Jump to content

Talk:Joe Scarborough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Strangestlove (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 27 October 2020 (→‎Lori Klausutis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeJoe Scarborough was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Vital article

Beatles Fan

Also a beatles fan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.231.145 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

I have to wonder if Scarborough "he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus's radio program". There's no link to the article and there's no quote. And then it turns out there's a confusing 1 archive link above; I'm not sure how to make all archives linke there. Anyone know? I see there is Template here saying not to change this without discussing at talk page. Since he may be running for Prez, for Wikipedia's credibility sake this all has to be straightened out. Is anyone here from old days who can help, or should I figure it all from scratch?? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a long debate that ended with Jimbo weighing in. Some editors went so far as to create a bio page for the person that died. It went so far that the family of the aide asked that her name not be mentioned as it was accidental and occored from a medical condition. Scarborough was actually in DC at the time. The Scarborough story was a tit-for-tat response to Chandra Levy and Gary Condit which was on going at the same time. The smear was stopped and the name of the aide was not mentioned, her bio deleted out of common decency to the family that didn't want to become fodder for political games. To the extent that there was a lot of baseless accusations is a matter of record. The name is immaterial. --06:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people and "controversies"

Per WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION such sections are to be avoided, particularly in articles about living people. In addition "controvesy" is purely salacious giving no indication about the content of the section -an actually meaningful / descriptive heading is more appropriate. "Response over death of an aide" seems to cover the content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the change, "controversy" has the twin disadvantages of being salacious and uninformative. I don't care for the current title, but it certainly is better than "controversy" and should stand unless we can collectively come up with a better one. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recent change to "Response to smears over death of an aide" is inappropriate because it has a POV tone and POV language ("smears") characterizing comments by living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recent movement of this sub-section to the "Congress" section makes this issue moot. I don't think the placement makes much of a difference one way or the other, but it's probably a good idea to avoid any undue emphasis on this issue and a passable workaround since editors seem unwilling to discuss the issue of how to phrase the subsection heading. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to Congress because that's when she died. It is completely unrelated to Scarborough though. Particularly Markous. If someone says 'The Sky is Blue' and another person tweets 'It's because you killed your intern.' It doesn't make it suddenly newsworthy. Scarborough had no say in the banning, (if there even was one). No one other than Markous says it was related to the tweet (but if so, it's a pretty good reason.) This is insignificant in Scarborough's career and doesn't warrant even a mention. The Michael Moore spat is barely notable because the time frame was Condit/Levy time frame. But Markous is left field, unrelated, non-sequitir, false light libel and it is only his account that it's related. --DHeyward (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation consensus

It seems the consensus has been ignored : Revision as of 08:43, 5 February 2015

Not knowing the proper process, I'll rely on the consensus editors for the correction. Xburrows (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Why is there NO discussion of what is arguably the most significant event in his life, his resignation from Congress? 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:50AD:761E:2033:1A6B (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cough. cough. Dead intern66.141.235.58 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joe Scarborough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autism activist

In the article's "Personal life" section, it is stated that "In 1986, Scarborough married Melanie Hinton. They had two sons[53] and divorced in 1999. While interviewing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in June 2005, Scarborough expressed concerns about the possibility that one of his sons may have suffered vaccine damage: "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."[54]" This appears to confirm the previous categorization within the "Anti-vaccination activists" and "Autism activists" categories. Within the MSNBC cited source link, the subject describes his opposition to certain vaccines that he believed had caused or aggravated his son's autism. Advocating this belief on a cable-television broadcast makes the subject an anti-vaccination activist and an autism activist because activism can be either for and idea or against it. Consequently, I have recategorized the article based on its related references, citations and source links.24.11.116.253 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this recategorization, the article itself fails to appear within the categories; invisible edits?!?24.11.116.253 (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I reviewed categories of this bio I considered removing both Category:Anti-vaccination activists and Category:Autism activists, but decided not to because there was at least some kind of support for both in article text. But that was just my editorial (mis?)judgement.
The real question is: are these categories (a) verifiable, (b) neutral, and (c) defining as described in the categorization guideline? Since this is also a biography of a living person, relevant policy is something you should be aware of. I have removed Category:Anti-vaccination activists as contentious, and reinstated Category:1963 births – that you accidentally removed, I believe. I support removing Category:Autism activists if there's no additional evidence that the subject is consistently described as autism activist or something similar in reliable secondary sources. Or if someone removes this category immediately, I won't object. Politrukki (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my mistaken removal of the “Category:1963 births.” I believe that a little research on the matter would have cleared up any doubts about the subject’s activism. What exists currently in the article is enough to confirm proper categorization.

