Talk:Scott Baio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Commerical in "Appearances"?

The way the Appearances section is written reads very much like a commerical. If it's actually viable and important to the article, I guess it could stay, but I don't see why it would need to be there. Aurick 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New Improvements to the "Scott Baio" article

Dear WIKIPEDIA,

First, here is the correct citation for the recent "Zapped" data in Entertainment Weekly: p. 47, "Virgin Territory" by Chris Nashawaty, Issue # 929, cover story - The Sopranos's last season. Hope that helps you.

Second, this new additional sentence to the paragraph on "Arrested Development" may still have to be properly checked and verified. ("He made reference to this in his first episode......he appealed to a younger crowd.")

For the record, Scott was never called in to replace Henry Winkler on "Happy Days" at all. He was simply there to essentially play The Fonz's younger sidekick and cousin, Chachi Arcola. There was no plan to get rid of Mr. Winkler's character on that show.

And of course, "Arrested" fans know that Henry Winkler had to leave A.D. behind since he fortunately got himself a job on a new series with Stockard Channing on CBS. Mr. Baio clearly had nothing to do with that lucky turn of events.

Truly Yours, LOKI (September 19, 2007)

Politics for Scott Baio

Why is Scott Baio is a Republican?--4.242.174.98 (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is Scott Baio is NOT a Democrat?--4.242.174.98 (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Baio has the basic individual freedom and human right to vote for whomever or whatever he likes as a citizen and resident of the United States. Nobody should be allowed to persecute,harass, denigrate or demean Scott for his own honest and genuine (right-of-center) political beliefs and opinions, especially when he does not actively look around for trouble in terms of a negative quarrel or controversy with others. Scott Baio's political rights must always be respected, whether you ultimately agree or disagree with him. Let us all please remember that concerning this subject matter. - LOKI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.40.130 (talk • contribs)

Amen,Loki. Why is Scott Baio a Republican? Because he has the freedom to vote for a Republican candidate. (Actually, he appears to prefer identifying himself nowadays as "an independent political conservative" rather than just being narrowly tied down to one single political party.) Why is Scott Baio not a Democrat? Because he also has the same freedom to vote against a Democratic candidate. In the future should he decide to change his mind and vote for the other side or even for an entirely brand new third political party representative (ex: the Tea Party movement), Scott Baio and others like him will and must always have the constitutionally-protected freedom to exercise their political rights without fear of public or private persecution and harassment. Politically, personally or professionally, Scott Baio certainly doesn't need to explain himself and his own decisions to virtual strangers. - the arcolytes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.160.233 (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

|}

Edit request: Twitter Controversy

{{editsemiprotected}}

The controversy over Baio and his wife's Twitter Postings has been picked up by several major media sources. I think this may merit a "Controversies" section, as it has received a good deal of news coverage.

Requested addition:

In April 2010, Baio was involved in a controversy surrounding his Twitter postings. His posting, “Taxes are DONE...That should feed, house & provide medical for a few lazy non working people at my expense. Have a great Monday!" was picked up by the blog Jezebel, and the heated web-based discussion between Baio, his wife, the Jezebel.com authors, Jezebel readers and Baio fans was covered by major news organizations.

http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/21/scott-baio-and-his-wife-in-another-twitter-tussle/
http://www.longislandpress.com/2010/04/21/scott-baio-renee-baio-twitter-facebook-bad-attitudes/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/scott-baio-defends-wifes_n_544235.html
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/04/scott_baio_has.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1245303/Happy-Days-star-Scott-Baio-calls-FBI-Twitter-death-threats-Michelle-Obama-joke.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.17.30.124 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 

--93.133.255.255 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done BejinhanTalk 03:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cameo in Wrong Hole videoclip

On July 4, 2010 the Wrong Hole paragraph have been deleted because it was "found to be somewhat trivial in the greater context, and the placement to be rather disjointed from the rest of the article". While I may agree on the lone placement in the article, I do think that -even if a little trivial- the Wrong Hole cameo is worth mentioning since is one of Baio's latest actings and gained much attention thanks to the viral spread of the video. I'd restore the paragraph, what do you think? --WikiKiwi ^(askme) 02:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott Baio at the Hollywood Congress of Republicans

In May 2011, Scott Baio was honored as the featured guest speaker during the Hollywood Congress of Republicans monthly meetup. He made this very interesting statement about his own showbiz work experiences in recent years: "I was never afraid to speak my mind (as a conservative). But I remembered times on a set where I'd hear my liberal friends talking and I didn't speak out. I stepped back and did not comment. Because there is a stigma that IF YOU TALK (as a conservative Republican), YOU DON'T WORK." ("Scott Baio, Reagan Republican" by Ann Marie Murrell, www.reagan.com, 5/5/2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.59.54 (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It is kindly requested that the WIKIPEDIA Administrator in charge of The Scott Baio article page to also please include THE SCOTT BAIO FAN BLOG @ scottbaio.wordpress.com among the helpful references on Scott for his loyal fans to check out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.59.54 (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Birth year

Was Baio born September 22, 1960 or September 22, 1961? Slightly more sources say 1960, but enough say 1961 to request input on this. Also, see this. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TIME magazine gives his year of birth as 1961. I couldn't find an equally reliable source for the 1960 date (most newspaper mentions are "on this day" type entries which do not meet WP:RS as they haven't undergone editorial oversight) so I will add the corrected year along with the reference.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Globe reports his year of birth as 1961 as well in an extensive article specifically addressing the birth year of various celebrities.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In an interview posted on YouTube by VisionTV, Baio specifically says, "...September twenty-second, 1960. Sixty, not sixty-one. Sixty." ^{VisionTV interview at :27} His official website also says 1960.^{Official website biography page}

Normally WP sees actors trying to claim they are younger than they actually are, and sources are used to refute that, such as at Talk:Juliet Landau. Here an actor is claiming an older age. Short of finding their birth record or other overwhelming evidence (Landau's parents were famous, and she was often mentioned by age when a toddler; Baio does not have that advantage/liability), should we not be going with what the living person says? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree your evidence certainly is compelling! If you do change the date, please ensure you also include a note to check the talk page in your edit summary so that others can review the thread. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Detailing sources

1960:

• [1] "Unscripted: Scott Baio": the complete interview as hosted on the Unscripted site (via its production company). The first five minutes of the interview, as hosted on You Tube by VisionTV, who aired the interview May 10, 2010 ^{channel listing blurb}
• [2] Baio's official website biography page

1961:

• [3] TIME magazine article (current citation). The article is about John McCain and Barrack Obama; Baio is mentioned in passing.
• [4] TCM's listing

Both:

• 1960: [5] The Biography Channel, US edition
• 1961: [6] The Biography Channel, UK edition

It would have been a cinch if the TIME article was about Baio. It was not, just a passing mention. With the reliable sources divided on the subject, I present another source of questionable reliability:

• [7] Baio to celebrate his 50th birth in 2010, with photos of the event. There is even a YouTube video of Baio blowing out the candles.

That kind of division in reliable sources makes me afraid to touch the article, especially with the misapplied "YouTube is not a valid source" reverts done previously. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Letters to Wikipedia

Dear WIKIPEDA, I visited your Scott Baio page and tried to include more crucial missing data about him, such as his lesser-known accolades and prizes for acting in television and movies. If you will permit me, I shall add more good information during my return. Please don't erase it anymore. What I find problematic about this website is that sometimes you tend to emphasize the negative stuff about a celebrity and ignore the positive things about him or her. Thank you for reading my letter. Sincerely, LOKI.

Dear WIKIPEDA, This is my second visit. Previously tried to log in but failed due to confusion about the directions. Never mind. Sorry about the editing mix-up. Please keep the important positive stuff about Mr. Baio that I've added with good intentions. It makes your article more complete now, doesn't it? Thanks anyway. Sincerely again, LOKI.

Anyone else think the above poster is actually Scott Baio?--70.60.0.70 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint the above hatemonger but I am not Mr. Baio. I'm just a humble fan. Isn't it sad when internet trolls are compelled to spread hatred and negativity across the web for the purpose of giving their own insignificant lives some real meaning?? I personally choose to help out wherever I can rather than injuring others. P.S. Congratulations to WIKIPEDIA for the great improvements on their Scott Baio page. And thanks for the recent picture of him as Bob Loblaw in 'Arrested Development'. Sincerely, LOKI.

I don't think calling someone Scott Baio counts as spreading hatred and negativity.--209.243.31.233 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does because in doing this, you're negatively implying that Scott Baio is miserably hated by others so much that he's all alone in trying to defend himself from hatemongers such as yourself. Please do not be incredibly stupid or intellectually dishonest in your future posts. It counts as "hate speech" and you know it. And do not come back here if you really have nothing positive to contribute to WIKIPEDIA at all.

LOKI

---

Ethnical background

I read on this site that Baio is of Italo-American descent and otherwhere (I seeem IMDB) that both is parents are (or were) Italians born in Italy. Well, I don't think so, because it's clear from his looking he has some Asian (or Native American) blood. What do you know about?

Dear WIKIPEDA, Just revisited the Scott Baio page here and discovered a possible attempt to sabotage the article. Currently trying to fix certain portions thereof. It's one thing to write negative comments or blatant falsehoods about Mr. Baio in other blogger pages. But erasing any records of his deserving accolades for his three independent films is downright malicious. They ought to leave those important facts alone. I'll keep putting them back into the article repeatedly if I have to. Don't think that I won't because I will. Makes you wonder if some trolls out there are really "threatened" by such innocent truthful data about Scott's artistic capabilities. Sincerely, LOKI. P.S. Sorry but I cannot do anything about the missing photos of Scott Baio. Better get somebody else to fix this other problem.

Dear LOKI,

No matter how much you like Scott Baio, you do not own this article. Unless it was blatant vandalism, the content was probably removed for a good reason, and the pictures were probably not fair use. Undoing any edit that you disagree with without finding out the motivation behind it is generally bad form.--209.243.31.233 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Last User,

As long as WIKIPEDIA embraces and preserves my well-researched truthful statements of facts and trivia concerning Mr. Scott Baio within their informational article about him, I shall be quite happy. At least, I do not spread blatant lies or falsehoods about innocent celebrities like other malicious people on the net. Don't be jealous of my well-meaning intentions or abilities to help WIKIPEDIA improve their materials once in a while.

LOKI

---

Ummm...'ethnical' is not a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.140.28 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the article not be re-written to reflect his Happy Days time, as their are entire paragraphs devoted to lesser known films, while his best known role is almost only mentioned in passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.192.73 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There already exist other more comprehensive Wikipedia articles regarding Happy Days as well as Joanie Loves Chachi. But I suppose that adding further helpful information about said classic TV shows around here would still be a good thing. Just leave intact the necessary data about "Bugsy Malone" and Scott's later independent films outside Hollywood ("Very Mean Men", "Italian Ties" and "The Bread, My Sweet") as well as his Emmy nominations for "Stoned" and "All The Kids Do It".

LOKI

Corrected information

Would someone please add the following to the bottom of the personal section:

Despite co-starring on ABC's "Happy Days" for eight years, from 1977 to 1984, Baio was excluded (?) from the February 25, 2008 Happy Days reunion interview by Matt Lauer on the The Today Show.

GimRenwaller.

Dear GimRenwaller,

I do not think that Mr. Baio was intentionally "excluded" from the Today interview by Matt Lauer. Said "Happy Days" reunion simply involved the ORIGINAL CAST MEMBERS of the show (Richie, The Fonz, Mr. C and Mrs. C, Joanie, Potsie and Ralph). Wasn't this fact obvious ??

Unfortunately, SCOTT BAIO WAS NOT AN ORIGINAL SERIES MEMBER in the same way that Ted McGinley, Cathy Silvers, Lynda Goodfriend and others were also later cast additions to "Happy Days". Said people were not present either at that interview.

Besides, Scott and his wife Renee were too busy visiting other morning shows with their very cute newborn baby daughter Bailey.

Sorry. We cannot add your information. It would not be fair to poor Scott at all. LOKI

Dear Loki, Thanks for pointing out such an "obvious" fact to GimRenwaller. If Scott was indeed "excluded" from the "Happy Days" cast reunion interview of the Today morning show, so were Lori Beth (Lynda Goodfriend), Roger (Ted McGinley), Jenny (Cathy Silvers), K.C. (Crystal Bernard) and Flip (Billy Warlock). Fans already know that Big Al (Al Molinaro) and Arnold (Pat Morita) sadly passed away in recent years. But what about Chuck 1 (Gavan O'Herlihy) and Chuck 2 (Randolph Roberts) ? And who could ever forget Pinky Tuscadero (Roz Kelly) ?? The Today interview was only for the ORIGINAL CAST MEMBERS (from Season 1) of this show. It should be quite clear to anybody that Mr. Baio was never "excluded" at all. Sincerely, Lourdes.

