Talk:James Taranto

message: 1. I'm removing the "false or misleading statements" bit. It is clearly POV, and citing some blog as "evidence" just won't due. I understand the point; Taranto frequently uses straw man arguments both for polemical and humorous purposes. But that's pretty much the terrain of all political humor. If you really want to make the point, just quoting him and letting readers decide for themselves if his statements are false or misleading would be the way to go.
2. I'm also removing the bit about his Jewish father. I've read a fair bit of Taranto, and he has noted on several occasions while discussing religion that he is non-religious. I've seen no evidence (beyond a recent human interest story about an uncle) that Jewish ethnicity informs his work, or even that he considers himself Jewish. As such I can't see how his father's background is of interest to anyone who isn't a lunatic anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist worried about Jews in the media. But if I'm wrong, by all means correct me. (And sorry if I'm overreacting; I just find it a little creepy because it seems to be pervasive that wiki articles label Jews as such even when it is totally irrelevant.)
- Bert 171.159.64.10 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert reasons 

message: I added the bit about his father merely because Taranto himself mentioned it in his article about his uncle. I just though people might be curious about the origin of his name (he's not Canadian)... It wasn't mean to label him a zionist or one of the jews in the worldwide plot to control the media. But we can keep it out.
Shouldn't there be mention of his callous "bulldozer accident" comments in regard to Rachel Corrie's death? --69.215.77.47 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enthicity / Religion 

message: The statement at the end of the paragraph, "Notably, the last 'Good News Watch' entry is from June 2004", seems a violation of the POV rules. The implication is clearly that the absence of "Good News" from Iraq is an indication of Taranto's opposition to US involvement in Iraq. Mossy64 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Issue 

message: In the third paragraph of the article, there is a statement concerning "parents who support abortion [...]" This would be much more sensible if it read "parents who support abortion rights [...]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.125.92 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Issue 

message: Yes i know that the links should be to the article that Taranto provided with a new headline. But there needs to be verification of the headline not the article pointed to - Taranto's original page with the headline should provide the link.
Most of these have gone dead btw. --Kim D. Petersen 12:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  verification of sources 

message: Best of the Web Today for September 7, 2007 mentions Wikipedia, specifically this AfD (under the heading "Lanny Davis Is Romanian?"). I mention this just in case it ever becomes relevant to the article. Cheers, CWC 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taranto discusses Wikipedia 

message: I see little in this article that couldn't be found in a PR release. Almost nothing is sourced. I think the thing needs a disclaimer/template.
--68.165.6.152 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Taranto could've written the whole thing himself

message: The following quotation from Taranto's The Best of the Web (WSJ, September 16, 2008) serves to counter some of the editing that has been attempted recently on this article.
As a public service on this Constitution Day, we therefore present a lesson for DailyKos readers (and anyone else who could use a refresher) in How a Bill Becomes a Law:
America has what is known as a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. In order for a bill to become a law, it must command a majority of voting members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill that has the support of only one chamber is a legal nullity. This much you could have learned by watching "Schoolhouse Rock," which seems to be where the Kos Kidz' education ended. In real life, though, things are a bit more complicated.
The way the process works is that before voting on a bill, each chamber debates it separately, considering and voting on amendments (changes) introduced by members. The result in many cases is that by the time the House and Senate each vote on a bill, it become two different bills: one that passed the House and one that passed the Senate. Since each bill has passed only one chamber of Congress, neither one can become a law.
Enter the conference committee. This is a group of representatives and senators who meet to hash out the differences between the House and Senate bills. They produce a compromise: a bill on which both houses vote, so that it can become a law. The bill that actually becomes a law is known as a "conference report."
This is what happened with Gramm-Leach-Bliley. The Senate-only version of the bill did pass on May 6, 1999 by a near-party-line vote of 54-44. The House-only version passed, 343-86, on July 1. Neither of these bills, however, became a law. The bill that did become a law--the law about which Sen. Reid and others are complaining now--was the conference report, the bill the Senate approved by 90-8 on Nov. 4. The House passed it the same day, 362-57.
[DailyKos] seems to have mistakenly thought that the "conference report" was a mere procedural action, when in fact it was a vote on actual legislation.
Your servant, Unbeatablevalue (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taranto making fun of Kos Kidz: How a Bill Becomes a Law 

message: User  recently tagged the article with , and rightly so. I've just removed a few WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violations while making some other improvements to the article.
Did I get them all? Could someone else check my work, please, and either remove the tag or fix the remaining problems? Cheers, CWC 12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks fine to me and I have removed the tag. The subject of this article works for the WSJ, which is a paragon of best journalistic practices, and so he is just not very controversial.Jarhed (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/BLP Problems 

message: At the moment, this article is almost entirely sourced to things Taranto has written himself. That's fair enough for quoting him, but Wikipedia articles should contain some references to reliable, third-party sources. Here's an example, an assessment of Taranto that appeared in New York magazine in 2005:  Are there any others that could be added? Robofish (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs third-party sources 

message: Newsbusters has a short video interview of Taranto in which he explains how, as the Newsbusters guy puts it, he "became solidly conservative when his free speech was mugged by liberals". Looks worth using in the article, either as a source or external link. Cheers, CWC 13:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Interview 

message: Amusingly, User:Chris Chittleborough has removed Taranto's reaction to Gabrielle Gifford's op-ed, with the following edit summary: Delete section per WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DoNotImportOutrightLiesIntoBLPs. I assume that Chittleborough is kidding, since the section simply quoted Taranto directly. — goethean 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose this section be removed anyway; it isn't particularly noteworthy. I'll remove it in a week or so, unless someone can show that, in the volumes of content produced by James Taranto and the reactions that arise from them, this particular one deserves special attention. SJCstudent (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Taranto's reaction to Gabrielle Gifford op-ed 

message: The recently-added stuff which was removed in this edit violated WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Anyone wanting to mention this kerfuffle in the article would need to explain who Lt. Gen. Susan Helms, Col. Andrew Williams and Capt. Matthew Herrera are, Senator McCaskill's hold on Helms, etc, etc ... all without unbalancing the article. I do not think it is possible to do this, so I'm not going to try.
For background reading, here are the items Taranto has written about McCaskill and Helms:
# "Gen. Helms and the Senator's 'Hold'", OpEd, 17 June (appeared in print edition of WSJ)
# "Meet Col. Williams ", BOTWT, 21 June Williams says Helms was carrying out a statutory duty.
# "False Witness", BOTWT, 27 June Sample quote: "It is tendentious for McCaskill to treat [Taranto's] distinction between recklessness and assault as a conflation."
Cheers, CWC 16:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2013 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James Taranto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510051042/http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/20/the-taranto-principle-vindicat to http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/20/the-taranto-principle-vindicat
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified