Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Loudon County Incident

Wanted to start a conversation here instead of reverting edits. Currently the phrasing "speak out against the Loudon County School Board for its protections of transgender students" reads like a statement from an political advocacy group, and I believe this violates WP:NPOV.

I understand that this may be in part to my poor selection of source material (Daily Beast has a strong left bias, per neutral bias watchdogs such as AllSides and Media Bias / Fact Check , as well as medium credibility per Media Bias / Fact Check. I apologize for using a poor source for this, and would like to propose using a more neutral / highly regarded source (below) and rewording.

I propose using the following as better sources:

and changing the wording to "speak out against the Loudon County School Board for its transgender policies" in an effort to maintain a neutral point of view on the stated policies. Additionally, the proposed wording aligns with the verbiage of the source material of both pieces, and Patch has been reported as being an unbiased / least biased source per Media Bias / Fact Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/patch/), and uses the phrase "transgender policies" in the headline of the article. Local Fox outlets are generally less biased than their national counterparts, see sources below:

All local outlets reviewed for bias tend between least biased or center right from an editorial position, and rate more highly for credibility per Media Bias / Fact Check.

Agreed on removing the critical race theory comment, it isn't a focus of the story so we can leave it out.

Happy to adjust the verbiage to read "speak out against the Loudon County School Board" unless there is a better neutral source we can quote (all the articles I've found on this are hard left or hard right, but happy to entertain other neutral sources that I may have missed).

Thanks!

Corgidad101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corgidad101 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Corgidad101. I think your new proposed wording is neutral, although it doesn't describe what the policies do. For neutral language, we can summarize any reliable source (WP:RS) that describes exactly what Walsh spoke about at the school board meeting. We are careful about combining sources; in many uses it is OK, but it can be considered WP:SYNTH if used to make a conclusion that neither source makes, or a WP:COATRACK if the source does not contain the subject of the article. Wikipedia does not use Allsides or MBFC as guides, but there is a list at WP:RSP of common sources. Llll5032 (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I can amend to be a little more specific if that is desired. "speak out against the Loudon County School Board for its transgender policies, including requiring teachers to use a student's preferred gender pronouns, and allowing students to use the bathroom aligning to their gender identity". We can just use the patch article. I think its a little too specific, "transgender policies" is about as specific as "protections of transgender students", although somewhat more neutral.

If additional specificity is required, I can include the detail on the specific polices as stated previously, otherwise I propose just leaving as "transgender policies'.

Thanks,

Corgidad101Corgidad101 (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The Patch source you suggest summarizes what Walsh and others protested as "policies to protect transgender students" in its first sentence. This Fox5 article has a similar short description. I think this may be the best wording for the sake of descriptiveness and brevity, but we can consider any other summary from a WP:RS on Walsh at the meeting that is short, descriptive of what he opposed, and neutral. Llll5032 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I think I logged out before so my comments didn't track properly. Both the patch article and the fox 5 article describe in the headline the terminology "transgender policy." I know they also use your proposed verbiage later in the article, but considering both are used, and "transgender policy" is more neutral, I submit that it is preferable to use "transgender policy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corgidad101 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What about: "for allowing transgender students the use of restrooms and names matching their gender identity"? Llll5032 (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Or: "expanding rights for transgender students." Llll5032 (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that "for allowing transgender students the use of restrooms and names matching their gender identity" would be preferable between the two.Corgidad101 (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Non Primary Source Request on Fox and Friends Appearance

Can someone explain this request to me. Why do we need a secondary source on whether or not Walsh appeared on a Fox show, wouldn't the video clips from Fox be sufficient evidence? Are we expecting that another outlet reported on the guests on a Fox show? This doesn't seem like something that would be prejudiced by any journalistic bias, either he did or he did not appear on the show, and according to the articles and clips, he did. Are we suspecting that we can't trust Fox's word that he appeared on their show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corgidad101 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Corgidad101, thanks again for writing. I just left a message on your talk page about this. Llll5032 (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

AOC Grandmother Fundraiser

Hi,

Why are we removing Walsh's explanation for why he started the fundraiser for AOC's grandmother? It goes beyond what is currently stated in the wikipedia article, which currently reads that he did it to solely to mock her. The source clearly states that he wanted to highlight the double standard of her asking for government aid for her family while having the means to help her grandmother, as a congresswoman with a 6 figure salary. If we are allowing AOC to explain her side of the story, that the government (allegedly) failing to provide sufficient support following hurricane maria directly led to her grandmother's current living conditions, it seems only fair to include his side of the story, which is clearly outlined in the Insider source and was subsequently removed. This seems to be a violation of W:NPOV, and would almost seem like we are deliberately misrepresenting the source article by claiming his sole goal in this exercise was to mock AOC, which is not the conclusion the source material arrives at.

Open to alternative wording suggestions on how to work in his rationale, if my prior summation was insufficient for some reason, but in the interest of telling the whole story and remaining neutral, I believe we need to expand on what is currently present in this wikipedia entry.Corgidad101 (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PROPORTION ("An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject") and WP:OVERQUOTING ("Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing"). This is one of many controversial episodes, so it should be kept short. Llll5032 (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll update it to be shorter, but I do think its important to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corgidad101 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither Walsh nor the congresswoman is a RS, so any accusations made by them must be attributed, not in Wikivoice, per WP:ATTRIBUTE. Also be careful of WP:REDFLAG claims. Llll5032 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:BI is yellow, not green, in the RSP list. So this episode may require a better RS, especially if described at length. Llll5032 (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox

I found a secondary source for Walsh having appeared on Fox News (specifically, The Tucker Carlson Hour or whatever his show is called). Unfortunately, it’s from the Post Millennial, which is (rightfully) considered an unreliable source. I think this source is sufficient to show that he did appear on Fox News with Tucker Carlson, and that it might be notable within the conservo-sphere. I assume this requires further discussion, though, so I’m asking about it here. Maybe this should be somewhere else, but I’m new and don’t know where to ask (maybe WikiProject Conservatism?) Source in question Cheers, postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 16:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding also that I don’t think this establishes notability for the book they’re discussing in the clip, just the appearance on Fox. postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 16:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Duggars

Astinus The DragonLance Chronicler, I reverted the paragraph you added about the Duggars per WP:BLP because it lacked reliable secondary sources. Per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." To include a controversy in a biography, it must summarize how independent secondary reliable sources (WP:SECONDARY) describe the controversy. Again per WP:BLP: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Llll5032 (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Llll5032, sorry just now spotting this after having attempted to restore the paragraph. I added secondary sources, but could not find one for the Christians who criticized him.

I am unclear as why, if a blog post is enough to document the Duggars accepting his support, it should not be enough to show that there were critics, though. I should think that Salon and Christianity Today would qualify as reputable sources.

Looking forward to your guidance on this matter. -ATDC

Thanks for responding, Astinus The DragonLance Chronicler. We are required to use "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:REPUTABLE). Per WP:PSTS, "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The secondary sources we use are often books or reliable news sites. To find if a source is considered reliable, search the the list of perennial sources at (WP:RSP) or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). If you are a beginning editor, then I recommend checking RSP or RSN to make sure every source you use is reliable. Most blogs are not reliable per WP:BLPSPS. Most opinion articles (WP:RSOPINION) are not reliable for statements asserted as fact. Llll5032 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, we use reliable sources to confirm the notability of an incident or controversy about any living person per WP:BLPSOURCES. If no reliable source has discussed an incident, we leave it out. Llll5032 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Matt Walsh (American Conservative).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous Claim

Under the section titled "Views and Controversies", it is purported that Walsh opposes "transgender rights, especially in children." Although these claims could possibly be substantiated, the statement seems editorialized as it currently stands. I've identified two issues: first, the term "transgender rights" is not defined. Providing a definition would help clarify this statement and further strengthen it. In addition, the sources used are of contentious trustworthiness at best. (Reference sources 15, 19, and 20) Number 20 was published by the Huffington Post, an already heavily biased outlet. In addition, it is clearly an opinion piece. (The author characterizes Walsh as "mean" for instance) Number 15 refrains from such language, but a direct connection between the article and the claim is not drawn. Number 19 exclusively draws from characterizations made by others. For these reasons, clarification and revision is necessary. If the original editor could clarify these inclusions it would be much appreciated.BGoldwater (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed HuffPost source. Removed “trans rights in children” statement, not because it’s ambiguous but because it’s covered in the immediate next sentence (stating Walsh believes gender-affirming care is the moral equivalent of child sex abuse). Dronebogus (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Characterization as "Far-Right"

(See opening sentence) Walsh describes himself as a conservative, and in addition, the claim is unsourced. Claims of being radical should be held in their own separate section, and prefaced as allegations. This may be done in the "Views and Controversies" section. The editor should reverse this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGoldwater (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Matt Walsh is a mainstream conservative Catholic person. Though I don't doubt the more left-wing news outlets would call him "far-right", or "right wing", those are simply terms used to try and discredit mainstream conservatives. It is a very common tactic, and is clearly being used here. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If I may provide a different perspective, with respect. I think we need to always be careful when labelling public figures' political views, especially when deciding if those views are "mainstream" or "far-[right/left]". I think the post preceding yours should be constructively challenged, or at least we should hear more perspectives, especially considering the first poster in this thread is called "BGoldwater", likely a reference to a historical figure in the Republican Party who was on the right wing of that party. This isn't an insult to either individual, its simply a fact that Barry Goldwater advocated for the conservative wing of his party. Similarly, I hold interests that prevent me from providing an impartial contribution to the article itself, hence I am not editing it.

The problem with the word "mainstream" in this post's context, however, is that who is or isn't a mainstream conservative catholic is subjective, and depends on where someone is from too. In countries other than the United States, Walsh's views may be seen as too liberal for "mainstream" catholics, and in other countries he may be seen as too conservative for "mainstream" catholics. I think we should avoid the use of such a description with regards to the subject of this article, because it is too vague. Of course it is our duty to never insult the subject of an article, but we must also ensure to not promote them or unduly legitimise them either. It's similar to characterisations of far-right, or centre-right, or whatever. Infobox changes on parties and individuals are probably one of the most frequent edit war types. If you ask me, this article probably needs to be protected in some way.

I must note, I think some ambiguity arises when the subject does label themselves in some spaces as a "Theocratic Fascist". I'm not here to comment on whether or not that may be true as I do not wish to say anything libellous. The point being, though, it is fine for people to discuss or dispute what views the subjects of articles hold. I think the article needs to be semi-protected until this issue is sorted out.

StrongPencil (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"My preferred system of government is a Christian dictatorship with myself at the head of it. From this position of absolute authority, I plan to impose my personal beliefs on the citizenry by force. Strict obedience will be demanded of everyone, except my closest lieutenants whose rampant lawbreaking I will overlook. Anyone who fails to bend to my every whim will be dealt swift and merciless justice." -Matt Walsh on being a Theocratic Fascist

It's a joke N.123.brace.123.N (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Matt Walsh is labeled 'right-wing' while Jimmy Dore and Cenk Uygur are not labeled 'left-wing'. Is 'right-wing' considered a pejorative? 73.186.67.165 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the user. I have noticed, very distinctly, and very consistently, that left-wing individuals are called "progressives" and the like, while right-wing individuals are called "right wing" or "extremist" or just literally pejorative terms like "alt-right" no matter if they are or not. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Jack Posobiec was up until earlier this year described as an internet troll by Wikipedia (based off some left-leaning source). But when it's a right-leaning source used to describe a political figure on the left in a minimally pejorative way, that's not allowed. Sam Seder and Brian Tyler Cohen should be considered left-wing as well. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Potentially Libelous Material

The opening paragraph is potentially libelous. Allegations by opinion journalists should be placed in their own section, and marked as such. Stating them as fact is misleading. Walsh has not ascribed to himself the titles of “far-right”, “conspiracy theorist”, or “white supremacist”. The editor should revert these changes. BGoldwater (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If you think material on Wikipedia is libelous, I recommend you follow the guidelines on WP:LIBEL. StrongPencil (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As well as the claim that he

"labeled himself a "theocratic fascist." In a Daily Wire column, he implied that the label was a "sarcastic joke", while satirically going into detail on how he would like to rule the United States as a totalitarian dictator."

This is remarkable considering if you read the source provided, the sarcasm is so obvious its blinding, if you cannot see that him claiming:

"My preferred system of government is a Christian dictatorship with myself at the head of it. From this position of absolute authority, I plan to impose my personal beliefs on the citizenry by force. Strict obedience will be demanded of everyone, except my closest lieutenants whose rampant lawbreaking I will overlook. Anyone who fails to bend to my every whim will be dealt swift and merciless justice."

...is not sarcasm, you are either being intentionally dishonest to slander him, or you are joking. N.123.brace.123.N (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In addition, only one source is cited for the entire passage, that being Media Matters for America, a left wing watchdog. BGoldwater (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The user currently vandalizing the page needs to be restricted from editing the article. BGoldwater (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Poor sources

Very poor sources referenced. I’m going to review and remove sources. This needs to be Neutral 47.203.28.160 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This article has received a lot of editorial attention. You might want to discuss here which sources you judge to be inadequate before removing a lot of stuff. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay how about the blaze? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Blaze is considered generally unreliable at WP:RSPS. However, it's used to source the fact that Walsh has done/does work for them, and to source Walsh's opinions and views, from opinion pieces by Walsh at the Blaze. So I'm not sure that it can be discounted in these particular cases. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

True but who edited the article? I still don’t think it’s a reliable source. Also the Washington examiner. That’s a pretty biased organization too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

And the HuffPost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I just clarified a sentence about Matt's self-description as a "theocratic fascist." I added a cite to facebook here, which comes under the "sources on themselves" exception for references from social media. I let his own statement that his own description as a fascist is "once and for all...correct" stand as it is. This is followed in the original source by what would appear to be a sarcastic description of his fascistic views. But I fear that adding the statement here that this might be what he earlier said could be a a "sarcastic joke" would be opinion/editorializing. I don't want to be called out for being unfair; what I added accurately reflects his words, but perhaps wants to add to this some documentable interpretation of his sarcasm.ScottForschler (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone reading that article in which he "clarified" the description can immediately see the entire thing is written tongue-in-cheek. This whole section needs to be removed, IMO. Izzy Borden (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Daily Dot

At RSP, Daily Dot is described as "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable, in particular for Internet culture. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." The material sourced to DD in this biography is not related to internet culture, and constitutes undue weight in this context. DD is the only source to have reported on this trivial incident (in an article that mixes opinion like "an obviously insincere documentary" and personal attacks on Walsh with some reporting). It has been removed several times even from the What is a Woman, where it might be worthy of mention, yet is being added here, a person's biography, in an apparent violation of both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Izzy Borden (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Allegations?

If I'm allowed an opinion since I protected the article, I question whether the allegations part is adequately sourced and whether it gives undue weight to the allegations. I guess it's alright to question it as it's in the version that I protected. I leave it to stakeholders to decide. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think most of that stuff is ok to remain - both the book and the film are pretty significant expressions of his views and drew notable criticism. What is undue weight, IMO, is the whole "theocratic fascist" stuff - a clearly sarcastic joke, being treated as if it was an actual serious self-identification by people with either no sense of humor or inability to read beyond grade school level, or both. Izzy Borden (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Rolling stone has this in the headline: Why Are Social Media Companies Taking Ad Money From a Right-Wing Transphobic Doc?. Criticism is wide. --StellarNerd (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Rolling stone isn’t reliable outside of music but YMMV Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What, exactly, makes it clearly a sarcastic joke? Do you think that theocratic fascism isn't actually a thing and there aren't people who genuinely identify as such? Using supposed irony to ensure plausible deniability is hardly a new trick. Anarkiddie (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Characterization as a Catholic

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) lays out the tenants required to be a member in good standing. A series of Twitter posts from June 1st, 2022 were made from his personal account promoting his documentary [1]. This violates the second half of Catechism Tenant 1 which reads "1. Honor the Lord on Sundays by actively participating at Mass and resting from work;" [2]. Based on this and the statements from the church upon cancelling his St. Xavier appearance for holding beliefs contrary to Catholic religious teachings, it would be appropriate to modify his biography in this regard and the associated American Catholics Tag to include "Matt self identifies as a Catholic.". User:Pdogtreefrog 15:09, 16 June 2022 (CST) Pdogtreefrog (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No. I dispute your claims, plus the article shall not be modified based on your original research. Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

June 1st, 2022 was not a Sunday. Not that this would justify denying that Walsh is a Catholic anyway. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. in the internet or editorial integrity please provide the claim in dispute and your dispute with the sources or logic provided.

There are several references in the talk topic regarding the conservative vs right-wing characterization in which his Catholicism is offered as argumentative support. If that’s a significant consideration it is necessary to resolve the dispute raised by properly sourced arguments of not adhering to fundamental catholic practices. Otherwise, this and the American Catholics article are potentially inaccurate and can be easily revised and prevent mislabeling him as a catholic in error. This descriptor should either be left off or qualified as “self described catholic” in the absence of an argument that should disproves my edit based on catechism and time stamped digital receipts that suggest he’s not catholic. Pdogtreefrog (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(Typo in first sentence of my reply - should read “In the interest of editorial integrity”. Pdogtreefrog (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No, if we start marking Catholics, other Christians, Jews, and Muslims according to editors observing their Twitter time versus prayer or observance time, there would be no end to it. And besides, like half of famous Twitter accounts are run by a media team employed by the supposed tweeter, it might not even be him typing. --StellarNerd (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like the most realistic outcome to me as well. Im good to drop this one. Pdogtreefrog (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Occupation error

Walsh has film maker included in his occupation list. His filmography is limited to a starring role credit in “what is a woman?” Documentary. No references for the filmography on this article or the article for the documentary give Walsh a producer, writer, or director credit. Remove or replace with an appropriate title. I don’t think actor is appropriate for a documentary - perhaps narrator or documentary subject/presenter. Pdogtreefrog (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe film narrator ? --StellarNerd (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That works! Pdogtreefrog (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

Matt Walsh has changed his name to 76??yu&@!h. Someone has vandalized the page, reverting my changes to update their name and locking it without cause. Please change this back. Jacklynnep (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. He has apparently only committed, if you can call it that, to wanting the name for two days. This is not the same as changing his name. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022 (2)

Change all instances of "Matt Walsh" to read "76??yu&@!h" as he has indicated his sincere wish that his name be changed as such https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1544504518544588800 Librulsowned42069 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We use independent sources; see WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:ABOUTSELF #1 and #4. Llll5032 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Also see [3] Doug Weller talk 10:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Name change

As a change to this individual's name would require a move of the article (as with Elliott Page and others), anyone who would like to propose that is free to do so at WP:Requested moves. Otherwise changing the content of the article will potentially confuse readers. ... discospinster _talk 22:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Technically no name change has occurred. It's just Twitter he's saying he wants to be called something different for 2 days. His main website for his blog hasn't changed his name, he's just trolling on Twitter. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

His YouTube channel is also still at Matt Walsh.--70.24.250.173 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022

Change “Matthew Walsh (born June 18, 1986) is an American conservative political commentator” to “Matthew Walsh (born June 18, 1986) is an American theocratic fascist political commentator,” as it more accurately reflects his beliefs. (Source: his Twitter bio)

Change “Movement - American Conservatism” in the page’s abstract to “Movement - Theocratic Fascism.” (Source: his Twitter bio) 2603:6080:6100:5A00:8021:1188:F12E:ADD8 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: An obvious joke in a Twitter bio isn't what we use to describe people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What do we use to describe people if not their own words? In what manner is that an "obvious joke"? Anarkiddie (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hitler self-described as a socialist, so do you therefore believe he is? The whole "Theocratic Fascist" schtick is such an obvious joke it's hard to imagine anyone could take it seriously. 24.242.244.73 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Hitler meant something different… Dronebogus (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That was the point, yes. 24.242.244.73 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

He was a national-socialist, a neologism with a different meaning. He wasn’t joking or lying. Dronebogus (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Environment section

A new section/sentence on the environment says: "In June 2022, Walsh's comments on twitter drew media attention when he implied that Ozone depletion and acid rain were never serious problems and simply solved themselves." I removed the last four words, "and simply solved themselves", as an inaccurate representation of Walsh's tweets. My removal was reverted based on the cited Ars Technica article which says, "One could, as Walsh does, take this to mean that acid rain and holes in the ozone layer simply went away on their own and were thus never anything to worry about—and that, by extension, current fears about climate change are similarly misplaced." The problem is that neither the cited article nor the original tweets support that particular statement in the Ars Technica article. Walsh did not say or imply anything in these tweets about the solution to these problems. See the guideline at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This stems from a two tweet thread by Walsh which read:

• Remember when they spent years telling us to panic over the hole in the ozone layer and then suddenly just stopped talking about it and nobody ever mentioned the ozone layer again? [4]
• This was also back during the time when they scared school children into believing that "acid rain" was a real and urgent threat [5]

It's clear that Ars Technica are reading this that Walsh implies that the ozone hole and acid rain solved themselves. And I can see why, as the only other way I could read it is that Walsh is implying that the ozone hole and acid rain never existed at all. However it seems that you do not agree with Ars' reading. So how do you interpret these tweets? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The way you or I interpret these tweets is not germane to this discussion, apart from my previously stated observation that the tweets contain no content on Walsh's thoughts on the solution. It may be clear what Ars Technica is reading into this, but then we're talking about Ars Technica's assumptions and beliefs, not Walsh. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

How his remarks were generally interpreted / what Mr. Walsh was very clearly implying is certainly germane to the article. Arjuna (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ars Technica is a WP:RS in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ars Technica is a reliable source for science and technology. However, the context here is finding implications within tweets. I have not proposed removing the entire sentence, just the unsupported phrase that falls outside of the realm of science and technology. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It may be due to summarize Ars Technica's interpretation or rebuttal in brief (per WP:GEVAL and WP:INTEXT); if we do, we should keep clear which words were Walsh's and which were Ars Technica's. Llll5032 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The way you interpret the tweets is germane to this discussion, because that forms the basis for your objection to the portion of the sentence removed from the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

See genetic fallacy. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a misapplication of that fallacy. I don't want to know your interpretation to weigh the origin. I want to know your interpretation to actually understand what your objection is. As it stands right now, I cannot see how you read Walsh's tweets in a such a way that they do not concur with Ars Technica's reading, as the only other possible reading that I can see is far less charitable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Education

Mr. Walsh's education credentials are a relevant topic that deserve inclusion in the article. Mr. Walsh himself has made his lack of university degree as a salient point of pride, and moreover the articles on most notable figures include a mention of their educational background. I added a sentence noting that he did not attend college, and cited it with Mr. Walsh's own tweet boasting about this fact, but another editor removed it simply because it was a primary source. Granted, it would be better if the citation were from a reliable secondary source, but Mr. Walsh, as a commentator/blogger, is not yet a notable enough figure to have had many articles written about him. Until such time as reliable secondary source notes this fact, I submit that it is important information that deserves inclusion in the article. Arjuna (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, there is no secondary source to establish relevance in this article. Also, Walsh's education level is not significant to his commentary or his career as whole. There is no reason to mention it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Its basic biographical information so we don't need a secondary source, WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Basic biographical information does not have to be significant, its generally by definition not. I think its important not to discriminate against those without college degrees, if Mr Walsh had tweeted "I went to NYU undergrad" there would be no objection to including that information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A NYU degree wouldn't be anymore important Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be important, its basic biographical information... Its cool by all five criteria at WP:TWEET. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't make it relevant to his career. Maybe it's more suited for the personal life section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We're discussing whether to include it at all, not where to include it. Do you object to the source or just its placement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a secondary source is needed for placement in the career section because it's making it seem as though it's relevant to his career. I think it's ok to be used the personal life section, but it's not super common to see non-college education mentioned even there. I wouldn't object to it being in the personal life section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We can just put it in the infobox as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant to his career (as well as being basic biographic data and thus suitable on those grounds), but I have no problem just putting it in the infobox. That seems like an acceptable solution for now. Arjuna (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion in the infobox. The education and alma mater parameters are only for college graduates, and very rarely those who went to college but didn't graduate. Only when it's unusually significant, such as Mark Zuckerberg. I would recommend you view Template:Infobox person. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Walsh himself cites it as being central to his professional and personal identity, so it seems highly relevant to his biography. Indeed, I think Mr. Walsh says it's an essential part of his story. Your opposition is therefore rather curious. Arjuna (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I already said add it to the personal life section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I missed that - my apologies. I have added it to his personal life section. I also combined a couple of sentences to that they're not all short sentences but there is no change to the content of those sentences or citations. Arjuna (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Two additional children