Censorship of Baio's Twitter Controversy

Scott Baio has made several disparaging statements about President Obama on Twitter, including accusing the President of being a Kenyan Marxist. There should be a section about "Controversy" or "Politics" that details this. Here is the section that Wikipedia deleted and which needs to be restored:

In October 2009, Baio created controversy on Twitter when he called President Obama a "shitfuck". In that same month, Baio posted a picture to his Twitter account of Stanley A. McChrystal having a discussion with President Obama; a thought balloon drawn about McChrystal's head said, "...a community organizer from Kenya. A Marxist. A Marxist Kenyan Community Organizer is giving me orders. oh God, oh God, Jesus help me." The picture was captioned, "General Stanley McChrystal Wishes He'd Joined The Navy Right Now." Baio added a caption under the graphic stating "This is what U.S. troops are dealing with." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryking (talk • contribs)

Could you add a source other than twitter? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Links to support Scott Baio's behavior, which not only include derogatory comments about President Obama, but bizarre accusations that other Twitter users were out to "extort" him:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/10/scott-baio-my-wife-calls-obama-stfk-i.html

http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2009/10/14/teachable-moment-someones-new-twitter-addiction-is-running-amok/

http://popdynamite.com/president-barack-obama/z-lister-scott-baio-attacks-on-twitter/

Link to the Twitpic described above:

http://twitpic.com/m76dx/

Apologies if I'm violating formatting standards here, this is new to me and I haven't the time -- right now -- to study the how to's of Wikpedia's formats.

Ryking

The above appear to be blogs and (very) minor political websites. Not one would be considered a "notable source" or "reliable source". Unless this draws the attention of someone a bit more notable then it doesn't rate a mention. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The only hit I found in google news was this at the Washington Post. It references an interview with Glenn Beck. Still, it seems like it's too minor to mention at the moment. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION WIKIPEDIA!!! SCOTT BAIO'S TWITTER ACCOUNT WAS THE RECENT VICTIM OF AN ANONYMOUS HACKER. THEREFORE, ANY CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS THEREIN PROBABLY MAY NOT HAVE ORIGINATED FROM HIM. WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT INCLUDING THIS DUBIOUS NEW INFORMATION IN FAIRNESS TO MR. BAIO. SCOTT HAS ENEMIES ON THE INTERNET WHO SEEK TO DESTROY HIS REPUTATION FURTHER. PLEASE CONSIDER AND INCLUDE THIS DISTURBING NEWS ABOUT A HACKER IN MR. BAIO'S TWITTER ACCOUNT. Loki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.59.54 (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The basic facts and important sequence of events regarding this controversy: 1. Scott Baio is a regular viewer and fan of the Glenn Beck show on FOX News. 2. He was deeply sympathetic to the program's host when Mr. Beck became emotional in one episode and openly wept about his own daughter who is a "special-needs" child. 3. Scott wrote a positive message of support on behalf of Glenn Beck in his TWITTER page which he and his wife also use to promote their Bailey Baio Angel Foundation. 4. Angry detractors and virulent haters of Glenn Beck negatively reacted by tweeting very ugly messages and bashing poor Scott for expressing his positive opinion of the FOX News host. 5. Hearing of the ruckus, Mr. Beck tweeted a personal message of thanks to Scott and even interviewed him on his popular radio show. 6. Scott returned to his TWITTER page and discovered that a malicious internet hacker dangerously violated the security safeguards of his account, leaving various false messages in his name without his permission or cooperation. 7. As a direct consequence of this violation of his privacy, Scott needed to properly verify his correct identity with the administrative staff of TWITTER once again and subsequently create a brand new TWITTER account in his rightful name, hopefully with stronger and better security safeguards. Under these unfortunate circumstances, WIKIPEDIA cannot include this controversy because there is a great likelihood that the original sources thereof have become tainted and unreliable. - Mordred La Fey

Films

Why is the structure of this article different from the other actor articles? No films list with dates and parts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:B097:5822:F5E7:91A1 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a filmography]. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Claim that Scott Baio is no longer an actor

There is an editor who keeps editing the article with the claim that Scott Baio is no longer an actor--keeps adding the word "former" before the description of "actor". I would like that editor to provide a reliable source to support such an edit and also to discuss the other edits which add questionable information to the article. Please do not re-add that information until you discuss right here on the talk page.ML (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently IMDB is not reliable? It doesn't matter. I'm done with Scott Baio (NotHoratio (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

It does matter. You did not provide a citation to IMDB that said what you claimed it said. IMDB did not say what you claimed. Please do not make up "facts" and put in them in the article, supporting them with citations that do not state what you claim they state.--ML (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that he is a "former actor" is pointless, his acting is what he was best known for, but I'm not so sure about deleting other details. As has been mentioned above his comments on Twitter are indicative of his politics. Calling Michelle Obama a cunt and his outburst directed at Obama, seemed to get more than enough coverage to considered notable. -- 109.79.117.155 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Barista flap

I keep seeing reports that Baio had an altercation with a barista, some say there was a battery-shove, some not. The argument started, supposedly, over the barista's refusal to pronounce the name of Donald Trump. I can not find a reliable source for this story, but if someone can, it might be worth putting in the article. 96.90.200.185 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sandy Hook/Heather Heyer

I removed an earlier version that was heavily POV and unsourced. The new version was sourced and needed ust a few tweaks to clean up the POV and such.

Yes, Baio retweeted a Sandy Hook "truther" tweet, apparently meant to insinuate that Heyer's death (and the deaths at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting are hoaxes. Yes, folks on the 'net took him to task for it, he pulled down the tweet and says he wishes he hadn't sent it.

While there is little to say about Baio in the past few years outside of his fiery political grandstanding, I don't think that serves to lower the bar for inclusion here. There just doesn't seem to be substantial coverage in independent reliable sources showing that this particular incidence of stepping in it is a significant aspect of Biao's biography.

I don't think this fits in at the moment. While I wouldn't be surprised to see a source surface discussing this and the Erin Moran dust up as being in some way related, I don't think we're there yet. Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Co star death controversy

Erin Moran, known as Joanie on Happy Days, passed away recently and before a cause of death was determined, Baio made inappropriate comments regarding Morans use of drugs and wrongly proclaimed that as the cause of death . Baio then apologized when the cause of death was determined to be complications of stage 4 cancer. 24.69.165.94 (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)31jetjet

References

Explain why I added "that"

I changed the following sentence to insert the bold "that":

On August 26, 2017, Baio re-tweeted a Sandy Hook "truther" meme, insinuating that the recent death of Heather Heyer was a hoax.

User:SummerPhDv2.0 reverted it, correctly pointing out that the word "that" adds no meaning here, but that's not why I added it. I added it to improve the flow: when you're scanning the sentence, it's easy to try to parse "insinuating the recent death" with "the recent death" being the subjectobject of the verb "insinuating", and only once you get to "was a hoax", you realise your mistake. The word "that" basically keeps it from being a mild form of garden path sentence. --Slashme (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Summary: The reason that you added that "that" was so that that sentence would indicate that that insinuation referred to that death. I might have to look into that.</sarcasm>

I can't begin to see any other meaning in the sentence without that "that". - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that once you get to the end of the sentence, it's absolutely unambiguous. I put the word in because while I was reading it for the first time, I found myself having to re-parse halfway through, so I added it to make it read a little more smoothly. It essentially signals that a new clause follows so that your brain doesn't need to figure out whether the next phrase is the object of "insinuating", or whether the whole clause is the object. --Slashme (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Baio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100424055020/http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com:80/2010/04/21/scott-baio-and-his-wife-in-another-twitter-tussle/ to http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/21/scott-baio-and-his-wife-in-another-twitter-tussle/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Baio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100424055020/http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com:80/2010/04/21/scott-baio-and-his-wife-in-another-twitter-tussle/ to http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/21/scott-baio-and-his-wife-in-another-twitter-tussle/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Photo

"The existing picture in this biography is of extremely poor quality and is out of date. It appears that whoever loaded it intended to either defame or slander Mr. Baio by using an inferior picture or took the photograph themselves without the subject's consent. To improve the quality of the article, I recommend the picture be revised immediately." - File page of soon-to-be-deleted professional shot.

Yes, the current photo is old and of low quality. That said, we cannot just grab a professional headshot, claim fair use and start using it.

To use a photo here, it must be released from copyright, not copyrighted or not replaceable. "Released from copyright" involves the author of the photo specifically posts a notice with the image essentially saying anyone can use it for just about anything. (That's clearly not the case here, so my unfamiliarity with the details doesn't really matter...) "Not copyrighted" generally applies to very old works, works created by the U.S. Government (such as the current photo) and a bunch of other cases that do not apply here. This leaves us with "not replaceable", which Wikipedia generally applies to: people who have died, people who are extremely reclusive, fictional characters, etc., such that it is impossible for someone to take a photo of that person in public and make it available to use. Baio is neither dead, reclusive nor fictional. It is theoretically possible for someone to take a photo of him and release it here.

As for the claims that a low quality/old photo is defamation or slander, the claim is laughable, else people posting photos of me from high school on Facebook are in serious trouble. The photo sucks, but it doesn't say or imply anything negative about Baio, let alone something we have any reason to doubt.

The claim that it was taken "without the subject's consent" is immaterial. (It's also simply not true. When you join a line of people shaking hands with Nancy Reagan with a photographer taking a picture of each one, you can't reasonably claim you didn't want to be in a picture.[8])

But let's ignore all of that. Let's assume all of these horrible things about the current photo are true. OMG! What can we do?!?! Simple. Remove it. Alleged problems solved. Using a different photo is a separate issue.