In the “Morning Joe” subsection within the “Media career” section, the article contains the statement “Scarborough speculated in 2012 on The Morning Joe that James Eagan Holmes, the perpetrator of the 2012 Aurora shooting, could be on the autism spectrum. The National Autistic Advocacy Organization expressed "deep concern" over Scarborough's comment.[44]” Later, in the “Personal life” section, as I referenced previously, the 2005 MSNBC report about another “Morning Joe” broadcast including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

A quick Internet search shows several well-sourced commentary and news reports about Scarborough and his activism about autism ( http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/father-learns-understand-embrace-his-son ), ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2455592/MSNBCs-Joe-Scarboroughs-wife-fraction-99K-A-WEEK-divorce.html ), (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scarborough-on-autism-remarks-perhaps-i-could-have-made-my-point-more-eloquently/ ), ( https://www.autismspeaks.org/news/news-item/autism-speaks-addresses-joe-scarborough ), ( http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/joe-scarborough-apologizes-autism-james-holmes-shooting-353595 ) and ( http://thedailybanter.com/2014/05/when-will-msnbc-stop-joe-scarboroughs-lies-about-autism-and-violence/ ).

These references describe how, in 2012, Scarborough remarked that “people like Aurora mass shooter James Holmes are ‘somewhere, I believe, on the autism scale,’ and that while he didn’t know if this was true of Holmes specifically, ‘it happens more often than not.’” In response, no less than Autism Speaks expressed concerns about his brand of autism activism when it “...called Joe Monday to express our concerns about his comments on Monday’s ‘Morning Joe’ program, and the offense taken by the autism community.” To calm the controversy over his words, Scarborough released his apology about his comparison of Holmes to autism when he wrote that “My call for increased funding and awareness for Autism and other mental health conditions was meant to support the efforts of those who work every day to improve the lives of Americans impacted. Those suggesting that I was linking all violent behavior to Autism missed my larger point and overlooked the fact that I have a wonderful, loving son with Aspergers.” After the UCSB mass shooting in 2014, The Daily Banter described Scarborough as a “self-professed autism ‘awareness’ activist” for, once again, making a comparison of “mass shootings with autism.” We might agree or disagree with his well-publicized comments about autism, his autistic son and others, but it is abundantly clear that Scarborough has remade a part of himself into an activist about the matter.

While I have less concern about Scarborough being included within the WP “Category:Anti-vaccination activists” category, I believe that the consistent high-profile reporting published about his autism activism earns him a spot within the WP “Autism activists” category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6008:3B:DE5:2D48:59E1:C5 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Revertion of controversy

Procedural Close.Please reframe the RFC in a neutral manner and specifically post a question that is to be answered/discussed upon by the incoming editors.Winged Blades Godric 15:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have put the controversial text back as it appears @DHeyward: failed to challenge the consensus banner before making this edit. However this appears to be a significantly controversial area, with a huge discussion and pile of drama with it.

Anyhow, to get this section removed, we need to seek a wider consensus from editors it appears Deku-shrub (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has stood for over two years!! It's consensus to keep it out as it does not have any long term significance. --DHeyward (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms2ger: @Bryan Derksen: @Crotalus horridus: @Disavian: @El C:

I am not sure this a decent selection of people, might kick it to RFC later Deku-shrub (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged RFC Deku-shrub (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfC inquiry is lacking most of the fundamental features expected for the process (concise but sufficient description of the differing perspectives, neutrally framed, and then, most importantly, a clear question to be addressed by respondents), especially if it follows multiple fairly involved/contentious discussions on the matter. That said, this information seems to be well sourced, and to be relevant to an encyclopedic summary of Scarborough as a topic. Without question, it needs to be carefully framed and attributed to avoid giving even a hint of salacious interpretation, but excising the content altogether is clearly not the ideal solution. Snow let's rap 11:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is why this conspiracy theory isn't in the BLP. For reference when people try to re-add it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is that article not a reason why it should be included? Scarborough previously implored the talk page not to include this detail of his life, stating:

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.

There is now a public statement from the President of the United States, and multiple major publications are now talking about it. It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, it has become a public point of discussion and the article is incomplete without it. The-internminator (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So who the hell are you supposed to be? --Calton | Talk 05:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I work for NBC and I just removed some severe vandalism. I'd appreciate it if other editors would keep an eye out. Thank you. Editornews123 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Editornews123[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

In the last paragraph of the Media career section, please REMOVE the words "continual negative" in the first sentence. It editorializes too much.

In that same paragraph, please REMOVE the line about accusing the White House of "blackmail". That word was never used by Scarborough or Brzezinski, but rather another guest on the show. Below I put in the altered sentence.

And please add more of the GOP lawmaker reactions.

So the entire paragraph should now read:

In June 2017 Scarborough and Brzezinski were the targets of the President of the United States Donald Trump's tweets, in which, in response to their coverage of his administration, he referred to him as "Psycho Joe" and called her "low I.Q. Crazy Mika", while asserting that she was "bleeding badly from a face-lift" when he previously encountered her at Mar-a-Lago.[46][47][48] The hosts responded with an op-ed in the Washington Post and an extended segment on their show, in which they described White House officials saying that if they called the president to apologize for their coverage, he would kill a negative article about them from being published in the National Enquirer. The initial tweets received negative responses from many Republican lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Sen. Ben Sasse, Sen. Susan Collins, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Still, Trump tweeted again on July 1 describing Scarborough as "crazy" and Brzezinski as "dumb as a rock."[40]


(HERE IS A SOURCE FOR THE GOP REACTION: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/lawmakers-react-trump-tweet-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-morning-joe/index.html) Alexkorson (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 23:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest updated photo

The photo in the info box is from 1995. There is a 2017 photo on Wikimedia Commons. I am a paid consultant to NBC News, so would like someone independent to make this decision to update, although I consider it non-controversial.

I know it's used further down in the article. I'd suggest moving it up as the main image, because the infobox one is so out of date.

Here is the code for the 2017 image:

Joe Scarborough (NBC News)

Thanks, BC1278BC1278 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The newer photo was used in the infobox for some time, but someone apparently switched the photo without discussion. Politrukki (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks @both of you --Neun-x (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'open letter' to Trump

washingtonpost.com 28 Sept. 2017: "Do I even know you anymore?"

should imo be mentioned in the article. I'm no native speaker - is someone there to bring it into the article ? thanks in advance --Neun-x (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"top newsmakers"

That phrase sounds like it comes from an ad for the show. I want to replace it with something more neutral, but nothing comes to mind. Any ideas? Thundermaker (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joe 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[1] Thoughts?

In August 2019, Scarborough drew criticism after posting conspiracy-driven tweets about the death of Jeffrey Epstein.[1] Scarborough tweeted: "A guy who had information that would have destroyed rich and powerful men's lives ends up dead in his jail cell. How predictably...Russian."[2]

References

  1. ^ "Scarborough criticized for retweeting account claiming 'no way' Epstein's death was suicide". The Hill. 12 August 2019.
  2. ^ "MSNBC News Host Joe Scarborough Criticized For Tweeting Conspiracy Theories Following Jeffrey Epstein's Apparent Suicide". Newsweek. August 10, 2019.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is under political career not media career.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Klausutis

I don't care much either way, but shouldn't there be some mention of this subject in a factual, neutral, and verifiable way on this article? The president did recently bring it up. And it's nothing new. Here's what an editor from over a decade ago came up with for how to address the issue: Talk:Joe Scarborough/Lori Klausutis. -- Veggies (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we include Scarborough's comments about Epstein, we should include the Klausutis incident too.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to that subpage, the consensus back then was to include brief text on the issue, with wording hashed out after some debate. How and when did that get removed? It seems like that text ought to be there, along with a brief update mentioning how the president has brought it up recently. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of why it was removed - or never inserted in the first place - unless there was a RfC - we can reinsert it now because there is a consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text was there once. It should be re-added immediately, given the existing consensus. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the consensus text with some copy-editing. It still needs more work, especially on the references, as well as a brief mentions of Trump's foray into the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program". I'm not sure why this is in there. Imus brought up an off-colour joke about an "intern". Klausutis was not an intern. Scarborough laughed and said, "What can you do?" If there was outcry about this exchange, we should say that, but I don't think an off-colour joke in itself is worth mentioning, and it seems to me to be a smear.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I temporarily removed the Klausutis text for several possible BLP problems:
  1. This obviously should not be in the middle of the resignation section as it is unrelated and appears to support the false allegation that there is a connection.
  2. It suggests possible foul play by stating that she died of a head injury in his office, without mentioning the actual cause of death from the coroner’s report.
  3. I can’t find the source for the Imus joke or see how it is related.
  4. I cannot find the source for the Michael Moore comment or how it is related.
  5. There is an odd link to msnbc.msn.com within a cite that I don’t understand.

