Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Self-published sources of Walsh defending himself reliable?

Recently, @SteepAtticStairs made some contributions in which they added Walsh's "theocratic fascist" self-description being in jest and him defending his views on teenage pregnancy with self-published sources: WALSH: Yes, I am a Theocratic Fascist from The Daily Wire and Matt Walsh Reacts to Media Matters' Hit Piece on Him from YouTube. I think the second source is in line with WP:ABOUTSELF for the most part, while the first source is (presumably, and hopefully) written in jest about how Walsh would establish a theocratic dictatorship, but it likely is not as reliable because of that. I think the contributions improve the neutrality of the article if you discount the type of sources, but another concern of mine is how close we are to the threshold of this guideline from ABOUTSELF: "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." If at all possible, it probably is most beneficial if there are any third-party sources talking about Walsh defending himself. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. I agree that we should consider WP:ABOUTSELF rules, and would add guidance in WP:PSTS and WP:INDY. Regarding "theocratic fascist", secondary RS in the article noting the label do not say he is being sarcastic,[1][2][3] and his essay is not a clear denial, so a compromise might note his "essay on the label" or perhaps "sarcastic essay on the label" without making a judgement in Wikivoice about the label itself. Llll5032 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think a marginally more reliable self-published source for the label being sarcastic is a YouTube video published to the DailyWire+ channel with the same name; in the intro, he explains himself much better:

• "It does say in my Twitter bio that I'm a theocratic fascist, well because a few months ago someone sent me a message, trying to insult me, and the message said: 'hey, y'know, you should put theocratic fascist in your Twitter bio because that's what you are.'"

The rest of the video is bascially the Daily Wire essay verbatim. While it's entirely in the region of possibility he uses the label sarcastically to "trigger the libs", it's purely anecdotal and he could have easily made up the story. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That YouTube video could be another source to add, but I do think the Daily Wire essay seems to state clearer (with the use of heavy sarcasm) that the "theocratic fascist" label is trolling. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a short sentence after the label like "He has said he took the label from an opponent's insult'", while removing "sarcastic", could be neutral with no WP:OR interpretation? Llll5032 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine with this. It would be more accurate, as it's clear he doesn't seriously identify himself as a theocratic fascist. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think changing it to that would be perfectly apt. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the essay isn't worded as a clear denial, but I think if you "understand" the entirety of what Walsh wrote, I think it's clear he's being sarcastic / trolling. He writes

"I suppose you can interpret that description in one of two ways: as an obviously sarcastic joke meant to make fun of the people who reflexively label me a “theocrat” and a “fascist” for my opinions, or as a completely literal and sincere statement without the slightest hint of irony or sarcasm."

That seems to me to be a very clear indication that he is being sarcastic - he is making the former option he provides seem like the more reasonable conclusion.

FULL DISCLOSURE for future conversations about my edits. I am personally biased towards Walsh - I do like the things he says and I listen to his podcast. However, I have tried to make my edits as neutral as possible, e.g. simply quoting him with the teenage pregnancy issue. I just think that I might be justified in making some edits, seeing as I listen to pretty much everything he puts out so I know when he might or might not be trolling. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the entire "theocratic fascist" bit doesn't belong in this article if the sarcasm label is removed. Walsh is clearly being sarcastic (as mentioned above). Walsh and reliable sources that support him are unlikely to mention this, because to explain the joke is to ruin the joke. Even the citation currently in the article for the sarcasm label is a testament to Walsh continuing the bit. Reliable sources that don't support him are unlikely to mention this, because they can get away with ignoring the sarcasm (or feigning ignorance, as the case may be). I can only imagine that the 1930's Wikipedia article on Henny Youngman would have included a paragraph on how he really doesn't enjoy being with his wife. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This makes sense. I think that adding the "theocratic fascist" bit to the Wikipedia article at all does exactly what Walsh intended for it to do - rile people up. This is exactly what trolling is, it's how Walsh operates. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In my view, I think him owning the label after an opponent referred to him as one is telling enough he's not using it seriously, on top of the fact that most people wouldn't proudly declare themselves a part of an extreme political ideology, even if they may hold views that align with them. I can see your reasoning about how mentioning the label in the article is a product of Walsh's "trolling" commentary, but I think if we provide an explanation as to why he uses the label (whether or not use of the word "sarcastically" is used) in the first place it'd cancel out the "troll". I'm prepared to edit the article with the marginally more reliable source linked above if there aren't objections. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Your primary ABOUTSELF concern is not "1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;"? Why in the world is that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well it is one of my concerns; I think that the second self-published source SteepAtticStairs used is in relative compliance with 1. That being said, it could easily be an example of the Motte-and-bailey fallacy, in which a person holds an extreme position when making assertions and then holds a more moderate position when the extreme position is challenged. The first source is very rickety in my opinion all around, even if it is true the label is sarcastic. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

