Talk:Richard Mellon Scaife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Mellon Scaife article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Richard Mellon Scaife is part of WikiProject Pittsburgh, which is building a comprehensive guide to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.

Editors are currently needed to tag Pittsburgh-related articles with {{pghproj}}.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Old comments

I worked desperately to maintain NPOV throughout this article, and stated only facts provided in reputable publications; however, I suspect it will become a popular target for vandalism, mostly from the left.(Choster 23:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC))

For some reason, people continue to scribble "facts" about Scaife that are little more than Internet rumors, with what seems to me little basis in fact. A "fact" is raised, only to be somewhat disregarded. Much of it seems libelous, and the sources cited by the authors are less than mainstream publications.

Claims from LaRouche sources such as EIR always need to be double-checked. Scaife did not fund Dennis King. This is unsubstantiated. King has denied it. Deleted. The so-called "Quinde" affidavit is largely unverified claims by a LaRouchite, and anything from it needs to be double-checked. It was never tested in court. The Namebase link contained third-hand hearsay and innuendo based on the already dubious Quinde affidavit. Link deleted. The link to LaRouche's EIR should be sufficient, although I personally think all links on Wikipedia to LaRouche articles should note their frequent lack of reliabilty as a source of information. As a leftist who has written a print encyclopedia entry on Scaife, I have to say this is otherwise an excellent job. Sorting the facts from rumors and smears about Scaife must have been quite a task. I think the facts speak for themselves.--Cberlet 22:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Chip, following the ArbCom ruling against Herschelkrustofsky, LaRouche material (claims, links, or references to LaRouche) is not allowed to be inserted into any article that is not "closely related" to Lyndon LaRouche, and any editor finding such material may delete it. SlimVirgin 23:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Weed Harper has posted another LaRouchite claim that is not verified. Facts matter. Supposition, rumor, and suspicion are not fact. There is no evidence that Scaife ever funded King. The charge originates with the LaRouchites. What is arguably fair is to say that King attended one meeting with Scaife at the home of John Train to talk about LaRouche. I used "facilitated" to try to attain a NPOV that the LaRouche supporters would accept. If they object to that, funding is just plain not proven, so I have stated the facts as documented. Now it just looks silly. I think it should just be deleted. --Cberlet 16:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In its present form, this article is fair enough. I am concerned, however, about some rumors which continue to be raised (i.e.-- Scaife was somehow involved in CIA espionage) that have long been denied both by him and the agency. There seems little independent confirmation of the intelligence work, although a bit of innuendo taints the "revelation."

There are only two mentions of the CIA, both rather restrained. How are they a problem? The article is not yet comprehensive on his political funding. A few foundations and causes are mentioned, but there's a lot of work to do in that direction.
I notice that you, user:147.72.93.199, have repeatedly added information about Clinton perhaps as if to offset Scaife's funding of the "Arkansas Project". Is the addition intended to show that Scaife was justified in doing so? Right now it comes off as almost a non-sequitor, ad hominem attack on Clinton. That may be why it has been removed again and again. (By comparison, we also wouldn't add a paragraph to an article on Khrushchev about Kennedy's womanizing in order to justify some KGB subterfuge.) Can you explain here why you think it is important to a biography on Scaife? Maybe we can find a way of incorporating it more logically. Finally, while anonymous edits are allowed, every editor is expected to sign his or her contributions to the Talk pages. Usernames are free. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scaife funds lots of things.. what funds Scaife?

Anybody want to beef up the article with Scaife's sources of income? Where does his supposed billions come from? Is most of it inherited? It seems unlikely just the ownership of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review would allow him to be such a big philanthropist.

Heir to the Mellon family industrial/banking fortune. --Cberlet 13:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's unfair to attack a man's (allegedly) paid investigations and then not mention that the fruits of his (alleged) probes were proven to be true. It's not an ad hominem attack on Clinton to say that he later admitted, under oath, that he conducted several affairs with women, including one that nearly collapsed his presidency. To say otherwise is to be guilty of a myopia that has no place in journalism.

If you want to pretend that political machinations during the late 1990s never transpired, except because of some weird conspiracy by Richard Scaife, then you're not much of a journalist.

Let's pretend, for once, that the Clinton scandals were covered by some publications outside of Salon.com?

It's unfair to demand a debate and not post your username.

I didn't realize Wikipedia required usernames. Is this simply decorum, or a writ from the editors?

