Talk:Matt Taibbi/Archive 1

Untitled thread
Isn't polemical a subjective adjective when used in the first sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstager (talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV? This article reads less like an encyclopedia entry than an angry letter to the editor of a provincial newspaper. Without even bothering to adress the accuracy of the facts mentioned or the lopsidedness of their seleciton, the style of this article is way out of line for wikipedia guidlines.

I don't know if removing that rant was totally necessary, thought in it present form it can only detract from the article. The Nolle affair is relevant, but probably belongs in an article about eXile, maybe linked to from here.


 * "He attracted considerable media attention following his scathing though highly incredible piece on Goldman Sachs." The only citation provided for this bit of opinion is that of the piece itself.  I am removing the nonsense about "highly incredible" unless someone can back it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.145.22 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a Picture? Dsol 16:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Gotten; 4 years later. :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New Info
The national scandal about the Pope Mockery and the libel history are obviously relevant and need to be included. Do not delete!!! Peter D. Ekman
 * Yes they should go in since they are relevant. They need to go in in a better way though.  I'm leaving it for now, I don't have time.
 * Ok I have a bit of time now. I agree that his article on the pope's death was notable, but his quote about libel is not really so notable outside of the eXile article.  It doesn't tell us too much about Taibbi, and is certainly not what he's known for: for example, his daily show interview didn't even mention the eXile, nor have his many interviewa in Mother Jones, united press, etc.  So I'm taking it out for now, though it might make sense to put it back in if it could be placed in the context of an entire section on his ideology of journalism and politics, and how that' changed over the years.  Interestingly, he seems to be trying to put his eXile past behind him somewhat.  I wonder when he last wrote for them.  It would be great to get this angle in, but I don't know how we could without violating NOR. Dsol 01:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I've followed this link, http://www.catholicvoiceoakland.org/todaysnewsarchives/todaysnewsMar0905.htm#today4, and the it is simply not true that Taibbi's boss was fired for writing the pope death article. That's not what the link says, anyway. Dsol 02:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Lose the whole Controversy section
The whole "Controversy" section is aimless and confusing. It adds nothing. Such a series of reactions and disputes concerning one of Taibbi's pieces is out of place and distracting in a short biographical article. That section should be deleted.Dratman (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Tests for Relative Relevance
Dsol 02:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Matt Taibbi" +libel -"sex. drugs and libel" -- 338 (testing the relevance of his connection to libel besides the title of his book)
 * "Matt Taibbi" +pope -- 929
 * "Matt Taibbi" +eXile -- 18,700
 * "Matt Taibbi" +election -- about 35,000

"denounced"
The article says that taibbi's peice on the pope's death was denounced by h.clinton, matt drudge, and bloomberg. is this true? if someone doesn't provide citations in a day or two, I'm taking it out. Dsol 02:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Koyen forced out
A) A reasonable summary of the link YOU inserted would not say that the Koyen's quitting was "unrelated." B) I only put "forced out" C) See http://www.gawker.com/news/media/commentary/jeff-koyens-exit-interview-035157.php http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/ps/20050308/111027927700.html
 * I didn't insert the catholic news link. The sources seem to contradict each other here.  I will work on this later. Dsol 14:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * minor apology, I did first put in that link it seems, but it was you who 1st put in the POV interpretation of it. The other links are crystal clear, so I'll just take out the "unclear" link.


 * Also the libel sentence needs to go back in. It's clearly important when a journalist makes such comments about libel laws.


 * The libel sentence you inserted is clearly POV. According to the article you cite, Taibbi did not say that "weak Russian libel laws were crucial to the operation of the eXile." What he said was "We were out of the reach of American libel law, and we had a situation where we weren’t really accountable to our advertisers. We had total freedom." Most if not all countries are out of reach of American libel laws, including Russia. If it is necessary to put something in about libel and Taibbi, as seems to be your mission, then simply state what he said here, and don't project your own personal grudge please. User:Tictoc 02:23, 09 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, you have your facts wrong on Koyen. According to article you cite, the publisher said Koyen was forced out for disobeying him over placing a picture in the Pope issue. Koyen said he was forced out because the publisher couldn't handle the controversy. And Taibbi said Koyen was forced out in a broad coup engineered by previous publisher and columnist Russ Smith. So this section should be rewritten. User:Tictoc 02:23, 09 December 2005 (UTC)

IndyMedia Link
Hi, somebody (good old 68.236.67.106 and we know who he is, but lets pretend we don't) keeps hyping this link: "Matt Taibbi Hypocrisy Watch" (Chicago Indymedia April, 2006)

The original poster of this link is engaged in linkspam. This is immediately evident when one examines his malicious edits made to New York Press and The Beast (newspaper). The linked article itself appears in Chicago IndyMedia, is written by an anonymous author and has a current rating of -1. Also, its entire premise is asinine. Please stop assisting this linkspam. --Ryan Utt 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a general policy for using/not using indymedia as a source? That article treads a fine line between journalism and web forum post, IMO.  Dsol 17:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Excessive

 * Are links to twenty separate articles penned by Taibbi really necessary?


 * I'm not even certain that writers like Mark Steyn, William F. Buckley Jr. or Christopher Buckley-who are more famous than him-have that many.


 * Wouldn't linking to four or five of his most important-or controversial-columns and/or essays suffice? Ruthfulbarbarity 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to trim. Dsol 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Too many articles. Luigibob 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry
Is he Lebanese American? Badagnani 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Philipino / Irish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.125.219 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Matt taibbi promo.jpg
Image:Matt taibbi promo.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry
What is his ancestry? Is he Lebanese American? Badagnani (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I always thought that his father (Mike Taibbi) was Sicilian. I never knew Taibbi was a Lebanese surname.  But this makes sense now.  Taibbi is a very popular surname in Sicily, and could have been imported by past waves of immigration from the Middle East (see Arab Emirate of Sicily).  I'm certain that Mike Taibbi is from Boston.  Coincidentally, Boston's North End once had a sizable population of immigrants from Sciacca, in Agrigento, Sicily.  Ironically, Sciacca (from Syac, al Saqquah, or Shai al Quaaum) is a Sicilian town of Arab origins.  If you look at this map, you can see that most Sicilian Taibbi's are from the Agrigento area: Taibbi Map:: As for his true ancestry, I guess it's still a mystery.  I can't find anything online.  Maybe someone could e-mail him at NBC? --Salvuzzo (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

clarification from the subject
Hey editors, or volunteers: please be wary of Peter Ekman. This guy has a hard-on for me because of an old grudge dating back to the exile about ten years ago. About once every six months I come back to Wiki and find factual errors in here (ie my birthday) and I wouldn't be surprised if some of this was him. Regarding libel, if you asked me today what I meant, I would say that before I publish anything in America, I have to be vetted by lawyers who fear a lawsuit. There are times when I can't call someone a name because the lawyers worry he might sue. I didn't have that problem in Russia. I always maintained, in Russia, that our investigative reporting was 100% accurate and would have survived any legal scrutiny. What we didn't have to worry about was nuisance lawsuits from people like, well, Peter Ekman. As for my ethnicity, I'm Irish and Filipino. My father's adopted parents were Sicilians. Anyway, thanks for the good work overall. Taibbi (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Matt Taibbi. (moved to page bottom by Dsol (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Untitled thread
NPOV? This article reads less like an encyclopedia entry than an angry letter to the editor of a provincial newspaper. Without even bothering to adress the accuracy of the facts mentioned or the lopsidedness of their seleciton, the style of this article is way out of line for wikipedia guidlines.

I don't know if removing that rant was totally necessary, thought in it present form it can only detract from the article. The Nolle affair is relevant, but probably belongs in an article about eXile, maybe linked to from here.


 * "He attracted considerable media attention following his scathing though highly incredible piece on Goldman Sachs." The only citation provided for this bit of opinion is that of the piece itself.  I am removing the nonsense about "highly incredible" unless someone can back it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.145.22 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a Picture? Dsol 16:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Gotten; 4 years later. :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede sentence
I have removed "award winning" from the lede sentence as unneeded and peacocky. What do others think? Also, what is the "standard/policy" for this? TIA --Tom (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Taibbi an author?
The word "author" is missing from the opening paragraph about Mr. Taibbi. From what I can see, he has published four books which have been reviewed in the likes of Publishers Weekly and Time Magazine. Can editors please post their opinions.

Regarding a definition of the word I found the following - Websters dictionary - the writer of a literary work (as a book).

Encyclopaedia Britannica - one who is the source of some form of intellectual or creative work; especially, one who composes a book, article, poem, play, or other literary work intended for publication.Clearwaterbehind (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To not appear to be hating on "journalist", find a WP article of a journalist who has never written a book of all original material that is introduced in the lead as an "author". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution, I don't think that should be the measure of whether he is an author or not. What references/evidence is there to back your opinion that he "has never written...." and where was it decided that that is the measure of an author?

Can other editors please contribute opinions on whether writing five books (that's what is written in the About the Author section of Griftopia) is sufficient to consider Mr. Taibbi an author.Clearwaterbehind (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a measure, it is called a RS and the lead uses one. Come up with one yourself and we're talking. As I said earlier to someone else, your opinion doesn't matter nor does mine; RS's matter.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A reliable source what, please be as specific as possible so that we can come to an understanding more quickly? Please provide the a link to the wikipedia rule/policy related to your view on this matter.Clearwaterbehind (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Others may like to help you in the area of RSs, but none are obliged to so when it is demanded, or otherwise requested of them. If you make an edit unsupported by a RS, it will not stand. I think I have said my last word on this matter. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not very helpful, I am trying to discuss a change prior to making it. I have sources that call him an author. I just don't want this to become an edit war.I will make that change, including the sources. Please allow others to contribute their opinion on this matter before reverting. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added in that Mr. Taibbi is an author. He has written five books, but to avoid arguments with another editor, I have included only those that are not partially or wholly made up of previously published materials. Opinions from other editors would be greatly appreciated regarding this matter. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added four references to show he is an author, I don't think we should have all four on the page. Once other editors have contributed their opinions on whether Mr. Taibbi is indeed an author, I'd be happy to remove some of them to clean the page up.Clearwaterbehind (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless other editors have a contribution on this matter, it appears to be closed for now. Another editor has chosen to remove the four references I provided showing that Mr. Taibbi is an author, and this is fine with me. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Polemical"
Some editors think calling MT "polemical" is offensive, but admirers disagree. Here are examples to help edify the those unlettered editors, one of whom thinks someone thinks MT is not controversial!
 * Felix Salmon:  Taibbi’s piece, to me, was clearly polemical journalism — and good polemical journalism at that.. He also said "Matt Taibbi is, by some margin, the best polemical journalist in America.
 * Peter Goodman for the NYTimes Book Review. He has written a polemic, a full-scale indictment of Wall Street and Washington, one that sometimes veers toward ranting, yet serves as a needed antidote to the more even-tempered but fatuous accounts already available.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, a San Antonio Express-News article says the following about Taibbi: ""Griftopia," Matt Taibbi: Rolling Stone's gonzo political reporter makes reading about the recent meltdown of the economy more entertaining than it ought to be. Taibbi, an opinionated, often profane writer, knows conservatives are likely to shun anyone from his liberal mag, and he's no fan of Sarah Palin, for instance." "Opinionated" seems to fit in with "polemical." Drrll (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think polemical imputes that strongly, to the point that the phrase "polemical and opinionated" is redundant. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually support "polemical" over "opinionated," especially with the NYT source. Drrll (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Taibbi's style is polemical, but to me, saying he is a "polemical journalist" sounds like a putdown implying that ,therefore, you do not have to take him seriously. Also, it should be noted that he is a writer/author as he has published a number of books. Ekem (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is source for polemical cited . Unless there is a source to counter that, opinion (POV) has no effect on including it or not. BTW, many editors seem to think that polemical is a perjorative, but I doubt any of them have looked at a dictionary in forming that opinion. I would hazard to guess that a corrupting culture of even handedness is to blame. I also hope there is no suggestion that journalism is not possible by a "writer/author" in his "published...number of books." The opposite is the truth, and Taibbi is a great example. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an unusual introduction using an epithet in the very opening line, when just saying that he is a "political writer and journalist" would be more appropriate, accurate and less limiting. I have no problem to the application of the term "polemical" (for which there is one citation) in the opening paragraph, but think that it should be used in the further characterization, and I doubt that the current reference covers all his writing as implied now.talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was a source to confirm your doubt, we could act on it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The unusual introduction is based on the opinion of a single "financial blogger". My doubt is based on the fact that his comments are only focused on a review of Giftopia. Are all of Taibbi's writings polemical? Are Taibbi's contributions to sports polemical? - I am not even arguing that what Taibbi writes at this time is not polemical, I agree it is, all I am suggesting is that it is sounder to use a neutral introductory line and utilize the "polemical" epithet in the follow-up of the paragraph.Ekem (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More care should be taken. Salmon is not, as he was misleadingly described, just a "financial blogger" ( he reports for Rueters), the source has been misread (Salmon did not limit applying polemical to "Griftopia"), and polemics are possible in sport writing, as even a cursory look at the definition of the word would reveal. I also hope no one still thinks MT can't be called a journalist because his articles are compiled in books, and that polemical is a "put-down." These unlettered arguments are too many. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More care should be taken, indeed. According to his article, Salmon is a "financial blogger", but I did not say that he is "just a "financial blogger"" - that is your modification, and "polemical" covers a lot of gound as seen by its different synonyms, including belligerent, combative, contentious, contrary, controversial, disputatious, eristic, factious, fire-eating, having a chip on one's shoulder, litigious, opinionated, polemic, pugnacious, quarrelsome, salty, scrappy, spiky, touchy, - thus to call him a "polemical journalist" can mean different things to different people, not all being positive. No wonder there is a discussion and disagreement about the term being in the opening line.Ekem (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still as careless as ever. Left out of "financial blogger", was "at Rueters", so were talking pretty substantial journalist credentials here, especially in light of his resume. That takes care of the Salmon-doesn't-rate meme. Yes, polemical can mean good or bad. Shall we get a clue and recognize that the word is nuetral? In this case it was admiringly applied by Salmon. Polemical journalism has a noble tradition, H.L. Menken and Sy Hersh, for instances, but so much of contemporary journalism has become obsequious, having been hindered by affecting the appearance of fairness and even handedness. The result is kiss asses who idolize and try to protect those they cover. (See  MT's | Lara Logan You Suck to see how bad it has become.) There are very good definitions of polemical, but they may have been not cited since they greatly weaken the polemical=bad arguments. Using synonyms to define a word is pointless and silly. I'm still interested to know why MT could not be journalist because his articles have been compiled in books, and all sports writing lacks polemics. Those careless and poorly arguments seem to have been abandoned after having been pointed out as lame. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP's articles about H. L. Mencken and Sy Hersh have great encyclopedic opening lines, Taibbi's is limiting and ambiguous; you have not convinced me otherwise. Please do not misconstruct what I write and save yourself the time to then argue against it. That sports writers can be polemical is a truism, - I indicated that I cannot be certain that Taibbi's sports writing was polemical (it is possible, but where is the proof? Salmon is a financial expert), and I did not say that "MT could not be a journalist", rather I suggested to expand his characterization in the opening noting that he wrote books.Ekem (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinion doesn't matter, neither does mine; RS's matter. So where's yours? Sy Hersh (who is called an "investigative journalist" in his WP article setting a good precedent for "polemical journalist") has written books and so did Menken (who also wrote a dictionary and many music criticisms). MT has not written "books" since all his books are compilations of articles. Again, despite having the benefit of being being informed of this fact, you have not done your research and have stuck to a mistake. Though much effort went into making it seem so, arguments to establish "polemical" as a bad word, or a mark of shame, have been dropped. Can I now assume we agree the word is a neutral one? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are placing yourself at variance with Taibbi when you declare that he is not writing books but compilations of articles as he indicates that just one chapter (Chapter 7) of his book Griftopia represents an updated article previously published, and concerning The Great Derangement, he gives no indication that any chapter had been published before as an article. Regarding "polemical", as you put it "polemical can mean good or bad", - well, that means it is an ambiguous term. Please read what I wrote, so I do not have to repeat myself, that is all I have to tell you, and have a nice life.Ekem (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty weak. "Cop" can mean good or bad but no one calls it "ambiguous." So much for that logic. The unlettered might think "polemical" it is a perjorative, but the ignorant are not our concern. I'm astounded that one updated and one unpublished article added to a compilation makes MT a book author, when he is in fact a periodical essayist. Now if he wrote a book of almost completely original pieces, I could make the jump.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A point regarding the comment - "rv unsourced POV with erroneous axioms that "polemical" means inaccurate and someone thinks MT is not controversial" - I did not suggest that polemical means inaccurate. I suggested that what Mr. Taibbi writes is accurate and as such may not be considered controversial. You jump to conclusions and accuse people who commented earlier of being "ignorant", hardly constructive.
 * BTW, the authoritative Websters dictionary defines an author as - the writer of a literary work (as a book). And Encyclopaedia Britannica defines an author as - one who is the source of some form of intellectual or creative work; especially, one who composes a book, article, poem, play, or other literary work intended for publication.
 * Both rather well, to use you oft repeated word, lettered.
 * Clearwaterbehind (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So why is MT so controversial? Believing that accuracy precludes controversy is absurd.  In the real world MT has ticked off and embarassed many with his accuracy. Just ask Goldman Sachs, who have yet to substantially find fault with him, but will bear forever the scarlet letter he stuck on them.  It's his polemical tone that is so objected to, and it conveniently allows his detractors to use it to avoid discussing the many  merits of his reporting. Finally, when MT actually pumps out a book that is not a compilation  of almost completely previously published essays, he'll then be a book author. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Believing that accuracy precludes controversy is absurd" - I did not suggest this, and I am sure that you don't know what I believe. And your opinion of what is considered an author is irrelevant.Clearwaterbehind (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy now. I always have regarded him as an author, but the world sees him as a journalist, a word that, as every intelligent reader knows, suggests "author" and much more that is specific and applicable. Earlier it was said "I suggested that what Mr. Taibbi writes is accurate and as such may not be considered controversial." Do you have a point to make that is somehow relevant to the lead?  The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's call this to an end. Unless others have opinions to contribute?Clearwaterbehind (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Goldman Article
Nothing in here mentioned about the 2009 Goldman article. Are we waiting for something here? Probably should say something about the contents and the controversy generated. Maybe include the responses of Goldman execs and other journalists to the piece, as they were very polarized regarding the article. Musing Sojourner (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the lede with a link to the Rolling Stone article. Feel free to expand in the body of the article, but make sure the info is well-referenced and does not give undue weight to this single event. Happy editing! Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit busy, can't really do too much editing right now. Question though... what would be considered undue weight? I'm pretty sure much of the subject's publicity recently has come from this article, and it will continue to be a source of intense debate over the next few years, especially if Goldman continues to be a leading investment bank. I'll get to expanding on it when I have time but I'd like some thoughts from experienced editors before I plunge in. Musing Sojourner (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A well sourced paragraph outlining the repurcussions of the Goldman article and why it was significant would be perfect. You just don't want the single incident overshadowing the entire article. Hopefully some interested editors will come along and hammer out a blurb on it. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find some discussion on the GS Talk page, with links to controverting articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goldman_Sachs#Does_this_belong_here.2C_does_it_actually_say_anything_believable.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.4.182.17 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Taibbi and libel
In interest of fairness I let Taibbi quote speak for himself rather than Peter Ekman paraphrasing Taibbis words. I think this is fair and hope to keep the edit civilized and with discussion. User:Tictoc

Andrew Breitbart
So how many times does this need to be mentioned? It is currently in the article twice. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, none. At the very least it needs a WP:RS. And then we can talk about whether to include it. -- Irn (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided multiple reliable sources and yet my edit has been removed. This is notable. It warrants inclusion. Breitbart and Taibbi are both notable media personalities, the latter moreso than the former, so this should be included. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Fox article hardly says anything, and does not support the claim that Taibbi "came under fire". Another source is a blog, and the third is about vandalism to his Wikipedia article. I see no reason to talk about the vandalism. However, if this garners more attention and actually becomes a controversy and not just one report of "disturbing thoughts" and some vandalism, I wouldn't be opposed to its inclusion. Do you have sources showing that this is a controversy? If it is, they should be pretty easy to come by. -- Irn (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Fox says nothing, they just quoted and pasted a screen grab without comment. We can't tell whether they agree with Taibbi that Breibart is a douche or not. And yes, the Daily caller is not an WP:RS. It declared on its launch We have five launch sponsors: The Auto Alliance, the Chamber of Commerce, the Southern Company (a power firm), Broadband for America, and the National Mining Association. A rogue's gallery. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Forbes' take on it? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Forbes article looks like a RS. It seems pretty thorough in reporting that Taibbi, dispite his "kinda like" of AB, called him a "douche", adding that Breibart would "“insulted if I didn’t give him one last kick in the balls on the way out the door”. The article also draws attention to AB's own dancing on Ted Kennedy's grave. Either be bold or post what you would like herr for comments. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. First you tell me it's an appropriate source to use, and then you remove it from the article and say it's not an appropriate source. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at my edit summary and go from there. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Brusque Treatment
This seems like a pretty rushed, vaguely negative article. Taibbi's one of the best idiosyncratic journalists and stylists in a number of years. There's no mention of the content of his books, election coverage, Goldman Sachs, etc. Taibbi's arguably cooler and more interesting a human being than "Lady Gaga," and I'm sure her article is exponentially more robust. I could edit this (I know his career very well,) but I'm sure a flotilla of Wikipedia source/grammar nerds would crash down abruptly, killing the party. It's no fun dealing with these nerds--whereas 10 really intelligent people who know a lot about Matt Taibbi could probably crowdsource a good article. It's your Wikipedia, geniuses.

Lorryrider (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think you can improve it, why not give it a shot? This article receives relatively little attention (just look at how little use this talk page gets). As long as you adhere to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you shouldn't have any problems. And if you're worried about running into problems, that's why there's a talk page. Cheers. -- Irn (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Taibbi/Archive 1

Political views
Curious: George Will, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart, Thomas Sowell, et. al. are all labeled conservative on Wikipedia, generally without citation. So, why is it unacceptable to label Matt Taibbi liberal? Sonar1313 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because if you read anything he's ever written, it's pretty obvious that he is not. Not unless you consider Richard "Cloth Coat" Nixon a liberal as well. From his writing, Taibbi would appear to be political but not in the liberal-conservative false-dichotomy sense. He regularly skewers both parties. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Matt Taibbi. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholicvoiceoakland.org/todaysnewsarchives/todaysnewsMar0905.htm#today4

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPN
I have raised the issue of the recent restoration of an attack on the subject of this article at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, wrong talk page. I intended the above for Talk:Michael Wines but I may as well leave the message here anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Matt Taibbi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071214091150/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/nationalaffairs/index.php/category/matt-taibbi/ to http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/category/matt-taibbi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Docu appearance
I saw him last night in an episode of "Cyberwar"(Viceland). It is a 2017 docu, including Trump's inauguration. Taibbi spoke of the 1996 Yeltsin election in Russia and how they 'shaped' it. 2001:8003:A921:6300:E1E1:49AA:7F0B:F628 (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Harassment allegations
No mention in this section that the women identified as being the target of harassment have categorically denounced the allegations and praised Taibbi's professionalism during his time in Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.203.118 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

blp
Do we need to add the BLP discretionary sanctions banner here?

I have rev del'd where source did not support content, or where there is no source. Please provide full documentation for any cite. For a book, that includes page number. Reddit is not a reliable source. '''Final notice to all and sundry. Anyone adding negative unsourced BLP material may be blocked without further notice.''' Please discuss controversial edits on talk. Thanks! Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not quite sure how to summarize all this salacious content, but the blow jobs are documented here, "Two Journos Once Detailed Asking Their Female Employees For Blow Jobs". Their asking female employees for unprotected anal sex is actually in their book--the page is here, so the whole "Nearly every day, we asked our female staff if they approved of anal sex. That was a fixation of ours. ‘Can I fuck you in the ass? Huh? I mean, without a rubber? Is that okay?’ It was all part of the fun,” " is verified in their own writing. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The content I rev del'd was not cited from any source or from a questionable source. Does The Daily Caller suffice? Hopefully this is being discussed at the BLPN notice board. I'm at work and drawing funny looks for my non work activities, so have limited time. Please proceed as you think best. My first thought was to protect the subject and the project, but hopefully you can see things more clearly from where you are. Thanks again. My call lights are on. Gotta log off again.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Hope you made some real money. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does this stand right now? I just checked BLPN, and I didn't see any mention of Taibbi, but there is a section for Ames (with only the original poster and no responses). Is there a conversation happening somewhere else that I'm unaware of, or is this it? Because I think something about this ought to be included. And it's not just the Daily Caller; at this point, it's also been picked up by the Chicago Reader and Reuters, among others. -- irn (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * irn, it doesn't really "stand" anywhere; we edit as usual. Article is under semi-protection (which is about to run out; I'll check later today to see if that needs to be renewed). Go ahead and improve/add--there is no doubt in my mind that this content is worth including, but of course it needs to be sourced properly, which is why User:Dlohcierekim protected it in the first place. This is a better Reuters' link. Oh, the whole article needs work, I remember now--we really need to get rid of "Controversy" and put those bits in the regular biography (and I think they need to be shortened); I suggest you incorporate the Russia material in that text as well. Thanks--I'd do it, but I got some other things on my desk this morning. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! How's this look? Also, apparently, if you keep scrolling slightly past the end of the article on the Reuters website, it automatically changes the URL to whatever the next article is. (I was very confused as to how I had linked that article.) Cheers, -- irn (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that scrolling was odd--I figured the article was in some earlier version. I found it confusing, but then did a search on the website. I appreciate the contextualization you gave for the book. Let's see how this goes, and whether there is a justification for the more salacious material (which, BTW, baffled me--people talk like that?). Drmies (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This is written too much at the moment as "although Taibbi denies these things actually happened, they probably did you know", due to the general phrasing and the fact that the last line notes (without explanation or comment) that the book describes itself as non-fiction (this point has been addressed IRL by Taibbi and the publisher AFAIK). Plus as noted it would be better integrated into the main eXile section (although arguably because the furore blew up again recently, it could be treated as a thing in its own right).  N-HH   talk / edits  10:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This piece might be useful as background in helping to write this up a bit better. It's very critical of Taibbi & Ames but includes the publisher's observations re "non-fiction" and cites people who worked with them, as well as noting there are no actual allegations against them.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I added a brief reference to a Washington Post Outlook section article today. I think we may want to break out this stuff as a separate section of subsection. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tbh not sure what this adds. It's a polemical comment piece by a random fellow journalist. You can agree or not that any criticism in it is warranted, but the tendency to create whole sub-sections on pages devoted to telling the world how terrible the subject of that WP page is, sourced to one-off pieces of commentary, is often not helpful. Does this piece add anything factual to Taibbi's biography? And if it is included, should we not also not note that he is quoted in the piece apologising to her?  N-HH   talk / edits  23:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this woman's piece "polemical." It was factual and no, it is not much of an apology though it can be added. Coretheapple (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's bascially her recounting in an op-ed how terrible she thinks Taibbi and Ames are, which seems to fit the description "polemical" to me, or at least "commentary". As I asked, what in terms of *facts* does this add to this biography? WP pages are not character assessments. And either way, if we have her criticism, we should have his cited response, whether you think it is "not much" or not.  N-HH   talk / edits  23:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have the response now. She goes into detail concerning how she and other journalists who did not work for that publication were attacked in misogynistic fashion by Taibbi and Ames. That is new. I think it deserves a sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue of accusations of general mysogyny aimed at the eXile is, as pointed out, already included at the beginning of the Career section. As I also said, I don't see how just suddenly highlighting this one piece by a marginal writer, paragraphs down the page, adds much to that. Indeed it just make the page even more bitty and sprawling than it already is.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's an important difference, though, between noting that the eXile was accused of misogyny and Lally's description of specific misogynistic attacks by Taibbi against her. I don't know how much detail we need to go into, but Taibbi wasn't merely the editor of a publication accused of misogyny; he himself made misogynistic attacks against at least one individual. -- irn (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but I always try and remember WP bios are meant to be exactly that: a biography, not a lauundry list of critical commentary, whether legitimate or not. Piling on individual bits of criticism like this is rarely helpful, plus if it does stay it needs to be incorporated coherently. As noted, this section is getting a bit sprawling (and, as you say, there's issues around being clear about what's Taibbi vs what's the eXile as a whole and/or Ames etc).  N-HH   talk / edits  10:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's definitely something we need to keep in mind, and it would be a lot better if we could balance it with more of his career. As it is, I've moved it into its own section (with everything from The eXile), which I think incorporates it a bit more coherently into the article as a whole, and I removed the long quotation, which struck me as a bit gratuitous. -- irn (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that we don't "pile on" stuff in biographies. I actually stopped by here to see if the Washington Post stuff was used appropriately and was surprised to find it not used at all. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Taibbi. 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/20090717004602/http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/ to http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

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) 22:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Exile, again
Per this revert, the edit summary explains the problems. As discussed above, this is also a WP:BLP. I'm not clear how highlighting random quotes like this and suggesting that these things actually happened, when the point at issue is that they are disputed, is helpful, on style or content grounds, to writing an actual encyclopedia page which is intended to simply *summarise* an individual's history.  N-HH   talk / edits  22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you regarding the quotation itself - it's definitely WP:UNDUE. However, there's nothing in the word "describe" that implies that what is being described is true. What the book describes is sexual harassment; whether that sexual harassment actually happened doesn't change that fact. -- irn (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course the book describes sexual harassment. NHH may think that the description is false - based on what I don't know. Sticking in "apparent" makes it seem like somebody is reading something into it.  Nobody is reading anything into it - it's just a simple description of sexual harassment.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Arguably this is a bit pedantic and introducing unnecessary wordiness, and "describe" can be taken more neutrally (and of course you can fictionally "describe" something), but it also can – and will by some – be read as implying these things did happen and that this is an accurate account of them. There is no evidence of that currently; indeed all the evidence available points to them not having happened. Not going to edit war over it, but I think the additional qualification of "appears to .." on balance helps when dealing with an account which is fiction masquerading as fact; I certainly don't see any reason why it absolutely cannot be there.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that we deal with the "fictional masquerading as fact" aspect well enough in the text after that sentence, that we don't need to reinforce it with additional wordiness in that sentence. Especially when that wordiness complicates things further by raising doubts about whether what is described is sexual harassment as opposed to whether what is described actually happened. -- irn (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

N-HH has removed my phrase that approx "Taibbi did not apologize to Lally for the other harassment" NHH in the edit summary implied that I'm making up the other harassment. Prior to my change our text implied that Lally was satisfied with the apology, which is certainly not the case.

Lally gave specifics about over a half-dozen episodes of harassment by Taibbi against her. Do I have to list them? Taibbi apologized simply for criticizing her via physical description. If you think that Lally was satisfied with the apology, you haven't read her article.

Her specific description of the apology is

"In a Facebook exchange with me, Taibbi gave some ground. “I certainly would not go about things now the way I did back then,” he wrote. “And I apologize for the physical descriptions. That was gratuitous and uncalled for.” But before he stopped answering my questions, he took some jabs"

So let's not imply that Lally accepted Taibbi's apology. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. Let's not go beyond what Taibbi actually said and didn't say. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lally implies, but she doesn't explicitly state, that Taibbi only apologized for the physical descriptions. It's possible that Taibbi offered a longer apology, and Lally just left that out. I don't think that's true, but because it could be, it strikes me as OR to say that he didn't apologize for anything else. I think what we would need to do is make it clearer that Lally's allegations go far beyond "physical descriptions". But I don't want to give too much space to this one article, and I wonder if we even need to mention Taibbi's reaction? He doesn't deny anything, and saying that he would do things differently now adds nothing beyond a recognition that Taibbi has matured from his time as an editor at a magazine known for its immaturity. And all we're left with is a partial apology, recognizing only that he had gone too far in that one aspect of their dealings, which also adds very little. -- irn (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As my edit summary says, the article does not state that he "did not apologise for the other harassment". This is pure interpretation, added by a WP user in WP's voice. And it not only accuses him of not apologising, when this is not clear, but asserts that other actions/words of his amounted to harassment. You may believe it to be a fair interpretation, but it cannot stay here as if it were a fact. By contrast, removing it, and simply leaving what he did say, does not imply Lally accepted his apology – not that whether she did or not is particuarly relevant to his bio anyway – simply that he made it in the terms that he did (btw imo if the criticism is in, so should this be, since as noted it shows that he regrets some of his eXile stuff, which is useful info for his biography). Sorry, but this is fairly basic stuff in terms of both logic and WP editing standards. As ever, this is getting bogged down in detail because people are too keen to try and score points.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you misread my comment - I don't disagree with you that it's OR. If you're adamant that the response from Taibbi be included, then I think we do need to expound upon the accusations beyond simply stating "misogynistic attacks" because the apology only encompasses a small fraction of the accusations. -- irn (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I was trying to respond to as much as I could of all the above posts simultaneously really. I'd clocked that we seemed to agree on the OR point at least. My position overall has more been that I'm not sure we need this level of detail, sourced to individual op-eds written by people who clearly have issues (justified or otherwise) with Taibbi and Ames, at all. I don't think selectively citing and quoting fairly random criticism like this, which act in effect as almost primary sources in this kind of context, ever improves a WP BLP. If we're relying on media sources, it's much better to look for more objective, fuller profile-type pieces and rely on their summaries of any controversies. But if we have this one, and her accusations, we need some acknowledgment of the response.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have to agree. Reverted. -BeebLee (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/829341117 edit summary says all you need to do is show another apology in the source, but Wikipedia cannot state a negative solely based on something a source doesn't say. -BeebLee (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is very clear on what was said and what was not said. Please don't play tautological games. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source does not say "He did not apologize for X," and Wikipedia can't simply infer that. There's nothing tautological about that. Other users pointed out the same thing above when this passage was first inserted in the article. It can't stay in this BLP article. --BeebLee (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lally says that he did several things that offended her and then listed the two apologies he gave, and then said he went on to take an additional jab at her. Her story is very clear. It seems that you are accusing her of leaving something out and misleading the reader.  Wikilawyering to blame the victim - shame on you. If you think that she thought the apologies were adequate, you're reading a different article than I read. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you can point to where the text says that Taibbi did not apologize for anything else, it's interpretation, and interpretation is WP:OR. I think it's a valid interpretation, but it's still interpretation. I'll repeat what I wrote above: I think what we would need to do is make it clearer that Lally's allegations go far beyond "physical descriptions". But I don't want to give too much space to this one article, and I wonder if we even need to mention Taibbi's reaction? He doesn't deny anything, and saying that he would do things differently now adds nothing beyond a recognition that Taibbi has matured from his time as an editor at a magazine known for its immaturity. And all we're left with is a partial apology, recognizing only that he had gone too far in that one aspect of their dealings, which also adds very little. -- irn (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Kathy Lally Washington Post piece
Arright, there's an edit war going on with an IP (possibly 2, but more likely just one who edited from a different place). It's not vandalism, the IP has reasonable arguments, but for some reason only wants to discuss in the edit comments, not on the article talk page. Here. I'm a gonna ask the page be semi-protected, and we will darn well discuss here. Here is the section in dispute:
 * Journalist Kathy Lally wrote in the Washington Post in December 2017 that she and other female journalists were subjected to misogynistic attacks by Taibbi and Ames while she was a correspondent in Moscow in the 1990s. Lally contacted Taibbi in 2017, and he told her, "I certainly would not go about things now the way I did back then," and "I apologize for the physical descriptions. That was gratuitous and uncalled for."(ref name="Lally")(/ref)

an here are the arguments from the edit comments so far:

--GRuban (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 10:36, April 12, 2018‎ 2600:1003:b01d:1c52:9d65:13b9:785f:9ddd (talk)‎ . . (23,680 bytes) (-812)‎ . . (→‎The eXile: The initial reason given was that Lally's piece was an article, not an opinion piece. However, it was an opinion piece in the opinion section that degrades the real experiences of survivors. Now the claim is that there isn't a consensus. Who is paying you to falsely smear this guy? Honest Q.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
 * 18:42, April 11, 2018‎ Coretheapple (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,492 bytes) (+826)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 2600:1003:B017:436F:F94E:25F5:66DE:2384: Please stop. As noted, there is no consensus for removal of this material. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
 * 15:48, April 11, 2018‎ 2600:1003:b017:436f:f94e:25f5:66de:2384 (talk)‎ . . (23,666 bytes) (-826)‎ . . (→‎The eXile: The Lally piece was an op-ed. It was in their opinion section. By definition, a piece in the opinion section is not the words or opinion of the outlet as a whole. It was not an "article" otherwise it wouldn't have been in the opinion section. The source is as such not credible for such a smear on Wikipedia.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, references removed)
 * 15:38, April 11, 2018‎ GRuban (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,492 bytes) (+826)‎ . . (Undid revision 835919989 by Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B017:436F:F94E:25F5:66DE:2384: Washington Post article, not opinion piece, properly attributed. As Coretheapple writes, please discuss on talk.) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
 * 10:46, April 11, 2018‎ 2600:1003:b017:436f:f94e:25f5:66de:2384 (talk)‎ . . (23,666 bytes) (-826)‎ . . (→‎The eXile: For Christ sakes, several outlets have made major revisions and at least one settled. Why are we smearing this guy over 20 year old satire? Also, Lally tried to get HuffPo to run a false story - that they refused - about Taibbi days before her WaPo piece. Simple: Wikipedia is not a forum to falsely smear innocent people based on questionable op-eds and things that have been retracted.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, references removed)
 * 07:55, April 11, 2018‎ Coretheapple (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,492 bytes) (+826)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 835397524 by N-HH (talk): Please discuss this significant omission on the talk page and not through an overlong edit summary. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
 * 21:02, April 10, 2018‎ 2600:1003:b017:436f:f94e:25f5:66de:2384 (talk)‎ . . (23,666 bytes) (-826)‎ . . (→‎The eXile: Remove reference to Lally because of certain provably false factual statements and the fact that she was floating a false story to HuffPost prior to publishing to smear Taibbi. The source, an opinion piece (even though it is WaPo), is questionable at best. Also removed "sexual" because the smears against this guy have gone too far. At least three outlets have made major revisions or retractions, at least one publicly settled, and one journalist who looked into it debunked the ...) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, references removed)
 * Ok, requested. My take is still as I wrote, that this isn't an opinion piece, it's a retelling of events by a participant, with noticeable direct citations and other evidence. It's a primary source, but it's from a respected, experienced journalist and has been published by a highly respectable outlet. --GRuban (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. The IP is misrepresenting the source. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It does need to be a strong source for such content, but its factual assertions presumably met WaPo's standard for such content. The IP's comments are disinigenuous and accusatory and unless it can state them in a civil, policy-based, and accurate form, I see no reason to omit this material from the article.  SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User: On Lally, the statements were made by a pariticipant in the opinion section of Washington Post. The fact it is in the opinion section is key because it is the sort of thing, even a reliable outlet like WaPo, does if they want to launder in something defamatory and lessen their litigation risk. At minimum, folks should really consider whether this is credible. If upon really considering it, you decide so, there's only so much I can do in this Edit battle.

It's important to know some of the back history between Lally and Taibbi to know why this source is questionable. Ms. Lally reported Matt Taibbi to the Russian special police or something like that and sent around a questionnaire in the Johnson Russia List insinuating they were in league with opponents of the Russian government placing their safety at risk. Ames goes into this a bit somewhere.

Lally also deceptively presents Taibbi as this super powerful journalist at the time - their paper had a circulation of about 1,000 and Lally was with the Baltimore Sun. The context of punching up is key in Lilly's recounting of the narrative.

Finally, the conversation that you quote in this piece that Lally puts on record occurred when Matt asked her why she was spreading a false claim about him to an editor of HuffPost - such a toxic false claim I'm not even going to repeat it here. HuffPost killed that story and never ran it after it was disproven and then a week or two later, Lally came out with this piece.

Nutshell: This is, at minimum, a particularly slanted and deceptive source. At worst, it is entirely false. In light of the fact that several major outlets have done major revisions to stories involving Taibbi and one even announced that they settled with him, there is a real concern here that an innocent is getting marred.

With those thoughts as background, if you guys think it is the right thing to keep this up, I can only try to provide why I think otherwise. I don't think that it is right to keep this up - I think it is a false or at least incredibly deceptive smear. Hope this helps advance the conversation at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B01D:1C52:9D65:13B9:785F:9DDD (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User: Coretheapple, Thanks for at least acknowledging that it isn't vandalism that me and I think another user are pointing out - I probably should have been more polite in making these points.

I'm not a regular Wikipedia guy so I'm not sure if I'm even making this entry here in the right spot (Hence, why I was arguing in the edit summary and not in talk - didn't know how to honestly). That said, I'm concerned about this. I don't want to see somebody be wrongly smeared - I just know what that's like (happened to me in regards to a wholly different topic other than the MeToo thing - it sucks being wrongly smeared. A lot). Cheers guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B01D:1C52:9D65:13B9:785F:9DDD (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no reference to HuffPost in the Lally article. She was Moscow correspondent of the Baltimore Sun and her account was published in the Washington Post, and is stated as such. We cannot exclude material from Wikipedia based upon unsubstantiated allegations or original research. Coretheapple (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also the disparagement of WP editors and nonsense disparagement of WaPo needs to stop or nobody will even consider whatever merit the IP's comments might contain beneath that sludge.  SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User: Ask Lally about where those quotes came from and whether the full context was provided. Ask HuffPost editor Laura Bassett.

A separate question to consider is apart from the credibility of the source, which is questionable being in the opinion section and by a participant in a feud, is whether this arises to the level of being a significant and reflective statement on this man's career. Essentially, not every experience, good thing, or bad thing that is said about somebody or their work is significant to be etched on their biography.

I appreciate you giving these thoughts at least a clear hearing.