How can an SPS being used to dispute a characterization in WP:RS ever not be unduly self serving? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, touché. As I said before, he may very well be taking a more moderate stance when defending his statements since his original comments were more extreme. At least from the quotation SteepAtticStairs used, Walsh never acknowledged the part about him saying that women 17-24 are the most fertile. I guess it could also be possible his views on it have mellowed since the early 2010s, but part of me doubts that. So it might be necessary to remove that section, or at least find a secondary source that quotes Walsh's response. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that there would be any reliable secondary source that includes Walsh’s response. If that is the case, I’m not sure why we would remove Walsh’s response that was from his YouTube video. There’s no doubt that he was the one who said that defense, so why would we remove a quote undeniably from him? Is it a Wikipedia rule? SteepAtticStairs (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Typically, it's highly encouraged to use secondary sources rather than using primary sources, which are directly related to the subject. If you're curious, there's a whole page about discussing which sources are reliable and which are not: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Horse Eye's Black is arguing that his defense in the YouTube video is self-serving, which is in violation of the first criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF. One can presume that the average viewer of Matt Walsh may not be aware of his early career, nor opt to actively listen to opposition of him, so Walsh could twist what he originally said in order to seem less extreme (in other words, self-serving). SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah - that makes a lot more sense. It is indeed certainly possible, and likely, that he would defend himself in a way that would make his previous comments sound less extreme than they were. I guess I just assumed Walsh had a "right" to defend himself, and his own defense should be added to the page. I can see now why Wikipedia discourages that, thanks for the explanation. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Teen Pregnancy

Matt wasn't voicing his support for child marriage he was merely stating a fact that people used to marry young, he has stated this fact numerous times before. The article is trying to make it seem as though Matt is supportive of teen marriage, when this simply is not the case at all. The section about teen pregnancy should be rewritten to include this fact. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t even mention child marriage in that section so I have no idea what you’re talking about. “He was merely stating a fact” is a common phrase used for people in support of Matt Walsh and does not follow WP:NPOV. The article is also not attempting to make it seem like Walsh is “supporting teen marriage” because it does not even mention “teen marriage” in the first place.

Judging from what I read in the article, the section is simply documenting what he said, how people reacted to it, and how he responded. It doesn’t seem to me that it requires a rewrite at all, and your biased opinion on this subject does not follow WP:NPOV. B3251 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Far-Right/Transphobic

Hi. I noticed that Matt Walsh isn't labelled as being Far-Right or Anti-LGBTQ. The page for Libs of TikTok which pushes the exact same rhetoric as Walsh, is described as such. Matt constantly spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories, labelling anybody who supports trans healthcare as "pedophiles" and has been cited several times by lawmakers who try to take away the rights of trans people. If "Far-Right" is too risky, I think Anti-LGBT or Transphobic should be fine since Walsh describes himself as that anyways. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Legitimate reply that isn't laced with unnecessary hate here: although his opposition to LGBT is mentioned in the intro section, it may not be inappropriate to refer to him as anti-LGBT or transphobic, given we have multiple reliable sources to back it up. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I just don't see why the page acts as if him being Anti-Queer or Transphobic is left up in the air when he objectively is. He has even said he doesn't think adults should be able to transition let alone adolescents, and deliberately lies/uses extreme language to push his narrative which only harms trans folks. Including claiming that doctors perform mastectomies on pubescent children. He uses the exact same talking point that homophobes did 60 years ago. His work is referenced even over here in the UK by our prime minister who wants to take our rights to medical care aways. There is no doubt that he's a far-right extremist and should be labelled as such. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to dissect your statement for more clarity...

"He has even said he doesn't think adults should be able to transition let alone adolescents, and deliberately lies/uses extreme language to push his narrative which only harms trans folks".

I've seen many comments like these which assert/"prove" that Walsh is Anti-Queer/transphobic. However this is simply a speculated drawn conclusion. For example, what if I said I don't think children should be able to own a cell phone until 16 for health/psychological issues. Using your logic, it would be considered "ageist" or being hateful towards children under 16. You have to realize that Walsh holds these opinions because whether he is actually right or wrong, he is looking out for others and wants what's best for others (and society at large). There is 0 connection between believing adults shouldn't transition, and being hateful of transgender people. Similarly, if I told someone their lifelong passion of being a miner should be changed to something else because of the potential harms comes with being a miner, that doesn't mean I'm minerphobic or hate people who are miners. You may think an occupation and a gender identity is a false equivalency, but at the same time why *can't* the logic apply? People can still hate those who work in certain jobs. What about people who believe they are a different race? Would denial of someone's perceived race be trans(race)phobic? Until you can answer these, you cannot draw the conclusion not wanting adults to transition is inherently hateful.