Wikipedia does not require usernames. However discussion on Talk pages require a signature at a minimum. You are welcome to contribute, but please follow Wiki norms. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages Thanks, -Willmcw 00:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Most of the allegations about Clinton funded by Scaife were not proven to be true. Not Whitewater. Not Mena. Not Foster. --Cberlet 19:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But the allegations of sexual misconduct were most certainly "proved," by Clinton himself. Clinton admitted under oath to a series of extramarital affairs while governor of Arkansas and president of the United States. The scandal of one affair in Arkansas led to Clinton's initial perjured testimony, which triggered the impeachment vote and, later, censor by Congress. He also lost the ability to practice law in his home state.

So, Scaife's (alleged) payments brought one salient fact about Clinton to the general public and nearly destroyed Clinton's presidency. Seems somewhat relevant to me.

Hillary Clinton wrote a book that touched on some of these notions too.

Right now, it sounds like you are saying "If Scaife funded it, and if the purpose was to find sexual dirt on Clinton, then the sexual dirt is relevent." You are saying the payments are alleged. The revelations certainly wouldn't be relevent if Scaife didn't make the payments. Do you believe that he made those payments or not? Further, was the purpose of the Arkansas Project to find evidence of Clinton's sexual habits? If you can prove both of those, then the Clinton sexual dirt might be appropriate here. Looking forward to seeing your evidence. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, I would like to see some record that showed Scaife's funding directly led to the Arkansas Project. It seems to me that he founded conservative groups that, in turn, investigated Clinton's activities while governor of Arkansas. I'm not sure that it's a clear match of dollars to probes because these organizations did other things with his cash, too.

One of the targets of these investigations, however, did bear fruit. It was alleged that Clinton had engaged in a series of sexual affairs. That kicked off the Troopergate allegations that churned up a name, Paula Jones. Jones' civil suit required testimony from Bill Clinton, words that later were determined to be perjured by the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the grand jury convened to weigh Clinton's guilt or innocence, and the U.S. Congress.

He was not removed from office during the impeachment vote, but was censored for his perjured testimony by the Congress. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that his perjured testimony affected his ability to practice law. He did not challenge these civil hearings.

Seems to me he (1) engaged in extramarital affairs, as alleged, and (2) lied to cover up those affairs. This is beyond dispute. If those were two of the various targets of the Arkansas Project, they were proven.

[edit] Comments from Main Article by 147.72.93.172

Here are some comments that user:147.72.93.172 made, which ought to have been posted to this talk page instead. While glibly worded and improperly posted, some potentially legitimate issues are raised by the editor. I am posting them here on that editor's behalf in case anyone would care to discuss them. posted by -Willmcw 11:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inconvenient facts, known to nearly all Pittsburghers but somehow mysterious to the editors of this "biography" -- Scaife is very active in numerous board meetings and charity events in California, Pennsylvania and Florida. But don't let a good, spooky image of the "extremely private and taciturn" Scaife get in the way of a good strawman! Instead, let's pull up a 1981 CJR story written by a columnist for The Nation to define the man.

The source was listed. It was a very large article by Marisol Bello, now of the Detroit Free Press. That's hardly a pro-Scaife outlet. A similar article in George also portrayed Scaife as hardly the scary monster of the far right this section seems to find him. I don't believe George is available online, but the article is available on Lexis-Nexis and other fee sources.

Find a source and this is worth mentioning.--Cberlet 14:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: theories of Scaife's interest in politics
None of these theories are sourced, so who cares how right they are? Mere speculation, of course, should rule in these instances.
Some of this appears in newspaper and magazine articles, I can try to dig them up.--Cberlet 14:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: "Scaife ...directed his attention against governor ... Clinton"
I don't see how Scaife "directed" anything against Clinton when he was a relatively unknown governor from Arkansas, vying with others for the Iowa primary. Only after he emerged as president did any sort of investigation into his past commence, unless there's sourcing to show otherwise (there isn't).
Text probably need rewording.--Cberlet 14:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re:Hillary Clinton's reference to "vast right wing conspiracy"
Of course, the so-called "editors" of this piece wish to exclude the noisome fact that the president later testified under oath that he had, indeed, engaged in "sexual indiscretions" during his years in Washington. The editors don't wish to mention that a certain woman, most likely unknown to the vast majority of Americans but named Monica Lewinsky, had something of a fling with the man and led to his impeachment. No. Let's pretend this never happened.
Complicated by the fact that much of the material in the Scaife-funded articles--even about sexual misconduct--was never shown to be true, and one author retracted parts of his work. Best to leave it as is.--Cberlet 14:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Too bad Time, Newsweek, the NY Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, et al, don't believe in leaving "it as is." It seems as if Clinton's misconduct has been proven beyond any doubt, seeing as it led to impeachment, censor, the loss of his right to practice law in Arkansas and before the U.S. Supreme Court and a very lengthy grand jury report that finds him, indeed, admitting to affairs with, among others, a White House intern.