Cheers, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B01D:1C52:9D65:13B9:785F:9DDD (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, there is no evidence that the writer of that article is involved in an ongoing "feud" with Taibbi. As for her credibility,as noted she was Moscow correspondent of the Baltimore Sun and her article appeared in a newspaper with a good reputation for credibility and fact checking. It is not an opinion piece but a first-person account. Your point is correct that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate assortment of information, but this material seems relevant and usable in the length it is currently at. Wikipedia editors don't make inquiries ("ask Lally" etc) but simply reflect what is in reliable secondary sources. Were we to do so, that is a sword that can cut both ways. What if editors obtained original research or conducted inquiries reflecting negatively on this person? Lastly, your statements indicate a close connection with the subject matter. You may want to read WP:COI, Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The Business Secrets of Drug-Dealing: Adventures of the Unidentified Black Male
I noticed that Taibbi co-wrote a recent project / book that isn't listed in the article. I'm not sure how it could be included, but as it is something that he has worked on, promoted, and is associated with, I think some kind of note and reference might be appropriate. It is some kind of serialized book, for sale here: https://taibbi.substack.com/welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.162.184.11 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! -- irn (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Matt Taibbi. 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/20160407103945/http://www.jackhamann.com/documentaries.html to http://www.jackhamann.com/documentaries.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151026083300/http://buffalobeast.com/70/52funniest.htm to http://buffalobeast.com/70/52funniest.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051130033658/http://www.gawker.com/news/media/commentary/jeff-koyens-exit-interview-035157.php to http://www.gawker.com/news/media/commentary/jeff-koyens-exit-interview-035157.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080728065940/http://www.magazine.org/asme/magazine_awards/nma_winners/index.aspx to http://www.magazine.org/ASME/MAGAZINE_AWARDS/NMA_WINNERS/index.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151026083300/http://buffalobeast.com/70/52funniest.htm to http://buffalobeast.com/70/52funniest.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119112426/http://www.nypress.com/18/10/news%26columns/taibbi.cfm to http://www.nypress.com/18/10/news%26columns/taibbi.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820191840/http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2009/6/9/234826/5340/tytvideoclips/Matt-Taibbi-of-Rolling-Stone- to http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2009/6/9/234826/5340/tytvideoclips/Matt-Taibbi-of-Rolling-Stone-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221091809/http://www.alternet.org/columnists/6535/ to http://www.alternet.org/columnists/6535/

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) 22:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Taibbi. 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/20150104114912/http://www.bard.edu/news/news.php?id=86 to http://www.bard.edu/news/news.php?id=86
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120711131836/http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2012/07/matt-taibbi-eliott-spitzer-and-dennis.html to http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2012/07/matt-taibbi-eliott-spitzer-and-dennis.html/

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) 21:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

thoughtcrime hunts in journalism
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself --Espoo (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Change needed
As of mid-March 2021, aren't Taibbi and Halper (and their Useful Idiots program) no longer affiliated with Rolling Stone? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added! Οἶδα (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lally
I'm concerned the citation for this edit isn't enough. It's an opinion piece (Perspective) with serious claims, which BLP says we should avoid, but maybe more importantly it's about Kathy Lally written by Kathy Lally. Isn't that primary? Cestlavieleir (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. puggo (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For reasons I don't understand this editor has followed me to several articles. That's fine if they want to discuss but it looks like their goal is simply to frustrate me. If you can get them to elaborate on "fine" that would be helpful. Otherwise if you're comfortable removing Lally for the reasons discussed I'd appreciate it. Cestlavieleir (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, in your very first edit you inserted a perfectly formatted citation the template for which has to be manually added, which requires a good bit of knowledge about Wikipedia. How about you stop using this account to edit war and make controversial changes to articles, and use your regular account? Or at least disclose what these were.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In your 2nd edit you were discussing WP:BLPCAT and explaining it, and also describing our policy on reliable sources. Not something a brand new editor would do. In your 7th edit your brought up WP:PRIMARY which is ALSO something a brand new editor would not know about. Etc. WP:DUCK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So your defense of the source is personal attacks, nothing about the source? Cestlavieleir (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're not even denying that you have multiple accounts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are correct and I have removed the content. It seems that in 2+ years nobody bothered to remove the content or it was edit-warred back in. Politrukki (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content
This edit had two unsourced claims sourced to an opinion piece. One, that Taibbi's assertion was broadly criticized. That's not in the source. Two, that the Mueller investigation didn't exonerate Trump. That's also not in the source and it couldn't be because the article was published April 1 before the report was released. Even if the source had those claims they're factual and it's an opinion piece so we need a better source. Cestlavieleir (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Michelle Goldberg's one-word criticism of Taibbi's Russiagate chapter should be removed. Her article was an opinion piece and it wasn't even about Taibbi's book. She just happened to briefly mention it. In a chapter that spans 24pgs, Goldberg picked out a single sentence and called it "silly." It's difficult to see how this is a reputable critique. Furthermore, the assertion Goldberg chose to criticize ("the biggest thing [the investigation] has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star”) completely ignored the main issues Taibbi was addressing in his “Russiagate” chapter. There have been numerous reviews of Matt Taibbi's published book Hate Inc. which would undoubtedly be better sources for this topic. --Msewald3425 (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove Goldberg's comment as undue. The reception of the book has been generally positive and Goldberg's opinion does not represent that view as a whole. Politrukki (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi Dead?
I am pretty sure that Mr. Taibbi is alive and well so I’m confused why he’s listed as deceased in the beginning of the article. Is someone trying to be funny? 24.189.68.39 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Brief vandalism, it's been removed. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Protection Lock
Hello, I motion that this page is placed under a protection lock for vandalism as the person is involved in an ongoing public expose on Twitter. DiamondPuma (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually we don't lock articles that might be vandalized (WP:PREEMPTIVE). If there are ongoing disruptive edits to an article, the place to request protection would be WP:RPP. gobonobo  + c 02:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Divorce
An unsourced claim that Taibbi is divorced was added by, who once again added the claim with a source. The source, a feature published in New York Magazine, does not support this claim and was presumably chosen for the sole reason that it includes the phrase "divorced", but which is used outside the context of marriage. The claim was added once again by with the summary:  The humor is not lost on me, but I don't even want to approach the WP:3RR limit so others are free to handle this if they wish. Οἶδα (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw the edit, read the source, reverted the edit, and warned the IP (then I saw this on the talk page). Schazjmd   (talk)  22:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Οἶδα (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

misogyny and fabulism
This 2017 WaPo Op Ed by Kathy Lally is pretty unflattering about Taibbi and his eXile pal Ames: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-who-terrorized-women-correspondents-in-moscow/2017/12/15/91ff338c-ca3c-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html – why is it that none of the criticism of Taibbi’s history of misogyny and sexual harassment (described there and elsewhere) is mentioned in this article? Taibbi/Ames’s own book describes having sex with a 15-year-old, forcing a girlfriend to get an abortion, joke-ordering female employees to give them blow jobs and have unprotected anal sex, and a pervasive attitude of objectifying and degrading women. Lally also describes Taibbi just making things up to further his personal attacks on various female journalists. –jacobolus (t) 00:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See the #Russia section for some of that. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight?
Discuss. Burrobert (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Discuss what? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a tag. Burrobert (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the diff where you placed the tag? I don't see one on the page. Quisqualis (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert, What aspect of the article is given undue weight? I'll check the tag. -- Quisqualis (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not add the tag. Burrobert (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Confusion reigns here. If another user has placed the tag, can you link to the diff?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Burrobert (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Burrobert (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it fair to assume that no one is interested in trying to justify the tag? Burrobert (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems it was me, although I don't recall. Here's the text: The Wall Street Journal editorial board expanded the impact of Taibbi's work to alleged broader censorship concerns by writing that the Twitter Files are "confirmation of the central role that former spies played in October 2020 in framing the Hunter Biden story in a way that made it easier for Twitter and Facebook to justify their censorship." What does "expanded the impact" mean? This quote seems out of kilter with most RS commentary and I don't see what it adds to the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC) I can no longer see the WSJ editorial behind the paywall, but our language "Taibbi's work" seems a rather grandiose way of talking about a Twitter thread. And I can't see the extent they are commenting on him rather than Musk. Feels like it might be due in a Twitter files article rather than here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bobfrombrockley, I would assume they meant "broadened the impact", in terms of expanding awareness by virtue of being a widely-read medium. One could substitute "echoed his work and pointed out the role of former spies in helping Twitter and FB to justify their censorship." Quisqualis (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that justified on the basis of their editorial? Seems tendentious and tangential. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

