Talk:John Feinstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] John Feinstein and Duke Lacrosse

John Feinstein was harshly critical of the Duke Lacrosse team and the allegations including rape, against the players. Numerous links show that Feinstein "knew" a crime had occurred, and that the entire team should be expelled. His incorrect and premature condemnation of the players for severe crimes is far more of a "blot" on Feinstein than the item mentioned in the article on his use of a swear on-air in the Duke v Navy game. I aver that over the past few years, Feinstein's behavior and statements around the Duke Lacrosse case are what he's best known for, and that the Lacrosse mess should be included in this article. Feinstein's take on the matter (falsely accusing someone of rape) is at least as bad as Imus's racist remarks on the women's basketball team. (Reading the Wiki on Imus, he appears to say horrible things about all kinds of people without significant negative consequences to himself...I "don't get" Imus in the same way I don't get "Body Integrity Identity Disorder".)

Also, everything after the first sentence in the paragraph mentioning Jim Rome seems superfluous at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.42.178 (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Local controversy"

The Local controversy section, just added this past week, reads more like there's just one or two people resentful of comments Feinstein has made within the past week or so. Its only cited instance of Feinstein not giving Georgetown its supposed "due" is a comment Feinstein made within the past eight days at the time of this writing, and then it uses weasel words and not a single bit of actual evidence to claim that this has caused actual controversy. In light of the fact that Feinstein is a living person, I'm moving the section to the talkpage until citations can be added to back up its claims of controversy. Of course, there's nothing wrong with adding back into the article that Feinstein has said he has issues with Georgetown (though I would say that his issues with Duke are far more noteworthy), since that's the one piece of this paragraph that's actually backed up with a source:

[edit] Local Controversy

Despite covering the Washington, DC area as a sports-journalist, many in the region have called into question his objectivity and professionalism concerning Georgetown University, a significant presence on the local and national collegiate sports scene. Discussing his picks to win the 2007 NCAA Basketball Tournament on the March 20,2007 edition of "Out of Bounds on Fox with Craig Shemon and James Washington" on Fox Sports radio, Feinstein only begrudgingly mentioned Georgetown after being prodding by the talk show's host. He acknowledged that his lack of coverage (on radio and in the Washington Post) of the local university is driven not by the lack of a compelling story but by the fact that he "had too many issues" with the school. Many question the appropriateness of this standard being applied by such a renowned and respected journalist.

Binabik80 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Johnfeinstein.jpg

Image:Johnfeinstein.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 'Hi i am ugly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.71.251 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)