Re: buying up conservative books
So why is this fact mentioned if never proved? Well, alleging it to be so, for these editors, makes it thus.
Agnostic on this one.--Cberlet 14:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's unproven beyond internet rumors. I deleted it.

It seems to me bad cricket to raise an allegation that's completely speculative and unproven, such as "Scaife buys up books published by conservatives to boost their sales." This has never been proven, shows up on no tax forms or any other publicly available records and seems to be a figment of someone's imagination. Even when you tack on the disclaimer, the raising of the issue smears the man accused of it. It's sort of like saying, "Joe Smith was said to have beaten his wife, but it was never proven." Who said it? Why was it never proven? Why mention it unless you want to demean Smith or his wife? unsigned comments from 147.72.93.199

I agree. If there's no decent source it should be removed. Anyone wanting to re-add it should provide a reference. SlimVirgin 00:08, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi 147.72.93.199, I just reverted your claim about him being booted out of Yale for breaking someone's leg. It's a good story, but we need a reference if you have one. Also, it would be good if you could get a user name: not obligatory of course, just nicer somehow. :-) SlimVirgin 00:15, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I found it in two sources. One, previously cited, in the 1999 Washington Post story. It referenced a book on the Mellon family by Burton Hersh (aptly called "The Mellon Family"). I looked up the reference in the 1978 book and it was accurate. It's not really essential, but it's such a colorful anecdote I thought it would fit.

It's a good anecdote. Feel free to add it again, but it's best not to use the word "booted" unless you're quoting, in which case it needs quotation marks. At the end of the sentence, either link to the Post story again, or write the name of the book author and year of publication e.g. (Smith, 1979), then at the end of the article, under ==References== (create a references section if there isn't one), write out the name of the book, author, and publisher etc if you have that information. Just add what you've got and someone else can tidy up later. SlimVirgin 00:32, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I tweaked some wording from the Washington Post 1999 story on the Arkansas Project and also deleted the reference to Scaife-funded investigations of Bill Clinton when he was the governor of Arkansas. There is no evidence the man had any interest in Clinton when he was a relatively unknown leader of a small southern state. The project began AFTER he was elected president. "147.72.93.199"

147, if you type 4 tildes ~~~~ after your posts it will automatically give you your IP address and a timestamp. Or if you get a user name (they're free and anonymous), it will use that instead of your IP address, which gives you more privacy. SlimVirgin 10:37, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological order

This article had become disorganized, with "giving" spread into two separated sections and biographical details mixed. I hope I've straightened it out by placing all the giving in one section at the end (though I'm not sure about the section title. I'm sure some of it came from his own pocket). I haven't deleted anything, and only copy-edited slightly. Cheers -Willmcw 07:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trib Review business operations

How relevent are the business operatoins of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to this article? Anon user:147.72.93.172 added the latest circulation numbers, and I added the recent consolidation. But Anon deleted the consolidation info. It seems just as relevent as the circulation numbers. The overall relevence, which might be pinned down further, is that I am not aware of any other business that Scaife is involved in. -Willmcw 20:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS - Is it irrelevent to note that the company is laying off workers? -Willmcw 22:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It becomes irrelevent when there have been no reported layoffs, only speculation that there will be, and your footnote no longer exists as a source. Of the remaining references, the only one is a story by the Tribune-Review, which doesn't announce layoffs.
But if you say there are layoffs, I'm sure there are, unless there aren't.

Dear "Anon": I'm sure you would know first if there are any layoffs. Maybe the President of the Trib-Review company lied. But he said there would be layoffs or, as he called them in the Trib-Review article, "staff reductions". Do you have any verifiable evidence that Harrell is wrong or a liar? If so, please post it. Otherwise, the preponderance of evidence is that the company has announced that there will be layoffs. (PS, please sign your talk page articles by typing four tildes "~" at the end. Thanks). -Willmcw 20:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The exact line from the story:

The changes most likely will involve a yet-to-be determined number of staff reductions, said Harrell

The key phrase, to me, is "yet to be determined." So far, there is no public record that there have, in fact, been reductions. Certainly you are erroneous to point to "staff reductions" in all the operations you listed because the Tribune-Review officer did not say where the reductions, if any, would come. One would imagine in such a competitive media market at Pittsburgh there would be some mention (any?) of "layoffs" or "staff reductions" if they had happened.

It appears as if they have not. Perhaps the company changed its mind. Or perhaps it transferred them to other operations or other Scaife-directed corporate activities. Unfortunately, the footnotes you provide do not show if there are any reductions of any kind.

Do your homework.
Shakeup at the Tribune-Review; layoffs expected at all newspapers
"They told us point-blank that there would be layoffs," said one employee at the Greensburg Tribune-Review who, like others, asked not to be identified. Workers at all of the affected papers said they were told the layoffs would hit every one of the company's daily publications, including Pittsburgh.
"Everyone's worried and preparing their resumes," said one employee at the Valley News Dispatch.
Earlier this week, advertising director Andrea Mroz was let go, as was Kraig Cawley, the general manager of the Valley News Dispatch.
Lou Ottey, who was fired as circulation manager for the Greensburg paper last week, said a general downturn in newspaper circulation compounded problems because daily newspapers in Connellsville, Monessen and Kittanning included delivery of the Sunday Tribune-Review, and when those papers lost circulation, the Tribune-Review's Sunday figures were also hit.
Last night, in Greensburg, one mid-level editor complained bitterly about the planned reductions in staff. "For years we financed their shenanigans in Pittsburgh and now they've turned on us," he said.[1]
Do you still insist layoffs are not planned? Two managers have already been "reduced". (PS. please sign your comments) -Willmcw 22:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. The competition published a piece written by an employee let go by the Tribune-Review years ago. The work, using anonymous quotes from "one employee" or "one mid-level editor," insists there will be "layoffs" at "everyone of the daily publications." The newspaper's editors, however, say this will not happen and, more than a month later, there are no reports, even from the competition, that such a thing transpired.

How do we know the newspaper "reduced" two managers, but hired, say, twenty new employees? We don't.

NVOA would imply that one should use "stories" framing an economic competitor with great care, especially work from a former employee.

Boy, you certainly do know a lot about the Pittsburgh newspaper market. It's a good thing we have you along. When did Trib-Review editors say that there would be no layoffs? Would editors, rather than business managers, be in a position to say? No, we don't know if they hired twenty more, but if you find a verifiable source saying that they did then we can include that info. Do we have any proof that the writer was a former employee? How carefully should we scrutinize the contributions and opinions of past and present employees of the Trib-Review? Are they automatically suspect? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ideology

While there is evidence that Sciafe has conservative, right wing, and libertarian views, they are not clearly defined (according to the conventional uses of the terms) nor are they fixed. For those reasons it might be better to avoid labelling him with one or another political epithet as his primary description. Later in the article we discuss his politics in some detail. -Willmcw 21:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be a better and more accurate approach.--Cberlet 12:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Real Jerk

This Scaife guy is one of the most dispicable human beings on the face of the earth. I wish I could smack him in the mouth after what he called that woman. Jack Cox 20:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Real HATCHET JOB

Well, wouldn't that be what he "allegedly" called the woman? There doesn't seem to be any tape of the event and no outside corroboration it actually happened, except from the words of a freelance reporter who never really became a reporter.

Anyway, it's equally odd to find "Online Journal" and the Pittsburgh City Paper used to debunk narratives portrayed by respected mainstream publications, such as the Washington Post.

Although a supporter of the open source effort to produce an encyclopedia, methinks Wiki would be taken more seriously if contributors didn't so badly botch pieces about the various media (see CBS 60 Minutes) or the biographies of well known publishers.

Are there no "editors" in Wikipedia to police these sorts of things? Why isn't a crude, poorly written opinion piece by someone named "Chris Potter" (does he really exist?) at a tiny partisan press not discounted, when different versions of the same events from important news outlets carry the same weight?

Shouldn't there be a ranking of sources used to construct an article? I would imagine a free, largely unread effort by some hack in Pittsburgh wouldn't have the substance of WAPO. But what do I know?

This appears to be a relatively old comment about something no longer in the article, but I wanted to make a comment and say, yes, there really is a Chris Potter, and yes, he really does work for a legitimate newspaper called the Pittsburgh City Paper. Thanks. NickBurns 14:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to Edit Fairly

In response to the above-mentioned problems with this article, I ventured in here to try to make some alterations. Some of the writing was clumsy, so I shored that up.

I also took out the questionable business about Scaife somehow attempting to murder his brother-in-law, claims that do not appear in the LA Times, Washington Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette or any other mainstream publication I could find, either online or offline.

Other sources without those papers' reputation, such as [2] [3] or the Pittsburgh City Paper were removed. Others can discuss this decision, but the poster from the previous comment made IMHO acceptable claims of NPOV that should be investigated.