As well, "extreme language" = hyperbole, pretty much what every political commentator uses to some degree. And claiming his words "harm" is also nonsense unless you grant the premise humans who listen to Walsh are not autonomous beings with their own thought processes and simply take in what Walsh says as if they're robots.

_____

"Including claiming that doctors perform mastectomies on pubescent children."

This is literally true, it has happened to 15-17 year olds (I would imagine 14 too but cannot confirm that), and how often it happens is one issue. But let's not pretend it has never happened.

_____

"There is no doubt that he's a far-right extremist and should be labelled as such."

This is proof the overton window has shifted dramatically. 60 years ago, essentially everyone in the world would go against mainstreaming transgenderism, never mind gay marriage. Walsh simply has not conceded ground and holds the same beliefs mainstream conservatives held in the 2000's, which I suppose makes him a far-right extremist today. Also, if we are going to give Walsh such a label, what label would you give to those such as Alex Jones? Or Nick Fuentes? A far-far-right extremist? 69.157.77.228 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"There is no doubt that he's a far-right extremist and should be labelled as such."

I noticed that Matt Walsh has been labelled far-right on his page. I'm not sure if you were the one who added it but I feel that I should discuss this anyway. There are several issues with this statement and as such I would like to change the label to conservative or right-wing. There is very little to support the notion that Walsh is far-right. There are many defining features of far-right politics that Matt does not exhibit (these are from the Far-right politics article):

• Radical conservatism: It is true that he is a very traditional conservative, but the only way he can be labelled "far-right" was if he held views so abhorrent that almost no one else supports it (much like Hitler's fascist beliefs). This is far from the truth as his views are shared by millions around the country. As for the "radical" part, that is also not true as he has not actively incited any violence whatsoever. He has pushed for laws such as the prohibition of abortion and medical transitions on minors, but if this was enough to label him as "radical" then by this definition all activists would be far-left or far-right.
• Authoritarianism: He has labelled himself a "theocratic fascist" in his Twitter bio but it is clearly sarcastic. Other than that he has never supported any form of authoritarianism.
• Ultra-nationalism: He is not overly-nationalist, nor is he white supremacist. The only reason he is against BLM is because he claims that the United States is already racially equitable. He supports racial equality just as much as liberals do; he only has a different view of what that is.

As for the idea that he is harming trans people because he wants to take away adolescents' ability to transition, that is plain false. He, much like many other conservatives, is concerned about non-adults who are not able to make such decisions, as well as understand the various risks and complications that come with it. He doesn't want to ban transitions because he hates trans people; he just wants them to make sure that they don't make the wrong choice. He is not harming trans people; "harming" them would be to have them arrested just for being trans.

The source cited in the page points to a USA Today article that labels Walsh, but term "far-right" is used here in a hyperbolic manner just to portray Matt Walsh in a negative light. The writer doesn't mean far-right in the literal sense, but rather to call him a bad conservative. Maybe USA Today has no issue with calling him that, but Wikipedia should be totally impartial.

Therefore, no, Matt Walsh is not objectively far-right. Just because you don't like him does not make him a far-right extremist. Let me know if I made any mistakes and if I haven't I'll change the page back to right-wing. Cheeselover 405 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, most of the sources refer to Walsh as either "right-wing" or "conservative", while only a small number refer to him as "far-right" and even less so "alt-right". So I think for the sake of avoiding a potentially skewed, or worse a libelous intro section it would be safer to call him right-wing for now, and this is coming from a user who does not like Walsh nor his views. If in the future the RSs look at him much more negatively, we could then change his political affiliation accordingly.

Judging by your reply, you would probably also object to the anti-LGBT/anti-trans label, yes? However, I do not see an issue with that being in the article's intro, as much of his modern prominence is from his vocal opposition of the transgender community's practices and the LGBT community as a whole: a major chunk of this article is dedicated to his views and controversies surrounding his commentary on transgender people, and many of the reliable sources used do refer to him as being anti-trans/anti-LGBT/transphobic. Your arbitrary definition of what "harm" is does not change whether Walsh's commentary is harmful to the transgender community (and for the record, it more likely than not is harmful). You can claim profusely that his commentary is out of "concern", but we go by what the most reliable sources say about Walsh and his commentary, not what our personal interpretations say. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A reminder that labels for someone's political views are based on public consensus about what those labels mean, and not your personal political biases causing you to become upset over specific labels. Someone who is hostile to the goals of a civil rights movement is against that civil rights movement. Our goal as editors is to ensure the most accurate information possible based on available sources that describe someone's views, actions, and political goals and ambitions, not to be oversensitive about specific labels. See Be bold, but not reckless. Many of your statements including your definition of "radical conservatism" are unsourced prescriptive statements about how we "should" define a specific term, not how it is defined in the current political space. On contentious topics like this, it is important to maintain WP:NPOV. AMRSetsunai (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not yet removed the recently added "anti-LGBT" label from the first sentence, but I have doubts that reliable sources use the specific description "commonly" enough to satisfy the requirement in WP:BLPSTYLE: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking." Some of his actions have been described clearly as anti-trans, but do many sources describe him as "anti-LGBT"? Llll5032 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with the label, the sources don't seem to back it up well: The Houston Chronicles article Weirdarpeggi cited (which I had to view through the Internet Archive since the live link gives me an impassible subscription popup) describes Walsh as an "anti-trans activist", but not anti-LGBT. The NBC News article cited does contain the phrase "Anti-LGBTQ" to refer to the contents of post-Musk Twitter in general, but doesn't specifically describe Walsh as such. The Mashable citation does describe Walsh as "Anti-trans" but not anti-LGBT. If we are going to keep an anti- label it might be safer to use "anti-trans" in this case. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware of the sources I pointed to previously, in this diff? I don't see any problems with anti-LGBT(Q), based on the available sources. Newimpartial (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of this. I was pointing out that the sources Weirdarpeggi cited didn't necessarily back up the claim of him being anti-LGBT, I wasn't arguing that he wasn't. Given your sources plus the other sources used throughout the article to describe his views, the claim would probably be more sound. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Because the claim could be contentious, including refquotes in the citations would be warranted. Llll5032 (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with Llll5032's analysis. Describing him as "anti-LGBT" should constitute a contentious label and should only be done with a predominance of RS support for the label, and that does not appear to be the case here. There is no need to cram this label into the first sentence for a reader to understand his stances against certain LGBT issues and such. It could also constitute WP:LEADCLUTTER I may add Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree to re-including it in some form if WP:BESTSOURCES are cited carefully with refquotes (WP:FOOTQUOTE) and if no RS disputes the claim. Llll5032 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have any evidence of him being anti-LGBT, or is he just anti-transgenderism? Might be useful to make a clear distinction there, "anti-LGBT" can mean one of many things, many of which Matt seems to not be. bree Breeboi 23:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"Transgenderism" is neither a word nor a concept. He has made statements on his talk show and Twitter promoting the restriction of transgender healthcare, so he's certainly anti-healthcare and civil rights. AMRSetsunai (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Transgenderism isn't word or concept because language is defined by those who use it, and in this case you personally have chosen not to believe it exists, which is fine - "transphobia" and "cisgender" are also not words to many people. bree Breeboi 20:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Being anti-transgender is being anti-LGBT. That's what the T is and it is a subcommunity of the larger queer community. However, if you are looking for a specific example of non-trans anti-LGBT activity, he is very anti-drag, which is not an explicit trans event. Many drag queens are in actuality gay men, so it would follow that being anti-drag (An opinion he stated after the Club Q shooting in November 2022 and repeatedly since) would be an example of being anti-gay. There is also his statements on the sexual abuse in the Catholic church being not a problem with the church, but with gay priests. Which is also a very explicit anti-gay statement. 162.244.194.226 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying someone is "anti-LGBT" is not a helpful descriptor because one of the letters refers to something completely different than the other three letters. The LGB is referring to sexual orientation whilst the T is referring to the belief that one can change their gender. There are people and governments that are anti-LGB but more tolerant towards transgenderism (like Iran), and people who are obviously anti-transgenderism but not explicitly anti-LGB (like Matt). bree Breeboi 20:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

He's pretty openly opposed to gay marriage and has been for a long time. 108.169.202.88 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm very interested in learning about this. Could you cite a source? Moniony (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

