Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator)

Anime is Satanic Quip
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 208.117.96.2 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Who can tell with Walsh if he's being sarcastic? Internet Informant (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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 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)

Great Replacement Theory Comments
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Add His Background Please
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgFda_tbCyY

At 2:05 he says he is Irish American 77.22.155.214 (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Right Wing vs Conservative
Should the lead sentence use "Right Wing" of "Conservative. The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, and Michael Knowles (political commentator) all use Conservative in the lead sentence. If we are consistent Matt Walsh would be Conservative as well. SKAG123 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Doing a web search, Conservative appears to be the most commonly used. SKAG123 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)