[edit] New to This

Wow. It's always ironic for those of us who actually are experts on important subjects to come into Wikipedia and see pure crap. I'll make a few points: His name is not "Mellon Scaife." It's just "Scaife." He doesn't use "Mellon" as a working title for obvious reasons mentioned in this effort.

Second, doesn't anyone know who Rothmeyer is? Last time I checked, she was an associate editor at The Nation. Shouldn't the compilers of this page at least take that into consideration when producing this bio? Or does source material matter?

True, it's a source that can be verified, but that doesn't make the source accurate or trustworthy. The Nation is a wonderful publication, but it's a self-described partisan press. I also would be careful of using, say, the Weekly Standard to dig up dirt on someone like Ted Kennedy.

An uncorroborated version of an account that has been publicly challenged should not be given carte blanche authenticity. Who is this Gamaliel and why should we assume he knows anything about Scaife, publishing or American politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.119.226 (talk • contribs)

The same reason we assume you do. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Gamaliel 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced biography

The recent addition of a news item about Ritchie Scaife is sourced and verifiable, but it highlights the fact that the subject's marriages are not clearly described. Could we consolidate his personal life into one section and check to see that it's comprehensive? We shouldn't suddenly introduce our readers to a wife in this manner, peeking in the windows. Let's nail down the weddings, divorces, children, and other hard facts, and present them clearly. As with many of our older subjects, this biography could become an obit overnight. With a person this prominent we should be able to get the basics right. -Willmcw 09:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the person who added the marriage info, and I agree. I would like to research this more and additional info. Also, two small things: as noted in the article, Mr. Scaife placed the call personally. The previous editor's wording made it appear as though someone else did. And, I added more specifics on where Scaife's home is, only to indicate that he owns multiple homes in the Pittsburgh metro area. I reverted these two things for clarity.InsertName

"As with many of our older subjects, this biography could become an obit overnight."

Why is that? It's riddled with mistakes, innuendo and falsehoods. It's footnoted haphazardly, using sources of dubious repute. It's been humorous watching this section develop, almost as a test-case for how not to write an encyclopedic entry.

Oddly enough, "Willmcw" already has read the aforementioned paragraph several times, but has yet to realize that "peaking" is the wrong verb. I can't imagine any real journal using this flotsam as an "obit."

Wikipedia wants to charge ad space for this crap? 80.76.250.139

Looks like someone forgot to sign his screed. What are the chances this is a registered user going anon? InsertName 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If you don't think it's good enough, then pitch in and give a hand. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Money

I removed this blockquote:

  • Where Scaife's Money Came From
  • : Richard Mellon Scaife's philanthropy has come from family trusts set up by his mother, four foundations and his own checkbook. The trusts expired in the 1980s. The tax law required Scaife to become a philanthropist. The foundations he inherited had to give away 5 percent of their assets every year. He can deduct the amount of each gift he makes from his taxable income, which – given the billion dollars or so in his personal fortune – is presumably substantial."

I removed it did not belong in the intro, because we should summarize the info rather than simply quoting it, and because it is not clear about who is making the gifts- only Scaife's gifts to charities are deductible, not the gifts by the charities. The information on his fortune and trusts should all be handled in one place. -Will Beback 23:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kangas junk

Revert attempts to embelish this incident. The guy was troubled. End of story. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article. skywriter 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. It'd be like devoting space to Oswald in the bio of JFK, only in this case the two never even saw each other. The Kangas article can cover the incident in detail. -Will Beback 08:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scaife

Please defend the revert of the sublime edits of the Richard Mellon Scaife article.

The he-said/she-said pissing match between Scaife and the reporter is meaningless without access to the four or five-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review, which put the encounter in perspective and which is no longer online-- and that was stated in the deletion, contrary to your claim that that part of the edit was not explained. The information about the reporter is flat out wrong, as she occasionally wrote more than 25 years ago for The Nation, and moved on to other publications. Why is that still there?

More specifically, what does the paragraph about that chance encounter tell us about the subject of the article that his life story, which I added awhile back, not tell us? His relationships with his family members are much more revealing about his character than a chance encounter with a reporter whose four or five-part series we can no longer read. But maybe then Wikipedia is trying to out-Enquirer the National Enquirer in the area of titilating readers by throwing the word "cunt" around. Great!

Explain exactly what using the nickname --Dick-- in the middle of the article accomplishes? Exactly why did you put that back in? Please point to other articles where the subjects of articles are not referred to strictly by their last name. Why the sudden informality?

