Talk:Chris Matthews/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deleted This

I deleted this because there is no need to talk to anyone like that. If you have some proof, why not replace the personal slants with it. Although I respect your anger, I remind you that there are better ways to express it. Maybe you could pick up the phone and call Katefan or vice-versa and settle your differences. Thx!

Abramoff Contribution Part Deux

Please reach an agreement on this. It is a current and important piece of information. I was the original Abramoff poster way back when. Admittedly, my choice of words was not completely free of my opinion as I am not a professional research writer; however, someone else had posted a very balanced piece in place of mine.

We are at a significant point in our nation’s cultural and political history. Mr. Matthews is a player in the game. Let us all try to give the readers the full spectrum of his history, in both accomplishment and controversy.

So please, would someone or some group reach a consensus on this piece of information? It is well established that he had participated in the fundraiser. His comments of late have been controversial. In other words, there is plenty of citation out there.

Thank you.

Abramoff Contribution

Whoever had posted that portion, I thank you. As I had stated earlier, I feel that it is an important piece of information.

Matthews and Bush

I could not tell you the exact show, but it was in the year before the 2004 election. Republican pollster Frank Luntz was on the show, and Matthews, in the context of the conversation, pointed out that he had voted for Bush in 2000. Concerning the arguement with the pro life woman, this is quite normal for Matthews who regularly recognizes that the president cannot overturn Roe v. Wade. In light of his three moderately right SCOTUS nominations, this seems like a valid point.

Matthews never stated he voted for Ralph Nader

I belive someone has vandalized this entry. Matthews has never voiced support for Ralph Nader, and if you follow the link provided it actually states he voted for Geroge W. Bush in 2000.

Is it worth mentioning?

Perhaps it isn't, but I found Chris Matthews 2-7-07 appearance on the "Imus in the Morning" show to be a remarkable illustration of the distinction between cable and over-the-air broadcasting. Matthews dropped the f-bomb (more precisely, the "f-ing" adjective form of the word), which was bleeped on the simulcast of the program on radio, but was not censored at all on MSNBC. (For details, see http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/7/82213.shtml or http://www.nypost.com/seven/02082007/tv/ranch_y_language_on_imus_tv_don_kaplan.htm).

Chris Matthews: Liberal?

First, please maintain civility (calling people "cocksuckers" obviously violates this policy), Second: Please comment on the edits, not the editors. You can read later in the article that on the December 17th, 2009 edition of Hardball on MSNBC, Matthews states that "... It`s complicated when liberals get to keep score. We`re always arguing. Well, I`m a liberal, too." That seems fairly definitive. Rapier1 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

First time I've seen an editor use that term, I guess some people can't help it. I originally reverted the lede edit due to sourcing concerns.[1] I'd like to find a source for the quote, I did see the the video. Last I checked, Newsbusters (I know how people feel about them) was the only/best coverage. ThinkEnemies (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with a "liberal" label if (1) it's a self-chosen (by Matthews) and uncontested descriptor; and (2) it's properly sourced. If it is contested or not self-assigned, it will have to be stated by / sourced to critics or observers in a criticism or reception section. I seem to recall remembering him saying that on the 17th, so I doubt it's contested, and it's possible that the broadcast for that date can be used as a primary source... thoughts? ( //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly quote him self-identifying as a liberal, if that quote is indeed accurate, but there are lots of liberals who would contest that description. Croctotheface (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote. Richard (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You know how you know you are going to win if you pass anything? The republicans will know they have lost. We will be back with Melinda Henneberger and Joe Walsh. Let them keep score and it‘s easy. It‘s complicated when liberals get to keep score. We‘re always arguing. Well, I‘m a liberal, too. You are watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

I've heard him say that JFK was a "conservative who could support liberal" positions, and he [Matthews] was one too. I've Googled it and it should be in the Hardball transcripts but I can't find it yet. Remember, he has stated he voted for George W. Bush. He recently called the netroots "[not] grownup Democrats". --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He is now saying that Saul Alinsky is one of his heroes. Arzel (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I personally don't think Matthews is anywhere near a Maddow or Schultz liberal, but then again neither do I particularly care for using subjective labels unless they are self-assigned. If the impetus for this discussion is a singular quote of Matthews as his show is going to commercial, I don't think that's anywhere close to what's required to sustain a claim that he self-identifies as "liberal." Is there some actual sourcing indicating he's self-chosen "liberal" ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? This coming from someone that has been trying to prove that FNC is conservative since the time I have been editing here. Someone that used a single quote from BOR in relationship to the War in Iraq as "proof" that BOR thinks that FNC is conservative? Arzel (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I'm discussing the content, you seem intent on discussing me... unwelcome, unhelpful, and unconvincing. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article sums it up nicely: [2]. If you wanna throw him in a box fine, but really the man seems to drift according to what he believes rather than according to what his ideology commands. Soxwon (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Soxwon... I'm honestly unsure if about.com qualifies as a reliable source, but to quote the source listed:

Chris Matthews has been repeatedly accused of being both too liberal and too conservative. In truth, he's an independent thinker whose views are colored more by his Catholic convictions than by political partisanship. As a young man, he was a conservative Goldwater supporter until he was attracted to the anti-war, pro-civil rights 1968 presidential campaign of fellow Irish Catholic Eugene McCarthy. Matthews has worked for 4 Democratic leaders, and yet, since 2001, has spoken to an array of conservative organizations. Matthews openly states "I'm more conservative than people think..."

I personally think it also hits the mark pretty well. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

removed Somerton

I removed the Somerton, Philly link because it linked to a street in England. I'm sorry I'm not Wiki-saavy enough to link it to the Somerton neighborhood in Philly. Along those lines, would it be necessary to name the specific neighborhood? Surfbruddah (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Telinco and Club Sirius

Chris Matthews was a British millionaire businessman who died about 5 years ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1469264/Jet-set-aide-dies-with-dating-tycoon.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.225.125 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris Matthews is the most egotistical SOB I have ever heard speak. He is putting the blame for the death threats to Dems because of the passing of the HC bill. Well, Mr. Matthews, as of this am news in Colorado the goof that threw a brick through Slaughters office has been identified as LEFT wing Democrat. So,you can take your ego and KISS the Dems butt. John Roginzo, Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.119.104 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Re this edit: I have removed these quotes as the sources for them are blogs taking issue with scattered quotes. Yes, various bloggers may take a phrase or section of text here or there and make a big deal about it, but it is not a "big deal" in our terms, it is trivial. The IP adding this is one of numerous IPs in an ever changing litany adding very similar material with very similar sourcing to a number of news figures the lone editor finds to be "liberal". Having been repeatedly blocked elsewhere and having several articles protected, that editor is now here again. If a blog taking issue with something a public figure says makes the grade for inclusion, articles on every political figure the world over will quickly become short bios with huge lists of quotes. Generally, we prefer to see reliable sources saying there is a controversy before saying there is one. In this case, the editor links to the controversy claim (in an unreliable source) and leaves no indication that the statement was in any way notable. Matthews is on air for hours on a daily basis. Whose judgement indicates these isolated statements are important? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal blogs are not considered to be reliable sources, but neither of the citations the editor included were personal blogs. One was a blog on a Charleston Daily Mail web site and the other was on Think Progress, both professional organizations. Blogs such as these are considered reliable.

However, I agree that they are not ideal sources, so I have supplemented them with additional sources that are unquestionably reliable, including links to video of the programs where Matthews spoke the words. I have also added Matthews' later clarification of the "I forgot he was black" remark.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. The question is not "Did Matthews say X?", the question is, "Is it significant that Matthews said X?"

We could likely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Matthews sneezed on the air, wore a green striped tie on 14 March 2010, is right handed, has been to Dallas, etc. (these are random, fictitious examples) Clearly, this would be pointless.

Maybe would could prove he once gave money to "Jimmy's Charity Relief Organization", then later reported on that organization. Maybe we have something? Sure, if we were journalists we might. We are not journalists. We are Borg Wikipedia.

Until reliable sources indicate that something is significant, it is not significant to us. The sources you have included (which are remarkably similar to those supplied by the IP-switching vandal) do not pass this test.

This one is a blog. Yes, it is a blog at a newspaper. It is still a blog, not subject to the paper's editing and editorial process. It is one person's opinon. Note that the video attached to it was removed from youtube as a copyright violation. Hardly the work of a professional news organization.

This one, that you listed as "Hardball", is not. It is a copyright violation on yutube. As I've mentioned repeatedly to the IP vandal, Wikipedia does not knowingly link to such content.

This one, at "newsbusters.org", is the IP vandal's favorite site. It's a blog. That the partisan group sponsoring the site is well known does not change that. It is one person's opinion.

