Talk:Joe Scarborough/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Wikipedia Profanity Policy?

I added a section on his dropping of the F-bomb on Nov 10, 08. I included the quote but wasn't sure what wikipedia's policy is on profanity. Since the fact that he said the word rather than just "the letter" was important to the incident I decided to use the actual word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

F-Bomb?

I've watched the youtube video over and over, and I really think he says frickin. It sounds like fucking because Tucker is talking at the same time. Watch his lips and listen closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.142.113 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's clear as day. You might need new speakers if you can't hear it. Also, he seems to recognize a problem 10 seconds later when his whole demeanor changes but he tries to go on regardless. Its almost as if he's reading a note off the teleprompter or something. It's hardly a big deal though. He apologizes and moves on. --JBurkhardt10 (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Referring to Michael F. Griffin as a Christian terrorist

Anything potentially offensive to Mr. Scarborough has been safely purged from this article. This is a sanitized profile of this living attorney (go figure). I had included several external newslinks referring to some unflattering things about Mr. Scarborough - all removed. I repeatedly inserted the link to Christian terrorist in front of the name Michael F. Griffin, the convicted abortion doctor killer who Joe volunteered to defend. This link was labeled 'vandalism' and removed. I would like to know who is a Christain terrorist if not Michael F. Griffin. Joe mentioned his Wikipedia entry on air and how he was fighting it. It is clear that he has prevailed. Too bad for free speech, even free speech with citations. Shame on Wikipedia. What we have is a story about Joe that even his mother can love. Now let's see how long it takes for this comment to go away. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I contacted two admins about re-inserting the reference to Christian terrorist in the article. No response after several days. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is swift to remove potentially offensive material, yet doesn't have the courage or the conviction to justify these knee-jerk reactions. It diminishes Wikipedia greatly as a reference. I really like Wikipedia and use it often, so this disappoints and saddens me. One must now take certain articles with a grain of salt and realize the you are not getting the full picture - even where citations exist to support these less than flattering aspects of certain individuals. You are getting "cleaned up" profiles of any living individuals. The real casualty here is the truth. And so it goes. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New comments are posted to the bottom of the page. This section took a while for me to find. I hope you don't mind if I changed the header to something more specific. I believe people are reverting your addition of that phrase because we try to avoid politically charged phrases like that in Wikipedia articles, especially since a living individual is involved. However, as you said, if he is not a Christian terrorist, who is? Griffin was convicted of this act, so it is not a WP:BLP issue to say that he murdered a doctor, and you can't get more Christian terrorist than that. I hope that other editors will comment here as well on this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the comment placement and heading - I am on a learning curve. Obviously I totally agree with your comments. I too would like to hear from anyone interested, particulary anyone who questions whether the term Christian terrorist applies to this man. At what point can I re-insert the link before his name and not have it not removed and called vandalism? And at what point can I call removing the term vandalism? Anyone, feel free to opine or speak to this issue. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If there is no WP:BLP violation, i see no problem with this term being used in the article. TheProf - T / C 15:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Not vandalism??! Damn, I'm such an idiot! 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping for more constructive input 21655, as you had been involved in this issue - but if that is your only comment, that is that. Thank you. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on Michael F. Griffin doesn't seem to use the term. Feel free to add it there with the reliable source. The appearance of the term here, though, is pejorative in the sense that it attempts to paint Scarborough as a defender of Christian terrorism instead of a lawyer representing someone pro bono as most lawyers are required to do as part of their admission to the bar. That is a BLP violation and has no place here as it adds no relevant information to his biography. --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for the idea that this was a pro bono case assigned to Scarborough? This is not what is implied in the article. It states that he "wished" to defend this man. An admin has said this is not a BLP violation and 2 other users have agreed. This does add relevant information to the bio in that it reflects Scarborough's political ideology - an important aspect of a former politician and current political commentator. Whether it is flattering or pejorative is not the point and not the purpose of the article. Whether the concensus finds it true is what will drive its inclusion here. You are invited to join in the discussion but I ask you to not to unilaterally revert this edit. I will report continued reversions as vandalism. Thanks for the reminder to include same reference in Griffin' bio - good point. I am happy to see that you believe the reference is valid there, even if pejorative. Kek15 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What political ideology is "Christian Terrorism" and how do you assign it to Scarborough? Pro bono cases aren't assigned, lawyers take them. He tried to take this potential capital murder case for whatever reason but it certainly wasn't because he shares the views of Christian terrorists and implying anything of the sort is a BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I can find that there is no real reason to have it in his bio. It's a minor point of his career and he didn't actually represent him. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Current consensus is that their is no WP:BLP violation. If you feel so strongly that there is a BLP violation, please build a consensus to support this, and not turn this into an edit war. Cheers! TheProf - T / C 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I took it to the BLP noticeboard. As an example, we don't refer to Griffin's victim as a "baby killer" even if we could find a reference that says so. --DHeyward (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you're talking about it. User:Kek15 feels strongly about this and i feel simple reverts and undo's don't help the matter or the project! Talking and consensus is the only way to go. Thanks TheProf - T / C 23:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look, I always leave a talk page comment for a revert especially if the other party is doing so as well. -DHeyward (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not assign the term Christian Terrorist to Scarborough, but to Griffin. The concensus is that he meets the definition. I added Chritstian Terrorist as a Reference in Griffin's article and you reverted that as well (after suggesting that I add it; no further reference is req'd for this; I don't see sources for other References on the list in the Griffin article). This is significant history as the doctor that Griffin murdered, Dr. David Gunn, "was the first of several doctors killed by "pro-life" extremists" per Gunn's Wikipedia article. That makes Griffin a significant figure in history and Scarborough's connection with him is significant, as already shown by the reference to Griffin in this article. But you are not really disputing Griffin's name in this article, you are evidently disputing the lablel Christian terrorist - for which there is already a consensus at this time. BTW, there is no Wikipedia article for 'Baby killer' but if there were, and you thought it applied - that would be another issue. If you still don't agree, here is the place to discuss it. I don't wish to make reverting your edits a sideline. Let's handle this issue properly. Thank you. Kek15 (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is this supposed consensus? John Reaves 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Read the discussion! (Thanks for commenting) TheProf - T / C 19:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you and Kek (who is also the IP) saying you want it. Me saying no and DHeyward being fairly neutral. That's not consensus. John Reaves 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, i'm well aware Kek is the IP (In fact, i suggested he get the account)! Secondly, i didnt say i want it, i said that i didnt want it to be reverted without discussion. If the consensus was that it is a WP:BLP violation (which i thought it was at one point, see the IP's talk page) then i would side with that. For me, its all about consensus. Now i'd say the consensus is pretty even now we have your input. TheProf - T / C 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Also see Gamaliel's (admin) post, 3rd from top. He states that this is not a BLP violation. He is responding to a note I wrote on his talk page in which I point out that if Griffin is not a Christian terrorist - who is? One would have to read this referenced artcle to get a sense of what constitutes a Christian terrorist. Kek15 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't get to decide who is a "Christian Terrorist" so there must be a reliable source that uses that term to include it Griffin's bio. Secondly, it's an ad hominem style argument ("guilt be association") that would preclude it's use here even if there is a reliable source. Lawyers represent terrorists all the time but it is a BLP violation to try and associate them as some sort of accomplice by attempting to highlight the crimes and accusation against their clients. --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
<-- Protected until dispute is resolved. Nakon 05:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No one carries a card that says "Christian terrorist." And it doesn't sound as though even if there were a reliable source it would satisfy DHeyward. But yes, I think we do get to decide who is a terrorist, by reading, learning and using our brains - it isn't as difficult as it sounds. OJ Simpson (found liable for his wife's death) is a prominent part of the Johnnie Cochran article - does that imply the lawyer supported the homicides committed by his client? Absolutely not. This is patently ridiculous arguement. And Scarborogh's association with Griffin is what it is; this brief association is described in the article. It doesn't state that they went to terrorist meetings together. I believe Scarborough's reputation can survive the truth of this fleeting connection. It does not surprise me that this is the version of this article that was locked. Whether there is or is not a political subtext at work here, I don't really think I can take the time to correct this omission on an ongoing basis. Kek15 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
To translate: "I'm wrong so I'm going subtly admit defeat by spinning it as conspiracy". John Reaves 10:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's what you get out of what I wrote - but I never suggested a conspiracy. I racked by brain, attempting to see it from the other side and could find no valid arguments to support excluding the term. It reminds me of the climate change deniers - their position is more politics than science. If you got the impression that I thought I was wrong - you weren't reading my post (with comprehension). Also just how important do you think this 'cause' is to me? I actually like Scarborough and watch his show every morning. Kek15 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I'm watching it right now - but that doesn't change this truth. Kek15 (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that the BLP issue is with the person you are calling a terrorist right? Not Scarborough. John Reaves 11:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read DHeyward's last post to this discussion. There seems to be an ongoing problem of people "piping in" on this issue without reading the background - and the post that I refer you to was written within the last few hours. Yes, some have also contested the term as applied to Griffin, but I think the association with Scarborough is more inflammatory to many. Kek15 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Middle East, Muslim extremists who strap on suicide bombs or set off IED's are regularly referred to as "Muslim terrorists." And this activity is generally referred to as "Islamic Terrorism." No further sources are needed for these descriptive terms as the actions speak for themselves. (And it is well understood by most people that these actors represent a small minority of Muslims; just as it is understood that not all Christians are members of the KKK.) One needs to read the Wikipedia article on Christian Terrorism. This reference should stand. Kek15 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's unsourced, highly controversial, and is a serious BLP vio. I have removed your "Christian terrorist" reference from Michael F. Griffin, and I do not expect that it will be reapplied. seicer | talk | contribs 12:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You expect correctly. Congratulations. Wikipedia has an excellent article on Christian Terrorism. I'll ask the question again - who DOES Wikipedia define as a Christian terrorist? NOBODY? There is this article that describes several differenct groups and activites carried out by Christian terrorists, but Wikipedia will not apply the term to anybody - is this correct? This diminishes Wikipedia and that is too bad. Kek15 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not define anything. It reports facts; especially in a controversial issue such as this, strong, reputable, verifiable and reliable multiple references specifically identifying Griffin as a "Christian terrorist" must be properly cited. Wikipedia is a secondary source only; it cannot come to a conclusion on its own through original research, which seems to be how you are coming to this conclusion. Instead of arguing about the philosophical implications of Mr. Griffin's actions, just find the references needed to substantiate that multiple notable sources have labelled him as such; that's all we report. Otherwise, WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS must hold over what you believe to be true, no matter how close to the truth your views may in reality be. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually WP is a tertiary source that strives to only use secondary sources. I would also say that unless Scarborough can be tied to Christian Terrorism as well, this one rather tenuous link should not be noted so the pejorative use of the term here would never be acceptable. In fact, this little factoid is of so little value, it should probably be deleted altogether under WP:UNDUE. --DHeyward (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)::::
By that logic, Johnnie Cochran would have to be tied to murder to include OJ Simpson in his article. Ridiculous comment. Carry on. Kek15 (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A logical counter-argument is not well-served with the addition of a rhetorical insult to which no one can reasonably respond. In the future, your editorial comments may be received better with more civil comments directed at content and not personal opinions of others' arguments. Simply claiming the comment is "ridiculous" is unqualified and does not contribute to finding a resolution here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was that that DHeyward's comment did nothing to move this discussion forward and was frivolous. So I should have said "frivolous comment." It was not a productive comment. I'm not sure how else to say it. What would you suggest? Kek15 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's best to ignore pejorative, rhetorical, or otherwise unproductive comments by focusing on the content discussion. If you believe there's nothing substantive on which to comment, why reply?
More directly, his 'discussion-ending' statements were an accurate assessment of the community consensus-approved approach to the material you attempted to introduce, including the means by which you presented it. AS I noted in my comment above, the use of the term in question does not have enough reliable sourcing as to merit inclusion. WP:UNDUE is precisely about adding weight to an idea or term that does not have the required sourcing, or sourcing so insufficient that the community here disagrees with its inclusion. I feel that DHeyward's comment evoked no ridicule and was certainly not frivolous, even if it does indeed leave little else to discuss. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So Cobalt - do you then agree that Johnnie Cochran needs to be tied to murder to include OJ Simpson in the Johnnie Cochran article? This is the same logic. And whether his comment was ridiculous or frivolous is obviously a matter of opinion. And I obsiously think it was ridiculous. Does it close the door to further discussion? Of course not. Kek15 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You might have trapped yourself in yor own logic. If we insist that Johnnie Cochran is a supporter of murder by his association with OJ Simpson, then we can say that Scarborough supports "Christian terrorism." Obviously the first comparison is illogical, so your association of Scarborough with "Christian terrorism" is equally illogical. As to the question of Griffin's own association with "Christian terrorism", that is an issue that should be addressed at that article's talk page, not here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I never associated Scarborough with Christian terrorism - that is my whole point. He merely wished to represent a Christian Terrorist - that does not make him one anymore than Cochran is a fellow wife killer. If you think I've assoc Scarborough with CT than every defense lawyer is assoc with their clients' crimes?? Doesn't ring true to me. Would it be wrong to say that "Johnnie defended OJ, later found liable for the death of his wife." I don' think so. Kek15 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Better question: Why are you so obsessed with such a petty detail? Do you have some sort of agenda against this guy you are calling a terrorist? John Reaves 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
John! remember AGF! Please, the problems not going to be resolved like this. TheProf - T / C 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Where's the good faith in insisting upon calling someone a terrorist as your only contribution to Wikipedia? John Reaves 14:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Kek15 would be better turning his attention away from this issue now, i agree. However, i think its pretty clear he's not doing this for the sake of being disruptive. TheProf - T / C 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
John, I agree with The Prof. There's nothing in Kek15's arguments that suggest the behavior of someone acting in bad faith. This is simply a controversial topic prone to inciting strong legitimate opinions. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I believe the label fit and should be included. End of story. Peace. Kek15 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That was not my point. The "end of story" comes when the community weighs in, which in this case, it has already, by reason of all of the policies and guidelines I've referenced above. This is why the "Christian terrorism" inference can be so easily excluded. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was agreeing with what you had written about my working in good faith and this being a touchy subject. I would never speak for you or anyone. I was only in full agreement with your post. "End of story" refers only to the fact that I don't intend to pursue this further as it appears to be a futile gesture at this point. One can find policies and guidelines to support most any postition, much like Biblical quotations. You seem determined to have the last word. Kek15 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you have accepted consensus. A first step to a brave new world. Welcome! I hope you chose to continue to contribute to otehr topics. --DHeyward (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't wait!!  :) Kek15 (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see some progress is finally being made here. Since Kek15 has stated he will not edit this page again, I think the page could safely be unproctected now. TheProf - T / C 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a 2 week protection on it, until 5 May. If you would like to edit it before then, I would recommend contacting the admin who placed the protection on it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see myself needing to edit it. I was just thinking about other users who have nothing to do with this discussion wanting to edit the page :-) Cheers TheProf - T / C 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered one of my own questions. I wondered aloud whether Wikipedia referred to ANYONE as a Christian terrorist. The answer is yes - abortion clinic and Olympics bomber Eric Robert Rudolph is referred to as a Christian terrorist but there appears to be a bit of an ongoing edit war over there regardless of 2 sources and that he was evidently NOT connected with a celebrity attorney. (And the article does mention the name of his attorney.) Many people simply just don't like the term Christian terrorism - period. Don't get me wrong - I'm Irish-American Catholic. I just realize that other religions don't have the market cornered on terrorism. Kek15 (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

there are a number of problems with you analogy. The two most glaring are, firstly, the Rudolph article has a number of sources that call him a Christian Terrorist. Secondly, the lawyer who represented him does not have a wiki biography and Rudolph's associations are heavily qualified in the sentence that mentions him, and in fact it goes out of its way to praise him for defending so vile a person who holds opinions that are opposed to his own. your insertion painted Scarborough as somehow supporting Griffin. In fact, that whole parapgraph should probably be removed because it's a false light problem. I suspect you would oppose hagiographic references (as would I) (i.e. how stand-up Scarborough is to defend someone that no one else will, even pro bono because of the belief that every person deserves counsel while at the same time abhoring the crime he committed, etc, etc). But without sources, both are wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There you go again. First, you call it an analogy, I didn't. (In fact I cite the differences right up front.) Second, I conceded that Rudolph's profile lists sources connecting him with Christian terrorism. I also conceded that Scarborough is a celebrity and that Rudolph's attorney was not. And again, describing Sarborough's potential client as a terrorist does not reflect on Scarborough anymore than any attorney defending any criminal or unsavory character (everyone is entitled to a defense, as you say). How you get out of that, that I was implying Scarborough supports terrorism is mind-numbing. We can't get inside Scarborough's head to know what he thinks or how he feels. Kek15 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll use your Johnie Cochrane analogy to illustrate:

