Talk:Chris Hayes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Why isn't the controversy in own section?

Perhaps this has been discussed but why isn't the details on the controversy in it's own heading, as is the case with most other biographies? It seems a little weird that it is sandwiched between two different gigs he had as a TV Journalist. They seem like they should be adjacent, and the controversy should have it's own section. Perhaps other gigs of his should be added to that section, but I don't think he has had any other controversy. His media career is separate from the one time he put his foot in his mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


ridiclous

how do you do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.196.144.11 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy based on twitter post

An anonymous editor has repeatedly inserted a "controversy" section whose only citation is one of the subject's own Twitter posts. Twitter is obviously not a reliable source, and especially given that the subject is a living person, it's not appropriate to include in the article. Anyone disagree? Binarybits (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a controversy section, but it must be decently cited. It doesn't have to be perfectly cited -- a work in progress is ok -- but Twitter posts are not sufficient. ask123 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate A. Shaw

Chris marries Kate A. Shaw, here referred to as "long-time Kate A. Shaw", what is a "long-time Kate A. Shaw"? V85 (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename to Chris Hayes (journalist)

Rationale is described in

WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia's editorial standard for naming of persons is that the common name be used rather than the individual's formal name. EG WP article is "Bill Clinton" not "William Jefferson Clinton". I will move this in a few days unless someone thinks this might be controversial. J JMesserly (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris himself is ambiguous

When I first saw this question, I was all ready to say that of course the name should be changed to "Chris."

But then, when I clicked on the link to "Chris Hayes' personal site" in the Wikipedia article, I found a site called "ChrisHayes.org," with the heading of his bio page as "Christopher..." On the right side was:

"Christopher Hayes is the Washington, D.C. Editor of The Nation and a contributor to MSNBC.

"Follow Chris on Twitter.

"Join Christopher's email list."

On The Nation's website, he's "D.C. Editor Chris Hayes" as well as "Washington Editor Christopher Hayes." (I must admit that I was shocked by this.)

So it seems that Chris is somewhat ambiguous about what name he uses. Would it make sense to contact him and ask him what he thinks?

Printphi (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to his first two shows in the article. Not once will you hear anyone refer to him as Christopher. Since you asked there is some doubt so I have twittered him to confirm. J JMesserly (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Hayes was kind enough to respond quickly. This is documented in his twitter feed anyone can see it for this date, it is publicly verifiable. But I repeat here FYI:
JohnMesserly John Messerly 
@chrislhayes Do people commonly call you Chris or Christopher? Need to know for your Wikipedia article.
[link to:]Talk:Christopher Hayes (journalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


@chrislhayes
@JohnMesserly Friends and ppl in my life call me Chris
Seems pretty definitive that the article should be renamed to Chris Hayes (journalist) then. Will do so late tomorrow unless there is further comment. J JMesserly (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid comment by Coulter

Lots of people have commented about the "controversy". Why give sace to more of Coulters inane misogynist rants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.156 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo not representative/ Hayes' father

The current photo (christopher hayes headshot) is of higher quality than the former switzerland photo, but is not representative because he never appears on camera without his glasses. It would be really nice if someone took a decent photo of him and released it with an appropriate free license.

Secondly, there was a vandalization or possibly some confusion by contributor 99.68.185.148 Hayes' father is not Richard Wilbur, but is Roger Hayes. I did not insert the correct father name because he is a private citizen. He was formerly an activist knowledgeable of Saul Alinsky methods as documented in this source. Possibly some might think it is noteworthy enough, but the marginal value in my view does not outweigh discretion about info on a private individuals. J JMesserly (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried replacing the photo with a more recent one, but I was reverted. If anyone would like to upload a better photo, there are plenty of creative commons photos here [1]. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are all uploadable to commons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, MBM, but your photo was blurred and a profile shot. And IMO, those at Commons are no better than the one currently in the infobox. A clear shot of his face, with or without glasses, is preferred to a full body or half-body shot or one with a side view. Cresix (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on uploading a new headshot now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your consideration.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, I like this shot. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good shot, but blurry. What would be really nice is an in-focus picture of him (with glasses I suppose ;)). ask123 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
♔ 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

External links

Per

WP:ELNO
, the external links section of an article is not for compiling a comprehensive directory of every page you can find on the internet that pertains to the article topic at all; it is only for the one or two most immediate primary websites of the topic themselves. Articles about or featuring Chris Hayes in other media, such as the following, might be useful as references for article content, but should not be simply added directly to external links:

- Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did his mojo go?

