward the first/second camp although changes to consensus concerning the name of the deceased has occured. Did I get it right? For full disclosure, I have argued against inclusion but I understand the 2 other sides even if I don't agree. --Tbeatty 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A valid assessment. JPotter 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

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

Tom Flocco

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

Removing line

Removing this line:

"Most traditional conservatives now regard Joe Scarborough as just another sell-out, who's sold his soul to keep his job with the failing MSNBC cable TV network."

because it's unsourced and POV. Major Organ 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• 1a: The quote in "Family" has no apparent relation to the text around it; My understanding of Asperger syndrome was that it was the result of hereditary factors. After some further research, I found Causes of autism#Vaccine theory. You might want to separate the bit about autism into its own paragraph, and take a few more sentences to clarify what he's saying there. Also, consider using {{cquote}} on his quote to make it look pretty.
• 1c: "Recent controversies" is too short to be a subsection; "Congressional career" needs more subsections
• 2a: The first two paragraphs of "Congressional career" are unreferenced; article has too many "External links"... I recommend using some of the external links as references.
• 2b: Use citation templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc); I was going to suggest fixing the ref spacing (.^[1] instead of ^[1]. or . ^[1]) but that was just fixed. Good job :)
• 5: Article is subject to an ongoing edit war. The other stuff I've mentioned is relatively minor, and can be fixed. However, it is unlikely that you'll Pass GAC until you've taken this article to arbitration. After that point, any deviation from the consensus about her death will be treated as vandalism and offending users will be warned and subsequently blocked.
• 6: You only have one image, which has a valid license. I'd recommend trying to find an additional image to place in the article. Not required, of course, but it would improve it.

Overall, this is a well-written article, with only some minor stuff needing help. Once you've taken it to arbitration, settled the edit war, fixed the other minor stuff, renominate it and let me know. I'd really like to see this article become a GA. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The above reviewer pointed out an ongoing edit war that I am not aware of, so as of now instead of immediately sending it to arbitration I put it up in Wikipedia:Requests for comment here. Please check what is going on. Thanks! Wooyi 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Look up a couple talk topics. It's the bit about the woman dying. There's a big paragraph that people are adding to an removing from the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the article has been protected twice in the last couple months because of that edit war. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't a GA review be done by someone who a) has not been involved with the debate over the mention of the aide in the past, possibly who has read the archives about this issue, avoiding appearances that the GA review is a contrivance and b) is not from Joe's hometown? OK, OK, the latter is irrelevant. Therefore 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made significant contributions to the article or the discussion. Therefore, I'm eligible to review the article. Do you have any questions about my suggestions? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Summarizing (copy from above) --Tbeatty 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For everyones background, I will try to summarize the consensus version. There are three camps that I can recall. The first camp wants no mention of the incident as it is believed to be of no consequence to Scarborough and that it's allusion to impropriety outweighs any probative value it contains. The second camp believes that the incident is noteworthy because it generated publicity about the death during a time when the national spotlight was focused on another high profile death associated with a congressman (gary condit). The second camp believes newsworthiness of the event warrants inclusion, not the event itself. The third camp wants extensive converage of the death including reports about improprieties of the coroner, perceived police irregularities, etc. The current consensus version leans toward the first/second camp although changes to consensus concerning the name of the deceased has occured. Did I get it right? For full disclosure, I have argued against inclusion but I understand the 2 other sides even if I don't agree. --Tbeatty 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've got an IP attempting to alter that text. If you're sure that what is in the article is the consensus version, then every time they change it without permission, use one of the user talk messages to warn them to stop. If they persist after a third- or fourth-level warning, report them at WP:AIV and have them blocked. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reccomendation: use {{notice}} at the top of the page, giving the "consensus" version, and stating that using any other version of the Lori Klausutis paragraph will be considered vandalism, and will result in warnings, and if it persists, a block. Then, give instructions on how to revert and warn users that do that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(moved to top of page) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I apologize for whining. Sometimes weariness brings the worst out of me. I realize that you are making suggestions to improve the article.

1a: The paragraph needs some clean up for clarity, agreed. cquote, on the other hand, would be a bad style decision. "It generally should not be used in articles unless there is a good justification for doing so." Could you please elaborate on why you feel that its use is justified here?

1c: I've seen many GA branded articles with short subsections. The only real clear subsection in "Congressional career" is the one about the aide. As part of the long process of coming to consensus, it was decided not to add more highlighting to this mention.

2a: Agreed that some citation is required here. Can you please be specific about your concerns with the number of External Links? I agree that one is redundant with a footnote. Is that your concern? The number is fairly typical for this class of article.

2b: The use of cite web or cite news is neither recommended nor discouraged by the MoS. There is no need to encourage it in a GA review.

5. The one in bold letters. This is a consensus paragraph. Worked over many years. This section will always be controversial, no matter its form or possible omission. Tbeatty has twice summarized its history.

6. I really don't believe that multiple images are required or even helpful to pass GA.

In summary: I agree the first two paragraphs of the "Congressional career" need references gleaned from the External Links. Plus the family paragraph needs clarification. Therefore 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good summary of my reccomendations... although I strongly suggest you use the citation templates. It won't kill you, and will significantly improve the article's quality (IMO). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and easy enough to do. Therefore 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Warning template

I've removed the absurd claim that good-faith edits are "vandalism" and replaced it with a statement that edits not first discussed on talk might be reverted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just wrote it on a whim, and nobody really gave me any feedback. However, I was referring to edit-warring/pov-pushing users that consistently change that particular section. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hatred of Rosie O'Donnell

It should be noted his hatred of Rosie O'Donnell. Since April 2006 when Barbara Walters announced that Rosie would be coming to "The View" he has demonized and slandered her daily. Joe Scarborough has called her a pig, a freak, a mess, fat, anti-American etc. Here is a sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNhIp44bmZY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tA7f0ts0-g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sWJZikfl-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pYesEy5GgI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AMKhDFnnXI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_QToxyRc1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZGbfx6GvbQ

Jerri Thompson pole comment

On June 1, 2007 Joe Scarborough caused controversy when he referred to possible presidental canidate Fred Thompson's wife as a stripper. The comment was made during a tryout for a morning show on MSNBC.

Joe Scarborough: "Hey, have you seen Fred Thompson's wife?"

Craig Crawford: "Oh yeah..."

Joe Scarborough: "You think she works the pole?"

Craig Crawford: "That's what Hollywood careers will do for you, I guess."

Although it is common for Joe to make comments in poor taste this one caught the attention of media outlets. Source Pensacola News Journal

Scarborough Country

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

I changed the External Link from Scarborough Country to Morning Joe, as this is his current gig at MSNBC. 72.94.95.190 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)