Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator)

Separate views and controversies

I think separating the views and controversies would be beneficial. There's a lot of undue issues with that section, likely unintentional. Walsh's style is intentionally provocative, so another wikipedia list of "controversies" is not really informative. So I'd also suggest that the controversies sections maybe not even exist without setting some kind of bar here for what that even means in this case. An argument with someone, or he says "blah blah blah, and the internet loses it's mind" aren't really what encyclopedic content is meant to be. 208.117.96.2 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I kind of agree with this. What makes a view of his notable enough for Wikipedia? Does it need to foment enough outrage? Does it need to be a significant issue in society? I feel like Wiki is just piling up these controversies to paint him as some kind of psychopath but as OP said a lot of what he says in his segments are intentionally provocative (ie Anime being satanic and people trying to "cancel" him wanting an apology should be apologizing to him). 142.116.121.165 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Although they are not outright banned, Wikipedia discourages separate sections for "criticism" and "controversies". (See Wikipedia:Criticism for details.) It is generally better to keep the views and the reactions to the views together. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of you need to find the difference between "provocation" and outright being abusive. Orocairion (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Saying anime is satanic is abusive? 142.118.161.2 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Gotta find a better disingenous strawman than that. Orocairion (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be a controversies section. He has come out to state upsetting comments about underaged girls multiple times. He also has a history in a white supremacist organization. 144.121.36.232 (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Walsh's opposition to transgender rights

In the introduction section, a line reads: "Walsh opposes transgender rights and has campaigned in opposition to groups providing or encouraging transgender health care, particularly for minors."

All cited sources address his opposition to gender affirming care but none address his opposition to transgender rights – transgender rights being associated with such causes as ending employment discrimination and promoting equal marriage rights. Perhaps I missed the source, but if not please add one to support the statement that Walsh is in opposition to transgender rights, rather than the more specific label which was already provided regarding his opposition to transgender health care. 76.244.42.200 (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW gender affirming care is a “transgender right” Dronebogus (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Am I Racist Movie

Official website link for his new movie "Am I Racist" is www.amiracist.com Usernamedchris (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

Change introduction from "far-right" to "right-wing" Matt Walsh shares right wing opinions but they are not extreme. Other Daily Wire members aren't introduced as "far-right" but rather conservative or right-wing. Supreme5553222 (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

ABC News introduces Matt Walsh as a "right-wing podcaster" not "far-right." https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/Business/wireStory/beetlejuice-beetlejuice-1-conservative-doc-racist-cracks-box-113703021 Supreme5553222 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't on its own enough to change the label, though. It's just one source, and anyway, "right-wing" is a large, vague category which includes both more moderate right-wing positions and the far-right. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So why aren't any left-wing commentators labeled as "far-left" for their views? Far right and far left represent extremes on both sides, different from just right wing. The AP also labeled Walsh a "right-wing podcaster." https://apnews.com/article/box-office-beetlejuice-213fc5bccddb5ad875d8bc3e3da7718d Supreme5553222 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If any commentators are described as far-left by many sources, as Walsh is described as far-right by many sources, then it would be appropriate to describe them as far-left in the lead sections of their articles. And some sources only describing them with the nonspecific term "left-wing" would not override that, just as some sources only describing Walsh as "right-wing" doesn't override this. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I made this change. The lead section should follow the body (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), and more sources in the body describe him as right-wing. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Far-right is included within the broader description of "right-wing". If we have sufficient valid sources for "far-right" then we can and should use them in the body, and probably should also reflect that in the lead. Other sources saying "right wing" do not contradict this. That is merely less specific, not actually contradictory. (The analogy I would use is that if we had good sources saying that a person is 6'2" then we could use that even if other sources only say "six foot". Those would not be regarded as contradicting the more specific statement unless they specifically said "6'0"" or something genuinely contradictory like "five foot".) That said, I agree that the current body text is not sufficient to justify "far-right" in the lead but the body does seem to soft pedal this far more than is neutral. We do not need to bend over backwards to spare Walsh's blushes. I'd favour revisiting the body text first, to see if we have sufficient sources to be a bit less mealy mouthed, and then seeing if that suggests a corresponding change to the lead. DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This user (and an IP that is probably a sock) kept vexatiously reverting me over this issue. This is clearly WP:SEALIONING; the user and IP should probably both be reported and the talkpage locked. Dronebogus (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't really your place to do this. None of the comments you repeatedly reverted fell afoul of WP:TPO seeing as it was just an edit request asking for the reinstallation of the consensus version from two hours prior... ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

At the beginning of the Views section, there is a count of labels in WP:GREL sources from 2021 to 2023. Perhaps it can be updated by adding any more recent GREL sources or reputable academic journals. Llll5032 (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

From a quick Google search, the only sources barring the ones in the article I can see referring to Walsh as "far-right" are sources that are no-consensus rather than generally reliable (Rolling Stone, Vice) and Raw Story which is marked as unreliable. "Right-wing" is more frequently used - and I don't think that's because as some editors above has suggested they're just encompassing his far-right views into the broader right-wing, seeing as most WP:RSPs don't spare the label when it comes to the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene. Perhaps moving it down into a separate section of the lede saying he's been described as "right-wing, conservative or far-right" with citations much like the body might work, but the addition of far-right to the lede does not reflect what sources say. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQ Nation

Hello- in the Johnny the Walrus section, there are two passages attributed to a source called LGBTQ Nation. Is that a reputable source? I've found a discussion on the noticeboard about it, but I can't decipher if there's a consensus? If anyone can weigh in, please. thanks. Call me maestro (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)