Steve Kangas incident

The "editor" "moderator" busybodies at wikipedia quickly delete this:

== Steve Kangas incident ==

On 8. February 1999 former military intelligence specialist turned progressive writer [[Steve Kangas]] "apparently" committed suicide less than 60 feet from Scaife's office door inside the [[Oxford_Centre|One Oxford Center, Pittsburgh]]. He was an outspoken critic of Scaife and believed Scaife-funded initiatives posed a danger to the nation. The police found a copy of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[Mein Kampf]] in his posession.<ref>[http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328edcraig4.asp Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/march99/scaife15.htm Washington Post article]</ref>.

NPV?   see below under "Kangas junk"

read more info on CIA and Kangas here:
http://chomsky-must-read.blogspot.com/2009/10/steve-kangas-accurate-about-cia-and-us.html

Evidence of Kangas' murder.

Who killed Steve Kangas?

Case overview

Steve Kangas was found dead on the 39th floor of his enemy's doorstep at 11:30 PM on February 8 1999.  In the bathroom of the offices of Richard Mellon Scaife, 2000 miles from home, -- in Pittsburgh PA.  Shot (twice?) in the head.  Due to obstructions of justice, local police investigating the wrong circumstances quickly ruled it a suicide.    There are over 1000 heated Usenet posts on this topic, dated from eleven days after his death.  How did he die? 

It seems much too messy for a pre-meditated hit.  And too quiet for a political suicide stunt.  And his death was far outside the depressed and paralyzed suicidal person's profile -- on a long trip? -- it's just not done.  Suicide is normally done in, or close to the rut of daily life.  Suicide counselors often recommend; "Take a long trip, and now! Break out!"  It fits just right for a scuffle or the flared temper of a cold and mean man who owns the town and a small private army of "security".  Of course, anything is possible, suicide is too.  But what fits best?.  Where does logic and reason lead us if we toss aside the preconceptions that have been skillfully laid for us from the very first day?  We shall explore one range of possibilities that one path takes us.  I say "we" in part because this path is evolving quickly even now among the political newsgroups, in a huge battle between liberals and neo-conservatives.  It is now mid May, 1999.

What is the entrance to this path we will follow? 

1) It's based on the fact that Scaife and/or his employees had fouled the police investigation within hours to suggest a "closed case" random suicide by concealing or withholding critical information. 

2) It's also based on the fact that Scaife's Tribune-Review tabloid attack articles were so unfactual, and such an obvious smear that ALL information from them has been rejected. 

3) It's based on the assumption that there was a real reason for the Scaife tabloid's news black-out, the eventual risky lies, the Kangas smear, Scaife's nation-wide investigation, and the obstructions of justice.   That is; we assume that these were not merely the frivolous ravings of a paranoid mean-spirited man, -- nor a mere haphazard coincidence -- as the police and mainstream press seems to have assumed as the only realistic premise.    Even if Scaife is a paranoid mean-spirited man, this is hardly a rational defense.

If we establish those assumptions, only a few possibilities remain.   I intend to establish them as reasonable and realistic assumptional foundations that no complete investigation should ignore.  

It seems that if not for Usenet/Internet, the police would have long ago closed the case on a "random suicide by a random out-of-state drifter."  In fact, that's what they quickly concluded within hours, and that conclusion stuck, it became an assumption unchallenged by anyone outside of Team Scaife for the next five weeks. 

But, Scaife's cover-up and his news black-out of his relationship with Steve Kangas was revealed by the boiling of dozens of ever angrier netizens in the political debate newsgroups of Usenet, and the sharp-eyed police spotted it on the front page of the Pittsburgh newspaper, the Post-Gazette. 

But the cover-up bought Scaife time.  The police, unaware of the Scaife-Kangas connection never made a criminal investigation.  The Pittsburg Police did not request the Las Vegas Police to search Kangas's home.  During all this time Scaife had sent a private investigator traveling the country.  Scaife's employee entered and searched Steve's home and smeared Steve's name to witnesses long in advance of any police investigation.  If Steve had any material worth being killed for, the police have little chance of ever finding it now.

Police now claim the investigation has been widened to include Scaife.  The same friendly police department that has been routinely stationed in front of the billionaire's home providing him with "security" for decades. 