versus:

You can't say that that doesn't imply Cochrane's endorsement of of the label applied to John Smith. Add on to that the extra fact that the label is unsourced and there is a massive problem. --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If it can be shown in the literature that Smith is an anti-semite, and/or if his actions are consistent with those of an antisemite, then this would sound like a true statement. And truth is an absolute defense for defamation/libel. (And I don't think being pro-Palestinian statehood equals being an antisemite - why don't they deserve a state as well?) If Smith had firebombed Temples - then no, I absolutely do NOT think this would imply Scarborough endorses these actions. Scarborough is by all account a law-abiding man. But nor does it mean I would withhold the information. Someone who murders an abortion doctor and is shown to be associated with a Christian "rescue" group as I have shown throght the NY Times article (see the Griffin article) - is by definition a Christian Terrorist. This is not about not offending Scarborough. This is about truth and relevance. And I believe the information is accurate and relevant. Kek15 (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pejorative and has no place here. If you can't see the harm with the Cochrane example, which is structurally equivalent to the Scarborough sentence you proposed, I don't think you should be editing biographies. The rule for inclusion isn't based on whether or not the defamation is actionable. this isn't a political blog or other POV publication. --DHeyward (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's really a moot point as far as I'm concerned as I have already agreed not to add the term back to the article. You may claim "structural eqivalency" or whatever - but if you think referring to Griffin as a Christian terrorist means that people will think Scarborough endorses murdering abortion doctors - well I don't know what to say about that - best just sign off. Kek15 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether something is pejorative is not relevant. This change does not meet the guidelines for inclusion, so it will not be included. If the Cochrane example is equivalent - then I don't know why a different result would be expected by putting it forth. (Isn't there a definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.) My position has been consistent and the truth is un-changing. The defamation aspect is very relevant as that is a big concern for Wikipedia - and is one of the major reasons for the WP:BLP guidelines - Wikipedia does not want to be sued. I know that the term applies to Griffin (and some others have agreed), but unfortunately the requirements for its inclusion are lacking. I have accepted this. I would never challenge your right to edit on Wikipedia as you have done with me - that is not the way Wikipedia works. Kek15 (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If the person in question is a Christian (which should be easy enough to verify via acceptable sources) and if his crimes can be agreed to fit some established dictionary's definition of terrorism, or if he has been referred to as a terrorist (or his actions as terrorism) by a reliable source, then calling him a "Christian terrorist" is tantamount to appending two apt descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.25.125 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, see the Eric Robert Rudolph article for proper use of the term Christian terrorist (with proper sourcing) and note prominent mention of the name of Rudolph's attorney as well. This is absolutley no smear against Rudolph's attorney. Kek15 (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Scarborough is not licensed as an attorney in the of Florida, either as active or inactive.[1] Most "retired" lawyers retain membership in their state bars on an "inactive" status. I know, I am a retired lawyer. I question how he can continue to call himself an attorney when he is apparently not licensed and what's more hasn't practiced law since his election to Congress. Obviously, his pontifications on the "law" carry more weight when his viewers think he's an attorney. Does anyone know what sort of experience he has had in the actual practice of law other than representing the person discussed in this article. I have to hand it to Joe to at least realize he was in over his head as a lawyer in a capital case, but it would have been gross negligence if he had represented this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.185.48.19 (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit War & Discussion to Resolve and Unprotect Page

DHeyward why are you edit warring and not using the talk page to discuss your disagrement with the other editor? I dont see the reason why you are removing the information so I'll restor it and hope to see you discuss instead of edit war. You should know better.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. If you check the history you will see missing entries that have been oversighted. Thank you for not helping, though. --DHeyward (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are mixing up and confusing that with this issue. I see nothing related to the user Kek15 here, and nothing about BLP or privacy. The issue is public information that you are reverting, specifically his view on Abortion (relevant given the case), and his being rejected for a Capital Case, based on inexperience according to the judge. What is the privacy concern, here?Giovanni33 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Dheyward, our issue was the term "Christian Terrorism" and that is in the record - that is completely separate. It was only a month or so ago - look it up. You are conflating 2 issues here. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
DHeyward - I have asked you several times (as has Giovanni33) to please address this issue here on the talk page. You are indeed edit warring. This information has been part of this article for many months - or longer. What is your rationale for removing this content? You and I have been involved in this article for a while now and you have never objected to this material - what is the issue now? Please handle this properly. As Giovanni says, you really should know better. This is public and sourced information - just exactly what is the problem? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The "capital murder case" parenthetical is a style issue and really doesn't matter though for style I would remove it or jsut put in the sentence without parenthesis. The "(who is pro-life)" statement mentiond in the same context as a murderer, has not been established as relevant. It implies that Scarborough may have been sympathetic to Griffin or that they shared common views that were relevant to Scarboroughs descision to represent him. That has not been established. As such it is a) negative and b) not reliably Sourced as being relevant. Therefore it is a BLP violation. This is an logical fallacy. For all we know, the judge, jury and prosecutor were all pro-life and the final criminal defense attorney that Scarborough found for him is pro-choice. By stating Scarboroughs personal views, the article is trying to establish a sympathy for Griffin by Scarborough that simply hasn't been established. We simply don't assert positions in paragraphs that aren't explicitly related.

Other example that highlight the problem (taken from other articles). I'll give two choices to highlight the construction problem here:

vs.

It's perfectly appropriate to discuss Obama's family and family's religion in his bio. Likewise, his criticism of Clinton is also relevant as his position on classifying terrorist organization. But the way it's presented in the second choice is inappropriate as it implies a sympathy to Quds Force that hasn't been estblished. Everything in both statements is strictly true which shows why "truth" is not the goal of Wikipedia. Every statement in both paragraphs presented can be reliably sourced. But that doesn't mean that statement 2 is acceptable. I hope this makes it clearer. The pro-life statement in the Michael Griffin paragraph needs to go. Even if your POV doesn't allow you to see the comparison (i.e. you think 2nd Obama paragraphs are clearly wrong while you think the Scarborough paragraph is okay) at least you should be able to see the construction and acknowledge that such constructions are problematic in any context). We can relate Scarborough political position on abortion and his historical representation of Griffin in his bio without having to link them in the same paragraph. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the "capital murder case" phrase is not a problem. There is suddenly no dispute with this fact. Then one wonders why it was repeatedly reverted. (Wouldn't it have been more constructive to recommend an improved arrangement including this phrase?) Nonetheless, moving on to the "who is pro-life" part.
"Pro-life" does not equate to "pro-murder" for most people who hold that position (in fact many would argue quite the opposite) - the exceptions being few and quite infamous by now - Eric Rudolph, for example, and the client mentioned here in the Scarborough article. The source in this case (and others) does not establish the relevance, it establishes the verifiable truth - but it does not appear that the truth of Scarborough being pro-life is being disputed here - correct? Concensus (if I am correct) is what establishes relevance - and as stated this content has been in this article for quite a long time.
DHeyward has been involved in this article for some time and has not objected to this content nor have any other editors. This is not to suggest that all articles are static/unchanging - but what has changed here to warrant the deletion of this content? Several editors have opined that this is clearly NOT a BLP violation.
The false logic being suggested here is false and bizarre in itself. The suggestion is that readers will conclude that, (a) because Scarborough is pro-life (and represents a pro-life murderer), that (b) Scarborough is pro-murder. Seriously now. If the consensus agrees with this assertion - then remove the content and I will not revert. (Nor would Scarborough's NRA membership card or hunting license imply that he is pro-murder.)
Again, as pointed out in the Obama example, this would seem to be a problem of placement of the information (as with the "capital murder case" phrase). If this were actually true - then why not suggest different placement for this fact instead of serially removing it. This would lend more credibility to the position. I would be open to any suggestions on re-wording to retain both pieces of sourced and relevant information.
If certain readers want to conclude that Scarborough is pro-murder because he is pro-life - as patently ridiculous as this is, fortunately (for them) this is a relatively brief article and they should have no trouble connecting those dots even after the piece is edited to everyone's satisfaction. Some folks will draw whatever conclusions they want - I guess I don't think of them when looking at articles. It is not something that can be prevented. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So we're clear, the ball is now in DHeyward's court to propose new language to include these 2 pieces of content; as it is DHeyward who has a problem with the current placement of this material (and evidently only DHeyward). As soon as this is done and agreed on, we can request the article to be unprotected and make the changes. I don't think this should present a major obstacle - and then perhaps we can all move on to more substantive matters. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Sentence about Griffin:

"At just 3 years out of law school, Michael F. Griffin's family requested that Scarborough represent him at his trial for the murder of abortion doctor, David Gunn. As a young civil law attorney, Scarborough wasn't qualified to defend him in the capital murder case but he did help them find a criminal defense attorney and helped shield the family from the media exposure, pro bono."

In the congressional section :

"Scarborough supported a number of pieces of legislation designed to protect the life of the unborn including legislation that banned certain late-term abortions known as "partial birth abortions" as well as legislation that made it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of other crimes. "

--DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Griffin sentence:
I would go along with your original suggestion (at the top of your June 3 posting) of simply removing the parens - as you stated: "The "capital murder case" parenthetical is a style issue and really doesn't matter, though for style I would remove it or just put it in the sentence without parentheses." This was a fair suggestion. There is no need to re-write the paragraph.
Pro-life position:
I don't think this should represent an opportunity to delve more deeply into Scarborough's history on abortion rights issues (or lack thereof); also the term pro-life is conspicuously absent from the proposed re-write. You had previously said that the term pro-life only needed to be moved to a different paragraph. I would suggest simply the following: "Scarborough supported a number of pro-life positions while in Congress as well as legislation that made it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of other crimes."
If we can agree on the above changes, which satisfy DHeyward's original objections and requested edits, then we can move forward with requesting the article to be unprotected. Any and all comments would be welcome. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote it and both new sentences are better than the original and convey the same or more information. Pro-life is vague a term to apply to people and it is much better to discuss legislation than it is to apply labels. I don't think I said the term had to move, rather his views should be explored elsewhere. The "capital murder case" should be removed because Griffin wasn't tried or convicted of capital murder. I'm glad you agree to my changes. --DHeyward (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are clearly moving the goal posts here. Pro-life is a generally and widely accepted term for Scarborough's position. You said you didn't want his abortion position and his linkage with Griffin in the same paragraph: I agreed. You said you wanted the parens taken off 'capital murder case': I ageed. The term 'capital murder case' only means that the death penalty is "authorized by law" regardless of whether it is applied in a given case. Your suggestion that I agreed with your changes is I suppose an attempt at humor. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You aren;t making any substantive arguments. I don't believe the death penalty was an option for the jury or judge. Not sure how you think that makes it a capital case. In any event, it's misleading to convey a conviction and say it's a capital case if the sentence wasn't death. I didn't say that pro-life wasn't a general and widely accepted term. I said it it was vague and there is a lot of grey area that can dealt with detail,. --DHeyward (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This was originally a capital case, as it was pre-meditated murder, however after researching it I found that in a pre-trial deal, the state agreed not to seek the death penalty in exchange for some jailhouse testimony. This would not have been known in the early stages when Scarborough was briefly involved in the case though - regardless, I would agree to drop this phrase from the piece. As for the term pro-life, I believe that this should be replaced by way of the sentence I suggested above. Any other details you wish to add about the subject's legislative record can be done, with proper sourcing, consensus etc. at a later date. At this point, we are only trying to obtain enough consensus - about one term now - to get the article unprotected. I think I've been pretty fair. What say you? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So we have:

  • "At just 3 years out of law school, Michael F. Griffin's family requested that Scarborough represent him at his trial for the murder of abortion doctor, David Gunn. As a young civil law attorney, Scarborough wasn't qualified to defend him in that case but he did help them find a criminal defense attorney and helped shield the family from the media exposure, pro bono."

and

  • "Scarborough supported a number of pro-life positions while in Congress as well as legislation that made it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of other crimes."

I'm okay with that. --DHeyward (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have requested protecting admin to unprotect. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nationality in lead sentence

I added this back per MOSBIO. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough#Controversy redux

I noticed the section above because of the recent report at WP:AIV against the IP editor who has been trying to remove it. The note about this particular section at the top of this page notes that this has been very contentious, and a compromise version agreed to. So, I hate to step into a mine field, or reopen old wounds, but I honestly am surprised people think this is an appropriate thing to keep in the article. The note at the top of this page also acknowledges that "consensus can change", and more discussion may be needed.

With that in mind, I'd like to propose that now, with the benefit of a little more hindsight (last discussion on this appears to have taken place in Febuary 2007), and with our evolving community understanding of BLP, this paragraph be removed entirely as undue weight being given to an occurance that really has nothing to do with Joe Scarborough. The IP editor went about it in exactly the wrong way, but I for one think he had a point. The paragraph seems tacky, unfair, and unnecessary. Just because something is true, and sourced, doesn't mean it automatically belongs in an article.

I have removed the name of the woman who died, and I'm invoking WP:BLP; please do not add it back until the discussion is over. I'm not preemptively removing the paragraph, as it doesn't seem to violate the letter of WP:BLP, just the (IMHO) spirit. --barneca (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I was in the middle of listing previous discussion sections in the archives, when I realized it's easir to say:
Seeing the extent of the discussion that's already happened does make me feel slightly guilty about re-opening it here, but I really do think Wikipedia has evolved in the last 2 years, and the results of a discussion now may be significantly different. This section really, really doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia. --barneca (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:SILENCE, I've removed the paragraph in question. If you wish to re-add it, I'd appreciate a comment here explaining why. If you want my admiration, you could even discuss it here before re-adding it. --barneca (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing Reasons

I removed an external link which wasn't informative or relevant to the article's topic as well as a paragraph about the subject's on air spat with a guest that hasn't shaped up into anything significant. LostLucidity (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Defense of torture

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hf8r6H71nc

189.6.56.11 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead Intern? Confusing.

At one point, the article states, "Scarborough resigned before completing his fourth term in Congress. Two months later, an intern working in his Fort Walton Beach, Florida office was found dead from a blow to the head due to an apparent heart condition." Well... what did the intern die from? The blow to the head, or the apparent heart condition; was it the heart condition that gave the intern a blow to the head? It makes no sense. I tried looking up the source but the link is dead. 216.164.56.122 (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No one knows exactly what the intern died of, but she was found to have a deadly heart condition (probably had heart failure causing her to collapse, causing her to hit her head). It's a minor point. Scarborough was in DC when the intern died in Florida, and no reliable source has suggested anything untoward with respect to the matter. bd2412 T 03:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

why is this important enough to be added to the article in its present context? The perception is made that Scarborough had something to do with the death. If those allegations are baseless, then the article needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.223.50.213 (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Search results

I have removed the external link to search results at Media Matters for violating WP:EL, especially WP:ELNO #9, which prohibits links to search results. Please do not restore it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus text on Lori Klausutis goes in the article.

I have restored it. Joe Scarborough & his fans are not to remove information like this & compromise the article's neutrality. Ventifax (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Klausutis: "Consensus" text appears to violate Wikipedia rules

The text in the article reads, "According to Scarborough, soon after her death allegations 'spread all over the Internet' that he had been involved,[17] although there was no evidence of foul play." The problem is with that last clause. If Scarborough is asserting that there was no such evidence, then the sentence should be reworded to make clear that we are reporting his opinion, not adopting it. If the intention is that Wikipedia should assert, as if it were a matter of undisputed fact, that there was no such evidence, then the problems are (1) violation of Wikipedia:Citing sources (unless the reference earlier in the sentence is supposed to cover it, which I can't tell because I don't happen to have a collection of back issues of the Pensacola News Journal), and (2) violation of WP:NPOV, because this point is disputed -- the physical evidence of a blow to the head is cited by some people as evidence of foul play.

I took a quick look at the talk-page archives and couldn't immediately find a discussion of these issues. It might be useful to modify the box at the top of the talk page (the one that warns people against wantonly editing the section) by adding a link to the discussion that forged the alleged consensus. JamesMLane t c 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch -- a literal reading of the text yields an inconclusive origin/veracity of the subordinate clause. I might have some methods to get old PNJ articles, but in any case I support rewording for literal clarity. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read much about this lately, but my recollection is that the nothing-to-see-here crowd points to a coroner's report finding no evidence of foul play, while others respond by pointing out that the coroner who made that report had had his license revoked or faced some other professional discipline in another state before Klausutis's death. If that's so, we might change it to:

According to Scarborough, soon after her death allegations 'spread all over the Internet' that he had been involved. [17] According to the coroner's report, there was no evidence of foul play; coroner ____ had been ____ in the state of ____.

That would leave open the question whether Scarborough himself pointed to the report. Leaving that question open is correct if we don't know the answer. JamesMLane t c 15:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Feud with Jon Stewart?

On Morning Joe and then The Daily Show, Scarborough and Stewart have been taking shots at each other. Stewart even called him "Doucheborough" a few months ago. Perhaps make a controversy section, move his "fuck" controversy there, and add a small bit about this feud there? Thoughts? GRHooked (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but may be a little recent; has there been any coverage of the incident ("feud" may be premature) in reliable sources that might indicate sustained significance? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sir.[1][2][3] I did not know about that policy, and thank you for the link (I am new at editing this website). Again, thanks. GRHooked (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
No no, don't go confusing a user essay with policy. Essays carry no weight with regards to the "rules of Wikipedia", but may serve to help guide discussions during consensus building. What I think is more important, in this case, is that we make sure the sources provided qualify as reliable -- a subject often hotly contested on talk pages. Given that, I'm inclined to let this one bake for a while and see some other editors' opinions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Again, I am new to this thing. As to those sources: I just grabbed the first few off of google. Here are more: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] I was just trying to save a little time (I tried to leave blogs out of that list, but I might have accidentally left a few in). GRHooked (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
GRHooked, although you're new, you've already caught on to a key point that some more experienced editors are weak on: You've done some actual work to find citations to support a statement about the article subject. That's a good start. What I'm still wondering, though, is whether this is enough of a long-term phenomenon, or is it a tempest in a teapot, merely this month's excitement. By way of comparison, Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann have had an on-air enmity for quite a while. Does Scarborough-Stewart reach the same level of significance? If we do include something, I wouldn't favor breaking it out into a "Controversies" section. The trend in Wikipedia is to merge content from such sections into the rest of the text. This controversy would concern his TV show, and should be in that section, while any controversy his book occasions would be in the "Books" section. JamesMLane t c 08:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I was not aware that the goal was to AVOID sections like that - of all the articles I have read, the goal seems to be to modularize the text - make the article less like an essay, and more like a reference material. If that's not the case, then I agree with your method. As to the scope of the "feud" - I doubt many are going to top Olbermann-O'Reilly, but you are probably correct - this is just a passing thing (although, personally, I cracked up the first time I heard "doucheborough" - I figure Scarborough would have a response to that). GRHooked (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You're certainly right about "modularizing" the text in the sense of having sections and subsections with descriptive headings, so that a reader can easily find particular information without wading through the whole article. It's just that having a "Controversy" section tends to generate a lot of POV-warring. It's better to parcel out the controversies into the sections they relate to (TV show, Congressional career, etc.). JamesMLane t c 09:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2017

Under "U.S. House of Representatives" in the subsection "Elections", in the second paragraph change "provign" to "proving". 173.66.180.215 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Beatles Fan

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)

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)

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

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.

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)


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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

 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)
thanks @both of you --Neun-x (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

'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)

"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)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)

  1. ^ http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/MESearch?OpenForm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Scarborough/Archive_3&oldid=1136846657"