More Twitter files discussion
I removed some edits by User:SPECIFICO that said what Mr. Taibbi's source of the Twitter files were without a reference. Mr. Tiabbi has not revealed his source as per his 1st amendment rights. --rogerd (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and that is a bizarre deflection to introduce into this content and sourcing issu. First off, my edits conformed the text to RS cited (NY Times) -- which I gather you have not read -- and others, e.g. Vox, The Intelligencer, CNN and others. Second, it needs to be mentioned that the text was reverted using Rollback, which is a privilege reserved for editors who remove Vandalism, as defined, and not editors who deny the validity of content and sourcing. The revert was also marked Minor. Both of these actions may have caused editors to skip over the revert without scrutinizing it or my edit summary in adding the clarifying language. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to Specifico version as this is clearly what RSs say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"the twitter files"
There's been a bit of an edit war over a newly added section called "The Twitter Files". I agree with the editors who have removed that content. It is sourced solely to WP:TWITTER and is WP:UNDUE without any independent reliable sources discussing it. This is still a BLP. Schazjmd  (talk)  00:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: Taibbi writes for a living. Everything he posts or tweets is not worth mentioning. Only when something he's written becomes the subject of coverage by independent, reliable sources is it likely to be appropriate to add to his biography. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already being reported elsewhere, see for coverage from a network-affiliated channel. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then content properly summarizing that source should be added. Schazjmd   (talk)  01:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is literally being tweeted right now. Can we just wait a second? Wikipedia is not a news publication, we can wait until it's done and secondary sources say something about it all, and follow what those secondary sources say. Endwise (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I put the Twitter citations so that readers could access the publication source, not to legitimize the claims. I didn't make any claim about whether or not what he is publishing is true, simply that he's publishing it and where he's publishing it. Yes, it it's getting picked up by the press but that is still the original source that even the press will be referring to so why wouldn't we include it? I'm pretty confident that doesn't violate the Twitter policy but I'll leave that to the experts. Pax.futurus (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the primary sources of the Twitter posts, are paired with supplemental secondary sources, this is acceptable. DiamondPuma (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added citations to coverage from Bloomberg, MSN and Variety along with Musk's announcement which was a tweet.Kmccook (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Heads up, MSN typically is syndicating content from other sources. In this particular case, the actual source is Newsweek: . GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Thank you. Kmccook (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter posts are a no-go per our policy. As far as whether this is to be included at all… I’d wait and see how much coverage it gets outside of entertainment and industry sources. Obviously junk will cover junk.  Volunteer Marek  04:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * For example this Tweet is cited within 2020 United States presidential election a source - and it's even a politically biased account. There are many more cases like that.
 * In case of the Twitter Files the primary source is Twitter: This is the origin of the material. Other sources even if NYT or WaPO can only deliver second-hand writeups based on that.
 * As far as it concerns Matt Taibbi, he has published parts of Twitter Files and his tweets reached wide audience. Stating that does not say they contain true or false claims, it simply says he did publish them. 88.66.110.177 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Something being wrong on another page doesn't justify doing wrong things on another page. Someone should fix the 2020 U.S. presidential election page to not source that tweet. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek is not a reliable source, so quit trying to cram it back in there.  Volunteer Marek  09:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi  Volunteer Marek . Would you please provide a location where I might read the rule that "Newsweek is not a reliable source?" I do not think commanding another editor so rudely is necessary. Kmccook (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good evening Kmccook. Regarding Newsweek, the perennial sources noticeboard says that, for post-2013 articles, we should assess Newsweek on a case by case basis. There seem to be a plethora of sources now covering the story so we probably don't need to use Newsweek. The same also applies to our use of Rolling Stone, which is deemed "generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011" and National Review, for which there is no consensus on its reliability. Btw, well done on your calm reply. (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Burrobert. I've used Newsweek for non-controversial topics but have now bookmarked the perennial sources for future work. And appreciate your noting my request for kindness. I try to encourage new editors and believe it or not some never come back after harsh treatment by a more experienced editor.Kmccook (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Twitter expose is the main thing Taibbi is widely known for at this time, so it seems his bio should certainly discuss it and mention it reasonably prominently. (Hope I’m adding this comment in the appropriate place.) SM-Mara (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The strange story of what has happened at Newsweek is complicated—best not to use it as a source, except perhaps for the exposé of itself covered in the Washington Post on 21 February 2018.
 * The exposé, entitled "Why Is the Manhattan DA Looking at Newsweek's Ties to a Christian University?", was published on 20 February 2018.
 * A recent article in Axios published on 26 July 2022 said this:
 * "Newsweek earlier this month filed a lawsuit against IBT Media, religious leader David Jang, his church group the World Olivet Assembly, and an embattled Christian university, among others, to recover more than $35 million in damages... Newsweek claims it suffered as a result of a criminal money laundering scheme, which IBT Media plead guilty to, that took place while it still owned the publication. The lawsuit includes damages pertaining to IBT Media's mismanagement of Newsweek prior to their separation in 2018... Newsweek was spun out from IBT Media in 2018, and is currently co-owned by former IBT executive Dev Pragad, the CEO of Newsweek, and Johnathan Davis, who is still CEO of IBT Media." Fucking bizarre. Carlstak (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2022


 * Why was this removed? "The Twitter Censorship Files: The mistaken claims in 2020 by former spooks about Hunter Biden’s emails framed the social-media site’s decision to block the news." ? I undid the delete--this is a censorship issue that should concern all of us.

"published the Twitter files"
Re this diff: according to our Twitter Files article, the files took the form of a "series of Twitter threads". Taibbi has authored the first, third and sixth installments, and not the others. Taibbi wrote these three threads; I'm not sure if it's correct to say he "published" them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, specifying the installments and using the word wrote are improvements. A more recent secondary source may be needed for the summary sentence at the top, and the section could be updated too. Llll5032 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ and changed to released. Οἶδα (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the incredibly slow reply, but I don't think "released" is right either. These are Twitter threads, with some screenshots of documents. Nothing is "released" exactly, except maybe the documents were released to Taibbi. Isn't a simple "wrote" (per Llll5032 suggestion) better? Or "tweeted"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)