Talk:James Taranto

Untitled

anywords on this guys age? or where he's from?

revert reasons

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)

When I knew him (in the 1980s), he was an atheist and had always been one. He told the story that he was exposed to the idea of God by a teacher in school as a child, and thought the teacher was making it up. Lippard (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Enthicity / Religion

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)

POV Issue

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)

• I agree and have removed the word "notably" from the article. Lordjeff06 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why the Good News Watch should even be here at all. Considering that there are plenty of current Best of the Web features not mentioned in this wiki article, why even mention one that hasn't been around for three years? Can someone explain why the Good News Watch is worthy of keeping in this article? It seems to me the only justification for keeping it is to make a political point about the Iraq War, not to say anything relevant about James Taranto. Can someone provide a more cogent justification for not removing mention of the Good News Watch? (August 1, 2007)

POV Issue

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)

verification of sources

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)

Dead links in examples

I recently replaced examples/exceprts with the dead links (as mentioned by Kim D. Petersen) with fresher ones. On review, I realise that the WaPo link will go dead in a few weeks, but at least the Post has a decent archive. Here's another one from today:

• Would She Have Been So Arresting if She Hadn't Gone Topless?

"New York City Pays $29,000 for Arresting Topless Woman"--headline, CNN.com, June 18

If this link still works in a few weeks, it might make a good example of Taranto's light-hearted media criticism in BOTWT.

Should we mention his "Zero-Tolerance Watch" series? Some of those are really alarming! Cheers, CWC 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This one is too good to miss.

But Only She Would Inhale

"Bernstein: Clintons Would Operate Joint Presidency"--headline, New York Sun, June 20

—BOTWT, June 13, 2007

The Sun archives items after 45 days. Cheers, CWC 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added a quick note on "The Butterfield Effect", because I find it to be a very representative trope of "BOTWT." Bagoly (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Massachusetts 13:59, 10 January 2012

Taranto discusses Wikipedia

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)

Taranto could've written the whole thing himself

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)

Taranto making fun of Kos Kidz: How a Bill Becomes a Law

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)

POV/BLP Problems

User 173.4.204.83 (talk · contribs) recently tagged the article with {{POV-check}}, 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)

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)

Needs third-party sources

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: [1] Are there any others that could be added? Robofish (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Video Interview

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)

Removal of Taranto's reaction to Gabrielle Gifford op-ed

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)

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)

June 2013

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:

1. "Gen. Helms and the Senator's 'Hold'", OpEd, 17 June (appeared in print edition of WSJ)
2. "Meet Col. Williams ", BOTWT, 21 June Williams says Helms was carrying out a statutory duty.
3. "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)

External links modified

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.

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) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)