![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Joe Scarborough again. Though I am pleased that 50% of my life as described by Wikipedia no longer involves an event that I had absolutely nothing to do with, I am surprised that Wikipedia continues to allow Gamaliel to remain an administrator when she has shown such bad faith in this matter. The following sentence she wrote in this section is simply false:
If national magazines, newspapers, and radio programs can mention this, why can't Wikipedia? Gamaliel 23:06, 16 March 2006
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.
Gamaliel, your Feb 1 edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_Scarborough&oldid=37780031) has the comment: "Congressional career - Restoring Klausutis with some tweaks in wording to insure that nothing is implied. This is NPOV and sourced and has been discussed fully on the talk page for over a year" and here is the paragraph you made the claim about:
In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Responding to some of Moore's public comments, Scarborough said to a guest on his program: "tell him to stop going around calling me a murderer or I'm going to have to call my lawyers." [5] Scarborough was involved in a right-wing documentary attack of Moore called Michael Moore Hates America.
Now you seem to object to the following paragraph:
In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Three years earlier, on July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis, one of Scarborough's aides, was found dead in his Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Police found no evidence of foul play and her death was the result of a previous medical condition. Moore believed Scarborough was involved in a documentary critical of Moore called Michael Moore Hates America.[citation needed]
What is so different from these two versions that you insist on a 3 paragraph version that insinuates there is something sinister about Lori's death? -- Tbeatty 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Three days without posting here, but less than an hour to revert me. Whatever form you think the paragraph should take, it belongs in the congressional section as that is when it happened. It did not only become an issue when MM registered that domain, it received news coverage years before that. The domain only gets 41 google hits. A search for "lori Klausutis" -"michael moore" (hits for LK without mentioning MM) gets 1670 hits, while a search for both names together only gets 154 hits. It's pretty clear that the claim that it this issue only became relevant or newsworthy before MM is false. While MM's involvement makes the issue more newsworthy and important, to definitively link LK and MM, to the exclusion of any other critics or commentators, and bury it in a later section seems like an effort to write this issue off as partisan spin. While it may very well be that, it's the reader's job to come to that conclusion themselves, not for us to spell it out for them. Gamaliel 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've asked for mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-06_Joe_Scarborough -- Tbeatty 03:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm so glad that Lori Klausutis paragraph is finally gone. 166.82.150.154
Does this paragraph need to exist? It's an extremely minor incident on the internet, which is overflowing with extremely minor incidents. The fact that Don Imus devoted a couple minutes to it, and Michael Moore allegedly started a domain name about it is not enough to warrant as much space in the article as it is currently allotted (7% of the article). The only reason it persists is because Wikipedia attracts people who live on the internet, and would push to include extremely minor, but internet-based, factoids in articles. I would say, at the very most, this content should be merged into Michael Moore, since he instigated this nonsense. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-16 21:58
It is time to add the proper detail to this paragraph. A women dies in unusual circumstances in the office of a prominent congressman and now extremely well known conservative Republican commentator. Why is the only detail included some information that makes this absurd death sound so natural. Don't people smash their skulls every day in several places and die in empty offices - especially really fit people?
We are "assuming" the terrible coroner and the local police using his information got it right. Why? What are we basing that on? I think we should provide the neutral info we have and state what the disposition was by the police.
On July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis,28, one of Scarborough's aides, was found dead at Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Fort Walton Beach Police Chief Steve Hogue stated that a preliminary investigation into Lori Klausutis' death did not indicate any evidence of trauma to her body or signs of suicide. An autopsy report issued by Associate Medical Examiner Michael Berkland ( a controversial figure who was subsequently fired) on August 6 showed clear evidence of severe trauma to the head: a 7 1/2 inch long fracture stretching from the right temple across the top of the head, a contusion in the occipital region (at the base of the skull), a subdural hematoma on the left side opposite the fracture. The coroner concluded that Lori had passed out from a heart condition and had hit her head on the desk. Lori had been an athlete that competed in 10k's with no diagnosed health conditions. The police after this report was issued completed their report and closed the investigation ruling the death an accident.
Scarborough was in Washington, DC at the time and flew to Florida upon hearing the news. The national media, despite the ongoing frenzy on the Chandra Levy case ( involving Rep. Gary Condit), virtually ignored the death of Lori Klausutis. According to Scarborough, soon after her death allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved [1], although police found no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program [2] and in 2004 it was the subject of a public spat between Scarborough and filmmaker Michael Moore. [3]
Please tell me what this sentence is communicating that if of value if we can't add any detail to the circumstances of her death or the details of the autopsy:"Scarborough was in Washington, DC at the time and flew to Florida upon hearing the news."
Northwest Florida September 02, 2001 Daily News.
EDITORIAL - An untidy wrap-up for Klausutis case
Despite weeks of furious speculation on the Internet, it's likely that Lori Klausutis died exactly the way investigators say she died: She collapsed because of a heart condition, struck her head and suffered a fatal blood clot.
That much is clear from this newspaper's examination of Fort Walton Beach police reports and interviews with the medical examiner, Dr. Michael Berkland.
Less clear are two significant aspects of this strange tale: why authorities initially misled the public about Mrs. Klausutis' injury, and whether police seriously considered other explanations for Mrs. Klausutis' death.
Let's look at the first question.
Mrs. Klausutis, a 28-year-old aide to U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough, was found dead in the congressman's Fort Walton Beach office on the morning of July 20. Within a few hours, police were telling reporters there was no sign of physical trauma.
About 3:30 that afternoon, Detective Dan Sequeira attended the autopsy. "I observed a fractured skull," he wrote in his report.
From the first day, authorities knew that Mrs. Klausutis' skull had been cracked. Yet, publicly, they let stand the fiction that her body bore no sign of trauma.
The truth came out Aug. 6 - more than two weeks after the body's discovery - when Dr. Berkland issued a news release outlining the likely cause of death: "A previously undiagnosed valvular condition of the heart ... caused Lori to fall and strike her head ... acute subdural hematoma (blood clot) ... ruled as accidental."
On Aug. 9 this newspaper requested the Police Department's investigative report on the Klausutis case. The next day we requested Dr. Berkland's autopsy report. Our requests were refused.
On Aug. 23 we explained, in an editorial, our position that the reports should be released.
On Aug. 24, Daily News Editor Ralph Routon submitted letters to Dr. Berkland and Police Chief Steve Hogue asking them to either release the records or cite an exemption to Florida's open-records law. The records were handed over.
On Aug. 29 we reported on the contents of the police file.
Still puzzling is the earlier reluctance to acknowledge Mrs. Klausutis' fractured skull. Said Dr. Berkland: "The last thing we wanted to do was answer 40 questions about a head injury." But Dr. Berkland should have known that refusing to disclose a head injury eventually would double the questions. There would be 40 questions about the injury, and 40 (or more) questions about the secrecy.
As it was, the Klausutis investigation was handled in a way that only generated rumors.
Which brings us to the second question: Was the investigation handled in a way that assumed an accident had occurred, and shunned contrary information?
This is a tough one. If we accept that the ruling of accidental death is correct, it's easy to say - with hindsight - that conflicting information must be wrong. But investigators couldn't have known this from the beginning.
In at least one instance, police were openly skeptical of a witness whose account differed from the accepted timeline leading to Mrs. Klausutis' death.
Authorities believe that Mrs. Klausutis died inside Rep. Scarborough's office in the Paradise Village complex during the evening of July 19. No one else was in the office; Mrs. Klausutis' husband was out of town on business. The next morning, Mrs. Klausutis' car was still parked outside, lights in the office were still on and the front door was unlocked. A Destin couple walked in and found the body.
But the owner of a security firm hired to check the buildings at Paradise Village told police he had made his rounds around midnight July 19 and had seen nothing amiss. No car. No lights. All doors locked. He stuck to his story. He had even jotted in his log: "All doors secured - no suspicious activity noticed."
The security officer's account was startling. Police didn't believe him.
On Aug. 9, the security officer agreed to undergo a voice-stress test. Just before the test was to begin, he changed his story. He had checked doors at the complex only randomly, he said, and couldn't remember whether he'd noticed office lights or a car.
"It could have been vehicles parked at Paradise Village or lights on inside," he said in a signed statement. "I can't remember."
Investigators were right to be skeptical of the security officer's initial account. We wonder, though, if their skepticism extended to every hard-to-fit fact, every variant version of events that didn't quite jibe with the official conclusions.
For the moment, we'll let others debate those variant versions.
And they probably will. The Klausutis case has fueled imaginative and sometimes inflammatory conjecture on the Internet. We've received hundreds of e-mails about it from across the country. We've taken queries from France and read write-ups from Russia.
The Daily News insisted on viewing official records in this case so that we could report facts, not fantasies, to our readers. We've done that.
We also wanted to spare the Klausutis family unnecessary grief by distancing ourselves from the bizarre speculations that abound in cyberspace. We hope we've done that.
One more link for you: Jennifer Van bergen
Bio: Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D., is the author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America, published by Common Courage Press on September 1, 2004. She is one of the foremost experts on the USA PATRIOT Act and has taught anti-terrorism law at the New School University.
The information I posted on the Coroner, Dr. Berkland, who played a key role in the determination of what occured was erased from this post causing me to add it once again. Is this an example of extreme POV? WEAR3 News Chris George and Denis Wright
We are talking about adding 3 or 4 sentences that detail what happened in perhaps the most unsettling and dramatic event in Joe's life, an unusual death in his political office. No one is asking you to indict or exonerate - what gave you that idea? Rather we are talking about not censoring facts that would concern and interest any fair reader about whether this case was closed too early. Lori was not only a staff member to Joe (According to her obituary in the Fort Walton Daily News) but she had served as President and, later, Treasurer, for the Emerald Coast Young Republicans and as a aide to Congressman Scarborough, she was active during the Florida recounts.This not a biography of Lori but a brief accounting of the events (and how they were handled by the Police and Coroner) which relate to Joe's political life.
Haven't read any biographies? A person's biography includes the important, dramatic or controversial events and people surrounding those events. This qualifies as dramatic and controversial and could become important. She was a very involved Republican supporter that died under mysterious circumstances. This is perhaps the most dramatic event in Joe's life and you want, for reasons not clear to me, to keep it out.Your trying to keep the facts out will not make it go away.
You should quit hidding behind jargon because there is no space there where you can't be challenged. I posted the editorial becaused it summarized the details that the local paper was covering (remember part of the issue is that investigative wing of the national media never took interest). Go to their web site that lists their archives and there are 5 or six articles that detail the on going concerns regarding the quality and secrecy of the investigations Daily News. Go to relevant months and and search under "aide". The other local paper documented similar occurences. I don't think they are in dispute.
Although you scoff,the article by Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D. is well written, ties with the newspapers and includes the details from the autopsy you wanted and medical citaions that challenge the findings of the coroner.
The rest of the items I cite include the reports on the firing of the coroner in his last two jobs for unprofessional conduct that is part of the open record. you can go to the Florida Department of Health and see the displinary actions he admitts to [ http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/irm00profiling/ProfileACTIONS.asp?LicId=6083&ProfNBR=1901 Micheal Berkland
Your position is very weak and there is more information that backs all this up to add the three sentences I am recommending. The sourcing exists and it matches the standard set for this website.
Please visit and read what I have provided before you respond. The dates on the editorial match the articles they wrote on the topic. I have given you the links to these sources which comprise the primary reporting that was done locally and the rest of the material analyzes and supports the basic premiss. What I have provided is more than enought to support the minor changes I am recommending.
I am not a supplicant but a partner in making this a better article. HTP —This unsigned comment was added by HellToupee ( talk • contribs) .
You are making an arbitrary recommendation with which I strongly differ. I have provided a tremendous amount of backup for the points I think should be included so now you come up with a catch 22 - it doesn't involve Joe. What are you basing your recommendation on? What was potentially more risky or politically more damaging than the death of woman at a time he was quiting his job and getting divorced?
I thought I should add this up here in case people didn't see it at the end of the Talk page. On behalf of the Mediation Cabal, I've been asked to offer informal mediation concerning this article's treatment of the death of Lori Klausutis and its aftermath. If you would like to participate in this with a view to reaching an amicable, mutually agreeable solution, please join the discussion here. Much thanks! Fishhead64 05:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Fishhead64 How can I get involved in the mediation Cabel? Helltoupee
I chanced upon this article while researching another on the development of cable news and opinion. I found some of the details listed in this biographt as problematic and went into the discussion section to find a long history of a very small group determined to delete all mention of the death of this girl. I find this peculiar and inappropriate to the spirit of wikipedia. In any of our lives this would have been memoralble and in the life of a public figure (even if he is alive) it is more so. I wrote a simple NPOV addition that was reversed without comment by one of the two most interested parties in sterilizing this biography.
70.132.21.230 70.132.21.230
My note for the discussion was twice removed and the article was reverted. Is this the level of integrity that followers of Joe ( or Joe) want to demonstrate to the public the relies on Wikipedia for information?
Where is the history of the discussion page??? A controversy is where there is/was a dispute. The reports/notes included in this discussion page amply demostrate that how the police handled the investigation process, the details revealed subsequently about the extent of physical damage that occured that night to Laurie and the questions of the professional reputation (fired twice for professional issues) of the coroner contributed at the time to undermining support for the investigation. The change I recommend only outlines the barest details that there was a controversy (which is a fact) and does not dwell on any particular item nor point to Joe in any way. It is neutral and necessary.
