Talk:Chris Matthews

Liberal

This edit seems problematic to me. It draws from a primary source, but for such labels it is preferable to see a representative sample of a preponderance of secondary sources. I'm not going to revert it (since it is accurate), but I'd welcome discussion on the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that a preponderance of secondary sources is desirable. Also, I see nothing in the cited text that "confirms" Matthews is liberal.--JayJasper (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In the transcript I referenced, close to the bottom, Matthews says "Well, I‘m a liberal, too." In the Glenn Beck article, the citation for calling him a conservative is an article in which Beck self-identifies as "a conservative with libertarian leanings", so I feel like both labels are equally fair. –CWenger (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What goes on in one article has no bearing on what goes on in another. In the Glenn Beck article, a secondary source is writing about Beck's conservatism; however, in this article you have used a primary source instead. This is below the standard expected of a Biography of a Living Person. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. Unless a secondary source that is representative of mainstream media sources in general can be fan, this will likely be reverted again. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling primary versus secondary source was going to be raised. But I think this is a case where the guidelines are a bit misleading. The reason Wikipedia cautions against primary sources is because they can be easily misinterpreted. I don't think anybody will contend that I am misinterpreting Chris Matthews' words here (or even "interpreting" them at all). While the Beck reference is a secondary source (although it is "The American Conservative" and therefore can't be considered neutral), which is preferable, I argue the value of information provided is the same. And I disagree that "what goes on in one article has no bearing on what goes on in another." If this is an official Wikipedia policy please point me to it. This is only my opinion but since Wikipedia is somewhat flexible (except in certain circumstances), other articles can be a good starting point. It is important to me that people using Wikipedia see some symmetry in how people like Chris Matthews and Glenn Beck are treated. –CWenger (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say "[t]his is only my opinion but since Wikipedia is somewhat flexible (except in certain circumstances), other articles can be a good starting point," this is meritless. The choice of the article on Glenn Beck as a kind of gold standard against which all other like articles are to be judged is thoroughly arbitrary. It is not the job of Scjessey or any other user to point to "official Wikipedia policy"; the onus of establishing grounds lies on the user who wants to make the change, although Scjessey was very kind to paste "official Wikipedia policy" below.

A much more convincing argument could be made that, on the basis of this article, that the "conservative" in the Glenn Beck article ought to be omitted. You might wish to do so, if the discrepancy bothers you. You would have my blessing.

Furthermore, it is impossible to determine whether you are interpreting Matthews' words correctly or incorrectly, and ultimately not relevant, for reasons I explain below. Treeemont (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The only policy that matters is WP:BLP - "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." Basically, high-quality sources are expected. If in doubt, leave it out. Primary sources must be used sparingly, and this is an example of you using one to justufy the inclusion of what some people regard as a pejorative. You must find a secondary source that writes about Matthews being a liberal (that is representative of a preponderance of reliable sources), or it is simply not appropriate to include it in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Omission

I got rid of it. Someone else can change it back if he or she wants, but I would ask that the user explain thoroughly how he has taken "the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research," since the burden is on him or her to show it.

There is a reason why phrases like "Republican senator," "Brazilian athlete," and "alkali metal" are verifiable, neutral, and do not involve original research: these are objective traits. Go to any worthy source in the world on the subject, and it will say that Bob Corker is a Republican senator, that Pelé was a Brazilian athlete, and that potassium is an alkali metal. We simply cannot on the same basis call Chris Matthews a "liberal."

That Matthews himself has called himself a "liberal" on one occasion is not grounds for putting the word in an encyclopedia article that at least strives to be serious. Slavoj Zizek has called himself a Stalinist, but that does not mean it would be either helpful or accurate to say at the beginning of his article that he is a "Stalinist philosopher." To do so would be to infer the meaning and the intention of such an utterance; even if this could be done satisfactorily, it would constitute original research, and is therefore not permissible.Treeemont (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire section on Matthews political leanings is utter crap. Nothing more than an obvious attempt to cherry-pick sources and create footnote spam in order to support an ideological agenda. I'm not going to bother editing anything here but - yeesh people - this nonsense is why wikipedia is so unreliable on so many predictable topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.156.230 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 September 2012‎