My edits made sense. Yours did not. Perhaps you will explain in detail what you did. Skywriter 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotes are legitimate material in biographies. We should not limit ourselves to only dry summaries. Life is a drama. This particular case is well-known. It illustrates Scaife's personality. The fact that a website is no longer operating does not mean that the event no longer happened. On the other hand, I don't know that we need to repeat the exact expletive that Scaife used. I don't object to censoring it for the children and instead saying that he used a "crude epithet", or similar description. By all means it should be handled in an NPOV manner. I also agree that the use of "Dick" mid article is odd. I'll go take care of that. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some brief edits to make this "biography" a tad bit fair to the subject of it.

"Although Scaife rarely talks to reporters who don't work for him"

This is inane because the Wiki article actually links to three other news sources (Washington Post and two NY papers) that are not owned by Scaife. We know from the links on this very page that he talked to them AND George AND one of his own reporters. So, obviously, this non-POV statement was not only snide, but untrue.

Which means that in typical Wikipedia fashion it was allowed to remain for many months.

Also, a quick Internet search revealed that Marisol Bello is a, ahem, woman. So the "his boss" reference -- also snide -- was equally untrue.

Perhaps the previous editor lacks the proper objectivity to edit this encylopedic effort? He or she obviously doesn't appear particularly clever -- at least neither bright enough to realize that "Marisol" is a female title for many thousands of Latinas nor so intelligent as to realize that the links dispute the bias in the other slur.

A lot of the poor non-POV edits could have been avoided by simply questioning either the objectivity or the competence of a "Harvard Speak-Out" on the subject.

I also might suggest that Scaife's degree from the University of Pittsburgh includes an incorrect major. I would give you a hint, but the information likely can be googled.Bartleby D. Scrivner 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Bartleby D. Scrivner

This also is unsupportable:

Scaife's stepson, Turner Westray Battle, was hired as an intern at George shortly after the interview.[4]

The footnote says nothing of this alleged quid pro quo about hiring practices at the (erstwhile) George magazine. Bartleby D. Scrivner 14:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Bartleby D. Scrivner

Gamaliel continues to make edits that are unsupported by either fact or source material. Some of the edits, as mentioned above, are clearly contradicted by evidence from credible sources in other parts of the encyclopedic entry, most especially the notion that Scaife rarely talks to reporters he does not hire.

Clearly, he has spoken to at least four major newspapers listed in the article and only once to one of his own (former) reporters.

One also wonders about the reasons listed for Scaife's interest in politics (liked to read newspapers? come on). It appears as if this is uninformed conjecture. There is no source material to justify its inclusion. Has some political analyst of some reputation said as much? Has Scaife admitted such?

It appears not. It only shows up here.

Also mystifying is the slur that the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is a low-circulation paper that is "attempting" to circulate in Pittsburgh. ABC circulation reports, as cited in the linked article about the newspaper, show that it has nearly 250,000 subscribers, which is narrowly below the competition's figures.

I believe this article suffers from a relentless non-POV attitude throughout, and that this biased format only weakens Wikipedia's stature. Bartleby D. Scrivner

<---Note to Bartleby D. Scrivner. Please stop filling up this page with pompous twaddle. Try to raise issues using plain English in a way that allows us to find a constructive solution. Your lectures are merely annoying as waste hard drive storage space.--Cberlet 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Cberlet, I didn't realize that criticism of a poor effort -- including prose that's virtually illiterate in the main article -- was tantamount to "pompous twaddle."

From a professional standpoint, here are some glaring problems with the wiki effort to comprise the sum of a man's life:

1. It's badly written. The piecemeal approach to creating this encyclopedic entry has created a largely unreadable, herky-jerky summation of the life of a man. This sort of pitiful writing about a man who owns newspapers would be considered tragic if it weren't so hilarious.

A good example might be the inclusion of the factoid that he owns 7.2% of NewsMax. First, it's unsourced. Second, it's meaningless. The Wikipedia contributors determined that it was more important that a man owns a bare minority of a company (if that's true; it's unsourced) as the fact that he reportedly controls $1.2 billion in assets.

That sort of editorial decision is hilarious. Dilettantes at work, it seems.

2. It's riddled with non-POV assertions and bad guesswork, unsubstantiated with meaningful sourcing. Let's just say that the Washington Post and some of the other periodicals listed are considered good sources for factual material. A Harvard Speakout project is not.

Some of the more glaring problems include --

"He was expelled from Yale University in the aftermath of a drunken party" Prove it with a source. I know some of them, but they're not online. A lazy researcher resorts only to non-POV google searches, which is what we have here.

"Scaife was affected by the family's poor relationship with the Mellon family, and came to despise the Mellon family name." Needs sourcing.

"Still, he inherited a good part of the Mellon fortune when his mother died." How much is a "good part?" Find a source.

"Charitable foundations are required to disburse at least 5% of their assets annually, forcing Scaife to become a philanthropist." But above we learned that Scaife's mother encouraged him to become active in philanthropy. Wherefore this compulsion to give away money? From the shift in the tax laws? Or because he already had been doing it, or came from a family that did it? The Scaife charities managed to spend enough charitable money finding a cure for polio, so perhaps the 501(c) regulations might have had little to do with the push to give. Or, most likely, it's a combination of the two. Regardless, this is so poorly sourced and badly written, one can't make a decision about the issue.

"The inherited Mellon fortune allowed Scaife to pursue his political activism." But in other parts of the encyclopedic entry, it's suggested that he was involved in politics BEFORE his father and mother passed away. He obviously was pursuing "political activism" before they died and left him a vast fortune. This seems like non-POV conjecture, and it's poorly phrased anyway.

"While his mother preferred to give to the arts, libraries and population control projects, her son gave heavily to anti-communist organizations." But some of the source material from journals of some reputation listed here indicate that he continued to give "heavily" to non-political causes. In fact, that might comprise the vast bulk of his giving, not political donations. Have PBS, Planned Parenthood and Goodwill Industries become tools of the vast right-wing conspiracy? It seems the entry can't even decide which is which. Perhaps it would be better to simply drop the non-POV language.

"while Cordelia supported her own charities, including Planned Parenthood" But the entry says he continued to support Planned Parenthood? Indeed, some of the national journals listed here repeat this fact. Poorly written, and unsourced as is.

"Scaife's interest in politics was influenced by four factors." But this is mere conjecture. Do we have an interview wherein he says as much? Or the work of a political analyst who will say what drove Scaife to become interested in conservative thought? Some of this seems absurd -- He was fond of newspapers as a child? His father's alleged service in the OSS? Come on. He might invest in newspapers as an adult because of a childhood fondness for the written word; he might donate to anti-communist causes because of some nostalgia for his father's deeds in WWII. But it seems implausible to suggest that he embarked on a jihad against the Left because he liked Dear Abby and his father, supposedly, was a spy.

Cheap and lazy and, ultimately, meaningless conjecture. Find some sourcing that would support it or get rid of it.

"In 1969 [citation needed], he purchased " If we can't even name the year he bought a newspaper that would grow to become one of the nation's 50 largest dailies, maybe we should just bag it?

"With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns"

Last time I checked, 200,000+ seems like a large number of subscribers. Was it small then? What was its circulation? And judging from related entries in the encyclopedia, it's not even clear that the Greensburg Tribune-Review was the primary chronicle of anti-Clinton stories. The Washington Post doesn't even contend that Scaife was the man behind the Arkansas Project, but the entries here seem to suggest that he was. At best, these insinuations are feckless misrepresenations. At worst, they're intentional lies. Either way, they're unworthy of Wiki.

"wrote that he responded by calling her a "fucking Communist cunt" and telling her to "get out of here."" Am I alone in wondering what the import of this is? An obscure, untaped event without witnesses is said to have happened 25 years ago -- an event much disputed by the subject of the story -- is included here, it seems, only because it seems so salacious. It adds nothing to our understanding of the man, just as the original CJR article suffers from a non-POV bias. It's ironic that someone mustered the gumption to suggest that there should be an entry for Karen Rothmeyer, about as minor a figure one can find in American journalism. In the corpus of her work, one finds few stories that do NOT harp on Dick Scaife, her bete noire. Did she put this chestnut into the encyclopedic entry in order to revive a career that's best considered moribund?

"In 1990 Scaife quit drinking alcohol." No source. If you're going to accuse someone of being an alcoholic, albeit a recovering one, you need a source of some reputation.

"Reporter Marisol Bello depicted his boss" Sigh. I've already pointed out that "Marisol" is a woman's name. I corrected the obvious error, and it was reverted by one of the savants who run Wikipedia. Amateurs! If you don't realize that one of the most popular names in the Latin languages might be female, then don't start non-POV screeds by slurring her work. She's a reporter for the Detroit Free-Press, one of the nation's most respected daily newspapers. Give her the respect she's due by not suggesting that she wrote a portrayal of her "boss" because of some cash compulsion.

