![]() | 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 |
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. [1] Thoughts?
In August 2019, Scarborough drew criticism after posting conspiracy-driven tweets about the death of Jeffrey Epstein. [1] Scarborough tweeted: "A guy who had information that would have destroyed rich and powerful men's lives ends up dead in his jail cell. How predictably...Russian." [2]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 09:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't care much either way, but shouldn't there be some mention of this subject in a factual, neutral, and verifiable way on this article? The president did recently bring it up. And it's nothing new. Here's what an editor from over a decade ago came up with for how to address the issue: Talk:Joe Scarborough/Lori Klausutis. -- Veggies ( talk) 12:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest it not be re-added without making it BLP compliant, if at all. O3000 ( talk) 15:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
If
this were to be restored without major changes, I believe the part about Trump should include "baseless conspiracy theory"
or something very similar to make it absolutely clear that the allegation indeed is baseless. Attributing "even though it was ruled an accident"
is not enough.
Politrukki (
talk)
16:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This incident should be noted in the article (and the 'resignation' part is probably as good a place as any). Before this week, it was arguably reasonable to exclude it under BLP; but now it's been mentioned by Trump and a host of media organisations, it's arguably noteworthy enough to mention. Mentioning the death does not necessarily imply Scarborough had anything to do with it, and the article should make clear that all the people involved, and the majority of reliable sources, say it was nothing to do with him and allegations to the contrary are untrue. That seems the best way to handle it. Robofish ( talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think placing the death in a separate section gives undue weight to the conspiracy theory.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the Conspiracy theory subsection to Post-congressional politics because we cite no sources to substantiate that this theory arose during Scarborough's membership in the U.S. House of Representatives, which ended on September 5, 2001. If such WP:RS can be found, I will not object to moving the Conspiracy theory subsection back under the U.S. House of Representatives section. NedFausa ( talk) 16:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order.The death clearly occurred before he left the House. The allegations clearly relate to his time as a Congressman and in particular the reason for his resignation. The investigation into the death was clearly considered newsworthy, and the subject of speculation, at the time: [2] And that's using a source currently in the article. The current placement is chronologically awkward, and the text does not make clear he was a Congressman at the time and doesn't even refer to his resignation - which is absurd. I will fix those obvious omissions.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Do we know if Scarborough leaving Congress "suddenly" was part of the original theory, or is that a new wrinkle added by Trump in 2020? NedFausa ( talk) 22:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Unbelievably, that was it. The story was simply dropped. A young female employee of one of Florida's Congressmen had died unexpectedly in the Congressman's office. There were no witnesses to her death and the cause of death was not apparent. Klausutis' boss, Joe Scarborough had recently resigned from Congress prematurely and unexpectedly, amid rumors about his marital fidelity and soon after a divorce. He had also abruptly resigned as publisher of the Independent Florida Sun, claiming that resigning from Congress and as publisher was necessary to spend more time with his sons. Such circumstances make one pause.
The article also suggested that this imaginary sex scandal forced me to leave office... I didn’t leave Congress because of her death; I announced my retirement from Congress in May 2001-she passed away several months later.
Those in the dark concerns of the media that trafficked in conspiracy theories grabbed this personal tragedy and spun it into internet gold, creating and broadcasting a narrative that eventually made its way to more mainstream outlets, including the Daily Kos (site founder Markos Moulitsas was a particularly outspoken proponent). At one point, documentarian Michael Moore registered the domain name JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Much of the theorizing was hinged on legitimate questions about medical examiner Dr. Michael Berkland's very checkered history. As well, the fact that Scarborough retired from politics soon after Klausutis' death collected suspicion.
Because of where Scarborough was in his career, combined with the foot dragging of local officials in determining a cause of death and releasing pertinent information to the public, a perfect storm was created for conspiracy theorists... in May 2001, he announced suddenly that he was stepping down to spend more time with his two boys... The story was met with some skepticism, and rumors flew that Scarborough might have been caught up in some scandal and forced to step down... The gap in time between the announcement and the actual resignation helped fuel conversation that Scarborough was having an affair with Klausutis, and that it had somehow caught up to him. Most conspiracy theories continue to espouse that Scarborough resigned after the Klausutis death, making no mention of the May announcement.
The story has dogged Scarborough among conspiracy-minded individuals. Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal website Daily Kos, was banned from MSNBC for suggesting Scarborough may have played some role in Klausutis’ death. The guts of the conspiracy theory center around Scarborough’s announcement in May 2001, two months before Klausutis’ death, that he would resign from Congress on Sept. 6, 2001, to spend more time with his two sons.
Though ultimately unrelated to how Lori died, together all of these incidents and Scarborough’s resignation soon after (though announced months before her death) fused to fuel a more conspiratorial view of what happened — one initially fed by some liberal commentators and, in recent years, taken up by Trump and right-wing allies.
References
forbes1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Jack Upland: I appreciate the work you've put into this. The replacement you propose (beginning "A theory emerged…") is worthy of close consideration. If I may, I'd like to discuss the first two sentences. (I have no problem with the third.)
