Talk:Matt Taibbi

I would de-emphasize that. He never set foot in the Soviet Union as far as I can tell. He spent time in countries that had been part of the USSR, but those countries still exist and they still were once part of the USSR, but we wouldn't describe someone today as working in the former Soviet Union. Ealtram (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:B132:E3BE:45FF:64D6 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Well I believe I originally phrased it that way to encompass the fact that it wasn't just Russia, it was also Uzbekistan and the former satellite state of Mongolia. I agree that it should be de-emphasized though. However, as far as "never set foot in" goes, Taibbi studied at Leningrad Polytechnical Institute when he was 20 years old, which would have been the Soviet Union, with Taibbi himself even calling it "the waning days of the Soviet empire". Οἶδα (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

His career sections starts out with his stint in Uzbekistan, but he started in Russia. It should start with Russia. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:B132:E3BE:45FF:64D6 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Οἶδα (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I added much-needed context from The eXile book and tidied up the sourcing because his early career is a bit confusing. He moved back and forth from America to the former Soviet Union many times, taking and re-taking jobs. Hope that helped. Οἶδα (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

sorry folks, no idea how I should be formatting this but why does his having had an affair with a married woman fit in here? it wasn't a career move; it didn't affect his career (at least not in this paragraph). was it inserted by someone involved in the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.137.207 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Taibbi himself openly discussed it in The eXile book. And no I am not involved in "the matter" lol, so I'll ignore that charge. You are correct that it is not fully confined within the scope of the existing heading "Career". Though, as I referenced above, the timeline of his early career is a bit confusing and he directly attributed his back-and-forth career moves to this relationship. So your assessment that "it didn't affect his career" is not completely accurate. Οἶδα (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a pointless section that feels like PR. Anything like this, if warranted, can be woven into Career. It comes off as very self-serving, as is—-especially since all the “assessments” are positive. This ain’t a book flap, yo. ~2025-34986-18 (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is clunky as its own section and that it should probably be folded into the Career section. I believe the first part actually was in the Career section first (I added it, if I remember correctly), then it was moved to a Controversy section, then into this Assessments section by whom I don't know. The revision history will tell you. Though, I would disagree with your assertion that it "comes off as very self-serving". The section is fundamentally presenting the divided perception of his recent work compared with his 2000s/early 2010s journalism, which has been discussed in reliable sources. Followed by one quote by a journalist. I do not believe I added that Gillespie quotation, and the section could certainly use more quotes for balance. But, as I explained in one my edits restoring that bit, the information is essential to characterize the considerable shift in public perception about Taibbi, which was completely absent when I started editing the page in 2019. Οἶδα (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Im not sure any of that material is particularly relevant. Id support folding it in to the rest of the article, however, and i can re-assess after that. Bonewah (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah there's no reason for the content to be placed below. However, anyone familiar with the last decade of Taibbi's career knows the discussion of him has been dominated by his alleged rightward drift and fallout with the audience and peers who once celebrated him; The New Republic called him "once beloved and now often despised by the left" in April. Another NY Mag piece last year called him "once a prominent left-wing polemicist who is now a paradigmatic anti-anti-Trumper, nominally opposed to Trump while almost exclusively attacking his enemies." Taibbi has acknowledged this on several occasions: "I found myself sort of instantly recharacterized as a conservative, Trump-leaning journalist". The Political views section here already starts with "Since the mid-2010s, Taibbi's reporting has increasingly focused on culture war topics and cancel culture" and continues that his writing "has since polarized readers and fellow journalists". I think the Assessments section can be easily placed right after those two sentences. And it seems wrong to suggest that two quotes corroborating and instantiating that polarization are somehow irrelevant. Οἶδα (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This article feels like it was written by its subject albeit scrupulously adhering to published sources. It may be that the information is all published, and even all true, but the narrative is too neat, tight and specific. Even historians of presidential lives must admit at times they just don't know what, when, or why. But you won't find that here. ~2025-40271-25 (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Well probably half of the article was expanded and edited by myself using all of the available sources I could find. You are free to go through my entire editing history and tell me if you think I am this person. I am very much not. You can view the page's revision history and read the comments I made above. All I have done is try to keep the article in line with published sources. I have on several occasions acted to keep not exactly flattering information in the article as well, as it nevertheless reflects the published sources.

Ignoring the charge you've lodged here, I would suggest you specify which parts of the article are problematic. Which parts you think reflect a "what, when, or why" that has actually not been published and is not known about the subject. I should say, much of the article was not added by me, and I'm not exactly satisfied by some of the presentation. However, Wikipedia is merely a reflection of how topics are treated in reliable sources. And the article as it stands does not contradict of that. The only parts that aren't great in my opinion are the early life/Russia career section and the Twitter Files section. The early/Russia career section because I had to rely extremely heavily on Taibbi's own words from The eXile book. The timeline was all messed up and impossible to understand and that book was the only source that actually laid out which events happened and when. Some of the weak secondary sources contradicted themselves. The Twitter Files section is difficult because the entire ordeal was a shitshow and covering it in more detail is excessive because the main article already exists for that reason.

Also, as I stated above, the article could use more quotes for balance. Though, I'm afraid the reportage needed to round the article out doesn't sufficiently exist. I feel that some of the real-world perception of Taibbi goes largely undiscussed in published sources unless it's discussed in detail in New York Magazine or somewhere else. Otherwise he has been somewhat ignored in a somewhat quiet fashion, excluding of course the crappy Fox News coverage he often involves himself in. I noticed the change around the time he left Rolling Stone. I mention this because I noticed you titled your section here "Gonzo". And I believe I originally introduced that part into the article after reading this Washington Post article that had been listed in the Links of this Wikipedia article for a very very long time. I also believe I read this review of his book that mentioned Hunter S. Thompson. But that was in 2019, a time when Taibbi was still considered a darling of the left and was most famous for his reporting attacking Wall Street. A lot has changed since then. And as such, I would agree that the Gonzo label is outdated. At least for the lead section. It isn't 2009 anymore, clearly. Οἶδα (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am seeking consensus about the paragraph regarding Matt Taibbi's defamation lawsuit against Eoin Higgins and Hachette Books.

I believe the source, the Free Press, is reliable for this specific context for the following reasons:

1. Institutional Backing: Since the 2025 acquisition, The Free Press has operated under the editorial umbrella of CBS News. Dismissing it as "not mainstream" is no longer consistent with its current corporate and editorial structure.
2. WP:ABOUTSELF: Per Wikipedia policy WP:ABOUTSELF, a source may be used for information about itself (or the author) if it is not unduly self-serving and does not involve claims about third parties. In this case, the source is being used to provide Taibbi's specific reasoning for his own legal action.
3. Fact of Publication: Even if one disputes the opinions in the article, it is a factual record that Taibbi made these statements in a major publication.

If the concern is purely about "No consensus" on the Perennial Sources list, would editors be comfortable restoring the text with in-text attribution (e.g., "Writing for The Free Press, Taibbi stated...")? This satisfies both BLP requirements and neutral point of view (NPOV) standards. ScottDNelson (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

By "restore", you presumably are referring to an edit which was reverted. Can you identify the edit with a diff link or date? That is, what text is proposed? Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

That's right, it was an edit that removed the full Higgins lawsuit info. I added back the paragraph, with the additional "Free Press" (now part of CBS news) source, and wanted to provide the above explanation in case there's any disagreement ScottDNelson (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Dismissing it as "not mainstream" is no longer consistent with its current corporate and editorial structure.

You added this content to the article in revision 1330869378 and supported it with a link to a Substack article and an X (Twitter) post. That is insufficient. I'm not sure why you're trying to retcon this by applying my previous words to The Free Press. Saying I said something about something I never said. The Free Press's article was published 3 days after your original edits to this article. There was no mainstream coverage at the time. I don't know why I'm even trying to reason with your post here on this talk page given the obvious fact that it was entirely generated using AI. And spare me the bullshit of trying to convince me otherwise. I'm not arguing with a robot. Unless your next reply starts with an admission of using AI I refuse to engage with you. Οἶδα (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Οἶδα, that's a pretty hostile post. I'm not sure what I did to offend you, from my view I added more constructive sourcing and improved the article, but if this triggering you of course don't have to engage further if you don't want. ScottDNelson (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering you insisted upon pinging me here despite the stipulation I offered, I will engage once to say: I really don't care. Why should I engage with a robot lying about my behavior? I of course assume good faith of the human behind the machine. This talk page message wasn't really needed because you restored the content with a mainstream source, which wasn't true the first time you added it. That is different, and as such no one removed it this time. But I respect that you ventured to pre-empt any immediate removal by starting a discussion here on the talk page. That being said, you are responsible for all of the edits you make on Wikipdia. So forgive me when this simple edit you made is supplemented by an offensive AI-generated message that, for no reason whatsoever, attempts to dishonestly reframe the previous edits and summaries made to the article by applying my previous words to The Free Press. And is made up of the usual text displaying AI's fundamental inability to correctly interpret the full scope of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Again, I will forgive all of that for the person who operated the machine. But I expect some humility and honesty going forward. Because in every situation I have encountered such as this, I have found that editors strictly refuse to admit to obvious AI usage and sadly often double down. That is dishonesty. But, as always, I will assume it is not intentional. However, I am not "triggered" by the edit you made to the article. I believe I made that rather clear. I am perturbed by the message that was posted on this talk page. It is rather disrespectful and dishonest to reframe my message here as being directed at the additions of "constructive sourcing" and "[article improvements]" you made. That is just another example of inappropriately applying my words to something else entirely. Saying I said something about something I never said. So yes, with that, I refuse to engage until the next message begins an admission of using AI. Then, and only then, can we begin an honest discussion. You can call this a "hostile post". But I will say what I have said before: any alleged incivility is directed at this crude mockery of humanity that is AI as it continues to degrade the encylopedia. Not at the humans behind the machine. So again, I really don't care. Report me to an administrator if you wish, such as the one who posted on this talk page. For what charges exactly? Expressing hostility toward a class of automated text generation that routinely suffers from ridiculous hallucinations and complete fabrications of the truth? AI is the most detached and dehumanizing incursion into our lives. And the greatest threat to Wikipedia. On this day as we celebrate 25 years of Wikipedia, I am not going to bite my lip on that. Any "hostility" is toward machines, not personally toward any one editor. Wikipedia's policy on WP:CIVILITY covers interactions between editors (read: humans). So I apologise to the human behind User:ScottDNelson if they've interpreted my words as a personal attack. That was never my intention. I would love to start over. But the day Wikipedia requires deference toward machines is the day I unplug forever. If refusing to engage and argue with robots constitutes incivility then please sanction me into oblivion. I'll accept that my choice of words is strong. But it is hard when confronted by blatant mistruths. And I really cannot assume good faith indefinitely if there arises strong evidence to the contrary. Οἶδα (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey missed your reply- I'm not going to read a comment quite that long on this topic (just as a general rule, not personal)

So I wish you well, and will otherwise ignore this thread ScottDNelson (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheers lol Οἶδα (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)