However exposed, Scaife's cover-up did succeed for five weeks, it's been cleaned up, and the body cremated.  And Steve's name has been smeared with womanizing, pornography, theft, drunkenness plus a murder attempt by Scaife's famous dirt-manufacturing propaganda mill.  In fact, despite the fact that Team Scaife's cover-ups, meddling and steering of the evidence from the very first hours to insure a suicide verdict have recently come to light, the press as of mid-May still continues to unhesitatingly assume suicide. 

Steve Kangas.

Ex army intelligence, a Doctoral Candidate at UC: Santa Cruz in economics and political studies.  His book was almost completed, and was working with a publisher.  Once president of the local chess club in Santa Cruz for several years.  Net presence: 1600 Usenet posts found on DejaNews.com, a double award winning political Web site with over 300 html pages.  His most popular page was on the Great Depression: 75,000 hits.  The Web site was also a "one-stop-shop", -- an armory -- of liberal oriented arguments, facts, charts and tables to be used in debates against popular neo-conservative myths.   (Yet while many liberals blame the great recession of '82-'83 on Reagan, Steve Kangas argued strongly that Reagan had nothing to do with it.)  Above all, Steve Kangas was a truth-seeker.  See his AboutMe.html.

In the jungle of Usenet political debates he was known for his calm reasonable arguments and facts, even when outrageously provoked.  Few could touch him, and even now the rabidly attacking neo-conservative vultures on Usenet cannot present a credible, reasonable argument against his undefended Web site.  "I don't like it", is the sum of their arguments before resorting to the ad hominem fallacy. 

I've experienced a Web Warrior's death before, we knew the the dreaded death dance of the mean-spirited was coming, we try to get through it as best we can, but I think everybody feels dirtied by it, and by who we have to associate with.   I'd like to thank those who manage to stick with it, and apologize to Steve's loved ones for not always meeting Steve's high standards in this mess. 

Richard Mellon Scaife.

Grand master of propaganda.  Billionaire.
According to the May 3 Washington Post, Scaife "has given at least $340 million to fund a `war of ideas' against American liberalism." That is, he finances propaganda and propaganda mills. 

Robert Esh

Steve's father, Robert Esh seems to be in the Armistead-Scaife camp.  Yet he calls himself a conservative Christian.  Robert Esh said; "It wasn't that we were at odds with each other or fighting, but that he'd kept some distance because his belief system was different than ours."     [cough]   Steve Kangas changed his last name to his mother's maiden name.   
    Even in death, Robert Esh seems to be trying to control his son's mind.   He attempted to cancel Steve's Web page because he disagrees with it.   And as of mid April, Esh is attempting to demand that mirror sites of his son's include a 2-1/2 page letter of his; "explaining" things and criticizing his son's politics while cheapening Steve's beliefs.   It is seemingly without irony that he signs that statement "The father of a much-loved Prodigal Son that never came home."   Mr. Esh has been telling people not to "bother" his former wife and Steve Kangas' mother, Jan Lankheet, he wants her out of the loop.   (Yet it appears he does not have executorship of Steve's estate(??))

Jan Lankheet

"He was a happy guy.   He had plans for this summer," said his mother, Jan Lankheet, who lives in Michigan and whose Christmas card inviting her son to visit last year was in his knapsack when he was found dead.   When informed that Steve's Web friends had constructed six mirror sites of Steve's Web site, and one had been paying his bills there, she was pleased: "There's something to be said for that.   Now that he's dead, may his work live on after him."

Don Adams

Don Adams and his associate are the pivotal eye-witnesses in this case.  It was reported that Adams is a building engineer and he found Steve Kangas in dire need of help.  When he returned Kangas was mortally wounded.  If Don Adams actually is the building engineer, and not related to Scaife "security," and actually was making routine checks when he found Kangas, and was telling the truth, this (alone??) fixes Kangas' time of death, and drastically limits the possible scenarios.  But as we will see, there are several major discrepancies here, and it just smells fishy. In this case, I have come to trust my nose.  A lie detector test would resolve most of the obvious questions this case presents.






John G. Craig Jr.: Mission: Implausible

Dick Scaife couldn't keep his probe of Kangas a secret

Sunday, March 28, 1999

The Steven Kangas case is a textbook example of the dangers of trying to hide what will not stay hidden for very long.

    
          John G. Craig Jr. is editor of the Post-Gazette.     
    

Kangas came to Pittsburgh and apparently died by his own hand at 11:30 p.m. Feb. 8. The principal public note of the event locally was the following story, printed in its entirety, from the Post-Gazette of Feb. 12:

"The body of a 37-year-old man found in a 39th floor bathroom of One Oxford Centre late Monday night has been identified as Steven Kangas of Las Vegas. He died of a gunshot wound to the head. The Allegheny County coroner's office ruled the death a suicide."

You will note that four days had passed between the death and this cryptic public report. The easy explanation is that suicides are not usually the subject of news stories until there is an official determination by the coroner that they have occurred - except, of course, when the act takes place in a dramatic or public fashion, or the victim is immediately recognizable as a public figure, neither of which was the case with Kangas.

His death did immediately set off alarm bells, but they rang only behind closed doors. The PG, the coroner's office, the Pittsburgh police department and the TV stations missed completely the fact that "the 39th floor" was a long-storied Pittsburgh address. For the better part of a century, the 39th floor of a Downtown building was the citadel of Mellon family interests - and it was the floor address that Richard M. Scaife chose to retain for his personal offices when he moved to One Oxford Centre a few years ago.

If either the police or the press had been on their toes, the coincidence of Kangas' body being found less than 60 feet from Scaife's office door would not have gone unremarked, particularly when even a cursory check of the Internet could have revealed that Kangas had been a prominent player in chat rooms where liberal conspiracy theorists emote and where in the previous few months he had been outspoken in his criticism of Scaife and the dangers Kangas believed Scaife-funded initiatives posed to the nation.

The obvious and immediate question would have been: Who was this man and why did he come to Pittsburgh to kill himself? Did anyone in town know him? Had he ever worked for anyone with a Pittsburgh connection? What was his background?

The only people who immediately addressed such questions, not surprisingly, were employed by Richard M. Scaife.

I don't know about you, but I don't blame them. If someone shot himself outside my office, I'd have questions by the dozen. Was Kangas lying in wait for some ill purpose? A hostage taking? A murder? A dramatic publicity stunt? The most prudent of men would immediately wonder about such things. And in the world of Dick Scaife, where conspiracies abound, the possibilities would be limitless.

What is interesting is what the Scaife people did next. Instead of sharing immediately their anxieties with those who could help them most - local law enforcement officers and the coroner - they put a reporter from the Tribune-Review, Richard Gazarik, and a notorious private investigator from Mississippi, Rex Armistead, on the case.

Gazarik and Armistead got a good line on Kangas in rather short order. Between them they talked to members of his family, reviewed his Internet ramblings, visited Las Vegas and checked out both his apartment and place of employment. They were encouraged in this work by Kangas' parents, who were mystified by what they had been told. They did not see their son as either suicidal or dangerous, but no one else they talked to in Pittsburgh seemed much interested in that or anything else concerning their son.

The problem with conducting your own secret investigation, conscientious as it may be, is that the people you talk to start talking to other people. Before long, thanks to the Internet, the gossip is out there for all to see. Scaife's organization, including his newspapers, were able to sit on the story for more than four weeks, but when a friend called the matter to my attention March 11, the intensity of the chatter around the nation had reached such a level that for all intents and purposes, the cat was out of the bag.

In the two weeks since the story broke, nature has taken its usual course. Lawyers and writers who serve the conservative cause have circled the wagons and are chirp, chirping away about people like Kangas who hate them. The Clintonites and their friends are taking pleasure in the irony of Scaife's discomfort and the embarrassment the extremists on the left were able to stir up as a result of the long information vacuum.

Local law enforcement officials and the mainstream press (and who knows who else) have realized that they dropped the ball and now are all started down a trail that is six weeks cold. As for the poor public, it is left wondering, as is its wont, "What the hell is going on here?"

If the principals behave as they predictably behave, the rumors and questions will continue unabated, and the facts of the matter, whatever they are, will forever be lost in the larger partisan passions that define contemporary politics.





The Death of Major Arthur Nicholson made Steve think. 

Steven Robert Esh (he later changed him name to Steve Kangas) was born on 11th May, 1961. His parents were conservative Christians and he attended private religious academies in South Carolina.

After graduating from high school in 1979, Kangas joined the US Army. He was later transferred to military intelligence and spent a year in Monterey (Defense Language Institute) learning Russian. He also spent time at Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas before being sent to do secret work in Central America.

In 1984 Kangas moved to Germany where he was involved in electronic eavesdropping on Soviet military units in Eastern Europe, analyzing the transcripts and reporting back to NATO. It was at this time he began to question his conservative political beliefs.

Kangas left military intelligence in 1986 and became a student at the University of California in Santa Cruz. This experience moved him further to the left: "There, kindly professors pointed out to me the illogic of defending life by taking it, destroying the planet for a buck and shutting down schools to build more prisons. I am now thoroughly brainwashed to believe that kindness and human decency are positive traits to be emulated and encouraged."

Kangas ran the Liberalism Resurgent website. This included several articles on the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. One of his online essays, The Origins of the Overclass, attempted to show "why the richest 1 percent have exploded ahead since 1975, with the help of the New Right, Corporate America and, surprisingly, the CIA." In the essay he argues that Richard Mellon Scaife ran "Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world."

Scaife was very unhappy with the attack made on him and employed private detective, Rex Armistead, to carry out an investigation into Kangas.

It is believed that Kangas was working on a book about CIA covert activities when on 8th February, 1999, he was found dead in the bathroom of the offices of Richard Mellon Scaife, the owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune. He had been shot in the head. Officially he had committed suicide but some people believe he was murdered. In an article in Salon Magazine, (19th March, 1999) Andrew Leonard asked: "Why did the police report say the gun wound was to the left of his head, while the autopsy reported a wound on the roof of his mouth? Why had the hard drive on his computer been erased shortly after his death? Why had Scaife assigned his No. 1 private detective, Rex Armistead, to look into Kangas' past?"

 

14. What was Steve's plan??? This writer believes very firmly that Steve had a coherent plan and was in the process of executing it when he was killed. The story appearing on April 11 in the Washington Week mentions the first step of this plan. It refers to an October post in Usenet in which Steve sought out advice if the computer he had just purchased would be adequate for a high volume server application. The article concludes that if Steve had the funds, the time and the presence of mind to expand his political activism how could anyone believe the Scaife smears. Confirmatory evidence from Deja News reveals that this is one of the first posts in which Steve used a new Email address of Liberalism Resurgent and that he also had registered the server as Resurgent. It fully destroys the Scaife smear that he was going to use the computer for a sex site. This I believe was the first step in the plan in January the second step of his plan is revealed on his web site. On Jan 9 he modified the file Help_the_Fight revealing his plans for Liberalism Resurgent. In it he detailed plans to hire writers in particular college students, as well as setting a maximum cap on income for any employee. Now we know beyond a doubt that he had a plan and what the computer was for. It also shows a continuing effort over an extended period requiring time, money and a presence of mind. But the plan doesn't end here. There is one final piece of evidence of this plan. It was found with his knapsack upon his death. It was the list of names

resurgence n. A continuing after interruption; a renewal.

From the WIKIPEDIA TALK PAGE:

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)




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.



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)



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)



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)




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)




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)



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)




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.



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)




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)




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)





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)




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



Issues

This entry on Richard Mellon Scaife easily should prove one of the worst examples of "biography" found in Wikipedia:

    * Substantial/major editing is needed.
    * Most material for a complete article needs to be added, and it certainly exists, in fair, objective prose, in the public domain.
    * This article isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built.

It suffers from non-POV descriptions and "facts" throughout.

    * Some errors are so blatant as to be laughable. For example, several "editors" have taken a verbal slap at Marisol Bello, a reporter for the Detroit Free-Press. The postings are so devoid of fact that they refer to Bello as a man ("Marisol" is a common, female name) and claim her "boss" is Scaife.
    * In fact, her "boss" is the Detroit Free-Press.
    * The article itself in nearly complete devoid of fact throughout, relying mostly on Google searches of partisan websites and very lightly on respected publications such as the Washington Post or Newsweek.
    * Wiki's "bosses" should get this right. There's probably enough here that's libelous or simply false to trigger an immediate rewrite. Lionel of Pittsburgh (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)




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)



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)



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)




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)



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)

contacting Scaife

anyone have Richard's email address? i would like to email him without going through people who will never pass the letter on. i doubt i will get a reply or any hlep but, no harm in me trying =) thanks in advance, Alan Scaife KaiQom (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC).


BLP (biography of living persons) issues

I just removed half of a paragraph that wildly accused Scaife, and pretty much the rest of his family, of being alcoholics. The "source" mentioned none of this. Someone needs to go through this article for other BLP problems, as I suspect there are more.--A. Gorilla (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


MORE INFO:

http://chomsky-must-read.blogspot.com/2009/10/steve-kangas-accurate-about-cia-and-us.html