I hope you'll refine your proposed replacement with better sources. Thanks again. NedFausa ( talk) 00:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Consensus long ago including weigh in from Jimbo is this is not relevant to Scarboroughs bio. Not his controversy or issue. ConstantPlancks ( talk) 07:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Why are editors deleting references to Scarborough's resignation from the "Conspiracy theory" subsection? It is mentioned in copious sources. Sure, change the wording, but repeatedly removing it is bizarre...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lori Klausutis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26#Lori Klausutis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crazy Boy 826 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is being rewritten furiously to push propaganda. There was a section detailing early origins of the murder accusation that have been scrubbed. Now it pretends that the accusation was suddenly made up by Donald Trump today, even though Scarborough had even threatened to sue Michael Moore over the accusation in 2004. I'm not Wiki fluent enough to fix it. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2004/6/15/33603/- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.217.69.113 ( talk) 04:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this section amounts to much. Being an environmental lawyer is not "politics", nor is serving on the President's Council. I don't think the fact that Scarborough decided not to run for various political offices is noteworthy. His full-time media career was launched in 2003. I think we could just tack this interim period on to the start of his media career. It would only take a couple of sentences.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has mass-deleted details of the death of the intern. Without good reason. They should be restored. They are relevant and RS supported. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:8963:1394:A693:B418 ( talk) 17:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
An autopsy by an Okaloosa County associate medical examiner determined that an undiagnosed heart-valve irregularity had caused the 28-year-old to lose consciousness, fall, and hit her head on the edge of a desk the day before. He concluded that her death was accidental.I don't see a problem. The exact heart condition and mechanics of the heart failure are not necessary details. This article is not about her. O3000 ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It said that she had, after a heart valve irregularity, a " floppy mitral valve disease, that caused a cardiac arrhythmia that in turn halted her heart .."
That is indeed important. The autopsy said that she had a particular heart valve irregularity. Heart valve irregularities, come in various types. You probably know this. They have different effects, depending on the type. Not all cause sudden death. Some do. Some don't. Some make the heart flutter. (As one editor said above - Massive numbers of people have benign irregular heart waves.) And that is all. Some have a higher likelihood of killing people. Especially people in a certain age group. And gender. This is highly material. It's not like describing what color eye shadow she was wearing. I think if you are truly objective, you see this.
Why would you want to delete this - and hide it from readers? It's key to understanding. It's very short. 15 words. Ridiculous that some are even arguing about this. It is RS supported. 2604:2000:E010:1100:790F:3F6B:5402:E8C1 ( talk) 06:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. [1] Thoughts?
In August 2019, Scarborough drew criticism after posting conspiracy-driven tweets about the death of Jeffrey Epstein. [1] Scarborough tweeted: "A guy who had information that would have destroyed rich and powerful men's lives ends up dead in his jail cell. How predictably...Russian." [2]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 09:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't care much either way, but shouldn't there be some mention of this subject in a factual, neutral, and verifiable way on this article? The president did recently bring it up. And it's nothing new. Here's what an editor from over a decade ago came up with for how to address the issue: Talk:Joe Scarborough/Lori Klausutis. -- Veggies ( talk) 12:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest it not be re-added without making it BLP compliant, if at all. O3000 ( talk) 15:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
If
this were to be restored without major changes, I believe the part about Trump should include "baseless conspiracy theory"
or something very similar to make it absolutely clear that the allegation indeed is baseless. Attributing "even though it was ruled an accident"
is not enough.
Politrukki (
talk)
16:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This incident should be noted in the article (and the 'resignation' part is probably as good a place as any). Before this week, it was arguably reasonable to exclude it under BLP; but now it's been mentioned by Trump and a host of media organisations, it's arguably noteworthy enough to mention. Mentioning the death does not necessarily imply Scarborough had anything to do with it, and the article should make clear that all the people involved, and the majority of reliable sources, say it was nothing to do with him and allegations to the contrary are untrue. That seems the best way to handle it. Robofish ( talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think placing the death in a separate section gives undue weight to the conspiracy theory.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the Conspiracy theory subsection to Post-congressional politics because we cite no sources to substantiate that this theory arose during Scarborough's membership in the U.S. House of Representatives, which ended on September 5, 2001. If such WP:RS can be found, I will not object to moving the Conspiracy theory subsection back under the U.S. House of Representatives section. NedFausa ( talk) 16:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order.The death clearly occurred before he left the House. The allegations clearly relate to his time as a Congressman and in particular the reason for his resignation. The investigation into the death was clearly considered newsworthy, and the subject of speculation, at the time: [2] And that's using a source currently in the article. The current placement is chronologically awkward, and the text does not make clear he was a Congressman at the time and doesn't even refer to his resignation - which is absurd. I will fix those obvious omissions.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Do we know if Scarborough leaving Congress "suddenly" was part of the original theory, or is that a new wrinkle added by Trump in 2020? NedFausa ( talk) 22:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Unbelievably, that was it. The story was simply dropped. A young female employee of one of Florida's Congressmen had died unexpectedly in the Congressman's office. There were no witnesses to her death and the cause of death was not apparent. Klausutis' boss, Joe Scarborough had recently resigned from Congress prematurely and unexpectedly, amid rumors about his marital fidelity and soon after a divorce. He had also abruptly resigned as publisher of the Independent Florida Sun, claiming that resigning from Congress and as publisher was necessary to spend more time with his sons. Such circumstances make one pause.
The article also suggested that this imaginary sex scandal forced me to leave office... I didn’t leave Congress because of her death; I announced my retirement from Congress in May 2001-she passed away several months later.
Those in the dark concerns of the media that trafficked in conspiracy theories grabbed this personal tragedy and spun it into internet gold, creating and broadcasting a narrative that eventually made its way to more mainstream outlets, including the Daily Kos (site founder Markos Moulitsas was a particularly outspoken proponent). At one point, documentarian Michael Moore registered the domain name JoeScarboroughKilledHisIntern.com. Much of the theorizing was hinged on legitimate questions about medical examiner Dr. Michael Berkland's very checkered history. As well, the fact that Scarborough retired from politics soon after Klausutis' death collected suspicion.
Because of where Scarborough was in his career, combined with the foot dragging of local officials in determining a cause of death and releasing pertinent information to the public, a perfect storm was created for conspiracy theorists... in May 2001, he announced suddenly that he was stepping down to spend more time with his two boys... The story was met with some skepticism, and rumors flew that Scarborough might have been caught up in some scandal and forced to step down... The gap in time between the announcement and the actual resignation helped fuel conversation that Scarborough was having an affair with Klausutis, and that it had somehow caught up to him. Most conspiracy theories continue to espouse that Scarborough resigned after the Klausutis death, making no mention of the May announcement.
The story has dogged Scarborough among conspiracy-minded individuals. Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal website Daily Kos, was banned from MSNBC for suggesting Scarborough may have played some role in Klausutis’ death. The guts of the conspiracy theory center around Scarborough’s announcement in May 2001, two months before Klausutis’ death, that he would resign from Congress on Sept. 6, 2001, to spend more time with his two sons.
Though ultimately unrelated to how Lori died, together all of these incidents and Scarborough’s resignation soon after (though announced months before her death) fused to fuel a more conspiratorial view of what happened — one initially fed by some liberal commentators and, in recent years, taken up by Trump and right-wing allies.
References
forbes1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Jack Upland: I appreciate the work you've put into this. The replacement you propose (beginning "A theory emerged…") is worthy of close consideration. If I may, I'd like to discuss the first two sentences. (I have no problem with the third.)
I hope you'll refine your proposed replacement with better sources. Thanks again. NedFausa ( talk) 00:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Consensus long ago including weigh in from Jimbo is this is not relevant to Scarboroughs bio. Not his controversy or issue. ConstantPlancks ( talk) 07:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Why are editors deleting references to Scarborough's resignation from the "Conspiracy theory" subsection? It is mentioned in copious sources. Sure, change the wording, but repeatedly removing it is bizarre...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lori Klausutis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26#Lori Klausutis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crazy Boy 826 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is being rewritten furiously to push propaganda. There was a section detailing early origins of the murder accusation that have been scrubbed. Now it pretends that the accusation was suddenly made up by Donald Trump today, even though Scarborough had even threatened to sue Michael Moore over the accusation in 2004. I'm not Wiki fluent enough to fix it. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2004/6/15/33603/- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.217.69.113 ( talk) 04:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this section amounts to much. Being an environmental lawyer is not "politics", nor is serving on the President's Council. I don't think the fact that Scarborough decided not to run for various political offices is noteworthy. His full-time media career was launched in 2003. I think we could just tack this interim period on to the start of his media career. It would only take a couple of sentences.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has mass-deleted details of the death of the intern. Without good reason. They should be restored. They are relevant and RS supported. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:8963:1394:A693:B418 ( talk) 17:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
An autopsy by an Okaloosa County associate medical examiner determined that an undiagnosed heart-valve irregularity had caused the 28-year-old to lose consciousness, fall, and hit her head on the edge of a desk the day before. He concluded that her death was accidental.I don't see a problem. The exact heart condition and mechanics of the heart failure are not necessary details. This article is not about her. O3000 ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It said that she had, after a heart valve irregularity, a " floppy mitral valve disease, that caused a cardiac arrhythmia that in turn halted her heart .."
That is indeed important. The autopsy said that she had a particular heart valve irregularity. Heart valve irregularities, come in various types. You probably know this. They have different effects, depending on the type. Not all cause sudden death. Some do. Some don't. Some make the heart flutter. (As one editor said above - Massive numbers of people have benign irregular heart waves.) And that is all. Some have a higher likelihood of killing people. Especially people in a certain age group. And gender. This is highly material. It's not like describing what color eye shadow she was wearing. I think if you are truly objective, you see this.
Why would you want to delete this - and hide it from readers? It's key to understanding. It's very short. 15 words. Ridiculous that some are even arguing about this. It is RS supported. 2604:2000:E010:1100:790F:3F6B:5402:E8C1 ( talk) 06:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)