Talk:Joe Scarborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Joe Scarborough was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
March 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


Beatles Fan[edit]

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

Archives[edit]

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)

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"[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Resignation consensus[edit]

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)


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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Autism activist[edit]

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)

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)
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)

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)

2017 Revertion of controversy[edit]

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)


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.

Vandalism[edit]

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