Talk:Chris Matthews

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Controversy" 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dated material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Resignation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrary Tulsi Gabbard References