Thanks for sharing. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is plenty of material attesting to Chris Matthews' political views. Some of the most probative coverage on Matthews' views actually ran in the Huffington Post, a reliable (if WP:BIASED) secondary source which shares some of Matthews' views, say, on Barack Obama. "Chris Matthews: “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg” As Obama Spoke", Chris Matthews: Obama’s Speech Made Me Cry and Chris Matthews Gushes: “Obama Comes Along, And...This Is The New Testament”. There's no dispute that Matthews was an enthusiastic Obama supporter, and that he expressed that support in his journalistic writing (as opposed to, say, his memoirs).

"Obama supporter" isn't the same thing as "liberal" - Christopher Buckley, in a Daily Beast article addressed to his famously conservative father William F. Buckley, Jr , endorsed Obama despite being best known for his centrist views. But it shouldn't be a strain to find more articles in WP:RS specifically identifying Matthews succinctly as a liberal. In fact, I think I'll do that today, schedule permitting. loupgarous (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

When I'm wrong, I admit it. Nothing in a reasonably objective secondary source (according to WP:BIASED standards) I could find on the Web calls Chris Matthews a "liberal". So I encourage editors convinced that Matthews is a liberal to either Drop the stick or look for themselves and remember that while Fox News is reliable on many topics it can be cited to support, both it and the Huffington Post are among the sources we must be cautious in using in biographies of living persons. They're both agenda-driven to some extent. I am choosing secondary sources which can be expected to report objectively on Chris Matthews, because WP:BLP says to do it that way, and we have a better article at the end of the day. loupgarous (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

A disputed edit describes Media Matters for America as "anti-conservative", citing http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us which does not use that description. Previous suggestions by the same editor are "conservative-targeting"[1], "liberal"[2][3][4] and "left-wing"[5] (frequently, these descriptors replaced "progressive" in the link to Progressivism in the United States). For what it's worth, Media Matters for America describes the group as "a politically progressive media watchdog group that says it is 'dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media'." citing the same source. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the full text of the source in question:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

As you can see from this, Media Matters mentions once that they politically identify themselves as "progressive" and mentions three times that their purpose is to correct what they view as "conservative misinformation." As they make no statement of any intent to correct misinformation from any other political ideology, it is fair to describe them as "conservative-targeting" or "anti-conservative." The edits referring to them as "liberal" or "left-wing" are also valid, since modern "progressives" also identify themselves as being politically left of center. However, for the purpose of describing Media Matters in a way that fits with their stated purpose, "conservative-targeting" or "anti-conservative" works better. Thoughts? - Battleax86 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing the issue. "Anti-conservative" is not the same thing as "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation". The source says they are dedicated to looking for and correcting what they see as a problem. Your read has them as being against everything from the perceived source of that problem. Those who work to monitor, analyze and correct food poisoning are not "anti-food preparation and storage".

"Progressive" is not a synonym for "liberal" which is not a synonym for "left-wing". Our article on Media Matters for America has discussed this repeatedly. The working consensus there is to describe the group as "progressive". Perhaps you would like to re-join that discussion. So long as that issue is settled there, changing it here would create a pointless contradiction. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not allowed to use one of our articles to either confirm or deny facts in another of our articles under WP:CIRCULAR. Please state the specific guideline stating that one of our articles may not contradict the other. Ideally, our articles would reflect a consensus among normally reliable sources on everything they say, but WP:SYNTH and WP:THETRUTH don't allow us to take such matters into consideration, but require us to use information in usually reliable sources without trying to synthesize or deduce a common truth.

Let's see what the liberal press has to say about Media Matters. In "What Happens to Media Matters in a Post-Hillary World?" by Clio Chang And Alex Shephard, The New Republic said:

"Employees were asked to stay late or work on the weekends specifically to cover Clinton, which many felt came at the expense of other stories and the organization’s mission. Nearly every former staffer we spoke to felt that researchers, in particular, were underpaid and overworked, and that these problems often surfaced when they were forced to work on stories they felt were dubious. As one former staffer described it, “They were paying me $35,000 a year to watch Fox all the time and to do rotating shifts where I’d have to change from a day shift to a night shift every two weeks. It was just a miserable job...”

When it came to the organization’s research standards, most former staffers we talked to agreed that they were lowered when it came to Clinton-related content. One former staffer told us that, compared to “the amount of evidence we would have to collect to go after another story,” Clinton pieces had a “much lower bar. It literally just had to involve Hillary Clinton and that was it.” Another said that they often weren’t allowed to publish Clinton-related pieces “until they had been read by someone in leadership...”

Then there was James Carville’s guest column for the site. In his inaugural post, the longtime Clinton ally stated his intention was to use the space to defend the Clintons: “That’s what happens when you have one standard for the Clintons, and a different one for everybody else, which is why I’ll be writing regularly in this space.” (Bradley Beychok, who was president of Media Matters from 2013 until early December, and who was thought responsible for enforcing the site’s pro-Clinton bent, is close to Carville)"

The New Republic was generally positive about Media Matters: "With the proliferation of conservative misinformation and the rise in popularity of far-right websites like Breitbart, there is a need for organizations like Media Matters now more than ever," but was scathing about their slant toward Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential campaign. Quoting The New Republic article again:

" Media Matters derives its credibility from its objectivity—its posts are dry, often consisting almost entirely of transcripts that aim to show how conservative media is misleading the public. Media Matters is also classified as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group in the tax code, which means that it cannot explicitly advocate for a political candidate. The organization is careful not to step over that line, always framing pieces with a media angle—for example, “New York Times’s Maureen Dowd Writes Yet Another Anti-Clinton Column.” But with Carville’s column, that veneer of objectivity was tossed aside. Media Matters also had one standard for the Clintons, and a different one for everybody else."

Media Matters is not merely a progressive organization devoted to debunking conservative misinformation. They actually risked losing their tax-deductible 501(c)(3) organizational status to pick up the cudgel for Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential campaign, not once, but continually during the campaign, even lending Clinton loyalist James Carville a column for that purpose.

We have that from The New Republic, which is unapologetically liberal, not NewsBusters or Accuracy in Media. loupgarous (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the part of the article under Political career and views quoting Media Matters for America as saying Matthews was unduly anti-Hillary Clinton during her Presidential campaign, based on the credible report by The New Republic quoted above documenting that Media Matters for America had devoted considerable staff time not on debunking conservative inaccuracies but defending Hillary Clinton during her Presidential campaign, even giving one of her most prominent associates and apologists, James Carville, a regular column on the site for that purpose.

I had two choices here - either present information in the article impeaching Media Matters' reliablility on this score, which (as you can see) takes paragraphs, or delete a section that doesn't contribute to a comprehension of Chris Matthews in any constructive way. I chose to be WP:BOLD and delete that section. As you can see, this impeachment of Media Matters as a reliable source has been on the talk page since December 18th, 2017. Three weeks was plenty of time for anyone with concerns to dispute the information. loupgarous (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Tingles

The article currently alleges that Matthews' nickname is "Tingles", but no source is cited for that statement. [6]. It seems that should be removed, no? --→gab 24dot grab← 15:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it should and has (as of this posting) been removed. Without reliable sources, it runs afoul of WP:V & WP:NOR. Not to mention it is a potential BLP violation.--JayJasper (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

He is often called "Tingles" in reference to his comment about Obama in 2008 and it is a well known quote he made. This particular mention today is probably due to the scuffle at the RNC when a MSNBC producer got upset that someone called Matthews "Tingles". It is kind of ironic since Matthews made multiple references to Seamus last night. I would say that it is not a violation of RS or V or NOR, but since it is used to mock Matthews it would be a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Weasel much? Who are these people, and how often? Sources please! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Arzel (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Without meaning to cut the pissing match short, we cannot say that "he is often called" whatever "in reference to" whatever without coverage in reliable sources saying exactly that. This contentious claim about a living person has been added, with no sources whatsoever, at least three times: twice by an IP and once by a single purpose account. If anyone is in any way unclear on this, please review our policy on biographies of living people. If the claim is re-added again without reliable sources (or with poor sourcing), it will be removed. If you have sources for this and wish to discuss how reliable those sources are or what wording would work, please feel free to discuss it here. Otherwise, we're pretty much done here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not advocating it be used since it is a BLP violation, only that it would not be a violation of RS or V or NOR. I believe that Michele Bachmann was one of the first to use it as a retort to Matthews when he asked if she was hypnotized on his show. Since it would be a BLP violation, there is no point in discussing any sourcing as it would be a moot point. Arzel (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be permissible under Political career and views to cite Huffington Post's articles "Chris Matthews: “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg” As Obama Spoke", Chris Matthews: Obama’s Speech Made Me Cry and Chris Matthews Gushes: “Obama Comes Along, And...This Is The New Testament”:

"Matthews — who, in the past, has both cried over an Obama speech and compared him to Jesus — described exactly what happens to him when Obama speaks:

"I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.""

Under WP:BLP, we can see that all three Huffington Post articles linked to above are fair comment about notable statements by Chris Matthews about Barack Obama (notable because they indicate views he publicly expressed during news broadcasts), reported in a usually reliable secondary source. We'd be citing the Huffington Post articles with care to lend proper weight to the direct quotes of Mr. Matthews in each article by a politically sympathetic reliable source.

There's absolutely no WP:BLP issue with quoting the Huffington Post on simple statements they reported Chris Matthews as having made. Under WP:BIASED we'd only have to take care that the Huffington Post was not distorting the truth in any way.

By withholding statements in a normally reliable source like this from our readers, we're actually creating an article which is not balanced in its coverage of the subject. WP:BLP does not lay the obligation on us to write canonization pieces about subjects of our articles. loupgarous (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Without tendentiously using a right-wing media meme for Chris Matthews, we can and should refer to this episode of Matthews' emotional advocacy for Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign. It bears strongly on Matthews' political views, and most readers have heard the "tingles" meme without proper context. Nowhere did Matthews refer to a "tingle" running up his leg, but a "thrill". We have that from Huffington Post, which also described him as "gushing about Obama" and "comparing him to Jesus".

We ought to cover these statements by Matthews, because at present the article is loaded with defensive remarks like "I'm more conservative than people think", without telling the reader why some might think Matthews had some leftward political views. When the Huffington Post reports Matthews was a strong supporter of former President Obama, we can conclude this isn't a politically-motivated observation by the HP's editorial staff or their writers. When a reliable but leftward-WP:BIASED news source makes those statements about a fellow journalist who supported candidate they did, it's fair and verifiable comment fully compliant with WP:BLP. Comments? loupgarous (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'd wait for comments before changing an article in significant part, but this change is so important to restoring balance to our article (making sure that the article cited to support Matthews' self-assessment as a "centrist" was cited in proper context - the author of that article strongly questioned Matthews' status as a "centrist" based on his statements as a journalist).

While I was doing that, I also cited the Huffington Post coverage of Matthews' emotional support for Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign. The Huffington Post is a reliable secondary source, and no WP:BIASED issues exist with their coverage of Matthews. There is no objective dispute of this incident as reported in the article I cited, so no WP:BLP concerns.

I didn't make any conclusions regarding Matthews' political views in wikivoice, merely presented good secondary sources which commented on the subject, citing them in proper context - and presented what is mis-characterized as the "tingle" episode with direct reporting of what actually happened. Better we do that than seem to be concealing well-known incidents which relate to Matthews' political views, or actually mischaracterizing what is reported about those views by selectively and deceptively citing our sources. loupgarous (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy"

"On February 1, 2013, Matthews suggested that Senator John McCain's relentless questioning of defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel was due to suppressed anger over the Vietnam War stating, "Forty years after the Vietnam POWs came home, the most famous of them is angrier than ever. ... flashbacks must haunt still the mind and heart of John Sidney McCain. ... I'm absolutely convinced we're watching a flashback.""

NOT

On February 1, 2013, Chris Matthews ridiculed the war service of Senator John McCain by saying "Forty years after the Vietnam POWs came home, the most famous of them is angrier than ever. ... flashbacks must haunt still the mind and heart of John Sidney McCain. ... I'm absolutely convinced we're watching a flashback."

This was sourced to newsbusters, now, it's The Daily Caller. Yes, partisan websites will find something to complain about with anything and everything that seems to come from the "other" side. That is not a "controversy". Imagine if the "controversy" section on Obama or Bush listed everything any opinionated blogger had to say about anything they said. I think we're going to need a bigger encyclopedia. Instead, we need a reliable source discussing the utterance as a "controversy". Right now, we have a website saying "[subject] said [statement]". That is not a "controversy". That is a report that he...spoke. STOP THE PRESSES!!! CHRIS MATTHEWS SPOKE!!! - SummerPhD (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all just right-wing garbage. No serious media outlets have picked it up, so it can safely be excluded per WP:NPOV. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Off topic

I wonder if any mainstream source will ever take Matthews to course for his constant bashing of anyone on the right. Maybe it is because he expouses viritol on a nightly basis that no one thinks any differently of it. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Well if people on the right didn't constantly open themselves up to be bashed, it wouldn't be an issue. McCain made an ass of himself (now normal for him) and Matthews called him out for it (normal for him too). Nothing worth writing about. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the subject. You both know that. Knock it off. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Arguments that this "would" be news if a similar thing was said about a liberal are pointless here. Wikipedia is not about righting some perceived wrong. If it isn't seen as noteworthy by reliable sources, it does not belong here. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Verbal gaffes

Should there be a section about his frequent verbal gaffes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophermart (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC) There are a lot, almost nightly on his show. It would help people better understand him from reading the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophermart (talk • contribs) 02:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't really expect discussion when your edits to the article seem to indicate that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD, accusing someone of WP:NOT based on past conduct isn't constructive. We can mention Chris Matthews' verbal gaffes when/if usually reliable secondary sources comment on them (which would likely be the deal-breaker) and we can reach a consensus on how notable the gaffes are and whether they belong in an encyclopedia article.

Brandishing WP:NOT at another editor for past offenses for a suggestion one doesn't like is against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - the proper thing is to cite the proper procedure for going about it, especially obtaining a consensus. If a WP:NOT case like this came up asking for sanctions, I'd vote for WP:Boomerang, because the editor accused wouldn't be the only one not focused on making an encyclopedia. loupgarous (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Matthews. 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/20150402125232/http://www.daemen.edu/news/Newsreleases/Pages/MSNBCAnchorChrisMatthewstoSpeakatDaemenCollegeApril19.aspx to http://www.daemen.edu/news/Newsreleases/Pages/MSNBCAnchorChrisMatthewstoSpeakatDaemenCollegeApril19.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefoxnation.com/chris-matthews/2009/12/18/chris-matthews-im-liberal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Dated material

All the gossip about Matthews' posturing (with Colbert, and elsewhere) for a senate race circa 2008/2009 had me fainting from tedium. I know that 2008 was a Wikipedia heyday, and I hate to tarnish that glorious year, but enough already, I think, in this case. — MaxEnt 20:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I dunno. While some of the detail is unnecessary, the facts are important. Maybe cut it down a bit? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm cutting it down considerably. Most of the detail is unnecessary and places WP:UNDUE weight on part of the subject's life which doesn't bear on his notability. We ought to tell readers that Matthews did consider a run for the Senate, but we can spare the reader that long paragraph detailing every step he took before deciding not to go ahead. None of that adds appreciably to the article. I'm with MaxEnt on this - my eyes were glazing over, too. loupgarous (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Crying over Obama

The material about him crying over Obama used too many external links inline with the text, and was a fairly large violation of WP:UNDUE. I have removed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I also restored the bit about the political leans of Matthews' guests as the edit summary (and a later comment at RSN) inaccurately claimed it was criticism of Matthews criticism of Clinton in 2016. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vfrickey: Why are you edit warring instead of using the talk page? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work:You removed my text first, then mentioned your concerns. I followed your lead. You're not an admin, and are just as obliged to seek consensus as I am. If edit-warring's an issue. we're both guilty. loupgarous (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion as soon as I made the edit. If you want to complain about my behavior, ANI is thataway. If you don't have anything to say to defend the notion that Matthews' emotional reactions are meaningful to his career in any way, then I don't know why you bothered to revert me at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Our remarks crossed in an edit conflict. I was just posting them:

Getting back to the article, when the Huffington Post mentions Chris Matthews' previous journalistic coverage of Obama and finds his previous emotional remarks notable enough to list them in a third article, he made the statement which was erroneously seized on by the right-wing press as "the tingle". there are two encyclopedic concerns present.