I suggest it not be re-added without making it BLP compliant, if at all. O3000 (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of coroner's report, you mean this guy? 🤪 Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BIO states that events should be in chronological order. The death came when he was resigning from office, so it belongs there chronological. The allegation against him is relevant, as it has been made against him by the US President no less, and this allegation relates to his resignation. If it wasn't for the allegation against him, the death would be irrelevant here, and there would be no reason to include it. The resignation section seems to me to be the right section for this. Michael Moore also alleged that Scarborough was involved, so it is clearly related. I agree that the Imus joke shouldn't be included, so I will remove that. I will restore everything else. As I said, it needs improvement, especially with citations, but that's no reason to remove it. There is a clear consensus to include this incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They should be in chronological order within a section. No way that this belongs in the resignation section as there is no connection. The fact that Trump is making wild, evidence-free, accusations that she was killed by a person nearly 1,000 miles away as opposed to having a heart condition is no reason for an encyclopedia to suggest such a connection. This is still a WP:BLP. I have no idea why Michael Moore is relevant, even if I could find a source -- which I can't. O3000 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The articles sourced for the claim that he was in Washington at the time all make reference to when the body was found, which was the day after she was killed. This according to the coroner's report. Unless you find a source that explicitly places him in Washington on the day of her death, not when her body was found, this "evidence" does not exonerate him at all, in fact it is misleading and i will seek to have it removed. Strangestlove (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your restoration is a serious BLP violation and suggest you self-revert until we come to a consensus. O3000 (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scarborough is covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There is a clear consensus to add this.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to include it with all the BLP violations. And, PUBLICFIGURE does not give you free reign to smear a BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was clear consensus to insert the text that I added. If there are problems, fix them.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw no consensus for the text as it was -- and would be shocked if so. I did fix most of them -- when I had time as you failed to do so. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's foray

If this were to be restored without major changes, I believe the part about Trump should include "baseless conspiracy theory" or something very similar to make it absolutely clear that the allegation indeed is baseless. Attributing "even though it was ruled an accident" is not enough. Politrukki (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be sourced and attributed to someone calling it "baseless". Calling it baseless ourselves is POV. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's also not entirely "baseless". It is based on the fact that Scarborough suddenly resigned from Congress at the same time an aide was mysteriously found dead in his office. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that he had already announced his resignation, and the fact that the autopsy said that she had a undiagnosed heart condition - but it's not "baseless".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not at the same time. Yes, it is baseless. What is the basis? Seriously, this is another BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This incident should be noted in the article (and the 'resignation' part is probably as good a place as any). Before this week, it was arguably reasonable to exclude it under BLP; but now it's been mentioned by Trump and a host of media organisations, it's arguably noteworthy enough to mention. Mentioning the death does not necessarily imply Scarborough had anything to do with it, and the article should make clear that all the people involved, and the majority of reliable sources, say it was nothing to do with him and allegations to the contrary are untrue. That seems the best way to handle it. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, someone's now created a separate article on the subject, Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. If as some argue merely mentioning Klausutis' name here is a BLP violation, that article must be a BLP violation tenfold. Robofish (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory section

I think placing the death in a separate section gives undue weight to the conspiracy theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, you would rather connect her death to his resignation without a wit of evidence? The solution is to remove all of it. Then there is no undue weight to one of innumerable conspiracy theories. O3000 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Placing it in the "Resignation" section clearly shows that Scarborough announced his resignation before the death. It does not and could not imply that he resigned because of her death. Please stop the personal attacks.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in the resignation section, that implies it is related to his resignation. That's what section headings are for. And, that was not a PA. Find another solution if you wish. I suggested one. But, it is in no way related to his resignation and suggesting that it is is a serious BLP violation -- even more so that he announced his resignation before her death as that suggests his resignation was related to something nefarious. O3000 (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Conspiracy theory subsection to Post-congressional politics because we cite no sources to substantiate that this theory arose during Scarborough's membership in the U.S. House of Representatives, which ended on September 5, 2001. If such WP:RS can be found, I will not object to moving the Conspiracy theory subsection back under the U.S. House of Representatives section. NedFausa (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the placement of this paragraph has an easy answer. The MOS:BIO states In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. The death clearly occurred before he left the House. The allegations clearly relate to his time as a Congressman and in particular the reason for his resignation. The investigation into the death was clearly considered newsworthy, and the subject of speculation, at the time: [2] And that's using a source currently in the article. The current placement is chronologically awkward, and the text does not make clear he was a Congressman at the time and doesn't even refer to his resignation - which is absurd. I will fix those obvious omissions.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland: I dispute your assertion that "The investigation into the death was…the subject of speculation, at the time," based solely on the cited source. The Northwest Florida Daily News reported that on the day the body was discovered, the associate medical examiner denied finding any sign of trauma. However, the paper added that the ME later said his original denials were designed to prevent "undue speculation about the cause of death." There is no mention whatever in this story of any speculation that Congressman Scarborough was involved in her death, much less that a conspiracy theory had by then (August 7, 2001) blossomed to suggest such a thing. Please cite a different WP:RS to support your insinuation that a conspiracy theory predated Scarborough's last day (September 5, 2001) as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. And as to chronological placement, I remind you that the subsection under discussion is named Conspiracy theory, not Death of a staffer. NedFausa (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section could be easily renamed "Death of a staffer". It wasn't initially named "Conspiracy theory", after all. Rather circular reasoning...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the death of a staffer even be DUE? If anything makes this DUE, it's the fact that some people have woven conspiracies about it. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, arguably, the paragraph should be included under the "Media career" heading, because the most prominent airing of the issue has happened at present, at a time when he is a media personality, and Trump has focussed on media-related issues such as ratings in his attack. As I said, no easy answer.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support moving the content that comprises the Conspiracy theory subsection to the Media career section, inserting it immediately before the paragraph that begins "In August 2019, Scarborough drew criticism…." In doing so, we should delete the Conspiracy theory subsection heading and the internal link to Main article: Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory, both of which are problematic per WP:UNDUE. NedFausa (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would certainly be an improvement to the current arrangement. However, it would need be made clear that Trump did not originate the theory, rather was just regurgitating it.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While there are sources which show that speculation and theorising about the death and Scarborough's resignation did begin before his retirement from Congress in September 2001 — [3][4][5] — the current consensus is against including this paragraph in the "Resignation" section. Therefore — in the absence of any objection — I have got rid of the "Conspiracy theory" subsection and moved the paragraph to the "Media career" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation speculation

Do we know if Scarborough leaving Congress "suddenly" was part of the original theory, or is that a new wrinkle added by Trump in 2020? NedFausa (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text about Trump "adding in 2020" the resignation to the theory is completely misleading. The resignation was part of the theory from the beginning. Trump is merely echoing other people, as he usually does. Here are some sources. (Note: I am not suggesting any of this should be added to the article nor that any of this speculation is well-founded nor that these are reliable sources. I am simply answering the question.)
  • American Politics Journal said in 2001: Unbelievably, that was it. The story was simply dropped. A young female employee of one of Florida's Congressmen had died unexpectedly in the Congressman's office. There were no witnesses to her death and the cause of death was not apparent. Klausutis' boss, Joe Scarborough had recently resigned from Congress prematurely and unexpectedly, amid rumors about his marital fidelity and soon after a divorce. He had also abruptly resigned as publisher of the Independent Florida Sun, claiming that resigning from Congress and as publisher was necessary to spend more time with his sons. Such circumstances make one pause.
  • In 2005 Scarborough complained (quoted by Gawker in 2015): The article also suggested that this imaginary sex scandal forced me to leave office... I didn’t leave Congress because of her death; I announced my retirement from Congress in May 2001-she passed away several months later.
  • Salon in 2017 said: Those in the dark concerns of the media that trafficked in conspiracy theories grabbed this personal tragedy and spun it into internet gold, creating and broadcasting a narrative that eventually made its way to more mainstream outlets, including the Daily Kos (site founder Markos Moulitsas was a particularly outspoken proponent). At one point, documentarian Michael Moore registered the domain name JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Much of the theorizing was hinged on legitimate questions about medical examiner Dr. Michael Berkland's very checkered history. As well, the fact that Scarborough retired from politics soon after Klausutis' death collected suspicion.
  • NWF Daily News said in 2017: Because of where Scarborough was in his career, combined with the foot dragging of local officials in determining a cause of death and releasing pertinent information to the public, a perfect storm was created for conspiracy theorists... in May 2001, he announced suddenly that he was stepping down to spend more time with his two boys... The story was met with some skepticism, and rumors flew that Scarborough might have been caught up in some scandal and forced to step down... The gap in time between the announcement and the actual resignation helped fuel conversation that Scarborough was having an affair with Klausutis, and that it had somehow caught up to him. Most conspiracy theories continue to espouse that Scarborough resigned after the Klausutis death, making no mention of the May announcement.
  • Tampa Bay Times in 2020 said: The story has dogged Scarborough among conspiracy-minded individuals. Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal website Daily Kos, was banned from MSNBC for suggesting Scarborough may have played some role in Klausutis’ death. The guts of the conspiracy theory center around Scarborough’s announcement in May 2001, two months before Klausutis’ death, that he would resign from Congress on Sept. 6, 2001, to spend more time with his two sons.
  • People in 2020 said: Though ultimately unrelated to how Lori died, together all of these incidents and Scarborough’s resignation soon after (though announced months before her death) fused to fuel a more conspiratorial view of what happened — one initially fed by some liberal commentators and, in recent years, taken up by Trump and right-wing allies.
I'm sure there are many, many sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland: Thank you for nailing this down. But now that you've given us the background, what should we do with the phrase adding in 2020 that Scarborough "left Congress suddenly"? NedFausa (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given your concerns about attributing particular allegations to particular people, what about something like this?
A theory emerged that Scarborough was involved in her death, connecting this with his resignation from Congress.[6][7] This theory was promoted by publisher Markos Moulitsas and by filmmaker Michael Moore, who registered the domain name JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com.[1] Since 2017, as part of a war of words with Scarborough, President Donald Trump has raised this debunked theory and has called for another investigation.[2][3][4]
The citations after the first sentence are just examples of sources that could be used. The Salon article is better, but we are already using it for the second sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bell, Gabriel (29 November 2017). "Trump's latest bogus conspiracy theory: Did Joe Scarborough murder his aide?". Salon.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference forbes1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Pittman, Craig (May 24, 2020). "Florida family grieves as Trump spreads debunked conspiracy theory to attack MSNBC host". The Washington Post.
  4. ^ Moreau, Jordan (May 24, 2020). "Trump Calls for Investigation Into Unfounded Joe Scarborough Murder Conspiracy". Variety.

Jack Upland: I appreciate the work you've put into this. The replacement you propose (beginning "A theory emerged…") is worthy of close consideration. If I may, I'd like to discuss the first two sentences. (I have no problem with the third.)

  • First, you state that his resignation was, according to the theory, connected with his involvement in her death. You cite two sources, each dated May 24, 2020. WaPo reports that soon after Klausutis's death, "rumors claimed…that it had prompted Scarborough to resign from Congress." Variety, however, does not connect his resignation with involvement in her death prior to Trump's tweet of May 23, 2020—decades after the theory emerged. So while WaPo supports your first sentence, Variety does not.
  • Second, you say the theory was promoted by Moulitsas and by Moore. For this you cite Salon, which reports that the two men helped spread the conspiracy theory. Salon also says, as you previously pointed out, "the fact that Scarborough retired from politics soon after Klausutis' death collected suspicion." But Salon does not directly attribute suspicion about his retirement to Moulitsas and Moore, leaving open the possibility it was not part of the theory that they spread. We must be wary of WP:SYNTH.

I hope you'll refine your proposed replacement with better sources. Thanks again. NedFausa (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, you have confused two different sets of citations. I merely added links to two articles that could be used: the NWF Daily News and the Gawker. These do not correspond to footnotes 3 and 4. On the second point, we are going round in circles here. I am merely suggesting a solution to the problem. The text as it exists is clearly false and should be changed. If you are so concerned about synthesis - I don't believe any exists - say something like: "A theory emerged that Scarborough was involved in her death and that this possibly explained his resignation from Congress. Versions of this theory were promoted by publisher Markos Moulitsas and by filmmaker Michael Moore." Or actually come up with wording that makes you happy. Please don't demand that I fix problems you have caused.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could stop saying "theory" because there doesn't seem to be a coherent theory, just speculation and innuendo. So we could say (based on Salon etc): "The death gave rise to speculation, as did Scarborough's unexpected resignation from Congress. Publisher Markos Moulitsas and filmmaker Michael Moore, who registered the domain name JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com, promoted the idea that Scarborough was involved in the death."--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland: Thanks for your reply. I have deleted the "adding" clause from the article space. I apologize for, as you put it, causing problems. NedFausa (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added in a reference to the resignation as this is reported to be the "guts" of the "conspiracy theory".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of information

Consensus long ago including weigh in from Jimbo is this is not relevant to Scarboroughs bio. Not his controversy or issue. ConstantPlancks (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of long ago is not relevant now. The US President is tweeting about the issue. It's obviously relevant. There is currently a clear consensus in favour of inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Where's ur evidence for that, Plancks? You direct us to the talk page archives & this is the only thing that points towards "consensus" when searching for "Lori Klausutis". To say that it's "not his controversy or issue" is damned disingenuous because, duh, it obviously is... Happy to stand partly corrected if you could link us up to Jimmy's holy words but the fact remains that this is a cross that Scarborough is bearing, whether for good reason or not... Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo is not in charge any more anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are editors deleting references to Scarborough's resignation from the "Conspiracy theory" subsection? It is mentioned in copious sources. Sure, change the wording, but repeatedly removing it is bizarre...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland: The more pertinent question is why you added content here and here about his resignation that is unsupported by the sources cited. NedFausa (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the aide was deleted multiple times. It was and is a BLP vio and the widowed husband contacted WP 15 years ago just as he contacted twitter. this becomes a cytogenesis problem where a BLP violation lives on in BLPs despite the fact that neither BLP article or the non-notable decadent (or family) have anything to do with it. The accusation is false. Scarborough has nothing to do with it. Just because its mentioned during a political campaign doesn't mean we name drop it everywhere we can. The death has no bearing on Joe Scarborough. It wasn't a crime. There was nothing controversial about it. Keeping it here as if Scarborough is somehow involved in any way is called false light libel and is why we don't keep it. Just because Trump tweeted it, doesn't warrant inclusion. This section is longer than the Tara Reade section in Joe Biden and Trump tweets "Sleepy Joe" and "Hiden" a helluva lot more than this but its simply not encyclopedic. Neither is this false story. ConstantPlancks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Lori Klausutis" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lori Klausutis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26#Lori Klausutis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In any case, it certainly should not redirect to the resignation section as that implies a connection which doesn't exist. O3000 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like the obvs place to redirect to because... That was the only place she was mentioned in? Until you removed it wholesale, that is. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubbed for propaganda purposes

This article is being rewritten furiously to push propaganda. There was a section detailing early origins of the murder accusation that have been scrubbed. Now it pretends that the accusation was suddenly made up by Donald Trump today, even though Scarborough had even threatened to sue Michael Moore over the accusation in 2004. I'm not Wiki fluent enough to fix it. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2004/6/15/33603/- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.217.69.113 (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the information about Michael Moore. I agree that we shouldn't imply that Trump was the first one to raise this. The fact that Scarborough has had to put up with this allegation for about 20 years is significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Michael Moore spread this nonsense 15 years ago to few people's memory is UNDUE. The fact that the President of the United States is heavily pressing this is DUE. O3000 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is recentism.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-congressional politics

I don't think this section amounts to much. Being an environmental lawyer is not "politics", nor is serving on the President's Council. I don't think the fact that Scarborough decided not to run for various political offices is noteworthy. His full-time media career was launched in 2003. I think we could just tack this interim period on to the start of his media career. It would only take a couple of sentences.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections, I have now removed this section. The article now moves from his time in Congress to his media career without an artificial and confusing section in between. The "conspiracy theory" has been tucked into the "Media career" section. After all, this when the smears affected him the most. It makes no sense to try to divide his media work from politics. The two obviously overlap. And it goes against MOS:BIO to create thematic sections.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion

An editor has mass-deleted details of the death of the intern. Without good reason. They should be restored. They are relevant and RS supported. --2604:2000:E010:1100:8963:1394:A693:B418 (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The death of an employee usually wouldn't be included at all. Details, if needed, are probably more appropriate on articles by those spreading the goofy conspiracy theories. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP user: I did not "mass delete" anything. In a series of 12 discrete edits, I carefully revised content within a single subsection, and explained each such revision in an edit summary. You are welcome to discuss any particular change, but please do not grossly misrepresent what I've done. NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This diff reflects the mass deletion. There is no reasonable explanation given. You delete among other things that her autopsy revealed that she had specifically a "heart-valve irregularity, floppy mitral valve disease, that caused a cardiac arrhythmia that in turn halted her heart, stopped her breathing, and caused the 28-year-old to lose consciousness, fall, and hit her head on the edge of a desk." The editor also deleted the diff for the medical examiner's conclusion that her death was accidental. The editor also deleted the statement and ref to the fact that her friend said she had mentioned having mild seizures during her youth. All of these are material. All of this was RS supported. All of this is of interest - there is a reason that 100,000 readers accessed this article yesterday, and the effort to delete this information which is along the lines of what they are seeking is troubling. Despite the deleting editor's objections, without any reasonable basis, to their inclusion. 2604:2000:E010:1100:8963:1394:A693:B418 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says: An autopsy by an Okaloosa County associate medical examiner determined that an undiagnosed heart-valve irregularity had caused the 28-year-old to lose consciousness, fall, and hit her head on the edge of a desk the day before. He concluded that her death was accidental. I don't see a problem. The exact heart condition and mechanics of the heart failure are not necessary details. This article is not about her. O3000 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP user: This is not a medical journal. We don't need to include the deceased's "floppy mitral valve disease, that caused a cardiac arrhythmia that in turn halted her heart, stopped her breathing." And as I explained in my edit summary, a friend's recollection of mild seizures during youth is an "unnecessary detail – non-medical anecdotal reminiscence." That is—like all of my other changes—subject to debate here at the talk page; but please stop misrepresenting my painstaking, singular edits as "mass deletion." NedFausa (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All we need about this incident is a short paragraph. I think it is sufficient to say she had an "undiagnosed heart condition". The details don't mean much to the vast majority of readers. My understanding is that autopsies are somewhat speculative anyway. I think the finding that the death was "accidental" and of "natural causes" is already covered by the description of how she died. It is not our job to prove Trump wrong or write the definitive account of the incident. All we need to do is provide a succinct, factual background to explain this conspiracy theory about Scarborough that Trump and others are pushing. Giving this more than a short paragraph gives it undue weight. The death itself is not significant in Scarborough's life. It only became significant because of the conspiracy theory and we shouldn't give this theory too much air.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the small amount of detail included now is good. It isn't too detailed, but ties the heart condition to the death. Merely saying she had a heart condition doesn't do that. The word accidental doesn't do it either as accidental deaths can be homicides. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "heart condition" instead of "heart-valve irregularity" in the current sentence, of course. Of course we need to tie the heart condition to the death!!!!!!!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course, of course, it should be brief. It is. Nine characters are OK in my mind. Massive numbers of people have benign irregular heart waves. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which nine characters?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most important part of the mass of text (and RS refs) that was deleted, over a series of edits, was all supported by RSs.

It said that she had, after a heart valve irregularity, a "floppy mitral valve disease, that caused a cardiac arrhythmia that in turn halted her heart .."

That is indeed important. The autopsy said that she had a particular heart valve irregularity. Heart valve irregularities, come in various types. You probably know this. They have different effects, depending on the type. Not all cause sudden death. Some do. Some don't. Some make the heart flutter. (As one editor said above - Massive numbers of people have benign irregular heart waves.) And that is all. Some have a higher likelihood of killing people. Especially people in a certain age group. And gender. This is highly material. It's not like describing what color eye shadow she was wearing. I think if you are truly objective, you see this.

Why would you want to delete this - and hide it from readers? It's key to understanding. It's very short. 15 words. Ridiculous that some are even arguing about this. It is RS supported. 2604:2000:E010:1100:790F:3F6B:5402:E8C1 (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are hiding nothing. We are just summarising. Her heart condition is important in explaining her death. Her head injury is also important. The autopsy discussed this too. And it was apparently the head injury that killed her. We also don't mention the checkered history of the medical examiner. We don't mention the rumours that Scarborough was having an affair with her. We don't mention that he said he'd hardly met her. We don't mention she was a marathon runner. We don't mention that she had acne. All these things could be mentioned at Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory, but note that article is being considered for deletion. But they can't be mentioned here. 15 words is too many. It's WP:UNDUE.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory

There is a reference to Michael Moore and a link to the documentary filmmaker.

This should be changed to Michael D. Moore who also writes under the pseudonym Thomas Paine. Truthwillsetyoufreeyesitwill (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, was misled into tjinking it wuz THE M. Moore. Funky Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source identifies him as "documentarian Michael Moore." If this is incorrect, please provide WP:RS reporting that Michael D. Moore who also writes under the pseudonym Thomas Paine registered the domain name JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. NedFausa (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Scarborough&oldid=985654891"