![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
Can we get a Picture?
Dsol
16:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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
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)
Dsol 02:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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
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 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)
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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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)
I've removed all the external links on this page, if you disagree with this action please talk to me on my talk page. Regards, Rudget talk 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What is his ancestry? Is he Lebanese American? Badagnani ( talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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))
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.
Can we get a Picture?
Dsol
16:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Matt Taibbi. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ Coretheapple, 2600:1003:b01d:1c52:9d65:13b9:785f:9dd, and 2600:1003:B017:436F:F94E:25F5:66DE:2384: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:
an here are the arguments from the edit comments so far:
-- GRuban ( talk) 16:32, 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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself -- Espoo ( talk) 06:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ Bug2266: I'm concerned the citation for this edit [7] 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)
This edit [8] 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)
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)
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)
An unsourced claim that Taibbi is divorced was added by 2600:1700:CF90:EE0:2C49:6BB8:9006:27CE ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 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 2600:1700:CF90:EE0:2184:1206:7D9D:B037 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the summary: "yes u are mistaken the article clearly states he and his wife have divorced. (why else would he have a substack...)" 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)
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)
Discuss. Burrobert ( talk) 10:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Burrobert ( talk) 06:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal editorial board expanded the impact vague 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." [1]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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I suggest the following installments of the Twitter files section warrant a bit more detail:
The fifteenth installment, released on January 27, 2023, by Taibbi, reports on the Hamilton 68 Dashboard maintained by the
Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The seventeenth installment, released on March 2, 2023, by Taibbi, reports on the Global Engagement Center which was established by the
Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act.
SM-Mara (
talk)
15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Our section on these releases uses poor sources. Some are Fox, which is not reliable for politics according to RSP; others are primary sources (Taibbi's Twitter) or opinion pieces in reason.com. Can we replace with proper RSs? I think the Twitter Files article might have better sources. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
Can we get a Picture?
Dsol
16:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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
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)
Dsol 02:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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
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 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)
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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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)
I've removed all the external links on this page, if you disagree with this action please talk to me on my talk page. Regards, Rudget talk 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What is his ancestry? Is he Lebanese American? Badagnani ( talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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))
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.
Can we get a Picture?
Dsol
16:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Matt Taibbi. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ Coretheapple, 2600:1003:b01d:1c52:9d65:13b9:785f:9dd, and 2600:1003:B017:436F:F94E:25F5:66DE:2384: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:
an here are the arguments from the edit comments so far:
-- GRuban ( talk) 16:32, 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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself -- Espoo ( talk) 06:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ Bug2266: I'm concerned the citation for this edit [7] 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)
This edit [8] 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)
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)
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)
An unsourced claim that Taibbi is divorced was added by 2600:1700:CF90:EE0:2C49:6BB8:9006:27CE ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 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 2600:1700:CF90:EE0:2184:1206:7D9D:B037 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the summary: "yes u are mistaken the article clearly states he and his wife have divorced. (why else would he have a substack...)" 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)
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)
Discuss. Burrobert ( talk) 10:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Burrobert ( talk) 06:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal editorial board expanded the impact vague 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." [1]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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I suggest the following installments of the Twitter files section warrant a bit more detail:
The fifteenth installment, released on January 27, 2023, by Taibbi, reports on the Hamilton 68 Dashboard maintained by the
Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The seventeenth installment, released on March 2, 2023, by Taibbi, reports on the Global Engagement Center which was established by the
Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act.
SM-Mara (
talk)
15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Our section on these releases uses poor sources. Some are Fox, which is not reliable for politics according to RSP; others are primary sources (Taibbi's Twitter) or opinion pieces in reason.com. Can we replace with proper RSs? I think the Twitter Files article might have better sources. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)