Surprised that neither in this article nor in those on

Up with Chris Hayes and All In with Chris Hayes is there any comparison of how his 21st century persona, format and vibe have changed. He didn't just don a tie when he abruptly quit Up on weekends to go daily with All In: He's also drastically changed his show line-up, thus diluting his focus and all but relinquishing his brand. Up was refreshing because Chris almost never had the traditional "old white straight men" constitute a majority of guests, instead usually showcasing fresh faces; largely women, non-Americans, people of color and/or LGBTs as panel experts -- letting them loose to dig deep or challenge each other's premises, without competing with them. He reserved for himself the role at which he was best; succinctly providing context and connecting dots when new factoids or issues were introduced by guests. That's all just gone. Chris himself remains articulate, thorough, upbeat and (relatively) balanced -- but his show is now just like most of the other MSNBC talk show line-up and, finding no value-added, I've drifted back to Maddow for wry but heart-felt truth and to O'Donnell for jugular-slashing analytics. Realizing that Chris switched cities to do the new gig, isn't there yet a body of commentary on the profound retro-shift in his targeted audience? PlayCuz (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Occupation: Philospher

I would to see his occupation reverted to "News Anchor" exclusively. I haven't found any evidence of him being employed as a philospher. I propose, if there are no dissenting opinions to this point in the next 30 days, (11/4/2013) the tag be reverted. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless there is something missing, all I see related to that is his prior philosophy degree. One's degree doesn't define their profession though. Caidh (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to my previous proposal of revision, I will be reverting his occupancy to "News Anchor" exclusively.WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and Israel section too much weight

The "Jews and Israel" section probably has too much weight in relation to the rest of the article. I would propose leaving the first paragraph but removing the last two discussing individuals criticizing Hayes. There also doesn't appear to be balance. His wife is on the faculty of Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, which is affiliated with Yeshiva University. Knope7 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the last paragraph is undue weight so I removed it. I also moved a paragraph break.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I removed the section. This has not received significant media coverage in the United States and Hayes tweeted on September 2 "it was a joke about my friend's politics, not my own. That was the point in context." I do not think this incident warrants its own section in an encyclopedia article at this time. Knope7 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I restored some of it, because Wikipedia aspires to be a global encyclopedia that responds to reliable sources outside the U.S. But, I shortened it, and put it into the context of other newsworthy tweets by Hayes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the tweets cited are "newsworthy." Websites like Salon publish a lot of content about social media. The story wasn't picked-up and it's unclear what the significance was. While I agree that Wikipedia does cover matters outside of the US, Hayes is a host whose show airs in the United States. That none of these "newsworthy" or controversial issues have been widely covered in the United States suggests to me that they are more obscure issues than material warranting coverage in an encyclopedia article about Hayes. Knope7 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salon is considered a reliable source at Wikipedia. You also deleted a reference to the NY Times which Wikipedia likewise treats as a reliable source. As for the Israeli sources that you deleted, they are typically more sensitive than U.S. media to accusations about antisemitism. I generally don't like these kinds of deletions, in view of
WP:Preserve. Let's see what other editors think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree this should be open to discussion. To clarify my point about Salon, I am not denying that Salon is a source that can be cited on Wikipedia. I do feel that the use of the particular article chosen to demonstrate "newsworthy" tweets is thin. By that measure, a lot of tweets would be considered newsworthy and included in Wikipedia. IMO, newsworthiness of social media should be reserved for more widespread or even in-depth coverage.
Part of my issue with the way the allegations of antisemitism was written is that it did not include that Hayes responded or that he has in the past used twitter to denounce violence against Jewish business owners. While I am absolutely supportive of efforts to combat antisemitism, not every allegation of antisemitism is going to be the sort of incident ripe for inclusion in Wikipedia. Knope7 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to include that Hayes responded and that he has in the past used twitter to denounce violence against Jewish business owners.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the re-addition of the paragraph on Hayes's tweet. At most it's worth a sentence considering the very limited coverage of the incident. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a sentence stating he has been accused of antisemitism on multiple occasions. Based on those citations, the accusations are in response to the tweet and the accusations of Frontpage which based on their own about page appears to be a highly ideological source. Calling someone antisemitic is a strong accusation and one which potentially raises BLP problems. Discussing the tweet itself, without attaching a potentially defamatory label to Hayes would be less of a problem, however, that tweet does not appear to be particularly newsworthy and based upon Hayes' own follow-up, was likely only a joke. Knope7 (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Chris Hayes (journalist). 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
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes does commentary, not journalism

Look, I happen to agree with a lot of what Chris Hayes says but that doesn't change the fact that what he does is not journalism. If it were in a newspaper it would be called op/ed. There's nothing wrong with opinion or commentary, but journalism is something different. For reference here is the American Press Institute's (a nonprofit journalism training org founded in 1946 as an extension of Columbia Journalism School) take on the elements that constitute journalism (this is the definition agreed upon by most US journalism associations): https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/elements-journalism/ Amywestervelt (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think sources agree. Regardless, he definitely was a journalist of prominence at one point, even if you disagree with that label now. He has been nominated for a Peabody and similar specifically for news, and his Emmy as arguably for journalism, as well. The current title of the article is based on him being a journalist, so any removal of that point should come after starting and resolving a discussion about renaming the article, not before. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on

Chris Hayes (journalist). 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– Obvious

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gets 95% of pageviews for every Chris Hayes combined, and the other articles are quite short and not especially significant. The Chris Hayes DAB page also gets quite a bit of views (2,008 in the past 90 days, which is more than any other Hayes article) which suggests the current setup is getting in the way of what readers want. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The only evidence we have is page views from the last 90 days. If that was the sole criteria for determining a primary topic, we could automate that. But we don't. Page views alone are insufficient to make this change. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at page views from a different time period. I picked one in 2017 and then 2016 at random. Or have a look at Google results, for when other potentially notable people with entries come up. What do you propose are the metrics for judging primary topic? Certainly not just a hunch that is shouldn't be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or even have a look at page views over the last 3.5 years or so. Even when this page is at it's lowest, it's still very, very clearly the top interest by a huge margin.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If page views alone were there the only mechanism to judge a primary topic, we would automate that rather than use discussions. It's
appeal to popularity of a current journalist-entertainer. Page views alone are not enough. We simply should not bury all the other Chris Hayes behind this topic. -- Netoholic @ 08:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Recentism does't simply mean that topics that are currently popular cannot be the primary one, that would be silly. We need some other kind of indication beyond gut feeling. So what other reasoning are you using to judge that the other pages, none of which have ever received any noticeable interest in their history, are going to spring up to be more notable in the long term? And remember, we can always make changes if someone changes down the line.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the evidence presented by Yaksar. The journalist is clearly the primary topic, with no other Chris Hayes coming anywhere near close. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the information provided shows a strong bias in page views (and not just a recent one) for this Chris Hayes. Other arguments against the change have not been (in my opinion) compelling reasons to not make this change.Caidh (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would place a lot more weight on the hard data from pageviews over speculative doubt about enduring notability. There is not indication that this is a spike from an event. E.g., last year's page views are over 95% for the journalist. Similar results for 2016 pageviews.--
    WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Editors reverting the progressive label

I've been reverted twice now (once for a typo - which could have just been corrected) but someone is applying a purity test based on their own opinions, not reliable sources. Maybe I'm wrong - it's possible - but I at least have a citation to back this up. If there is a dispute as to whether he's a progressive, bring in some reliable sources to address it. Otherwise leave it as is. Caidh (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was added in May 8 of this year by an IP editor. The edit summary was "Keeping consistent with how primetime partisan cable news anchors are identified" which suggests either confusion about how these things are determined, or maybe
WP:POINTed
behavior based on some other article. There are some good reasons to challenge this detail being in the lede, but those reasons would need to explained. Right now this is sourced, and has gone unchallenged for months, and is being discussed on the talk page, so it should remain until consensus is changed.
So to cut to the chase: is "progessive" a term which is commonly used by
reliable sources to define Hayes, or is it more often a passing reference used clarify some other point? I suspect the former. If the latter, it probably doesn't belong. Sources are what matters, not personal opinion, in case that wasn't clear. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Trump and vaccinations

Who cares, at this point, what Trump did with his Covid shots. I did not believe much of what Trump said. What are you trying to do with this story? I do not think it is news nor does anything that Trump does real news now. Please , Trump did far worse things than lie about his vaccinations. Let him fade unless there is a real story. 2601:646:4100:A9A0:D0C5:AB5E:C3F8:2F4C (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Hayes&oldid=1205320197"