Looks like Matt stopped tweeting and deleted all of his tweets early November 2018. I wonder if there's anyplace that documents why?https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/Aleshh (talk)00:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

He's clearly still tweeting in March 2019, so this doesn't seem relevant anymore. Speculation about twitter usage is also maybe not notable enough for a bio article?EPadgett (talk)14:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This article lacks the required neutrality. Comments such as "his academic training in philosophy is often reflected in the density and abstruseness of his writing" are clearly subjective. It's evident that this profile was "ghost" written by the subject himself.— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.50.223.48 (talk)

That's a pretty serious accusation. Now, Yglesias has his own user account:User:Myglesias. As it happens that sentence, along with a good portion of the article was written byUser:Peripatetic. You think Yglesias went to the trouble of creating another account, makingthousands of edits under it just so he could say some nice things about himself?Makgraf05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

With all respect, 68.50.223.48 is a twit who should do the MINIMUM research before he slings around accusations that are dumb in the extreme. I am a Bangladeshi, loud and proud, and don't give a monkey's toss about what such IPeople are thinking. Check out some of the Bangladesh-related articles I've written and edits I've done. Only possible by a native Bangladeshi -Bobita andJayasree Kabir andNilkhet andUttara will do for a start. Also, check out the Bengali Wikipedia - another thousand-plus edits there - in BANGLA! If 68.50.223.48 has a problem with the prose, he should change it. Nuff sed. --Peripatetic23:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Damn I wish I was Bangladeshi so I could make edits like those! You go, girl!

Why does this article call him Matt, when his proudly eponymous blog is calledwww.matthewyglesias.com?Skarioffszky17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted the part labeling Matt as a gay blogger, because its obvious that in the link used ([1]), Matt was being facetious. Hamburgers don't invert one's sexuality, at least from what I've seen. I think someone was having a bit fun there :)

How does this article come to the conclusion that Matthew Yglesias is a liberal blogger? He's aMitt Romney fan! --JHP (talk)02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's possible you are kidding... but Yglesias is unabashedly a liberal (though he may prefer the term "progressive"). His support of Mitt Romney is firmly tongue-in-cheek, as "the least bad Republican," which should be clear from his post"Why I'm a Mitt Man".Clconway (talk)03:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Andrew Sullivan's not a conservative though.—Precedingunsigned comment added by72.95.231.76 (talk)14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why say that Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan are 'sometimes labeled conservatives'? Both clearly are. If one of these is not a conservative, they shouldn't be in this sentance as the entire point of the sentance is to contrast liberal bloggers with conservatives. We need to either find different conservative bloggers who have praised Yglesias or simply remove the useless 'sometimes labeled' language.Hutchie6 (talk)14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Fixed.Binarybits (talk)14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've removed both from the conservative side because neither are that.--91.105.174.106 (talk)04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sullivan wrote a book called "The Conservative Soul." Glenn Reynolds contributes to Townhall.com. I don't know what else you want.Binarybits (talk)14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sullivan was and is one of the biggest cheerleaders for Obama, he lead the internet campaign against Sarah Palin. Whatever his is book called doesn't matter. Only what he what he promtes is Liberalism. He is called Conservative because he was for the Iraq war--91.105.149.237 (talk)03:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Republican isn't the same as conservative, and liberal isn't the same as Democrat. He self-identifies as conservative, so unless you can show that reliable sources label him as liberal, that's how we should identify him. It's not our job (and againstWP:NOR) to analyze his views and make an independent judgement about his ideology.Binarybits (talk)15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Andrew Sullivan isn't a conservative, even if he might have expressed conservative views in the past on occasion. He's not a conservative any more than David Brock, leader of Media Matters is. You say you shouldn't "analyze his views and make an independent judgement on his ideology," but that's exactly what you are doing by labeling him a conservative. You are analyzing some views he expressed himself as holding in the past. Currently, he supports universal healthcare and many of President Obama's other policies. Sidenote: Matthew Yglesias is also a liberal. He blogged for ThinkProgress, one of the leading liberal blogs, for a while, and he constantly expressed liberal views while blogging for them. His political views are toned down at Slate because he's not blogging purely about politics.— Precedingunsigned comment added by210.177.98.223 (talk)03:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

2013: I'm removing the liberal label. Regardless of whether heis a liberal or not, thereliable sources don't support it. If you disagree then please post your sources here for discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)17:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is this worth inclusion? The incident it refers to (Yglesias tweeting nasty comments about Andrew Breitbart after the latter's death) happened just last week. It seems to be producing vandalism of this article (see the recent edit removing an accusation that Yglesias eats his own shit), and a deliberate campaign of one-star ratings of the guy's new ebook over on Amazon. If there's going to be a controversy section, it seems like it should at least include a mention of Yglesias's inclusion in the Journolist "scandal" though frankly the sniping between him and various right-wing writers like Breitbart, Eli Lake, Jonathan Strong seems tedious, largely irrelevant, and likely to attract more vandalism.Sbma44 (talk)21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can't place that here. Even if he was to oh, I don't know. Support the Lynching of Tucker Carlson... The socialist brigade would come in and protect their buddy's article.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2602:306:8389:4120:47:B52E:F112:B3FD (talk)15:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

No mention at all of how he nuked his whole Twitter history after being an apologist for the mob ragefest outside Tucker Carlson's home, and how he thereafter clears his Twitter history on the regular?DsouzaSohan (talk)01:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please note, a discussion has been started atWP:BLPN regarding whether we should mention that Yglesias doesn't have an economics degree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)21:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links onMatthew Yglesias. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20130718171430/https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/statuses/241343504045973504 tohttps://twitter.com/mattyglesias/statuses/241343504045973504
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20080127212526/http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047008622X.html tohttp://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047008622X.html
• Corrected formatting/usage forhttp://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage forhttp://www.prospect.org/weblog/

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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)03:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing and mostly fix small things and typos, but I noticed that the political views section of this article seems to contain a fairly random set of issues. Before I start adding a bunch of things I think are noteworthy, I was wondering whether there are any objections to this or standards I should be aware of.

I am thinking of adding at least the following: early support for the YIMBY movement and his previous books, coining the term "hack gap", the populism debate, and his writing on mobilisation.IsengrimProudmead (talk)14:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree both that the selection is random (though slanted towards the negative), please add more that is central to his actual significance as a political writer.Original Position (talk)07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply