" 
 ==Wikipedia Profanity Policy?== 
 I added a section on his dropping of the F-bomb on Nov 10, 08.  I included the quote but wasn't sure what wikipedia's policy is on profanity.  Since the fact that he said the word rather than just ""the letter"" was important to the incident I decided to use the actual word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 == F-Bomb? == 

 I've watched the youtube video over and over, and I really think he says frickin. It sounds like fucking because Tucker is talking at the same time. Watch his lips and listen closely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 What are you talking about? It's clear as day. You might need new speakers if you can't hear it. Also, he seems to recognize a problem 10 seconds later when his whole demeanor changes but he tries to go on regardless. Its almost as if he's reading a note off the teleprompter or something. It's hardly a big deal though. He apologizes and moves on.    

 ==Referring to Michael F. Griffin as a Christian terrorist== 

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

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

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

 :Thank you for correcting the comment placement and heading - I am on a learning curve.  Obviously I totally agree with your comments.  I too would like to hear from anyone interested, particulary anyone who questions whether the term Christian terrorist applies to this man.  At what point can I re-insert the link before his name and not have it not removed and called vandalism?  And at what point can I call removing the term vandalism?  Anyone, feel free to opine or speak to this issue.     

 ::If there is no WP:BLP violation, i s