"Scaife, however, was closely involved in his empire's coverage" Non-POV use of "empire." What "empire?" Has this been properly sourced? How closely involved? None of the sources listed in the article, expect some conjecture from a Harvard Speakout diatribe, makes the case. In fact, the Washington Post and others mentioned here speak to the opposite.

"and in which Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment against Clinton were first widely publicized." Drudge might disagree, as would CNN, the Washington Post, et al. They ran stories following the infamous Drudge report while it was online.

"gave root to hyperbolic conspiracist notions" "Hyperbolic" is non-POV.

"Shaheen subpoenaed Scaife, who testified before a federal grand jury in the matter." What did he say under oath? Did he confirm or deny the non-POV version of what transpired printed above? Where's the sourcing?

"President Clinton later admitted to sexual indiscretions, but the other allegations that came out of the Arkansas Project were never proven." Wasn't the allegation that he lied under oath also "proven," or did I miss something? I thought the drive for the stories wasn't that Clinton engaged in sexual misconduct, but that he displayed a pattern of covering up the allegations, to the point of perjuring himself? Just as one would be fair to Bill Clinton, one should try to be fair to Dick Scaife, who seems to have had little influence on all of this aside from giving money to organizations that did have a bone to pick with the president.

"The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review continues to challenge the Post-Gazette in the Pittsburgh media market." Shouldn't this be moved to the breakoff entry on the Tribune-Review? It seems out of place here.

"Scaife became a major, early supporter of the Heritage Foundation" How much is major? Where is the sourcing? That would be interesting to know, in a concrete, factual way. It's phrased too clumsily now.

"Pittsburgh World Affairs Council" Is that really a "conservative" or "libertarian" clique? I checked out the reporting on it and it seems to be mostly a luncheon group, mainly for school children, in Pittsburgh. It's also 75 years old. Certainly it's existence pre-dates much of the debate over Bill Clinton, post-war Communism and Ken Starr. It's this sort of fact-challenged writing that damns this entry.

The entire effort needs a complete, non-POV rewrite. Bartleby D. Scrivner 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Bartleby D. Scrivner

This weekend, I plan to rewrite this entire biography. My lodestar shall be the guidelines available at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

It is very sad to note that in this case the points raised in the Biographies guidelines have not been followed. Rather than lay blame for these excesses, it is best to move on and try to be as fair to the subject as possible, even if one does not personally like his politics. That's what "neutral POV" should express.Bartleby D. Scrivner 17:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Bartleby D. Scrivner

[edit] Revisions

I made some revisions to this article - I tried not to REMOVE much comment unless it looked decidedly POV.

Tried to balance negatives and positives. I'm not a conservative, and I'm not a big fan of this guy, but for any bio we need NPOV, verifiable info, etc. And I think the best bios balance any criticism of a subject with a list of their accomplishments.

I also added a little bit of lead information re: the paper, just to show a bit of the timeline of how it grew. I grew up in Greensburg, and my parents had the original Tribune-Review delivered to the door every day. It was a sleepy little paper, the kind where "editing" an article just meant you cut it off where you ran out of space. 1992 was the year of the big Pittsburgh paper strikes...but ironically, it was also the year, of course, that Clinton was elected.

I think the guy's kinda fascinating, actually. And I know people who have worked for him that have had some very fascinating things to say about him. NickBurns 16:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Washington Post article on Scaife and his divorce proceedings

I thought this article has a lot of information on Scaife if anyone wants to add some of it to the article. [5] Remember 13:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of neutrality

I just stumbled upon this article and was surprised by its partisan tone. I'm tagging it because I believe that it is not written in a properly neutral fashion under WP:NPOV. I removed a passage that I believe clearly violates WP:UNDUE. More attention needs to be paid to achieving a neutral and encyclopedic tone in writing this.--Samiharris 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Partisan tone" is clearly in the eye of the beholder. There are bits that are suspect (and the one you removed was overt), but overall it's a fairly balanced article. rone 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Politics and philanthtropy" section is what concerned me. I could not find an NPOV section just to cover that section. Let me look again in the templates area.--Samiharris 14:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce Proceedings Opened

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette has uncovered some accidentially unsealed documents from Scaife's divorce, and has posted them online. Are these appropriate materials to cite? Even though they are supposed to be secret, they have been published by a respected news organization. Is this similar to the Pentagon papers--that once they're out in the public they're fair game? [6] [7] [8] --RedShiftPA (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References section

The references section is all mucked up. None of the articles listed are used for in-text citations. This does not comply with wikipedia standards. When in doubt, use the [1] to cite things. --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)