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 is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) person(s).
WikiProject Alabama (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject University of Florida (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

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)