explanation for removed hate speech paragraph that isn’t relevant to the above Dronebogus (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Care to explain or provide a quote that exemplified "hate"? The word "hate" has never been so loosely defined... 69.157.77.228 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Your entire paragraph consists of the same tired "LGBT people are coming after your children to turn them trans" rhetoric as well as describing gender reassignment surgery as "gender mutilation". Moreover, the reliable sources used in the article strongly disagree with this characterization, and say it is anti-LGBT (because it is). Might I add, if you want to use this page to express your own opinion about the LGBT community, that is not permitted per WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM, and your personal interpretation of Walsh's commentary does not constitute a change per WP:OR. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC) If you want to say my opinion is wrong, that's fine, but to say what I said is "hate" is preposterous. Then you go on to gaslight me saying I have some type of soapbox? I was replying to someone who says Walsh should be characterized on Wikipedia as Far-right and Anti-LGBT when I clearly explained, in my opinion, why he is not "Anti-LGBT". I thought Wikipedia was supposed to follow Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED even if it hurts someone's feelings. You don't get to determine what constitutes as "hate", especially when I'm in no way disparaging the OP. It's simply my opinion and if you disagree with it that's fine; but to remove what I said is censorship when I clearly had some valid responses to his point. What if I said I supported the genital mutilation of kids if they wish to become trans? Is that still "hate" to you? 69.157.77.228 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Should mention that Walsh is hostile towards EVERY transgender person he interacts with, and encourages it. Just look at his constant bullying of Dylan Mulvaney for simply having a platform as a trans person. He is very critical of other right wing figures that aren't hostile enough towards trans people, and has been called out for it. He also recently praised slavery and the native american genocide. If Libs of TikTok is labelled as Far Right, then so should he. He is far right and a fascist by definition, and wears that badge with pride. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's hilarous that the article only references one article referring to him as "far-right" yet googling "Matt Walsh, Far-right" genereates much more credible references to him being far-right than any of the other political descriptors. Yet the main page wants to position his labelling of "far-right" as the smallest. Pages like this are overseen not by logic or editorial standards. Just piss-ants acting like the Sheliac from Star Trek. I don't believe the majority of people gate-keeping this article and refusing to implement factual, sourceable material are genuine. They have their own bias and are abusing it.

(talk) 1:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Transgender

Given his recent comments describing the trans movement as “the greatest evil our country faces” and that he is determined to “oppose it until his last breath,” as well as responding to claims that he was an anti-trans columnist by stating “really outrageous to call me an anti-trans columnist. I’m a podcaster.” Is it finally time to add “anti-transgender” to his opening paragraph? It’s the thing Walsh is most known for, and his activism against the community is much more vitriolic than someone like Graham Linehan who is described in his opening paragraph as anti-trans. 2603:6011:4243:2000:4D2:2EC2:2B7F:8B2 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No because that wording implies he hates people who identify as trans. Rather, he hates the idea of transgenderism that has been pushed in society more and more today, the fact that such a concept exists. Walsh doesn't hate any person who believes they are transgender if they are living their lives normally and minding their own business. But he does have a disdain for people such as Dylan Mulvaney who promotes transgenderism and uses it as a marketing tactic for social media following (which influences children as a result). This would be the equivalent of saying someone who does not like the Islam religion, hates all Muslim people. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC) As has been stated before,” “transgenderism” is not a word nor a concept. You are clearly letting your personal support of Walsh’s ideals cloud your judgement here. He has publicly stated that he wants transition to be banned for all ages and that he would rather be dead than have a trans child. The majority of his content as of late is focused on his opposition to transgender rights and visibility. This would make him an anti-transgender commentator. 2603:6011:4243:2000:AC9A:2B46:94D4:747C (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC) And who are you to confirm the fact "transgenderism" is not a word? In fact, my keyboard doesn't underline it in red as a word that does not exist, so the word certainly exists in some capacity that dictionaries indeed recognize. "He has publicly stated that he wants transition to be banned for all ages" - this doesn't mean he hates people who want to transition, this is yet another obvious conclusion you are purposely drawing out of hatred for Walsh's views. He just believes transitioning is not for the best, and whether that is a right or wrong belief does not stem from hate; he just wants what is best for the child. "he would rather be dead than have a trans child" - this is another statement that yes, on its face sounds insane but there's more to it that he elaborated on in one of his episodes. Remember Walsh tends to make provocative statements to get a reaction. He views transgenderism as a mental illness that is unfavorable to a child in their development ie. depression. It is unfavorable to him, because transgenderism is simply not normal or a positive thing for a child to experience. Nobody *wants* children to be transgender, do they? If yes, then you are partaking in that "conspiracy theory" that LGBT activists are coming for other people's kids to influence them into becoming trans. And if that's false (which I'm sure you believe), then you would certainly say people don't want kids to be trans. It's one or the other. And the majority of his content as of late is in response to the rise of transgenderism in children as well as pop culture. He is simply reacting to a higher prominence. He never spoke about this issue 6 years ago because it simply was not as prevalent. Are commentators who speak out against Donald Trump since his rise to prominence in 2016 "anti-Donald Trump commentators"? "Anti-transgender commentator" seems to be an interesting label, so what's the standard here? Are we going to start making notes of how long a commentator has talked about a certain issue for, and if they reach a certain threshold we can then dub them a (insert issue here) commentator? 142.186.88.120 (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Dude, every single one of your contributions to this site you have shown your political bias in favor of right-wing beliefs/commentators. Go take your political debates to Twitter instead of an Encyclopedia site. Skull emoji. B3251 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC) And you mean to tell me nobody here has political bias? Oh, that's right, it only matters when it's a bias that you don't agree with. My body, my choice, it's up to me on what issues I want to contribute to. That shouldn't be relevant. These aren't debates anyway, just conversation; civil discourse. I just replied to someone with an opposing view. Because I have a different view, it is now a debate? Wasn't the point of Wiki Talk pages trying to go back & forth, and hash out ideas to improve the article? And yes, I'm sure one day Wiki could introduce emojis, would have been great in this instance. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This reads like those antisemites who like say "I don't hate Jewish people, I'm just anti-Judaism." It is a linguistic game designed to confuse and/or annoy rather than an argument advanced in good faith and it can safely be ignored. DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC) "I don't hate Jewish people, I'm just anti-Judaism" is a perfectly reasonable take - ever heard of don't hate the player, hate the game? It's a casual figure of speech, but it's rooted in truth. For whatever reason maybe someone doesn't like Judaism. But that doesn't mean he hates people who are Jewish, he could treat them all the same. It seems like you don't know how to distinguish the two ideas. They can be mutually exclusive believe it or not. Let's take another example, you could hate conservative ideology. Would this mean you hate all conservatives? Perhaps you could in theory, but it doesn't mean you have to. That choice would be up to you. Keep in mind religion and political beliefs are not states of being/immutable characteristics, such as age, sex or race. So saying you hate seniors, men or Asians, would obviously be bigoted and wrong. I'm just trying to make myself clear here, apologies for not being more succinct. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"Anything I disagree with is trolling". Sigh... 142.186.88.120 (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the existing content does cover it adequately in the second paragraph. The only thing I really don't like is the use of "LGBT movement" which suggests that he opposes a coherent political movement rather than merely attacking various types of people for their individual personal identities. This wrding is implicitly accepting a very contentious claim of his at face value. I think it would be better changed to "LGBT Community". DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it to "community" as that is definitely an incremental improvement. I'm not saying that this is the last word on the subject. If anybody has any suggestions for further improvements then please carry on. DanielRigal (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

