Talk:Joe Scarborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Joe Scarborough is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA nominee|insert date here|page=1|status=|subtopic=}}
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Notice
After about a year of work, a consensus has been reached on the mention of Lori Klausutis in this article. The consensus text is as follows:

Consensus text

On July 20, 2001, one of Scarborough's aides died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted while alone in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida, office.[1] According to Scarborough, soon after her death allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved,[2] although there was no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus' radio program[3] and, in 2004, it was the subject of a public spat between Scarborough and filmmaker Michael Moore.[4]
  1. ^ McLaughlin, Tom Examiner: Klausutis' death was accidental Northwest Florida Daily News, August 7, 2001
  2. ^ Lisa Osburn, "Scarborough ready to get back home", Pensacola News Journal, September 6, 2001
  3. ^ James Wolcott, "MSNBC's fox hunt: management and marketing strategies", Vanity Fair 518 (Oct 2003): 140(5)
  4. ^ Judy Bachrach. "Moore's War", Vanity Fair (March 2005): 240; Scarborough Country, June 14, 2004 [1].

Consensus

Because of the controversial nature of the subject, please do not substantially modify or remove this section without first discussing the issue on the talk page. If you do, you will almost certainly be reverted.
Remember to assume good faith. Finally, remember that consensus can change over time, and after a while it may be neccasary to take a straw poll on which version is preferable.
Joe Scarborough was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 7, 2007
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] F-Bomb?

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


[edit] Referring to Michael F. Griffin as a Christian terrorist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

versus:

“ "Cochrane wished to represent Anti-Semite John Smith, later found liable for the death of his wife. At the request of Smiths's family, Cochrane (who is pro-Palestinian Statehood) initially represented Smith pro bono in the capital murder case. ”

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edit War & Discussion to Resolve and Unprotect Page

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

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

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

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

“ Barack Obama has criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of classifying the Iranian Quds Force as a terrorist organization. ”

vs.

“ Barack Obama (whose father was a Muslim) has criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of classifying the Iranian Quds Force (Iran's Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) as a terrorist organization. ”

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

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


Sentence about Griffin:

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

In the congressional section :

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

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


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

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

So we have:

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

and

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

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

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

[edit] Nationality in lead sentence

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