Matt’s wife is pregnant with twins, we might want to update the children counter from 4 to 6 (if the children counter counts for children who are not yet born). BigSillyOrangeCat (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, don't count unborn children. Meters (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Meters: That looks like an abortion rights joke based on Matt Walsh's idiosyncratic views to me rather than a serious request. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me. Meters (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, alright. (This was actually a serious request) BigSillyOrangeCat (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Article still inconsistent on this. Bio Box says Walsh has six children, Personal Life section says he has four. 2A00:23C7:CA9B:801:35A4:1C99:4D77:2589 (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding that his wife is expecting two children to the Personal Life section, and then change the children counter to 6 when the twins are born? SteepAtticStairs (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ref 50 is incorrect

He is a Christian not a catholic. And the source is from his political opponent , not a reliable source, the book he wrote Church of Cowards: A Wake-Up Call to Complacent Christians Book by Matt Walsh Would be a better reflect of his beliefs 206.83.113.162 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not reliably sourced, I'll remove the content. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You're both right... the "Current Affairs" source, by itself, is insufficient. I was intrigued, though, and did some poking around and found him on his Twitter account confirming he is a Catholic. So I restored the material in question and went to add his Twitter account as a source and discovered it was already there, albeit at the end of the paragraph; Ref 51 is him on Twitter saying he is a Catholic. Le Marteau (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I assumed that tweet was just a criticism of the Pope. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Conservative or right-wing

I changed the lead sentence descriptor from right-wing to conservative here, but it was reverted by Arjuna909. Interestingly enough, I was the one who had changed it from conservative to right-wing in July because that was the only political label sourced in this article. However, we now have sourcing for conservative as well as right-wing. I think we should use conservative because this is typically the descriptor used in similar biographies (see Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Steven Crowder, Michael J. Knowles, etc.) Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Arguably, since those other personages have also been described as "right-wing" by many reliable sources, the correct solution to the problem would be to change their descriptors to match Walsh, rather than the other way around. However, those other persons generally have a much higher media profile which means they are more editorially complicated, so let's leave those articles to their own devices. I see no reason to fix what isn't broken in the Walsh article. Arjuna (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I favor keeping the average description of WP:BESTSOURCES in the first sentence while noting other descriptions in the Views section. We could change the top description if the average changes. Llll5032 (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we apply a neutral standard to what sources are cited for the descriptors in the Views section, like green (WP:GREL) sources from the WP:RSP list only? Llll5032 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I switched the refs to only WP:GREL sources on the WP:RSP list, with this result. Llll5032 (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Stuff like this will 100% ruin Wikipedia

This article has been edited by people with an obvious bias against Matt Walsh. There are MANY examples of events involving Matt Walsh that, although they probably did happen, the explanation of events are written in a derogatory manner to defame Matt Walsh. This entire page needs to be edited to remove personal bias and only include objective truths. It is material like this that will prevent me from ever donating another dollar to Wikipedia. I come here for information, not opinions. Do better Wikipedia. People trust you to be a source of raw information. Please, provide pure, unbiased facts. Let people make up their own minds. The people of the world deserve that opportunity and respect. Thank you 2601:680:CE80:D30:41F4:A0FA:34A1:DFB (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide any specific examples of problems with the article? X-Editor (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Vanderbilt quotations

I suggest we try to limit the number of quotations in the Vanderbilt paragraph, because per WP:OVERQUOTING, "quotations should not dominate the article", and because overquoting can cause WP:DUEWEIGHT problems. WP:INDY suggests paraphrasing facts from third-party RS instead, because "Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind." I removed three quotations, and I would support removing more. Llll5032 (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor, do you still think the 2-sentence Forcier quotation is WP:DUE? Llll5032 (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I've trimmed it even more X-Editor (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that the trimming improves it. Llll5032 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Source for wife's name

I have used Matt's wife's wordpress.com site https://diymomoftwins.wordpress.com/about/ as a source for her name. There are many sites out there that mention her name, but it's difficult to tell which of them have scraped the information from Wikipedia. wordpress.com is normally not a reliable source, but it should be acceptable hare since it is a self-published source about herself. Feel free to replace the source with a better one. Meters (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Anime is satanic comment was clearly in jest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybh_0beD2H4&t=158s at 6:52:

"Of course, hypothetically, as a thought experiment, if you were to pretend for a moment, that with my infamous anime commentary, I was just making a random, spur of the moment joke about a subject that I really don't care about at all, and that media matters is making a controversy out of something I forgot I even said 45 seconds after I said it, then in this alternative universe, one might make the following observation: it is sad that we live in a culture where you can’t speak off the cuff or offer an opinion, even ironically or in jest or only half seriously without it being clipped and isolated and it being turned, without your consent, into your die-hard mantra or fundamental belief system…”

This statement in particular, but the entire video in general, clearly demonstrates that he was trolling when he said what he said about anime. The statement as quoted here should be clearly included in the page along with the supposed controversy. Strikeroffend (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done it’s unclear what you’re asking, this is not a simple, uncontroversial, and explicit request. Dronebogus (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Not clear? Did you watch the video and read the quotation? There are few things that could be more clear, unless you've a clear bias against him. If, however, you're interested in stating facts directly from a primary source, you could write something like this:

"He called anime "satanic" in an answer to viewers' questions in one of his videos, adding "I have no argument for why it's satanic. It just seems that way to me." In a later video on the subject, Walsh indicated that he had made the comment in jest, stating "Of course, hypothetically, as a thought experiment, if you were to pretend for a moment, that with my infamous anime commentary, I was just making a random, spur of the moment joke about a subject that I really don't care about at all..." and than further stated that "it is sad that we live in a culture where you can’t speak off the cuff or offer an opinion, even ironically or in jest or only half seriously without it being clipped and isolated and it being turned, without your consent, into your die-hard mantra or fundamental belief system."

