Talk:Rowan Scarborough

Notability
Scarborough is the author of numerous articles--for Human Events, the Washington Examiner and the Washington Times--and the 256-page pro-Bush volume Sabotage: America's Enemies within the CIA. He is controversial for his outspoken neoconservative stance. It would seems he meets general notability requirements for journalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Detmcphierson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be much contention about notability. Scarborough wrote a New York Times bestseller. I added some citations that should make the article viable. Hondo55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondo55 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not true, he did not write a New York Times bestseller. This is claimed on this wiki as well as a couple other places online, but it is a falsehood, you can search for it here: https://www.adazing.com/search-new-york-times-best-seller-list/ LetsCorrectThat (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree - This is someone who is well-known enough in Beltway journalism to merit an article. Given the fact that this notability tag has been up for so long and that there are two other editors of the same opinion, I am going to remove the tag. If anyone has a rationale to keep the notability tag up there, then let's discuss. KConWiki (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I have some concerns about the sources used in this biography. Per WP:BLP, we should take particular care with articles about living persons. The sources in this case are (1) a dead link with no information except for the title, (2) an interview (by CNN - the source is good in general, but any statement would need to be attributed to the speaker), (3) a book review in American Thinker (questionable as a source, in my opinion, and with little on the person), (4) a publisher's blurb and (5) NNDB, whose reliability I have no idea about. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rowan Scarborough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227023141/http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/24/sabotage-an-interview-with-rowan-scarborough/ to http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/24/sabotage-an-interview-with-rowan-scarborough/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Scarborough had written poorly sourced and biased stories in the past
"A source told Mediaite that Scarborough had written poorly sourced and biased stories in the past, and expressed shock that he was still employed at the Times."

https://www.mediaite.com/print/new-washington-times-deletes-report-claiming-antifa-infiltrated-trump-riot/

Washington Times Deletes Report Claiming Antifa Infiltrated Trump Riot

Facial recognition company XRVision says a report The Washington Times published on Wednesday night, claiming their firm identified Antifa members in the pro-Trump mob that destroyed the Capitol building, is false and warrants an apology.

The story went viral among Trump supporters, and was touted by Fox News host Laura Ingraham and even Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who used it to suggest the riot was a false flag on the House floor.

On Thursday afternoon, just before 1 p.m. EST, The Times deleted the report entirely, and the link now re-directs back to the homepage of their site.

The original headline was: “Facial recognition firm claims Antifa infiltrated Trump protesters who stormed Capitol.”

The story, based on an unnamed source claiming to have evidence from XRVision that Antifa were involved in the Capitol building riot, fell apart after it was deemed completely false by the company.

A source familiar with the matter told Mediaite the report was taken down at 12:49 p.m. EST on Thursday afternoon.

The report was written by Times reporter Rowan Scarborough and filed to Times editors shortly after 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Mediaite has learned.

Victor Morton, a top editor at The Washington Times, emailed the story to the top editors at 7:20 p.m. on Wednesday night, minutes before it was published.

Five hours after the report was published, Scarborough emailed Times editors at 1:09 a.m. on Thursday morning seeking approval to remove a paragraph from the story.

The email to edit the story to editors, which was obtained by Mediaite, was granted, with one Times editor responding “sure” to the request. A graph with claims about Antifa was then taken out.

Internet archives of the story were not saved on Wednesday night, so the removed graph could not be identified by Mediaite.

A source told Mediaite that Scarborough had written poorly sourced and biased stories in the past, and expressed shock that he was still employed at the Times. [...]

Xardox (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The story in question says
 * “Shortly after the rioting started, XRVision performed an analysis on the footage and identified several individuals. This information was shared with LEA [law enforcement agency],” the company said in a statement to The Washington Times.
 * This appears to be disinformation peddling, not a innocent mistake. The article has also has other blatant facts wrong in it, such as claiming 'antifa' was "[b]orn in Portland, Or".
 * This is why I think it is important to bring up in his biography, and why I am adding the part about this in. When disinformation is written by an author, and then this disinformation is shared on national television news (see Laura Ingraham above) as well as on on the floor of Congress by a Congressman (see Matt Gaetz above), I think it is notable enough to put in an article, and so I am reversing the removal of it.
 * Apologies ahead of time if this is not the correct way to go about this, I'm a bit new to wikipedia and am happy to be educated on the correct protocols here. LetsCorrectThat (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * XRVision's statement says “XRVision takes pride in its technology's precision and deems the Washington Times publication as outright false, misleading, and defamatory... Our attorney is in contact with the Washington Times and has instructed them to ‘Cease and Desist’ from any claims regarding sourcing of XRVision analytics, to retract the current claims, and publish and (sic) apology.” LetsCorrectThat (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies ahead of time if this is not the correct way to go about this, I'm a bit new to wikipedia and am happy to be educated on the correct protocols here. LetsCorrectThat (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * XRVision's statement says “XRVision takes pride in its technology's precision and deems the Washington Times publication as outright false, misleading, and defamatory... Our attorney is in contact with the Washington Times and has instructed them to ‘Cease and Desist’ from any claims regarding sourcing of XRVision analytics, to retract the current claims, and publish and (sic) apology.” LetsCorrectThat (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)