What is going on here? TBeatty do you feel you can revert twice without explanation? Is there a small gang here trying to stop a needed and basic change that provides the reader (who was not there) with a fuller, cleare and more honest telling as to why this death is significant as opposed to all other deaths in this politician/cable personalility's life. Frank Boyles
Speculative and opinionated - sounds smart - but you need to look both up. You have a small posse here with a pathetic mission: protect Joe Scarborough. I can see something like this being done by Joe or his family or people with nothing to do. I suggest a more noble activity: writing Wikipedia articles that are full of honesty and reflect the life of each character as it was lived with all the twists, turns and the characters that enter and depart shaping it in reality and the perceptions of it. Save your sanitizing for your own lives. Sarah Williams
Making false assumptions makes for false postings. You are assuming I have posted before - I can tell a bully when I read one. The matter of there being a controversy was amply covered by the local papers and the fact it continues to be debated certainly indicated there may still be one. I happen to have just seen that someone in the past actually copied the details of the controversy for your gang. There was a controversy whether you like it or not. The words the other poster used were measured and precise. The opposite of what you term weasely. Your behaviour and that of your posse is weasely. Removing something from the reader sheapens this site if it is done for small reasons. Frank Boyles
It has been too difficutl making improvements on this page so I leave you with a picture of who I had to deal with.Some snipits from Paul "Rhobite's" discussion page that show his style and class.:
[Long excerpts from User talk:Rhobite removed]
70.231.236.252 20:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Sarah Williams
The section Career shift to television was a mess and I have spit it into two sections: "Post-congressional career" and "Recent controversies". I reduced the material devoted to the reasons for his resignation into a compact line; there was too much speculation about his motives. Question: is he still a practicing lawywer? Both the Moore and the Schwartenegger paragraphs in the new "controversies" section remain exceedingly weak, but I leave them as is for now, but would vote for their deletion, as they reveal nothing meaningful about JS. Viajero | Talk 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We can quibble about the importance of the speculative news reports, but I don't see any reason to remove a news report about what he actually said during his resignation speech. In any case, I've restored both. JS appears to be a partner in the firm Beggs and Lane; as far as how much practicing he does currently, I can't say. Perhaps somebody could look him up in that lawyer directory - I think it's called Martindale. Gamaliel 21:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Pasting a bunch of quotes from 2003 and calling it controversial today is not valid. There are still Fox News pundits claiming the war in Iraq is going well for the U.S., and that we will leave the country respectably. Of course they're wrong, but this doesn't excuse pasting long past quotes into an article and saying that it is controversy today because those statements may no longer be correct; it is still possible, though very unlikely, that the situation in Iraq can be resolved. You need to cite a recent reference that calls him on his past statements. Until then you have not shown it to be controversial, as back in 2003 the U.S. thought everything would go well in Iraq. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-18 16:13
Fair.org is the left equivalent of the right-leaning MediaResearch.org. THey are generally factually accurate but agenda driven. I would question the value of their conclusions. Since most of their stuff can be sourced to original material, I question the need to reference them at all. They are certainly not NPOV sources. Wikipedia has guidelines on sources and I don't think either MRC or Fair.org would qualify but their citations generally would. -- Tbeatty 22:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
On behalf of the Mediation Cabal, I've been asked to offer informal mediation concerning this article's treatment of the death of Lori Klausutis and its aftermath. If you would like to participate in this with a view to reaching an amicable, mutually agreeable solution, please join the discussion here. Much thanks! Fishhead64 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Please consider removing the private information about Scarborough's ex-wife, current wife, and children. He's a very public and controversial figure, and that means that lots of crazy people out there would be interested in getting to him in a way that hurts. By publishing the names of his spouses and children, this puts them at risk, and it's not necessary to identify them in this article to make the points mentioned. User:ShirleyUJest
That's a good point. I don't know how common knowledge it is. JS bio simply says he lives with his wife and three children. I don't know how relevant their names are to his biography. -- Tbeatty 03:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's public knowledge through tax records, phone bills, etc. Plus, wikipedia does not censor articles.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In 1986, Scarborough married his first wife. They divorced in 1999 after having two children. The youngest was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. While interviewing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in June, 2005, Scarborough expressed concerns about the possibility one of his sons may have suffered vaccine damage, perhaps attributable to the sharp increase during the 1980s in the amount of thimerosal injected into infants, "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." [13]
Scarborough married his current wife in October, 2001. They live in Pensacola with their daughter and his two sons from his previous marriage.
Please tell me what information about Joe Scarborough is missing by not naming his family?-- Tbeatty 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Since no one but myself has responded to the request for Mediation, I am going to request Arbitration. To use gamaliel's Clinton analogy: just as we don't list every Clinton acquaintance he was accused of killing according to crackpot internet theories, books, and movies, we should not should not include Klausutis. It is not significant enough to be listed and listing it is a defamation that far outweighs any encyclopedic value. Just as making the CLinton list would be defamatory in a way that is not erased by using "alleged" or by giving exonerating details or accounts, Klausutis is defamatory to list in Scarboroughs bio and is only in place to raise the eyebrows of the reader about Scarboroughs involvement. It gives the reader the improper impression that the death was controversial or that Scarborough was involved. The tenacity with which some users have held on to this very small detail in light of the fact that it is not done on other bios and their declining to engage in mediation, leaves me no choice but to ask for Arbitration. This item simply doesn't belong or else Wikipedia will become a collection of these unsubstantiated accusations in the guise of factoids. -- Tbeatty 03:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Three years earlier, on July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis, one of Scarborough's aides, died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Moore believed that Scarborough was involved in the documentary Michael Moore Hates America.
Chronologically I put it in the journalist section. This was my compromise to mentioning it at all. Does this meet what you think is necessary, Rhobite? -- Tbeatty 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I did some research on the Scarborough and Lori Klausutis situation. I came up with some interesting information, indeed, and have edited the arcticle accordingly. It looks like there is need for an investigation, but Scarborough's part isn't what warrants the investigation. Scarborough, if I'm correct is the fall guy here. Please check these links (only a few) that are available.
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/911WidowQuestions.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.05B.Klausutis.1.htm
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030721Baker.html
thewolfstar 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Soon after her death, Scarborough complained about allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved. [1] Critics have complained about the handling of the investigation[2], the failure to release relevant records[3], and disputed Berkland's conclusions and his past.
What's your point? Go to, especially the first reference I just listed here.
thewolfstar 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, dudes. Can someone actually click one of links above and comment on the information? thewolfstar 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this issue must be included.
I agree that to make a statement without providing context or why it is relevant only invites reader inferences that there is an actual connection between the incident and Scarborough.
However, to exclude any mention of the accident would cause a reader to infer that any connection has been suppressed.
Even the Clinton page has sections on the spurious accusations about killing 60 people. (Thank you Jerry Falwell).
Even if the pantomime Joe Scarborough who loves to disrupt the Talk pages were the real Joe Scarborough, it is inappropriate to of him to give such harangues; Wikipedia (I believe) is not the Congressional Biography Section.
Therefore, I am suggesting this modification to the paragraph. Thoughts?
Scarborough has aroused hostility by some on the left. As one result, a largely discredited accusation, spread on the internet, accused him of an involvement in the death of an aide. Lori Klausutis died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office while the Congressman was in Washington, DC. This was ruled an accident [2] and no major news outlet gave credence to the rumor. This rumor has dogged Scarborough. According to Scarborough, soon after her death, allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved [9], although there was no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program [10]. In 2004, Scarborough claimed that Michael Moore had accused him of murder, but offered no footage or proof that Moore had made the statement or had referred to Klausutis.[11]
/* Family */ I deleted In a July 2006 interview with Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report, John revealed that both he and his wife are avid viewers of the show. I see no relevance. And it was uttered on a show with an audience to win. and by the way: I came here after watching the Colbert clip and being curios, whether the 1000Dollar check was mentioned. -- Jan 81.173.254.85 08:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And why is it John and not Joe within this sentence?
There appears to be a dispute as to what, if anything, should be contained in a subheader pertaining to the material in the article addressing the death of Lori Klausitis. We must seek to achieve a consensus as to this matter - please discuss which of the following options do you feel are good or bad, and why:
Good because...
Bad because...
Indifferent because...
Good because...
Bad because...
Indifferent because...
Good because...
Bad because...
Indifferent because...