And then add the youtube link as a citation.

Now, this has become a simple, uncontroversial and explicit request. It is directly from a primary source, and the quote is directly relevant to the subject at hand. The article as written clearly makes it seem as though Walsh's comments on anime being satanic are 100% serious, and the justification for this is citations to videos by him, and quotes directly made by him. Well, this is a link to a video made directly by him, and a quote made directly by him, and in the interest of fairness and accuracy, it should be included in the article. Strikeroffend (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As it says quite clearly above: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please change:

"He called anime "satanic" in an answer to viewers' questions in one of his videos, adding "I have no argument for why it's satanic. It just seems that way to me.""

To:

"He called anime "satanic" in an answer to viewers' questions in one of his videos, adding "I have no argument for why it's satanic. It just seems that way to me." In a later video on the subject, Walsh indicated that he had made the comment in jest, stating "Of course, hypothetically, as a thought experiment, if you were to pretend for a moment, that with my infamous anime commentary, I was just making a random, spur of the moment joke about a subject that I really don't care about at all..." and than further stated that "it is sad that we live in a culture where you can’t speak off the cuff or offer an opinion, even ironically or in jest or only half seriously without it being clipped and isolated and it being turned, without your consent, into your die-hard mantra or fundamental belief system."

With the relevant citations. Strikeroffend (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, a "random, spur-of-the-moment joke" does not have due weight, especially if only covered by reliable sources that fail to recognize it for what it is, and this paragraph can be entirely removed. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I also think that #4 of WP:ABOUTSELF applies here (there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity), in that he comes across quite genuinely and he spends 30 seconds digging into his negative perceptions of anime - they aren't off the cuff. A weaker argument for #1 could also be made (the material is [not] unduly self-serving), in that it is very convenient for his position to characterize his views as jokes based on the backlash he received. As I am in disagreement (which makes this edit controversial), and Spiffy sperry has proposed an alternative action, I am marking this edit request as answered per the template instructions until a consensus exists to do otherwise. —Sirdog (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Opposes transgender and gay rights?

This article states in several places that Matt Walsh opposes the transgender rights movement, and actually "LGBTQ+ civil rights" in general. Which are pretty broad statements to make, since, according to the transgender rights movement article, this movement seeks "to eliminate discrimination and violence against transgender people regarding housing, employment, public accommodations, education, and health care." There's no Wikipedia article on LGBTQ+ civil rights, but presumably this too has to do mostly with ending discrimination and violence. Does Walsh seek to prolong discrimination and violence? I don't see any evidence of that. As far as I can tell, Walsh's two main goals regarding transgender people are that he wants everyone to be referred to by their biological sex and not their preferred gender; and that he wants to end surgery and hormone injections of transgender-identifying under-18-year-olds. Certainly one could argue that both of those are restrictions of transgender rights, but to simply state that he opposes transgender rights is extremely misleading at best. And to say he opposes "LGBTQ+ civil rights" is even more misleading, since I don't think he's said anything about, say, gay civil rights.

The citations provided offer no help here, by the way: none of them state that he opposes rights, as far as I can tell, and the main one used, from The Hill, doesn't even include the word "rights". Korny O'Near (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you rather the article simply note that Walsh is a critic of the LGBTQ+ community in general, and the trans community in particular? Because that is what The Hill says. Them says he spread hateful disinformation about trans people, and LGBTQ Nation noted, outside of trans issues, that Walsh has a history of attacking LGBTQ equality. Earlier this year, he criticized the out Secretary of Transportation and his husband, Pete and Chasten Buttigieg, for adopting children. So perhaps the text should note that Walsh "opposes LGBTQ equality and spreads disinformation about Trans people"? That seems well-sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this rewrite you did - the new wording is more defensible, though I think it's still not ideal. The Hill article does indeed say that Walsh is a "a vocal critic of the LGBTQ+ community, specifically the trans community" - though it seems like a throwaway line; there's no evidence offered for this assertion, other than, again, his opposition to surgery and hormones injections on children. It's worth noting this description, but I think it should be quoted, and not put in wikitext. Similarly, it would be better to quote the views of Them and LGBTQ Nation, rather than treating them as authoritative - assuming these are reliable sources in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you are making an unsupported assumption: given his mocking treatment of Trans people and his opposition to adoption by gay couples, do any sources suggest that Walsh does anything other than oppose LGBT equality? Per WP:NPOV, we are not supposed to put generally agreed facts into attributed voice. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What does "LGBT equality" mean? The right to vote? Equal pay? Terms like "equality" and "rights" (and, for that matter, "community") are rather nebulous, and I doubt a reader, seeing a phrase like "opposes LGBT equality", would come out with any greater understanding of Walsh's views. I think it's better to simply state Walsh's actual views - and then follow it up with commentary on those views; which is already done in this article, with sentences like Walsh and his campaigns are sometimes described as anti-trans and transphobic. If Walsh believed in a whole range of restrictions on gay people, then a generalization could make sense; but given how specific his objections to the status quo are, it's better to keep the wikivoice stuff as specific as possible. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

