Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography 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 Conservatism Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-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 Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Tennessee Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: 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."

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]

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

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! 08:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! 08:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]