The inclusion of the Lori Klausutis material violates WP:BLP, as her death has been ruled as "not suspicious", and Scarborough is not considered a suspect by any legal authority in her death. Appears that the inclusion of the subject here is for biased or malicious purposes intended to smear Scarborough, "pushing an agenda or a biased point of view." While this was at one time considered an open question, the issue has been put to bed, and has no place here except to smear Scarborough. Please carefully review WP:BLP before you re-include this material. Morton devonshire 01:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:AGF before you smear other editors. This issue has been discussed by many editors and a consensus was formed. Please review prior debates on this subject before you attempt to stir it all up again with the same two year old smears against other Wikipedians. Gamaliel 01:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The Lori Klausutis article, which contains significant content regarding Joe Scarborough, is up for deletion. Your opinions, including the possibility of merging, are welcome. Armedblowfish ( talk| mail| contribs) 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What? Reverting the unwarranted and unjustified deletions of factual material is wrong? "Some nameless dead body was found in his office" is pretty muc the OPPOSITE of factual. I don't believe policy has changed on that, but certainly not making veiled threats is still policy. -- Calton | Talk 08:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Threats in the edit summary - or anywhere else - are completely unacceptable and repeat violators will be subject to administrative action. Let's play nice please. Gamaliel 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Including the woman's name is a needless invasion of privacy, and is not useful to the reader. She is not known to the public in any other context. Tom Harrison Talk 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Morton devonshire, if you're going to revert the inclusion of the name, don't revert to the broken link. I repaired it and in both your and Tbeatty's rush to revert you both replaced it with a broken link. I'll ask that you fix and please check exactly what you're reverting before doing so. Thanks. *Sparkhead 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
jmaynardgIt is *astonishing* to me that a dead woman found in a congressman's office, for which there is little news left online and still no reasonable explanation for her death, would be simply removed from that congressman's wikipedia biography. I will not edit the article, because I won't want to waste my time with wikidisputes. But IMO this is utter bullshit. A dead woman was found in a congressman's office. If that's not worthy of note in the man's bio page, fuck if I know what is.
Beyond just the individual discussion above, certain editors have been removing all "non notable" names from this article, and I have to question why. Putting names of spouses and children, even "non notable" spouses and children, is common practice in biographical articles, including BLP. What's the justification to make this article any different? *Sparkhead 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm staying out of the highly unfortunate insistence some editors have on including Lori K's name, but this is a sentence which could use some clarification:
Joked? About a person who died? Can someone who has access to that source please provide better context or explanation of this "joke", since it sounds quite strange and callous as currently worded? Sandy ( Talk) 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Edison 09:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, can you please stop with the reversion of relevant material? The incident regarding Arnold clearly is relevant to the subject, even you argued such not long ago. Now you're arguing it isn't. Scarborough's actions are on topic. The actions of someone else commenting on yet some other group are not. *Sparkhead 19:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Have to disagree that it's relevant. This article is about Scarborough, not Schwarzengeer or California politics. Gamaliel 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Does not belong in the article. It is extremely inflammatory and creates a sense that he had something to do with her death, even though he was in his Washington, DC office at the time. Why does it belong in this article? 63.20.149.215 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Disputes posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion are for disputes between two editors, for the purpose of soliciting a tie-breaking opinion. The dispute here involves more than two editors, so arbitration might be in order instead.
For what it's worth, in my opinion, the mention of the aide's death is appropriate for the article, provided it's only a mention. It deserves mention because it was made into an issue by a campaign opponent, and that's a notable fact. - Amatulic 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
For everyones background, I will try to summarize the consensus version. There are three camps that I can recall. The first camp wants no mention of the incident as it is believed to be of no consequence to Scarborough and that it's allusion to impropriety outweighs any probative value it contains. The second camp believes that the incident is noteworthy because it generated publicity about the death during a time when the national spotlight was focused on another high profile death associated with a congressman (gary condit). The second camp believes newsworthiness of the event warrants inclusion, not the event itself. The third camp wants extensive converage of the death including reports about improprieties of the coroner, perceived police irregularities, etc. The current consensus version leans toward the first/second camp although changes to consensus concerning the name of the deceased has occured. Did I get it right? For full disclosure, I have argued against inclusion but I understand the 2 other sides even if I don't agree. -- Tbeatty 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Due to the edit war, the page is now protected. Please discuss the dispute on the talk page & try to work toward reaching consensus. Thx. El_C 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[ Tom Flocco] was deemed not notable for an article. I find it hard to have him listed as a reliable source in a biography. -- Tbeatty 05:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Removing this line:
"Most traditional conservatives now regard Joe Scarborough as just another sell-out, who's sold his soul to keep his job with the failing MSNBC cable TV network."
because it's unsourced and POV. Major Organ 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Overall, this is a well-written article, with only some minor stuff needing help. Once you've taken it to arbitration, settled the edit war, fixed the other minor stuff, renominate it and let me know. I'd really like to see this article become a GA. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The above reviewer pointed out an ongoing edit war that I am not aware of, so as of now instead of immediately sending it to arbitration I put it up in Wikipedia:Requests for comment here. Please check what is going on. Thanks! Wooyi 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Summarizing (copy from above) -- Tbeatty 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
For everyones background, I will try to summarize the consensus version. There are three camps that I can recall. The first camp wants no mention of the incident as it is believed to be of no consequence to Scarborough and that it's allusion to impropriety outweighs any probative value it contains. The second camp believes that the incident is noteworthy because it generated publicity about the death during a time when the national spotlight was focused on another high profile death associated with a congressman (gary condit). The second camp believes newsworthiness of the event warrants inclusion, not the event itself. The third camp wants extensive converage of the death including reports about improprieties of the coroner, perceived police irregularities, etc. The current consensus version leans toward the first/second camp although changes to consensus concerning the name of the deceased has occured. Did I get it right? For full disclosure, I have argued against inclusion but I understand the 2 other sides even if I don't agree. -- Tbeatty 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for whining. Sometimes weariness brings the worst out of me. I realize that you are making suggestions to improve the article.
1a: The paragraph needs some clean up for clarity, agreed. cquote, on the other hand, would be a bad style decision. "It generally should not be used in articles unless there is a good justification for doing so." Could you please elaborate on why you feel that its use is justified here?
1c: I've seen many GA branded articles with short subsections. The only real clear subsection in "Congressional career" is the one about the aide. As part of the long process of coming to consensus, it was decided not to add more highlighting to this mention.
2a: Agreed that some citation is required here. Can you please be specific about your concerns with the number of External Links? I agree that one is redundant with a footnote. Is that your concern? The number is fairly typical for this class of article.
2b: The use of cite web or cite news is neither recommended nor discouraged by the MoS. There is no need to encourage it in a GA review.
5. The one in bold letters. This is a consensus paragraph. Worked over many years. This section will always be controversial, no matter its form or possible omission. Tbeatty has twice summarized its history.
6. I really don't believe that multiple images are required or even helpful to pass GA.
In summary: I agree the first two paragraphs of the "Congressional career" need references gleaned from the External Links. Plus the family paragraph needs clarification. Therefore 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the absurd claim that good-faith edits are "vandalism" and replaced it with a statement that edits not first discussed on talk might be reverted. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted his hatred of Rosie O'Donnell. Since April 2006 when Barbara Walters announced that Rosie would be coming to "The View" he has demonized and slandered her daily. Joe Scarborough has called her a pig, a freak, a mess, fat, anti-American etc. Here is a sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNhIp44bmZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tA7f0ts0-g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sWJZikfl-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pYesEy5GgI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AMKhDFnnXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_QToxyRc1o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZGbfx6GvbQ
On June 1, 2007 Joe Scarborough caused controversy when he referred to possible presidental canidate Fred Thompson's wife as a stripper. The comment was made during a tryout for a morning show on MSNBC.
Joe Scarborough: "Hey, have you seen Fred Thompson's wife?"
Craig Crawford: "Oh yeah..."
Joe Scarborough: "You think she works the pole?"
Craig Crawford: "That's what Hollywood careers will do for you, I guess."
Although it is common for Joe to make comments in poor taste this one caught the attention of media outlets. Source Pensacola News Journal
How is it that there is no longer a single link in this article to the Scarborough Country article? There used to be a link in the opening paragraph---what happened to it? --- Theoldanarchist Comhrá 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed the External Link from Scarborough Country to Morning Joe, as this is his current gig at MSNBC. 72.94.95.190 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Joe Scarborough again. Though I am pleased that 50% of my life as described by Wikipedia no longer involves an event that I had absolutely nothing to do with, I am surprised that Wikipedia continues to allow Gamaliel to remain an administrator when she has shown such bad faith in this matter. The following sentence she wrote in this section is simply false:
If national magazines, newspapers, and radio programs can mention this, why can't Wikipedia? Gamaliel 23:06, 16 March 2006
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.
