Talk:Carl Prine

Untitled

I'm somewhat flummoxed to see that there's a Wikipedia entry about me. I can assure you that in no way am I important enough to either the craft of journalism or the military arts to qualify for one.

That said, it should be noted that the judge found me NOT guilty of trespassing. Moreover, we weren't "caught." We confronted the corporation's security and safety director after concluding our tour of the Neville Island plant and then he called police. This was recorded on the 60 Minutes tape and was broadcast as such.

A history of the episode can be found at PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/expose_2007/episode201/photo8.html

But I'm not important enough for a wikipedia entry. You should use the bandwidth on someone who is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.220.195 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any news articles saying you were found not guilty? Because all of the ones I found said you were. Though it's a $25 fine, so it's more humorous than anything else. And I added a bit more detail about how the police were called, but the sources say that you were stopped by security upon leaving and the police were called. It's actually says that in the 60 Minutes report.

"After awhile, we decided to leave, and it wasn't until after we were off the property that someone finally called out and asked what we were doing. The head of security asked us to walk with him. We agreed to go quietly to the front office, passing along the way a few more open gates. The management at the plant decided to call the police, who asked us to turn off the camera."

And, believe me, you are important enough. You've caused major governmental changes in the way security works and i'm fairly certain that your actions spawned the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards to be created. And we have more than enough bandwidth here.

What are the six factual errors? Because I went straight off the sources. If there's something wrong, then it's the sources that are wrong and I can't do anything about that. Silverseren^C 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The District Court Judge is only an initial step. We appealed her decision and she was overruled as a matter of fact and law. I was found not guilty at Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. I have no idea why our competitor, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, never reported that. Oh, yeah I do.

The pair from "60 Minutes" didn't want to fly out for the appeal, so they just paid their fines.

PBS discusses it both here http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/expose_2007/episode201/photo8.html and on the broadcast, where it goes into more depth about the issue and includes interviews with the editors. Suffice it to say that in both the PBS and "60 Minutes" broadcasts there was no doubt whatsoever that we weren't "caught" at the site. We sought out the director of security and then he called the police.

Again, the Post-Gazette erred and never corrected the oversight. Not the first time for that newspaper. Nor the last.

I haven't checked all the sentences, but other problems (beyond the fact that I would prefer no one have a Wikipedia entry about me because I'm not important) is that I'm not solely a military investigative reporter. I'm probably known in Pittsburgh more for writing about football.

Let's see. I never did any war reporting for The Daily Reporter of Greenfield, Indiana. During our initial two probes into chemical plant security, then with "60 Minutes," we didn't leave business cards. I did that for the railroad series in 2007. That was a failure because my plan was to have the people on the other end of the line call me when they found my card. But no one ever called me.

It made for good photographs, so I guess that was worth it.

The Neville Chemical Co. likely wasn't a member of the American Chemistry Council when "60 Minutes" went through the plant. We never could determine that one way or the other. They were members when I went through it initially. At the time, they thanked me for pointing out security shortfalls.

And there was only a single "60 Minutes" segment and it first aired on Nov. 16, 2003. They repeated it in August of 2004, I think. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/news/s_165532.html

PBS was the one to do the two-part program in 2007 (I think).

FRA actually had compiled thousands of violations but they were at hundreds of facilities. I would have to look up the total numbers. We put them into a searchable database that I think is still up. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/train/

While one security bill for chemical facilities was lobbied out of existence, another measure passed. So did new regulations for railroad security.

Seriously, I wish you guys would just take it down. I really don't want one and I'm not important enough. Not only that, but it looks weird in Pittsburgh. I'm pretty small fry.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.220.195 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 

I've rewritten the court stuff to reflect the proper way things happened and used that source you gave for that. I've also corrected the info about how the police were called.

Do you have any news articles (or other source that is reliable and reputable) you can link me to that are not written by yourself that discuss your affiliation with writing football? I saw a little of that while researching you, but all of the articles were things written by you and I couldn't use that very well. I've already kinda stretched my limit of using primary sources from the subject.

I've re-arranged The Daily Reporter and war information. It doesn't flow all that great, but it should be more accurate, I hope that helps.

As above, do you have a reference not written by you that discusses using the cards for the railroad and not the chemical plants? Because the source I used specifically discusses using them for the chemical plants.

Again, source says that the Neville Chemical plant was a member and was then dropped. If that is incorrect, then I need a new source that discusses that.

I've fixed the 60 Minutes special date and changed it so that it's discussing a single show and not a two-parter.

I don't think saying thousands rather than hundreds is that big of a deal. Staying with the source that says hundreds should be fine, because it has the same effect.

Again, sources for this new legislation? The main issue with this one is that I doubt you can find a source that discusses this legislation in relation to you, so me saying it's an effect of what you did is synthesizing a relationship without proof.

You really don't understand how important you are, huh? The stuff on you is more extensive than most of the other articles on reporters on here. You've made more of an effect than 90% of them. Even if you don't think so, news articles and books that have been written clearly show your importance. Silverseren^C 05:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell you how odd it is to not only talk about myself but to find people who did historically.

Anyway, at the 3:30 mark the judge explains exactly why he found me not guilty.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/expose_2007/episode201/watch2.html

People, however, talk more about my football writing! http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/%20specialreports/specialnfl/s_291033.html

http://steelcurtainrising.blogspot.com/2008/07/watch-tower-excellent-reporting-by-carl.html

http://sportswritingediting.blogspot.com/2005/01/poynter-cites-nfl-injury-project.html

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/040908.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=934&bih=488&q=%22Carl+Prine%22+Roethlisberger&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Again, I can't tell you how weird it is to think that people thought I put my business card onto large vats of chemicals at fixed facilities. That wasn't my MO for the fixed plants. I don't see how these other people would know how did the reporting!

I still wish you would just take it down. I can assure you that I'm not even one of the 100 most important reporters in my own newsroom, much less Pittsburgh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.220.195 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond, Sundays are my busy days and I had some things to do this morning.

I don't think we need to add in why he found you not guilty, we just need to say that you were found not guilty. That in and of itself says enough.

I've used the Judiciary Committee link, that was useful, but the rest isn't so much. Again, stuff written by you isn't something I can use all that much, because we're an encyclopedia, we're meant to be using secondary sources written by separate people about the subject. And I can't use the blogs either, since we need to be using sources that are known to have reliable fact-checking. Unless you can show that the writers of the blogs are important people in and of themselves, I can't use them.

I'm not the one that wrote the news articles about you, I don't know what they were thinking or why they got it so wrong. And are you saying that these 100 other reporters have had full length articles written about them in publications like the San Francisco Chronicle and CBS News? That these other reporters have instigated major reform in government requirements for security in US facilities? If yes to both of those, then I should really get on making Wikipedia articles on them as well. Silverseren^C 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Prine. 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/20110203155331/http://judiciary.house.gov/news/040908.html to http://judiciary.house.gov/news/040908.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)