Talk:Jim Taricani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jim Taricani. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 07:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I'm concerned that this page represents promotion of a stand on a US political issue.

I've added a little to the introduction. As originally written, it didn't even say what country this reporter was from. Food for thought?

I now see that, as justification for the article's being encyclopedic, we have had added to it:

On November 19, 2004, U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd introduced the Free Speach Protection Act of 2004. If passed, this legislation would create a federal shield law.

I notice that Dodd is a Democrat, and his various websites contain quotes such as We can't afford four more years of Bush [1] and Everyone knows the workers of Sikorsky make the best helicopters in the world. Sikorsky should have won this contract hands down. [2].

I'm a long way away from this, but it seems to me unlikely on the information I do have that this shield bill will pass. If I'm wrong in this, then the article should say that it has bipartisan support. If I'm right, then this bill is not IMO encyclopedic information, and should be removed from this article. It's just a bit of the daily manouvres of US politics. If it's the best that can be produced to defend the importance of this man and his imprisonment, then the article should go too.

More food for thought? Andrewa 20:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A few comments on these:

  • Let's get this out of the way first: any who ascribe a political motivation to this article are incorrect. I do not even live in the United States.
  • I actually found the bill via google on a Republican editorial talking about how important the bill was. That said, I really don't know how likely the bill is to pass, since I don't know to what degree that editorial represented the policy of the Republicans. If you know a way to look up who is supporting it at this stage, feel free to do so and add that. (Frankly, your political system is very much a mystery to me.)
  • I don't really feel the other content of Dodd's website is relevent. He introduced the bill, and that's the PR link. Not linking to him would be a lot like not linking to Microsoft's site from the Windows article. If, on the other hand, you can find a link to how great this conviction was, by all means add it.

--Sdfisher 16:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More comments:

  • I found the editorial again, in case it helps you determine the extent of the support: Springfield Republican
  • Unless there are two Rhode Islands or two NBCs, the original article did say which country Taricani was in.
  • Overall, I'm just wondering why you're attributing my errors to malice rather than incompetence. I freely admit to being new here. I'm trying hard not to talk accusations of political bias in a country I don't live in personally. :)

--Sdfisher 16:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry I've offended you, but you don't seem to have addressed the points raised. No accusation of malice was intended.

I certainly spoke of bias. Your not living in the USA doesn't make you ipso facto unbiased IMO, any more than my living in Australia does, nor does your basing your contribution on a political editorial that says in part Taricani is being threatened with jail time for reporting on the news, which appears inaccurate. The threat is for refusing to provide evidence that would help investigate criminal activities, as currently required under US law. The Wikipedia article similarly blurs this distinction. What the US constitution guarantees is freedom of speech. What Taricani seeks (and many other reporters the world over do too) is special powers of investigation, and specifically the right to guarantee the anonymity of their sources.

Both this article and the editorial you quote still seem to me to be political essays. Andrewa 01:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll accept that I was too touchy on that subject. Your last post explains your concerns to me more, and I can see what you mean. I'm not sure how to fix it, though. If you have an idea, please go ahead! --Sdfisher 03:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

This page is completely and utterly biased , especially the last few sentences. Not that I dont agree with it, but personal views or interpretations do not belong on Wikipedia. Can someone fix this, please? 198.7.249.227 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)