Talk:Joe Scarborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Removal of Lori Klausutis' name

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)

She is non-notable and her name adds no value. --Tbeatty 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. It adds a verifiable -- and checkable -- fact. It's so obvious, I have to wonder what kind of agenda you have to justify this departure from standard writing style, factual inclusion, encyclopedic standards, and, frankly, common sense. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and does "no rubbernecking" in the edit summary imply that everyone but you should keep out? Allow me to introduce you to this. --Calton | Talk 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Standard writing style is really what ought to govern here, and I think Calton's understanding to be quite right. Whilst the inclusion of a name where simply a sentence apropos of an issue exists might be exorbitantly trivial and necessarily unencyclopedic, the inclusion is quite appropriate and consistent with our practice passim. There seems, at the very least, to be a consensus amongst the editors here in favor of inclusion, and, though one might think such inclusion to be in contravention of WP:BLP, there certainly appear be no persuasive arguments essayed toward that proposition. Even as I fear that we're destined for WP:LAME, ought we perhaps to puruse an RfC exclusively as to the "Klausutis" section in order that other editors might partake of this discussion? Joe 05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is that she is non-notable and her page was deleted for that very reason. The result was Delete not merge. Her name adds no value and the sources have the information for the user looking for that extra bit of information. The rubbernecking comment was allegorical to what happens at a car accident and has nothing to do with owning the article. Her name could be anything and the information conveyed is exactly the same. --Tbeatty 06:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The consensus of the community, as noted by the deletion, is that Klausutis is non-notable. No amount of flowery language can assuage that conclusion. Morton devonshire 06:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The "consensus of the community" -- a false statement in and of itself, but let's leave that be -- was that she was not worth an ARTICLE: vigorous handwaving, nonsensical analogies and veiled threats do not change that and says nothing about her being MENTIONED in a relevant article; further dismissing this as "flowery language" all give me reason to question your motives, at the very least. The only way your argument makes the slightest bit of sense -- logically, intellectually, and honestly -- would be if the ENTIRE section regarding her death and its controversy was worth expunging. Unless you're prepared to argue THAT -- and I suspect you know that you wouldn't get far with THAT -- her name and identity is part and parcel of the larger story.
Again, this is so obvious, I have to ask, what IS your motivation here? --Calton | Talk 07:27, 24 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)

We just went through the deletion of the article about her:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). On the third attempt some editors did succeeed in getting the article about her deleted. Some the editors presented reasons to keep the article, some to deleted it, even many of those calling for deletion called for her information to be included in this article. If there was a "consensus" in that acrimonious debate, it was to include somewhere in Wikipedia this unusual incident of an apparently healthy young woman who worked for then Congressman Scarborough being found dead in the office from a blow to the head, even if the medical examiner did deduce she had fainted from a previously undisclosed heart problem and fallen and hit her head. The death has been discussed by Scarborough on TV, and by Kathryn Harris in a senatorial campaign, furnishing sufficient reason for mention here, including her name. Now we see an attempt to remove her name from the little information here about the incident. Please leave her name in the article so the sentence about her death is not cryptic, and so a reader can at least seek further info outside Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. There is a clear need for outside, uninvolved editors to take a look at this issue through a RFC. Someone who knows how should invoke that process. Edison 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Some editors did succeed"? That's a misstatement of what happened. The Closing Admin deleted the article -- that action is the consensus of the community. No amount of "apropos", "passims", "essayeds", or "partakes" spinning will change that. Morton devonshire 18:48, 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)

Morton: I hope you are not saying that the closing editor deleted it without regard to the statements of the editors commenting. Absent that, the choices are that you and others succeeded in getting the article deleted, or you failed, and it is still an article. I see no such article, so voila, you must have succeeded in getting the article deleted. But please note that a clear majority called for either keeping the article or merging the info into this article, and I cannot imagine how her name is not part of that merge. Kudos to Tbeatty for putting the name back in. Regards. Edison 04:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of names

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 dont see a problem with spouses but I think we should leave children names out. --NuclearZer0 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the sources linked for the information is a biographical document released by the agency that does bookings for him. Includes his wife and children's names. If you "search inside" a copy of his book, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day" at Amazon, you'll note he mentions his wife and children, by name, in both the acknowledgements section and some portions of the main text. While I don't believe exclusion of a name in a book is reason for exclusion here, I do believe if he includes names in a book bearing his name, that supports the inclusion here. *Sparkhead 17:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering your source I would have to agree. --NuclearZer0 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joke ?

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:

"In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program ... "

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)

James Wolcott, "MSNBC's fox hunt: management and marketing strategies", Vanity Fair 518 (Oct 2003): 140(5) Also see http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030721Baker.html or Google "Lori Klausutis" and Imus On May 29, 2003.

Edison 09:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop with the constant reversions

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)

Either all of the Arnold incident is relevant including Arnold's response or none of it is. Quit trying to cherry pick information.--Tbeatty 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This has already been explained above. Only portions related to him are relevant. I'm sure I could name a few dozen others who had some sort of reaction to the incident, that doesn't merit their inclusion here. *Sparkhead 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. Scarborough said something about Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger responded. It doesn't get any more relevant than that and in some countries the response is required to be published by law. Nor is it NPOV to exclude it. Ia am okay with deleting the whole thing as a micro-detail that is non-encyclopedic but it is not okay to only delete the response to the controversy. --Tbeatty 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You're correct. Schwarzenegger's response to and about Scarborough is relevant. The grand total of that response was "we informed him the next day". That's it. That's also how this item originally and correctly appeared in this article. *Sparkhead 12:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
How they respond is not our concern. His response included a comment about the legislature which is relevant because it's another group that made the same mistake as Scarborough. --Tbeatty 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with including it only because its directly relevant and shows a relation to his reaction and others. --NuclearZer0 16:38, 29 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)

Then we should remove the whole comment since it was about Schwarzenegger. It's trivial anyway. --Tbeatty 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to remove the whole incident, then make a case on the talk page for its removal, but don't remove it as a petulant response to editors removing irrelevant material. Gamaliel 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the exact opposite. I am willing to entertain having the whole incident or having none of it. But not a POV rendition that doesn't present the response of the person about whom the comment was made. Pick one. --Tbeatty 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


I disagree with your attempt to frame the issue as one of two undesirable choices, and there is nothing POV about not mentioning irrelevant info. For it to be included you can't merely claim "it's the whole incident", you must demonstrate how a second party claiming a third party may or may not have done something is relevant to the subject of this article. Gamaliel 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think it's unencyclopedic but you've insisted on having it in the past so I added context to make it NPV. This article is not a blow by blow of every press conference and every quote and every comment. --Tbeatty 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I don't recall insisting upon any such thing, though I may have forgotten previous comments on this trivial matter. And this article is, as you say, "not a blow by blow of every press conference and every quote and every comment", which is why I removed the irrelevant quote. Gamaliel 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And is why I removed the whole silly thing anyway. Tbeatty 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/e/Talk%7EJoe_Scarborough_0964.html"