it still says "movement" 131.123.49.74 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be because I am an idiot. ;-) Fixed now. DanielRigal (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Death penalty for homosexuality

"As of April 18, 2023, he is on record supporting the attempts of the Ugandan government to institute the death penalty for homosexuality."

This is not what the referenced article says. And we are not even talking about the fact that the reference is a random blog and not a reliable source. Moniony (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely not just a random blog. It has a named editorial team and we have an article about it which describes it as a news magazine not a blog. So, the real question is whether it supports the claim added to the article. I'm not sure. The article has him denouncing those who denounce the Ugandan law. Is it improper synthesis to call that supporting the law? I mean, only an illiterate idiot would interpret it any other way but I'm not sure exactly which side of the line this falls when it comes to saying so in Wikipedia's own voice. I think the best approach would be to reword it more in line with the source and trust that our readers can actually understand what they read. DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"I think the best approach would be to reword it more in line with the source and trust that our readers can actually understand what read."

Yea, I don't disagree with the original interpretation, but this this is a BLP article so we must be careful. .... Moniony (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The article does not, in fact, state or even unambiguously imply Walsh supports Uganda implementing the death penalty for homosexuality. It basically just says/shows Walsh doesn’t see anything so egregiously wrong with state-sanctioned genocide of gay people that justifies opposing it (which is still a horrifying opinion but is several notches below endorsing gay genocide) I’ve corrected the article accordingly. Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

About that site, so if you have a Wikipedia article for a site that has editorial team does that automatically quality it as reliable source? Just curious. ~~~ Moniony (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No, but I believe it’s on WP:Perennial sources as reliable. Dronebogus (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Either way, it comes across as a rather weird and oddly specific part of the lead section. If this is something which we should have, doesn't it belong in Matt Walsh (political commentator)#LGBT issues? /Julle (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Already done Dronebogus (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Spiffy sperry: isn’t listed or isn’t reliable? Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Both. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I wish to strongly petition to restore this bit of the article to the lead. If one of Walsh's LGBT nemesis' such as Eli Erlick had defended the policies of a nation that was punishing heterosexual acts with death, it would certainly be included in their article's lead. In the same fashion, the article on David Duke identifies him, in the lead, as an anti-Semite and white supremacist, without mentioning the fact that he supports a national sales tax. That is because allowing for the deprivation of basic human rights for a group of people defined by private, consensual sex acts - claiming that there is "nothing egregiously wrong with state sanctioned genocide" in Dronebogus's words - is not just another position a man might have, but something that defines the entire nature of ones political program. Unless he disavows this it must be regarded as absolutely central to his politics, from henceforth. I would take the same position in regard to any homosexual pundit who had supported it the other way around. Astinus The DragonLance Chronicler (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s only been discussed by one marginal source. Odious and shocking as it is, putting in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE Dronebogus (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Matt Walsh's Twitter has been compromised