Gamaliel, your Feb 1 edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_Scarborough&oldid=37780031) has the comment: "Congressional career - Restoring Klausutis with some tweaks in wording to insure that nothing is implied. This is NPOV and sourced and has been discussed fully on the talk page for over a year" and here is the paragraph you made the claim about:
In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Responding to some of Moore's public comments, Scarborough said to a guest on his program: "tell him to stop going around calling me a murderer or I'm going to have to call my lawyers." [5] Scarborough was involved in a right-wing documentary attack of Moore called Michael Moore Hates America.
Now you seem to object to the following paragraph:
In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Three years earlier, on July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis, one of Scarborough's aides, was found dead in his Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Police found no evidence of foul play and her death was the result of a previous medical condition. Moore believed Scarborough was involved in a documentary critical of Moore called Michael Moore Hates America.[citation needed]
What is so different from these two versions that you insist on a 3 paragraph version that insinuates there is something sinister about Lori's death? -- Tbeatty 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Three days without posting here, but less than an hour to revert me. Whatever form you think the paragraph should take, it belongs in the congressional section as that is when it happened. It did not only become an issue when MM registered that domain, it received news coverage years before that. The domain only gets 41 google hits. A search for "lori Klausutis" -"michael moore" (hits for LK without mentioning MM) gets 1670 hits, while a search for both names together only gets 154 hits. It's pretty clear that the claim that it this issue only became relevant or newsworthy before MM is false. While MM's involvement makes the issue more newsworthy and important, to definitively link LK and MM, to the exclusion of any other critics or commentators, and bury it in a later section seems like an effort to write this issue off as partisan spin. While it may very well be that, it's the reader's job to come to that conclusion themselves, not for us to spell it out for them. Gamaliel 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've asked for mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-06_Joe_Scarborough -- Tbeatty 03:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm so glad that Lori Klausutis paragraph is finally gone. 166.82.150.154
Does this paragraph need to exist? It's an extremely minor incident on the internet, which is overflowing with extremely minor incidents. The fact that Don Imus devoted a couple minutes to it, and Michael Moore allegedly started a domain name about it is not enough to warrant as much space in the article as it is currently allotted (7% of the article). The only reason it persists is because Wikipedia attracts people who live on the internet, and would push to include extremely minor, but internet-based, factoids in articles. I would say, at the very most, this content should be merged into Michael Moore, since he instigated this nonsense. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-16 21:58
It is time to add the proper detail to this paragraph. A women dies in unusual circumstances in the office of a prominent congressman and now extremely well known conservative Republican commentator. Why is the only detail included some information that makes this absurd death sound so natural. Don't people smash their skulls every day in several places and die in empty offices - especially really fit people?
We are "assuming" the terrible coroner and the local police using his information got it right. Why? What are we basing that on? I think we should provide the neutral info we have and state what the disposition was by the police.
On July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis,28, one of Scarborough's aides, was found dead at Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Fort Walton Beach Police Chief Steve Hogue stated that a preliminary investigation into Lori Klausutis' death did not indicate any evidence of trauma to her body or signs of suicide. An autopsy report issued by Associate Medical Examiner Michael Berkland ( a controversial figure who was subsequently fired) on August 6 showed clear evidence of severe trauma to the head: a 7 1/2 inch long fracture stretching from the right temple across the top of the head, a contusion in the occipital region (at the base of the skull), a subdural hematoma on the left side opposite the fracture. The coroner concluded that Lori had passed out from a heart condition and had hit her head on the desk. Lori had been an athlete that competed in 10k's with no diagnosed health conditions. The police after this report was issued completed their report and closed the investigation ruling the death an accident.
Scarborough was in Washington, DC at the time and flew to Florida upon hearing the news. The national media, despite the ongoing frenzy on the Chandra Levy case ( involving Rep. Gary Condit), virtually ignored the death of Lori Klausutis. According to Scarborough, soon after her death allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved [1], although police found no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program [2] and in 2004 it was the subject of a public spat between Scarborough and filmmaker Michael Moore. [3]
Please tell me what this sentence is communicating that if of value if we can't add any detail to the circumstances of her death or the details of the autopsy:"Scarborough was in Washington, DC at the time and flew to Florida upon hearing the news."
Northwest Florida September 02, 2001 Daily News.
EDITORIAL - An untidy wrap-up for Klausutis case
Despite weeks of furious speculation on the Internet, it's likely that Lori Klausutis died exactly the way investigators say she died: She collapsed because of a heart condition, struck her head and suffered a fatal blood clot.
That much is clear from this newspaper's examination of Fort Walton Beach police reports and interviews with the medical examiner, Dr. Michael Berkland.
Less clear are two significant aspects of this strange tale: why authorities initially misled the public about Mrs. Klausutis' injury, and whether police seriously considered other explanations for Mrs. Klausutis' death.
Let's look at the first question.
Mrs. Klausutis, a 28-year-old aide to U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough, was found dead in the congressman's Fort Walton Beach office on the morning of July 20. Within a few hours, police were telling reporters there was no sign of physical trauma.
About 3:30 that afternoon, Detective Dan Sequeira attended the autopsy. "I observed a fractured skull," he wrote in his report.
From the first day, authorities knew that Mrs. Klausutis' skull had been cracked. Yet, publicly, they let stand the fiction that her body bore no sign of trauma.
The truth came out Aug. 6 - more than two weeks after the body's discovery - when Dr. Berkland issued a news release outlining the likely cause of death: "A previously undiagnosed valvular condition of the heart ... caused Lori to fall and strike her head ... acute subdural hematoma (blood clot) ... ruled as accidental."
On Aug. 9 this newspaper requested the Police Department's investigative report on the Klausutis case. The next day we requested Dr. Berkland's autopsy report. Our requests were refused.
On Aug. 23 we explained, in an editorial, our position that the reports should be released.
On Aug. 24, Daily News Editor Ralph Routon submitted letters to Dr. Berkland and Police Chief Steve Hogue asking them to either release the records or cite an exemption to Florida's open-records law. The records were handed over.
On Aug. 29 we reported on the contents of the police file.
Still puzzling is the earlier reluctance to acknowledge Mrs. Klausutis' fractured skull. Said Dr. Berkland: "The last thing we wanted to do was answer 40 questions about a head injury." But Dr. Berkland should have known that refusing to disclose a head injury eventually would double the questions. There would be 40 questions about the injury, and 40 (or more) questions about the secrecy.
As it was, the Klausutis investigation was handled in a way that only generated rumors.
Which brings us to the second question: Was the investigation handled in a way that assumed an accident had occurred, and shunned contrary information?
This is a tough one. If we accept that the ruling of accidental death is correct, it's easy to say - with hindsight - that conflicting information must be wrong. But investigators couldn't have known this from the beginning.
In at least one instance, police were openly skeptical of a witness whose account differed from the accepted timeline leading to Mrs. Klausutis' death.
Authorities believe that Mrs. Klausutis died inside Rep. Scarborough's office in the Paradise Village complex during the evening of July 19. No one else was in the office; Mrs. Klausutis' husband was out of town on business. The next morning, Mrs. Klausutis' car was still parked outside, lights in the office were still on and the front door was unlocked. A Destin couple walked in and found the body.
But the owner of a security firm hired to check the buildings at Paradise Village told police he had made his rounds around midnight July 19 and had seen nothing amiss. No car. No lights. All doors locked. He stuck to his story. He had even jotted in his log: "All doors secured - no suspicious activity noticed."
The security officer's account was startling. Police didn't believe him.
On Aug. 9, the security officer agreed to undergo a voice-stress test. Just before the test was to begin, he changed his story. He had checked doors at the complex only randomly, he said, and couldn't remember whether he'd noticed office lights or a car.
"It could have been vehicles parked at Paradise Village or lights on inside," he said in a signed statement. "I can't remember."
Investigators were right to be skeptical of the security officer's initial account. We wonder, though, if their skepticism extended to every hard-to-fit fact, every variant version of events that didn't quite jibe with the official conclusions.
For the moment, we'll let others debate those variant versions.
And they probably will. The Klausutis case has fueled imaginative and sometimes inflammatory conjecture on the Internet. We've received hundreds of e-mails about it from across the country. We've taken queries from France and read write-ups from Russia.
The Daily News insisted on viewing official records in this case so that we could report facts, not fantasies, to our readers. We've done that.
We also wanted to spare the Klausutis family unnecessary grief by distancing ourselves from the bizarre speculations that abound in cyberspace. We hope we've done that.
One more link for you: Jennifer Van bergen
Bio: Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D., is the author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America, published by Common Courage Press on September 1, 2004. She is one of the foremost experts on the USA PATRIOT Act and has taught anti-terrorism law at the New School University.
The information I posted on the Coroner, Dr. Berkland, who played a key role in the determination of what occured was erased from this post causing me to add it once again. Is this an example of extreme POV? WEAR3 News Chris George and Denis Wright
We are talking about adding 3 or 4 sentences that detail what happened in perhaps the most unsettling and dramatic event in Joe's life, an unusual death in his political office. No one is asking you to indict or exonerate - what gave you that idea? Rather we are talking about not censoring facts that would concern and interest any fair reader about whether this case was closed too early. Lori was not only a staff member to Joe (According to her obituary in the Fort Walton Daily News) but she had served as President and, later, Treasurer, for the Emerald Coast Young Republicans and as a aide to Congressman Scarborough, she was active during the Florida recounts.This not a biography of Lori but a brief accounting of the events (and how they were handled by the Police and Coroner) which relate to Joe's political life.
Haven't read any biographies? A person's biography includes the important, dramatic or controversial events and people surrounding those events. This qualifies as dramatic and controversial and could become important. She was a very involved Republican supporter that died under mysterious circumstances. This is perhaps the most dramatic event in Joe's life and you want, for reasons not clear to me, to keep it out.Your trying to keep the facts out will not make it go away.
You should quit hidding behind jargon because there is no space there where you can't be challenged. I posted the editorial becaused it summarized the details that the local paper was covering (remember part of the issue is that investigative wing of the national media never took interest). Go to their web site that lists their archives and there are 5 or six articles that detail the on going concerns regarding the quality and secrecy of the investigations Daily News. Go to relevant months and and search under "aide". The other local paper documented similar occurences. I don't think they are in dispute.
Although you scoff,the article by Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D. is well written, ties with the newspapers and includes the details from the autopsy you wanted and medical citaions that challenge the findings of the coroner.
The rest of the items I cite include the reports on the firing of the coroner in his last two jobs for unprofessional conduct that is part of the open record. you can go to the Florida Department of Health and see the displinary actions he admitts to [ http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/irm00profiling/ProfileACTIONS.asp?LicId=6083&ProfNBR=1901 Micheal Berkland
Your position is very weak and there is more information that backs all this up to add the three sentences I am recommending. The sourcing exists and it matches the standard set for this website.
Please visit and read what I have provided before you respond. The dates on the editorial match the articles they wrote on the topic. I have given you the links to these sources which comprise the primary reporting that was done locally and the rest of the material analyzes and supports the basic premiss. What I have provided is more than enought to support the minor changes I am recommending.
I am not a supplicant but a partner in making this a better article. HTP —This unsigned comment was added by HellToupee ( talk • contribs) .
You are making an arbitrary recommendation with which I strongly differ. I have provided a tremendous amount of backup for the points I think should be included so now you come up with a catch 22 - it doesn't involve Joe. What are you basing your recommendation on? What was potentially more risky or politically more damaging than the death of woman at a time he was quiting his job and getting divorced?
I thought I should add this up here in case people didn't see it at the end of the Talk page. On behalf of the Mediation Cabal, I've been asked to offer informal mediation concerning this article's treatment of the death of Lori Klausutis and its aftermath. If you would like to participate in this with a view to reaching an amicable, mutually agreeable solution, please join the discussion here. Much thanks! Fishhead64 05:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Fishhead64 How can I get involved in the mediation Cabel? Helltoupee
I chanced upon this article while researching another on the development of cable news and opinion. I found some of the details listed in this biographt as problematic and went into the discussion section to find a long history of a very small group determined to delete all mention of the death of this girl. I find this peculiar and inappropriate to the spirit of wikipedia. In any of our lives this would have been memoralble and in the life of a public figure (even if he is alive) it is more so. I wrote a simple NPOV addition that was reversed without comment by one of the two most interested parties in sterilizing this biography.
70.132.21.230 70.132.21.230
My note for the discussion was twice removed and the article was reverted. Is this the level of integrity that followers of Joe ( or Joe) want to demonstrate to the public the relies on Wikipedia for information?
Where is the history of the discussion page??? A controversy is where there is/was a dispute. The reports/notes included in this discussion page amply demostrate that how the police handled the investigation process, the details revealed subsequently about the extent of physical damage that occured that night to Laurie and the questions of the professional reputation (fired twice for professional issues) of the coroner contributed at the time to undermining support for the investigation. The change I recommend only outlines the barest details that there was a controversy (which is a fact) and does not dwell on any particular item nor point to Joe in any way. It is neutral and necessary.
What is going on here? TBeatty do you feel you can revert twice without explanation? Is there a small gang here trying to stop a needed and basic change that provides the reader (who was not there) with a fuller, cleare and more honest telling as to why this death is significant as opposed to all other deaths in this politician/cable personalility's life. Frank Boyles
Speculative and opinionated - sounds smart - but you need to look both up. You have a small posse here with a pathetic mission: protect Joe Scarborough. I can see something like this being done by Joe or his family or people with nothing to do. I suggest a more noble activity: writing Wikipedia articles that are full of honesty and reflect the life of each character as it was lived with all the twists, turns and the characters that enter and depart shaping it in reality and the perceptions of it. Save your sanitizing for your own lives. Sarah Williams
Making false assumptions makes for false postings. You are assuming I have posted before - I can tell a bully when I read one. The matter of there being a controversy was amply covered by the local papers and the fact it continues to be debated certainly indicated there may still be one. I happen to have just seen that someone in the past actually copied the details of the controversy for your gang. There was a controversy whether you like it or not. The words the other poster used were measured and precise. The opposite of what you term weasely. Your behaviour and that of your posse is weasely. Removing something from the reader sheapens this site if it is done for small reasons. Frank Boyles
It has been too difficutl making improvements on this page so I leave you with a picture of who I had to deal with.Some snipits from Paul "Rhobite's" discussion page that show his style and class.:
[Long excerpts from User talk:Rhobite removed]
70.231.236.252 20:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Sarah Williams
The section Career shift to television was a mess and I have spit it into two sections: "Post-congressional career" and "Recent controversies". I reduced the material devoted to the reasons for his resignation into a compact line; there was too much speculation about his motives. Question: is he still a practicing lawywer? Both the Moore and the Schwartenegger paragraphs in the new "controversies" section remain exceedingly weak, but I leave them as is for now, but would vote for their deletion, as they reveal nothing meaningful about JS. Viajero | Talk 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We can quibble about the importance of the speculative news reports, but I don't see any reason to remove a news report about what he actually said during his resignation speech. In any case, I've restored both. JS appears to be a partner in the firm Beggs and Lane; as far as how much practicing he does currently, I can't say. Perhaps somebody could look him up in that lawyer directory - I think it's called Martindale. Gamaliel 21:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Pasting a bunch of quotes from 2003 and calling it controversial today is not valid. There are still Fox News pundits claiming the war in Iraq is going well for the U.S., and that we will leave the country respectably. Of course they're wrong, but this doesn't excuse pasting long past quotes into an article and saying that it is controversy today because those statements may no longer be correct; it is still possible, though very unlikely, that the situation in Iraq can be resolved. You need to cite a recent reference that calls him on his past statements. Until then you have not shown it to be controversial, as back in 2003 the U.S. thought everything would go well in Iraq. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-18 16:13
Fair.org is the left equivalent of the right-leaning MediaResearch.org. THey are generally factually accurate but agenda driven. I would question the value of their conclusions. Since most of their stuff can be sourced to original material, I question the need to reference them at all. They are certainly not NPOV sources. Wikipedia has guidelines on sources and I don't think either MRC or Fair.org would qualify but their citations generally would. -- Tbeatty 22:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
On behalf of the Mediation Cabal, I've been asked to offer informal mediation concerning this article's treatment of the death of Lori Klausutis and its aftermath. If you would like to participate in this with a view to reaching an amicable, mutually agreeable solution, please join the discussion here. Much thanks! Fishhead64 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Please consider removing the private information about Scarborough's ex-wife, current wife, and children. He's a very public and controversial figure, and that means that lots of crazy people out there would be interested in getting to him in a way that hurts. By publishing the names of his spouses and children, this puts them at risk, and it's not necessary to identify them in this article to make the points mentioned. User:ShirleyUJest
That's a good point. I don't know how common knowledge it is. JS bio simply says he lives with his wife and three children. I don't know how relevant their names are to his biography. -- Tbeatty 03:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's public knowledge through tax records, phone bills, etc. Plus, wikipedia does not censor articles.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In 1986, Scarborough married his first wife. They divorced in 1999 after having two children. The youngest was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. While interviewing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in June, 2005, Scarborough expressed concerns about the possibility one of his sons may have suffered vaccine damage, perhaps attributable to the sharp increase during the 1980s in the amount of thimerosal injected into infants, "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." [13]
Scarborough married his current wife in October, 2001. They live in Pensacola with their daughter and his two sons from his previous marriage.
Please tell me what information about Joe Scarborough is missing by not naming his family?-- Tbeatty 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Since no one but myself has responded to the request for Mediation, I am going to request Arbitration. To use gamaliel's Clinton analogy: just as we don't list every Clinton acquaintance he was accused of killing according to crackpot internet theories, books, and movies, we should not should not include Klausutis. It is not significant enough to be listed and listing it is a defamation that far outweighs any encyclopedic value. Just as making the CLinton list would be defamatory in a way that is not erased by using "alleged" or by giving exonerating details or accounts, Klausutis is defamatory to list in Scarboroughs bio and is only in place to raise the eyebrows of the reader about Scarboroughs involvement. It gives the reader the improper impression that the death was controversial or that Scarborough was involved. The tenacity with which some users have held on to this very small detail in light of the fact that it is not done on other bios and their declining to engage in mediation, leaves me no choice but to ask for Arbitration. This item simply doesn't belong or else Wikipedia will become a collection of these unsubstantiated accusations in the guise of factoids. -- Tbeatty 03:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore registered the domain JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Three years earlier, on July 20, 2001, Lori Klausutis, one of Scarborough's aides, died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office. Moore believed that Scarborough was involved in the documentary Michael Moore Hates America.
Chronologically I put it in the journalist section. This was my compromise to mentioning it at all. Does this meet what you think is necessary, Rhobite? -- Tbeatty 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I did some research on the Scarborough and Lori Klausutis situation. I came up with some interesting information, indeed, and have edited the arcticle accordingly. It looks like there is need for an investigation, but Scarborough's part isn't what warrants the investigation. Scarborough, if I'm correct is the fall guy here. Please check these links (only a few) that are available.
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/911WidowQuestions.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.05B.Klausutis.1.htm
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030721Baker.html
thewolfstar 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Soon after her death, Scarborough complained about allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved. [1] Critics have complained about the handling of the investigation[2], the failure to release relevant records[3], and disputed Berkland's conclusions and his past.
What's your point? Go to, especially the first reference I just listed here.
thewolfstar 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, dudes. Can someone actually click one of links above and comment on the information? thewolfstar 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this issue must be included.
I agree that to make a statement without providing context or why it is relevant only invites reader inferences that there is an actual connection between the incident and Scarborough.
However, to exclude any mention of the accident would cause a reader to infer that any connection has been suppressed.
Even the Clinton page has sections on the spurious accusations about killing 60 people. (Thank you Jerry Falwell).
Even if the pantomime Joe Scarborough who loves to disrupt the Talk pages were the real Joe Scarborough, it is inappropriate to of him to give such harangues; Wikipedia (I believe) is not the Congressional Biography Section.
Therefore, I am suggesting this modification to the paragraph. Thoughts?
Scarborough has aroused hostility by some on the left. As one result, a largely discredited accusation, spread on the internet, accused him of an involvement in the death of an aide. Lori Klausutis died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida office while the Congressman was in Washington, DC. This was ruled an accident [2] and no major news outlet gave credence to the rumor. This rumor has dogged Scarborough. According to Scarborough, soon after her death, allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved [9], although there was no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program [10]. In 2004, Scarborough claimed that Michael Moore had accused him of murder, but offered no footage or proof that Moore had made the statement or had referred to Klausutis.[11]
/* Family */ I deleted In a July 2006 interview with Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report, John revealed that both he and his wife are avid viewers of the show. I see no relevance. And it was uttered on a show with an audience to win. and by the way: I came here after watching the Colbert clip and being curios, whether the 1000Dollar check was mentioned. -- Jan 81.173.254.85 08:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And why is it John and not Joe within this sentence?
There appears to be a dispute as to what, if anything, should be contained in a subheader pertaining to the material in the article addressing the death of Lori Klausitis. We must seek to achieve a consensus as to this matter - please discuss which of the following options do you feel are good or bad, and why:
Good because...
Bad because...
Indifferent because...
Good because...
Bad because...
Indifferent because...
Good because...
Bad because...
Indifferent because...
