The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
Matt Walsh (political commentator) is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
John Kendall Hawkins (June 14, 2022). "The Mixed-up, Muddled-up, Shook-up World". CounterPunch. Retrieved June 15, 2022. According to his Wikipedia entry, Walsh opposes same-sex marriage and transgender rights. He has compared gender-affirming care for children to molestation and rape. He has argued against paid paternity leave for men and that Kyle Rittenhouse's trial was malicious prosecution. He has espoused the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. He has argued in favor of restricting pornography. After the children's show Sesame Street released a video encouraging childhood vaccinations, Walsh called Big Bird a "drug dealer" and described the voice "like a child molester."
The article states Matt Walsh found Anime "Satanic" without mentioning that it was said in jest. Including his quote on anime without mentioning that it was a joke misrepresents his views. 2600:1700:A5D0:3550:81B:E350:4F55:EBFA (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't detect sarcasm sadly, whereas most of the real world does. 50.101.111.77 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article just reports what he said without trying to psychoanalyse how serious he might or might not be about this. The readers are given the quote, with sufficient context, and left to decide for themselves what to make of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh does this kind of joking for his comment "call ins". He's made all kinds of outrageous claims in those segments. In this instance, he definitely doesn't think it's satanic, but he thinks adults that watch cartoons (play video games or other childish things) are really stupid, which is a common theme of his. With that in mind, WP:DUE then WP:onus.
Source Boing Boing (currently number 47) is clearly an opinion rant and really isn't wp:GREL in the first place. It's a group blog. It literally says nothing about the quote, only that Matt's beard is ugly. The current consensus is subject matter experts only, and Mark Frauenfelder is not a Matt Walsh expert.
Source Indy100 (currently number 46) is user selected topics written by the Independent... Er, ok. I won't ever link to such a thing, but it certainly shouldn't be conflated with the Independent's regular work, which is questionable since they went online only in 2016 anyway.
My point is these sources are either intentionally not getting that Walsh does this kind of bit all the time, or they are being dishonest. Either way, they shouldn't be used at all and at least not on this topic. Then the issue itself, those wanting the item included as part of Walsh's regular "views" need to meet wp:onus and explain why it is wp:due.
As a the old internet adage goes "Even if you are having sex with a goat ironically, you are still a having sex with it".
The "its prank, bro" gets stale when he unironically seriously holds view adjacent the supposed "joke" Orocairion (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who can tell with Walsh if he's being sarcastic? Internet Informant (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Some of you need to find the difference between "provocation" and outright being abusive. Orocairion (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying anime is satanic is abusive? 142.118.161.2 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Matt has gone on record stating that the great replacement theory is 'fact'. Why has the page since removed these references to this controversial figure? Curious as to why this has been removed. Internet Informant (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was unsourced, it would have been removed. If you have a source, feel free to add it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't sourceless at all. In fact, there's more than enough third-party evidence that he's supported the craziness that is the 'Great Replacement Theory'. I think it was removed because someone didn't like Matt being 'defamed'. Internet Informant (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What any other article says is really of no particular concern. We should be following the reliable sources. If there's a clear lean towards one term or the other, that's the way we should go. I haven't looked into it at all, but perhaps I will. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a web search, Conservative appears to be the most commonly used. SKAG123 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I don't think that's quite correct. "Conservative" appears to be the most commonly searched, certainly. That doesn't tell us what the reliable sources have to say on the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]