We can discuss whether or not we should continue to use the current photo. Anyone interested can certainly look for a replacement (I'm guessing there might be something out there from Baio's activities in support of Trump). Until either of those occurs, the photo stays. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive box

The archive box on this page does not link to the talk page archives. It links to a long list of random Wikipedia articles. Can somebody who understands User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis fix this please? 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:5081:C294:44B8:F581 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the configuration at the top of this page. I don't know how often the bot looks at the configuration or recompiles the index. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you wait at least 48 days hours after each configuration change before deciding whether it has worked. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Will do. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:5081:C294:44B8:F581 (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait. 48 days? Did you mean 48 hours? 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:5081:C294:44B8:F581 (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, corrected. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Archive box problem. John of Reading had the right idea However, I've made an immediate fix here by converting the page to using numbered archives and letting the talk header take over the archive box function ... since we have one here, why not use it? The initial archiving would have turned out the same whether the bot had been instructed to archive by year or numerically. Do note that I've had a dispute with DanielPenfield about a related issue at Talk:Triangular trade#Archiving of 12 year old discussions, so this might colour my views here. If you think I'm way out of line, feel free to change the archiving system back. Graham87 06:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, once I'd changed the archive fconfiguration, ClueBot III rewrote its index within a minute. Graham87 06:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That looks perfect now, Graham. Thanks. As a matter of interest, have you any idea what caused the bot to do this? --2001:BB6:4703:4A58:39D4:8D7F:35E2:1 (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. As described in the above-linked village pump thread, it was caused by the fact that the name of the talk page wasn't specified, so the bot spat out a list of page titles that seems fairly similar to the list at Special:Allpages. Graham87 14:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Hook meme

In the sentence, "On August 26, 2017, Baio re-tweeted a Sandy Hook "truther" meme, insinuating that the recent death of Heather Heyer was a hoax", please change the link from Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. Also, please add an explanation of the connection between Sandy Hook and Heather Heyer, e.g. "...insinuating that the recent death of Heather Heyer was a hoax, and claiming that the mother of Heather Heyer was the same person as the mother of one of the Sandy Hook victims." 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:CC4A:21F3:2F33:20B2 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Birth date needs cite

BLP bio otherwise. Here is one {{cite web|url=https://www.biography.com/people/scott-baio-248812| title=Scott Baio: Television Producer, Actor, Television Actor (1960–)|publisher=Biography.com|archivedate=October 13, 2018|archiveurl=http://archive.is/OqA34|deadurl=no}}</ref>> --2604:2000:1382:C5DD:0:DA07:D6E:614D (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  13:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Biography.com is WP:RS. There was even a WP:RfC about that. Without a cite, we can't give a birth date at all per WP:BLP.--2604:2000:1382:C5DD:0:DA07:D6E:614D (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added the biography.com ref. I'm not seeing a dispute over his age. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion below on his birth year. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Could someone flesh out Early life with this from 1977 interview

Also, here is source for some of his early life. Note that, according to every other biographical source, he lied about his age in this interview. Actors often do that. There's not really any reason for him to have lied about his grade school or where he was born, though: {{cite news|title= An Intimate Interview with Scott Baio|work=[[16 (magazine)|16]]| volume=19|issue=2|date=August 1977|publisher=16 Magazines, Inc.}}

I was born on September 22, 1962 in Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York. ... My mom is Rose and my dad's Mario. He's a used car dealer in Brooklyn ... My brother is Steven and my sister is Stephanie -- they're twins. They're 19 and they both go to college. ... I started out in public school -- I went to kindergarten at P.S. 201 in Brooklyn. ... [F]rom first to eighth grades I was at St. Bernadette's, also in Brooklyn. ... I had an older cousin who was acting and when I was about 8, I got interested. So I went to see some agents and managers and pretty soon I got my first commercial. ... After that I acted in some plays and did some modeling in magazines. When I got the part in Bugsy Malone, I really hadn't been doing anything for a while. ...But I liked Bugsy, and when they were casting for Blansky's Beauties, I decided to try out.