The first, of course, is that those remarks went out over the air and and are part of the historical record on Matthews' reporting. If we conceal or omit this episode, we slant our article away from an WP:NPOV account of Chris Matthews' career. You may not think that mention of Matthews' remarks are WP:DUE but you're in a minority. Plenty of others disagree with you and if we let you decide for us what's WP:DUE or not, it hurts the article's credibility.

The second, and less important issue, is to put the "tingle" meme to bed once and for all - Matthews never said it. I quoted Huffington Post on what he did say.

If you don't care for Huffington Post's mention of what Chris Matthews said during his job as a commentator on the 2008 Presidential elections, I don't know that we can make you happy and write an encyclopedia (as opposed to a press release that goes into loving detail about every aspect of Chris Matthews' life but what MSNBC and NBC paid him to do). loupgarous (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, between what you say here and what I saw when I googled Chris Matthews "the tingle", it makes sense to include the quote about the "thrill" going up his leg. If you trim the quote down to what Matthews said instead of the intro to the quote from the source, I'd be fine with it. Something like:

The Huffington Post reported on Matthews' emotional expression of support for Barack Obama during the 2008 Presidential election, quoting him as saying "I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often."

I think adding something about how the press picked up on that quote might be appropriate, as well, provided we can find an RS. All I found were a bunch of non-reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We can cite WP:BIASED sources verbatim on the morphing of "thrill" to "tingle" without lending wikivoice to them. That would be the smaller of many time-sinks in that job. But I don't think they add much to the article, and certainly don't justify either the article space concerned or our time as editors. Who, at the end of the day, cares about partisan media reaction to the statement? The light the statement itself throws on Matthews' emotional state on the campaign trail is more relevant to the article.

The reason Huffington Post led with that litany of Matthews' emotional responses on air regarding Obama is they decided it was notable (no by-lines on that article, which indicates it was something the editors went with). Mark Halperin was much more vocal about the lack of press objectivity regarding the Obama campaign in 2008. This wasn't me WP:SYNTHing those three remarks Matthews made into a sentence which (understandably) reads like an indictment of his objectivity. The editors of the Huffington Post did that, with respect to press coverage of a candidate they liked and supported. The quote reads as it reads. I didn't add wikivoice to it, and I won't trim it to make Matthews seem less emotional on the Obama campaign trail than he was. I just edit here, I don't frame narratives. Sorry. loupgarous (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Fuck it. Your version's less wordy and lurid. Let's go with it. loupgarous (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't accusing you of adding wikivoice to the quote or anything, I was just saying that the quote from the source (which included the quote from Matthews) was too much detail. It's fine for the huffpo story, which was about Matthew's emotionality wrt Obama. Just not for this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And, for the record, I was not proceeding from a right-wing agenda, and was going out of my way to demonstrate I wasn't pushing one. I admitted you were right about quoting Huffington Post's litany of Matthews' public emotes regarding Obama in its entirety, last time I posted here. A little WP:AGF goes a long way - accusing people of political agendas is for WP:AN/I, and requires proof. loupgarous (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Resignation?

For the article to characterize Chris Matthews' departure from MSNBC as a "resignation" or "retirement" is laughable. I don't watch the channel, but sources who saw or recorded his final episode say he suddenly announced his "retirement" during the middle of the show, and after the commercial break he was gone and another host was in his chair. He was unceremoniously fired, plain and simple.174.85.100.143 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary Tulsi Gabbard References

The "Television Talk Show Host" section details an interview that Matthews had with former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and she is again referenced at the end of the section as someone who wished Matthews well after his retirement. I don't see how either of these things are important enough to include here particularly given that there is no reference to Matthews at all in Gabbard's own (considerably longer) article. I think this section would be improved if both sentences were removed.

Kalveti (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)