Your four links for the next section follow the same pattern.

Since a couple of the IP vandals IPs have been blocked and several articles were protected to block further IP vandal edits, I'd like to remind you that if you are related to any of the blocked IPs your edits here are not welcome.

Before reverting your addition here, I'll wait a bit for substantative discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I commend you for your swift (albeit somewhat incomplete) retraction of the insinuation that I have engaged in sockpuppetry. There is no rational basis to believe this and, of course, it is untrue. However, based on the edit comment of your retraction, it seems you still have suspicions, so I would ask you to take this to WP:SPI. I you choose not to do that, or after they tell you that your suspicions are unfounded, I would ask that you apologize.

I would also note that I find your issuing of a level-4im warning to User:172.129.1.64 rather perplexing. As best I can tell, the user made a single edit, the subject of our disagreement here. His contribution was sourced and germane to the article, yet you labeled it vandalism. How is that justified?

As for the alleged copyright violation, I agree that we should not be linking to material posted in violation of copyright laws. It is my understanding that YouTube will pull videos if that is the case. I have no way of knowing whether MSNBC has allowed those videos to be posted, but I gather that you do. Would you care to share?

As for the sources, you claim that the blog at the Charleston Daily Mail is not subject to the newspaper's editing and editorial process. Are you really suggesting that a newspaper allows their reporters to post anything at all on the newspaper's site without exercising any control? On what do you base this claim?

You seem to be hung up on the word "blog". Blogs on sites like blogger.com are personal logs created by individuals. Those on the sites of organizations such as newspapers, politico.com, and newsbusters.org are published by the organization and subject to their control and their policies. They are not the same as personal blogs.

Nonetheless, since citing anything named a "blog" seem to be an issue with you, I have added a few more links from non-blog sites.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean this edit, not this one. Compare those to the edits discussed at Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell. There are a lot of duck feathers flying amid all that quacking. The level 4 warning is justified.

I do not "know" that the youtube post is a copyright violation in legal terms. I don't have to. For us to link to it, we need the site to display credible evidence that it is not a copyright violation.

Yes, a blog is a blog is a blog. The reason newspapers have deadtree editions that are different from web editions is clear: timeliness. The reason they have web editions and, often, blogs is clear as well: the web editions carry the editorial weight and fact-checking of the paper, the blogs are personal opinion pieces. (You can't possibly miss the personal opinions in those blogs you cited.

I haven't yet reviewed your new sources, so I won't comment yet on those. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you were trying to say with "You mean this edit, not this one", since both of the links pointed to the same edit. However, the edit I referred to in my post was the May 11 edit, and that is the one I intended to refer to. I was not even aware of the April 20 edit, since you had never mentioned it.

It is safe to assume that the April edit was made by the same person as the May edit. However, your calling him the "IP-switching vandal" seems to suggest that you think there was something duplicitous in the change of IP address, which is not at all reasonable. This is quite normal with dynamic IP addressing schemes.

What seems to have occurred is that an IP user made an addition to the article on April 20 which you reverted. He then came back three weeks later, noticed that the text he added was not there and re-added most of it. Based on that, you tagged his talk page with a level 4im vandalism warning. Assuming that is an accurate description, I cannot imagine how you could say that was justified.

I do not understand your point regarding the discussion at Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell and duck feathers. I see nothing there to suggest that the editor in question was involved in editing that page or the talk page. Would you please explain?

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. I meant to compare the old edit with the newer one (which was identical). That editor, under various IPs, has appeared at Kelly O'Donnell and other articles making similar accusations of bias using selected quotes with similar sourcing. I can't prove it yet, but it looks a lot like a duck. Back to the topic at hand. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we list all the potential reliable sources on the talk page, and then use them to evaluate weight and source-suitability concerns. Based on what I've seen, the real concern is showing that the information in question has enough weight to merit inclusion in a BLP -- is it some fringe sniping, or an issue/criticism worthy of including in the man's biography? Please link sources numbered list below (WP:CT encouraged!), and we can have a specific discussion about them instead of getting bogged down in nebulous discussions of the meaning of "blog" and the like. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Saul Alinsky

• "In December 2009, Matthews referred to Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky as "one of our heroes from the past"."

For openers, I am removing the youtube link. There is no credible claim on the page to show that it is not a copyright violation. As such, Wikipedia will not link to it, as explained at WP:YT.

Next, there is a problem with the section, "Allegations of bias and controversy". As it currently reads, this is not an allegation of bias and/or controversy, it is an isolated quote. I'll return to this.

The sources are problematic (see list above). Blogs claiming the quote is controversial or evidence of bias are as meaningful as some random guy on the subway going off about something in the paper. As such, sources 1 and 3 above are useless.

"Canada Free Press" is not a newspaper or news service as its name may imply. It's a conservative Christian website. The text that follows uses the quote to lead off a first person singular riff on Alinsky. The most we can say from the text presented is not having to do with bias or controversy. All it says is that one person affiliated with a minor website said that Matthews said Alinsky is one of his heroes. The question of WP:WEIGHT here is huge.

This leave Glenn Beck. I can't support the idea that what one media figure (Beck, Maddow, whoever) says about a person passes the weight test. If it did, Wikipedia would bog down with accusations every evening as everyone started quoting their favorites in dozens of articles. The articles on every political figure would be absurdly long. If we ignore the issue of weight, we're left with what the transcript actually says. For one thing, it is focused not on Matthews, but on a claim that liberals love Alinsky (notably, Saul Alinsky, Liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, Democratic Party (United States), etc. do not yet see fit to include Beck's claim). And what, after all of that, does Beck actually say about the quote? That Mattews says Alinsky is one of "our" heroes, which Beck argues proves Alinsky is a hero to liberals.

Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no flaws in logic or presentation at first glance; unless there are a great number of sources that are specifically critical 'of Matthews on this specific issue I don't see how this information overcomes WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "Saul Alinsky" quote is somewhat questionable, and so I am deleting it. However, the "I forgot he was black" quote was widely covered in the mainstream press, as well as left-leaning and right-leaning partisan groups, so I think that should stay.

I think the deletion of the YouTube link was premature. It is one thing to ask for proof that it does not violate MSNBC's copyright if it is posted on Wikipedia. However, I am not sure that a link to a web site that violates someone's copyright should necessarily be deleted, and certainly an absence of proof that it does not violate copyright is not grounds to delete it. I know of no Wikipedia policy that would support this, and such a policy would result in most links on Wikipedia being removed. So I am re-adding the YouTube link.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this important point of order: instead of worrying about the youtube, you can certainly just cite the MSNBC show or whatever directly. There is absolutely no requirement that a source must be available online for review. That being said, citing primary sources runs afoul of WP:OR. If the citation is for something done on a television show, just reference the television show (not reference/link to material of questionable copyright status or authorship). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there was no need to remove the reference to the TV show under any circumstances. If it made sense to remove the YouTube link, the rest of the reference should stay. However, a link to the video clearly adds value, because people can hear the quote in context, hear the tone of voice and see facial expressions. If including the link is shown not to be appropriate, then fine, delete it, but absence of proof that the YouTube page does not violate MSNBC's copyright is not the standard. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your meaning. Just cite the episode, and don't link to copyrighted content; EOF. Regarding your statement "I am not sure that a link to a web site that violates someone's copyright should necessarily be deleted" -- yessir, it absolutely must be deleted without question. This is not negotiable; if you don't understand that then I don't think you're qualified to be evaluating copyright compliance on Wikipedia (no offense). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of your comment, in which you say you don't follow my meaning, I was essentially agreeing with you, which is why I started my comment with "I agree". The only area where there may be some daylight between our positions is whether it makes sense to link to a video clip of a TV show. I was saying that there is significant value to such a link, so if there is not a good reason not to link to the video, it should be included.

Regarding the issue of linking to a external site that violates someone's copyright, as I said above, "I agree that we should not be linking to material posted in violation of copyright laws". I simply do not think it would be good for the reputation of Wikipedia to knowingly include such links. What I was saying was that I am not aware of any specific Wikipedia policy that says that is prohibited. If you are aware of specific policy or guidelines on the matter, would you please provide a link?

I was further saying that the standard cannot be a presumption of copyright violation, which is what SummerPhD seemed to support when he removed the citation because there was "no credible claim on the page to show that it is not a copyright violation". That standard is neither reasonable nor practical.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the onus is not on me to prove that the link is a copyright violation. Rather, "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." WP:ELNEVER We know, beyond doubt, that the material is copyrighted. We have nothing whatsoever indicating that the (in effect) anonymous poster to youtube has licensed the work. Frankly, it wouldn't even make sense for the poster to have licensed it. If you believe it is licensed, I would appreciate an explanation. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)