LGBT equality - and opposition thereto - mean what reliable sources use them to mean, not what you personally think they should mean. And your opinion that it's better to keep the wikivoice stuff as specific as possible isn't supported by policy, when the sources themselves generalize. Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources that say he opposes LGBT equality? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

A history of attacking LGBT equality counts as opposition, I feel. That is documented in multiple RS, notably LGBTQ Nation. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe LGBTQ Nation counts as a reliable source. Even if it did, though, I don't think imprecise language in sources requires us to be imprecise as well. LGBTQ Nation appears to have a political agenda in their news reporting, and thus a reason to magnify Walsh's perceived ills; but even if it were a source considered unbiased, it doesn't help readers to be imprecise. (And I doubt there are any Wikipedia guidelines that say otherwise.) Korny O'Near (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of any concerns about LGBTQ Nation; certainly their coverage of this matter appear to be strictly factual. And your feeling that the subject of this BLP only opposes certain LGBT rights and aspects of LGBT equality, but not others, so this nuance should be reflected in the text of this article rather than following the sources - well, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guidelines that support that kind of WP:WHITEWASHING. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Is every source considered reliable until proven otherwise? I wasn't aware of that. Anyway, even LGBTQ Nation seems more careful on this matter than you are: they say he has a history of attacking LGBTQ equality, which is different from opposes LGBTQ equality. Also, I don't believe accurately stating a person's views counts as whitewashing, though if you could find a guideline backing up your view, that would be great. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you requiring sources that use the present tense? Is that the issue? Newimpartial (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not about tense, it's that "has a history of attacking LGBTQ equality" more correctly implies that there are specific policy items that Walsh opposes, rather than (incorrectly) stating that he has blanket opposition. Better yet would be simply listing his views. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I know that is your personal view, but I don't see any policy support for your preference. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The Matt Walsh talk page is not the place for editors to teach you what LGBT equality means. The term has a conventional meaning which easily understood across the Western world. Your name has been in the administration board recently for indulging in Off Topic discussions on the Talk Pages and for trying to WP:BLUDGEON your way into having your views adopted, and you're doing the same thing here. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Peleio - please stop talking about this administration board thing. You clearly have no idea what happened, and it's annoying that you keep talking about it. (Didn't you at one point get banned for sockpuppeting? It's equally irrelevant.) Anyway, I think everyone here roughly has the same definition of LGBT equality, so that's not the issue. The issue (well, one issue) is that Newimpartial wants the article to contain the phrase "opponent of LGBT equality" (actually, "opponent LGBTQ+ equality"), even though not a single source, reliable or otherwise, states that. I think "sticking to what the sources say" is an important Wikipedia policy.

Speaking of sticking to what the sources say, Peleio - I'd love to hear how this edit, which removed a description of Matt Walsh's tweet, so that readers know less about what caused him to at one point be banned from Twitter, is a good idea. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I was one of the people who was requested to comment on your conduct in the board, and I know for a fact that not only was your derailing conduct discussed, but also the fact that you were endorsing extremist anti-LGBTQ conspiracy theories on the Talk Page of the LibsofTikTok entry. I know very well what went down there. And people should know this history when they're engaging with you on this subject, because your extremist views should disqualify you from commenting on LGBT topics on Wikipedia, let alone from trying to define for everyone what can be regarded as LGBT equality and what can not.

Speaking of what LGBT equality means, most of the people across the Western world are in favor of same-sex marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples, two of the rights most often linked to the concept of LGBT equality. Matt Walsh is against both, and he made that clear in his recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast. He's against LGBT equality under most people's conception of what LGBT equality means.

And it's precious of you to demand now that a detailed explanation be given for something as trivial as a temporary Twitter suspension, when on the LibsofTikTok Talk Page you wrote one post after another arguing that not everything a reliable source reports is noteworthy enough as to be included in a Wikipedia entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to be talking about my supposed poor conduct and extreme views, I wish you'd just link to the discussion in question, so people could see how far off the mark your description is. As for "LGBT equality", it means a lot of things, even in the Western world. But why just focus on the Western world? The English-language Wikipedia is read all around the world, including in places where "LGBT equality" is more likely to mean "the right to exist". Why bother with a phrase like "LGBT equality" at all, when we can simply state "opposes gay marriage and gay adoption", and thus eliminate ambiguity?

You're right that I believe that not everything published in reliable sources should be included in Wikipedia. (I think everyone does, but that's another story.) In this case, I wouldn't object to removing Walsh's Twitter suspension entirely - it was something like a week-long suspension that had no lasting impact on anything. But if we are going to mention it, we should state what it was actually for, rather than the nebulous description offensive speech against the transgender community. Lack of accuracy seems to be a pattern here. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)