The inclusion of the Lori Klausutis material violates WP:BLP, as her death has been ruled as "not suspicious", and Scarborough is not considered a suspect by any legal authority in her death. Appears that the inclusion of the subject here is for biased or malicious purposes intended to smear Scarborough, "pushing an agenda or a biased point of view." While this was at one time considered an open question, the issue has been put to bed, and has no place here except to smear Scarborough. Please carefully review WP:BLP before you re-include this material. Morton devonshire 01:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:AGF before you smear other editors. This issue has been discussed by many editors and a consensus was formed. Please review prior debates on this subject before you attempt to stir it all up again with the same two year old smears against other Wikipedians. Gamaliel 01:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The Lori Klausutis article, which contains significant content regarding Joe Scarborough, is up for deletion. Your opinions, including the possibility of merging, are welcome. Armedblowfish ( talk| mail| contribs) 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What? Reverting the unwarranted and unjustified deletions of factual material is wrong? "Some nameless dead body was found in his office" is pretty muc the OPPOSITE of factual. I don't believe policy has changed on that, but certainly not making veiled threats is still policy. -- Calton | Talk 08:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Threats in the edit summary - or anywhere else - are completely unacceptable and repeat violators will be subject to administrative action. Let's play nice please. Gamaliel 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Including the woman's name is a needless invasion of privacy, and is not useful to the reader. She is not known to the public in any other context. Tom Harrison Talk 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Morton devonshire, if you're going to revert the inclusion of the name, don't revert to the broken link. I repaired it and in both your and Tbeatty's rush to revert you both replaced it with a broken link. I'll ask that you fix and please check exactly what you're reverting before doing so. Thanks. *Sparkhead 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
jmaynardgIt is *astonishing* to me that a dead woman found in a congressman's office, for which there is little news left online and still no reasonable explanation for her death, would be simply removed from that congressman's wikipedia biography. I will not edit the article, because I won't want to waste my time with wikidisputes. But IMO this is utter bullshit. A dead woman was found in a congressman's office. If that's not worthy of note in the man's bio page, fuck if I know what is.
Beyond just the individual discussion above, certain editors have been removing all "non notable" names from this article, and I have to question why. Putting names of spouses and children, even "non notable" spouses and children, is common practice in biographical articles, including BLP. What's the justification to make this article any different? *Sparkhead 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm staying out of the highly unfortunate insistence some editors have on including Lori K's name, but this is a sentence which could use some clarification:
Joked? About a person who died? Can someone who has access to that source please provide better context or explanation of this "joke", since it sounds quite strange and callous as currently worded? Sandy ( Talk) 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Edison 09:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, can you please stop with the reversion of relevant material? The incident regarding Arnold clearly is relevant to the subject, even you argued such not long ago. Now you're arguing it isn't. Scarborough's actions are on topic. The actions of someone else commenting on yet some other group are not. *Sparkhead 19:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Have to disagree that it's relevant. This article is about Scarborough, not Schwarzengeer or California politics. Gamaliel 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Does not belong in the article. It is extremely inflammatory and creates a sense that he had something to do with her death, even though he was in his Washington, DC office at the time. Why does it belong in this article? 63.20.149.215 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Disputes posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion are for disputes between two editors, for the purpose of soliciting a tie-breaking opinion. The dispute here involves more than two editors, so arbitration might be in order instead.
For what it's worth, in my opinion, the mention of the aide's death is appropriate for the article, provided it's only a mention. It deserves mention because it was made into an issue by a campaign opponent, and that's a notable fact. - Amatulic 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
For everyones background, I will try to summarize the consensus version. There are three camps that I can recall. The first camp wants no mention of the incident as it is believed to be of no consequence to Scarborough and that it's allusion to impropriety outweighs any probative value it contains. The second camp believes that the incident is noteworthy because it generated publicity about the death during a time when the national spotlight was focused on another high profile death associated with a congressman (gary condit). The second camp believes newsworthiness of the event warrants inclusion, not the event itself. The third camp wants extensive converage of the death including reports about improprieties of the coroner, perceived police irregularities, etc. The current consensus version leans toward the first/second camp although changes to consensus concerning the name of the deceased has occured. Did I get it right? For full disclosure, I have argued against inclusion but I understand the 2 other sides even if I don't agree. -- Tbeatty 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Due to the edit war, the page is now protected. Please discuss the dispute on the talk page & try to work toward reaching consensus. Thx. El_C 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[ Tom Flocco] was deemed not notable for an article. I find it hard to have him listed as a reliable source in a biography. -- Tbeatty 05:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Removing this line:
"Most traditional conservatives now regard Joe Scarborough as just another sell-out, who's sold his soul to keep his job with the failing MSNBC cable TV network."
because it's unsourced and POV. Major Organ 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Overall, this is a well-written article, with only some minor stuff needing help. Once you've taken it to arbitration, settled the edit war, fixed the other minor stuff, renominate it and let me know. I'd really like to see this article become a GA. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The above reviewer pointed out an ongoing edit war that I am not aware of, so as of now instead of immediately sending it to arbitration I put it up in Wikipedia:Requests for comment here. Please check what is going on. Thanks! Wooyi 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Summarizing (copy from above) -- Tbeatty 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
For everyones background, I will try to summarize the consensus version. There are three camps that I can recall. The first camp wants no mention of the incident as it is believed to be of no consequence to Scarborough and that it's allusion to impropriety outweighs any probative value it contains. The second camp believes that the incident is noteworthy because it generated publicity about the death during a time when the national spotlight was focused on another high profile death associated with a congressman (gary condit). The second camp believes newsworthiness of the event warrants inclusion, not the event itself. The third camp wants extensive converage of the death including reports about improprieties of the coroner, perceived police irregularities, etc. The current consensus version leans toward the first/second camp although changes to consensus concerning the name of the deceased has occured. Did I get it right? For full disclosure, I have argued against inclusion but I understand the 2 other sides even if I don't agree. -- Tbeatty 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for whining. Sometimes weariness brings the worst out of me. I realize that you are making suggestions to improve the article.
1a: The paragraph needs some clean up for clarity, agreed. cquote, on the other hand, would be a bad style decision. "It generally should not be used in articles unless there is a good justification for doing so." Could you please elaborate on why you feel that its use is justified here?
1c: I've seen many GA branded articles with short subsections. The only real clear subsection in "Congressional career" is the one about the aide. As part of the long process of coming to consensus, it was decided not to add more highlighting to this mention.
2a: Agreed that some citation is required here. Can you please be specific about your concerns with the number of External Links? I agree that one is redundant with a footnote. Is that your concern? The number is fairly typical for this class of article.
2b: The use of cite web or cite news is neither recommended nor discouraged by the MoS. There is no need to encourage it in a GA review.
5. The one in bold letters. This is a consensus paragraph. Worked over many years. This section will always be controversial, no matter its form or possible omission. Tbeatty has twice summarized its history.
6. I really don't believe that multiple images are required or even helpful to pass GA.
In summary: I agree the first two paragraphs of the "Congressional career" need references gleaned from the External Links. Plus the family paragraph needs clarification. Therefore 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the absurd claim that good-faith edits are "vandalism" and replaced it with a statement that edits not first discussed on talk might be reverted. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted his hatred of Rosie O'Donnell. Since April 2006 when Barbara Walters announced that Rosie would be coming to "The View" he has demonized and slandered her daily. Joe Scarborough has called her a pig, a freak, a mess, fat, anti-American etc. Here is a sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNhIp44bmZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tA7f0ts0-g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sWJZikfl-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pYesEy5GgI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AMKhDFnnXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_QToxyRc1o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZGbfx6GvbQ
On June 1, 2007 Joe Scarborough caused controversy when he referred to possible presidental canidate Fred Thompson's wife as a stripper. The comment was made during a tryout for a morning show on MSNBC.
Joe Scarborough: "Hey, have you seen Fred Thompson's wife?"
Craig Crawford: "Oh yeah..."
Joe Scarborough: "You think she works the pole?"
Craig Crawford: "That's what Hollywood careers will do for you, I guess."
Although it is common for Joe to make comments in poor taste this one caught the attention of media outlets. Source Pensacola News Journal
How is it that there is no longer a single link in this article to the Scarborough Country article? There used to be a link in the opening paragraph---what happened to it? --- Theoldanarchist Comhrá 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed the External Link from Scarborough Country to Morning Joe, as this is his current gig at MSNBC. 72.94.95.190 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)