--2604:2000:1382:C5DD:0:DA07:D6E:614D (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This would make the subject 14yo during the interview, one month shy of turning 15, where he doesn't describe any schooling past the intermediate level. How reliable is an interview with someone spending their 2nd consecutive year as an eighth grader?  Spintendo  13:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Actor lie about their ages all the time; that's not the point of the above. Actors don't normally lie about where they were born or their parents' names or where they went to grade school and like that — all of which we have the subject saying in a direct interview in an RS source. --2604:2000:1382:C5DD:0:DA07:D6E:614D (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

Year of birth

In an interview on January 12, 1980 he said he is age 18 years old, making his birth year 1961.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TES4kNzXiO4

5.41.17.226 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a secondary source, see MOS:OPENPARABIO, and that doesn't automatically imply a birth year, even if we could assume it were true. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of explanation of Sexual Assault Claim

I have reverted the deletion of a minor edit by dmies that removed the reason Baio claimed Eggert's claims against him had been undermined by her own prior words. It provides a useful explanation of a well established element of the page and is notable. I'd request it not be deleted again without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgmitchell45 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ronz has now followed me to this article, as well as a prior article I edited, and undone my edits. This is not normal protocol for editing disputes Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol. I would appreciate other editors weighing on on this before I decide whether escalation is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgmitchell45 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Michaelgmitchell45, although I would leave out the word "adamantly." The additional information Michael included is cited in the article, and does help to clarify the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orville1974 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid Michaelgmitchell45 accusation that I'm following him is wrong. Please withdraw the accusation. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Years active; birth date.

An anonymous editor is making the same change repeatedly without explanation.

They are changing Baio's "Years active" to end in 2017 rather than 2015. The last professional date I see is 2015.

They are also are removing one of the disputed birth years, as discussed previously.

As I am at 3RR, I will not be reverting further tonight. If the same changes are made again without discussion, I will revert again tomorrow night, with a WP:3RR warning for them.

Other editors, of course, are free to revert them in the meantime and/or comment on the issues. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how anything beyond 2015 is verified, and proper verification is required per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Called Obama a Muslim and said that the death of Heather Heyer and the Sandy Hook shooting were hoaxes, I don't see why we can't call him a conspiracy theorist.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's OR from what I see so far. What specifically do the sources say on the matter? Do any reliable sources specifically call him that, or use "conspiracy theory" or something similar? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing all the refs, I don't think the category is appropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR, If you believe in that and promote it you're a conspiracy theorist.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please retract or refactor your comment.

If you can indicate a high-quality source as required by WP:BLP, then we can make some progress together. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for refactoring your comment [9]. I'd hoped you might remove more. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: I am responding to the request for a third opinion regarding this issue. Since there is no verified material in the prose of the article that explicitly labels him as a conspiracy theorist, I think it is inappropriate to add the category. As a reminder, any material about living people must include reliable sources or it will be removed. This especially applies to contentious labels, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels for more information. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Found two sources that called him a conspiracy theorist. https://patch.com/connecticut/newtown/soto-family-speaks-out-after-scott-baio-tweets-conspiracy-theory-photo https://apnews.com/e5729f9afc8649db9411bf43e55ba303 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Patch.com is a poor source in general, this specific article looks like tabloid journalism, and it doesn't actually verify the information. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The APNews article doesn't verify the information.

I'll be removing the category if no verification is forthcoming. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source. https://popculture.com/celebrity/news/scott-baio-sandy-hook-conspiracy-twitter/ Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A poorer source that once again doesn't verify the information. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the category. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Senate bid tweet

In November 2020 Baio floated the idea of moving to Utah in order to run against Mitt Romney in 2024 for the United States Senate. Baio floated the idea in response Romney's criticism of Trump.

References

From my perspective, that's a case of WP:NOTNEWS. If there's substantially more to it than a tweet and an article about how some people are upset at Romney, then we might want to revisit it. --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the case of WP:NOTNEWS. It is not as if the subject of this biography routinely announces that he will run or the US Senate. He tweeted the idea that he will run, and it was picked up by a major newspaper in the state. That makes it notable. We don't need WP:109PAPERS to report it to be notable. We just need one WP:RS that is independent of the subject to make it notable. While it's not notable in the article 2024 United States Senate election in Utah (once that article forms), it is certainly notable within the biography of the subject when the subject says that he'll run for the US Senate and a WP:RS reports on it. Banana Republic (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So it's just the one article then, and that article is focused on Romney, not Baio. So NOTNEWS, SOAP, and UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it's a lot more than one single article that quoted Baio

• KUTV
• Fox 13
• Wonder Walls
• MSN (for national coverage)

All those articles (including the original one in the Salt Lake City Tribune) are about Scott Baio, not about Mitt Romney (just look at the titles). Banana Republic (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional refs.

The first is Salt Lake tv news channel, operated by Sinclair. Given this is a political matter, I don't think it should be given any weight, rather it should make us consider whether this is SOAP, propaganda, and NOTNEWS.

The second is a local Fox news bit. Same as above.

The third and fourth are the same article, with MSN simply republishing it. The author is a contributor to WonderWall. We shouldn't be using a contributor's article to an entertainment publisher for political information.

This isn't encyclopedic content at all in my opinion. ArbEnf applies on multiple levels here. If Baio follow up with anything substantial beyond words, we should reconsider including content on the matter. --Hipal (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk)

Political views are out of scope

The section under political views contains topics that are beyond the scope of Baio's political views, and should be broken out into a separate section labeled "controversies". For instance:

"In an interview with Ashley Webster, Baio described President Barack Obama as being "either dumb, a Muslim, or a Muslim sympathizer, and I don't think he's dumb".[25]"

This is not a political view per-se, but a personal opinion as to the intelligence of a political figure. The controversy is the pejorative used against a President.

"On December 15, 2016, Baio accused Nancy Mack, wife of Chad Smith, drummer for Red Hot Chili Peppers, of physically assaulting him at their children's elementary school function. Baio claims Mack began berating and cursing him over his support of Trump and at one point attacked him, grabbing him under his arms and then shaking and pushing him. Mack said she was merely trying to show Baio how Trump hugs women and denies any intentional physical aggression.[26]"

This is not discussing Baio's politics, but an assault that occurred because of the woman's politics. Her assault does not reflect directly on his political views, but hers, and should be under a Controversies sub-section.

"On August 26, 2017, Baio re-tweeted a Sandy Hook "truther" meme, insinuating that the recent death of Heather Heyer and the Sandy Hook shooting were linked hoaxes.[27][28]"

Tweeting a meme does not necessary discern ones political views.

These additions seem to be to link a given party to a specific set of beliefs, and that is pigeonholing and "othering" a group over the particular actions of an individual.

Therefore, these instances and examples should be separated into a section on "controversies" as is common with public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

At a glance, it seems fine. What do the references actually say? --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not read the references, and just glanced at the post?2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If one refuses to look at the content, and admits to such, there can be no discussion based on content. I pointed out that the content in that section should be moved to "controversies" as is usually for public figures.

So, why should it not be moved as such?2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming past editors have worked in good faith to make the article what it is, and have met the requirements of the relevant content policies. If you want to change what consensus there is, you'll have to demonstrate policy-based reason to do so.

I gave the logical reasons. "Good faith" does not mean that errors are not made. What "Policy based" reasons are you saying is required? I gave the reasons why the "Political beliefs" section contains material that is out of scope, and I have not seen any arguments as to why that material is considered in-scope.2601:205:C003:6300:6401:C85A:E85A:886 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy sections should be avoided per policy. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Per what policy?2601:205:C003:6300:6401:C85A:E85A:886 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Logical reasons? Howso? If those "logical reasons" are not based in policy, they don't matter.

If you're not extremely familiar with policy, you face a block or ban quite easily when working on an article like this that falls under multiple sanctions.

Take some time to learn your way around Wikipedia, and strongly consider getting yourself an account.

As far as the section is concerned, see WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE. Review WP:BLP and WP:POV please. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So, looking at the section you linked, it seems that a breakout section is warranted rather than integrated per

"Philosophy, religion, or politics

For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – ::::: it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue ::::: the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." Like I stated above, this biography is written as to conflate the general outlook of a political ideology with that of a person. 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like your own OR still. What do the references actually say? --Hipal (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, are you saying you did not read the references? Are you arguing that because a reference is construing a single persons ideology as representative of that of an entire party?2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on Policy under WP:CRITS these items past stating Baio's political affiliation is out of scope, and should be addressed in a "Criticism of..." sub article. 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're not going to answer questions focusing on policy, and insist on breaking policy, then you're not going to make any progress here. --Hipal (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss the policy I am referencing, or answer any of my questions in good faith. I have pointed out where the policy supports my arguments several times, but you are causing issues and being unproductive. Is that your goal? 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am requesting a resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Scott_Baio 2601:205:C003:6300:D820:FACB:5F9C:4338 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not refusing anything, but if you cannot base your requests on what is in references, we will get nowhere. --Hipal (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You are refusing to be productive. You keep stating "what is in the references" without clarifying if you mean the references you gave me regarding Criticism WP:CRITS or of the references used in the topic of discussion. If it is the later they are moot as they do not address the point I am making. You are being unhelpful, opaque, pedantic and threatening, and thus I requested a resolution on the notice board.2601:205:C003:6300:D820:FACB:5F9C:4338 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

We disagree, and I'm not wasting my time where basic content and behavioral policy is not being followed. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)