The article is extended confirmed, natch, so I doubt any passerby will try to insert it in without citation. Just a heads up. Might be worth mentioning once it floats downstream to an RS. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Is someone's Twitter account getting hacked really central enough in their life and public persona that it should be mentioned in a encyclopedic entry, which tries to present the most important aspects of a person's life and acts to the public in a relatively brief manner? /Julle (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh, if reliable sources mention it, we mention it. This is a major platform for promoting his… “ideas”, so it is actually kind of a big deal Dronebogus (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We typically don't automatically include everything a reliable source has ever commented on in our biographies? "Someone's Twitter account was briefly compromised, with no lasting effects" sounds like recentism to me; we'd probably not included it if it had happened eleven years before we wrote the biography, even if we could find a newspaper article from back when it happened.

"Someone's Twitter account was compromised and this had long-term effects on their communication" or "and their private communication was shared and this had long-term effects" would be a completely different matter, of course, so let me rephrase: Typically, someone with enough followers losing access to their social media accounts tends to be a brief affair which is soon fixed. If so, it might not be worth mentioning. If it's the second option, that's a completely different matter. /Julle (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I really only brought it up in the sense that it is an event that occurred, and that it might be worth looking into if RS's mention it. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

At the same time, the “hack” hasn’t made any glaringly obvious changes to his activity besides replacing the background with a shitpost image of Steve from Minecraft and screwing up some biographical details/links. Dronebogus (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

His personal and work emails were also hacked. His hacked Twitter account also sent profane DMs to Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate. Wired magazine contributor Dell Cameron, who apparently was a notable participant in Anonymous asked the hackers to give him some of the hacked materials. They complied and as a result his Twitter account was suspended and Wired wasn't very happy about it. At the same time, YouTube do-monetized Walsh's channel so he declared that he would no longer post videos on that medium. The Daily Wire announced that they would be seeking criminal and civil action against the hackers once they are identified. So, the last few days have been fairly eventful for Walsh. 152.130.1.19 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Amusing though this is, we can't cover it without reliable sources giving it sufficient attention to merit it. DanielRigal (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/matt-walsh-twitter-hack-doomed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.16.22 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources Wiki considers reliable is not going to talk about it, obviously. 129.222.80.247 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

What? Dronebogus (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources Wiki considers “reliable” (ie. left-leaning) are not going to talk about anything bad that happens to Walsh as they don’t want to bring any attention to him being victimized in any way. For example the article about the streamer Keffals says she received death threats, but nothing about Walsh and death threats directed at him are mentioned in his article. It’s just the inconsistency that’s obviously based on politics. 2605:8D80:682:5AF8:35E1:672E:3FFD:E6FB (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This is far too silly to take seriously. If anybody genuinely believed that we only regard left wing sources as reliable then they would quickly decide that Wikipedia was an intrinsically lost cause and go away. And yet... here they are. It's obviously just trolling.

Anyway, Wired, who we do regard as RS, has written about the Twitter hack and we already cover this in the article. It is almost as if our friend lurking under the bridge didn't even bother to read the article before sounding off here. The coverage looks OK to me although I'm not sure that it merits its own section heading. DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Mention of “Theocratic Fascist” in the introduction.

Matt Welsh describes himself and identifies as a theocratic fascist. I believe this information is something that we should not omit from the introduction, this information is an important indicator of who he is and what ideology he subscribes to.

For the above mentioned reasons, I believe the fact that Matt Walsh is a theocratic fascist is something that should be included in his introduction.

Source: https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1654245858752225281?t=pDIMa8Y2uD-PcSCbctd2-Q&s=19 Khizar kiz (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No. It's a joke. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I would just say in context (for instance his video titled "Fine, I'm a Theocratic Fascist" that I am not sure "joke" is the right description. I am not seeing it mentioned a lot in reliable sources though, as I would want for the lead. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "joke". He has had it in his Twitter bio for ages. It has been noted by reliable sources and he has done nothing to correct them, as you might expect if this was them misunderstanding a joke. The statement is intentionally provocative but it is not a joke. It is entirely consistent with his many other stated opinions and should be assumed to be sincere. The question is whether it belongs in the in the intro and I'm inclined to say not. I think the existing coverage is adequate. DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You have identified his commitment to the bit. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It is only "commitment to the bit" when it actually is a "bit". This isn't. There is no reason to suspect that it is a "bit" and multiple reliable sources report it on the assumption that he is serious. It would be WP:OR for us to ignore that and call it a "bit" or treat it as such. DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not offering up my characterization of this for inclusion in the article. It is an undue topic for the introduction. He is trolling his critics and we don't have to fall for it. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the current mention in the body is fine. There is no need to put it in the introduction. DanielRigal (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Concur with this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Matt's Pronouns

On Matt's official Facebook page, there is a statement of their pronouns being 'me/myself'.

While this could be seen as being said in jest, it could also be seen as a valid assertion. Therefore, until me states myself's pronouns officially somewhere else, I don't see any reason why the pronouns used in myself's article shouldn't reflect this. Bugfingers (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt he uses those pronouns seriously. Looking at that message you linked as well as considering all the things he has said about transgender people and the surrounding LGBT community, it seems pretty obvious to me he is taking the piss in order to make fun of non-binary people. In a tweet replying to a TIME article that referred to someone with ey/eir pronouns, he said this, obviously to make fun of neopronouns and those who use them:

"My pronouns are kwioaljfnaueakjnfkak/ealjnuaepasnfjnweounaljsnflajnelfnakjaf/ajnfoenfoiefnkjnfiuouenafef03910394 Please refer to me accordingly".

In another tweet, he went on a tirade about neopronouns/choosing your pronouns, saying that:

"Nobody has pronouns. You can't 'have' a pronoun any more than you have a preposition or an adverb. The concept doesn't make any sense. Pronouns are not things you can own. They aren't pets or accessories. They are parts of speech. That's it. You don't get to customize them."

He also calls himself a "theocratic fascist" in his Twitter bio, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia treats the description as fact. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It is refreshing to see that we can come to the conclusion that someone is speaking in jest without appealing to a reliable source or being charged with doing original research. I hope this continues, and even extends to topics that may already be in the article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If I were to base my judgement purely off of WP:ABOUTSELF, the post Bugfingers linked would most likely be in violation of "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Except that's in the article too. The "okay, fine, I guess I'm a [insert loaded name]" is a common rhetorical device, and one Walsh uses a lot. Does anyone even know what "theocratic fascist" means? It sounds like a Fantastic Four villain. 208.117.96.2 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Diaper Plushie / “Sweet Baby Gang”

I recently reversed an edit that referenced Walsh’s diaper plushie. The source, which was “The New Republic,” neglected to provide any backstory as to the diaper figurine’s origins. This might seem like a trivial issue, but I brought it up here because it was edited into the wikipedia article.

It comes from an inside joke among Walsh’s podcast listeners, where they call themselves the “Sweet Baby Gang.” The origins of the phrase can be found in the youtube videos below, which are from his podcast:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=JaktFJQj8wQ at timestamp 47:40 - Walsh proposes the idea of calling his audience “sweet babies”

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8nfA549rvvk at timestamp 39:30 - an audience member coins the phrase “sweet baby gang,” and Walsh jokingly acknowledges it

All this to say, the article from The New Republic doesn’t include any of this backstory, in an attempt to portray Walsh as some sort of pervert making a diaper plushie, when in reality, the diaper plushie is a clear reference to this inside joke.

The whole story that I have laid out here should be kept in mind when editing this article. Pufferfishe (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and explanation. You are correct, but of course, you are now banned from the SBG --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

lol. Another part of the “Sweet Baby Gang” joke is that no-one is to speak of its origins. The punishment is banishment from the group, as @Spiffy sperry has correctly pointed out.

This is further evidence that the whole thing is simply a humorous name with hardly any controversy behind it. Those who don’t like Walsh are simply trying to generate a controversy, while neglecting to include key details. Pufferfishe (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, this talk page is not for discussion of what Matt Walsh does or doesn't do. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing Matt Walsh does to people he doesn’t like? 2603:6011:4200:B8B4:7C94:61CD:D78F:478F (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) No, I highly doubt it. Give me some examples. Pufferfishe (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Nothing I say is going to convince you, considering your edit history makes your beliefs pretty clear. But his entire documentary is an example of this, and I recommend Jessie Gender’s video takedown of it for a more in-depth explanation of how Walsh cherry-picks “evidence” in an attempt to smear trans people. 2603:6011:4200:B8B4:7C94:61CD:D78F:478F (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Well, I can say the same about you - two can play that game. You seem set on a certain viewpoint, and almost certainly haven’t listened to Walsh’s show or watched his film. You’re conveniently an IP, so I can’t check your edit history, but I can safely assume you are quite set in your beliefs. I can point you to several videos of Walsh debunking other people’s attempts to debunk his film - I don’t think he’s gotten around to Jessie Gender’s review yet. Any person with rational facilities could likely debunk any arguments set forth in that video, but I don’t think this talk page is the place for that. I will also point out that if you listen to Walsh’s podcast for any length of time, you’ll come across plenty of common transgender ideology arguments that he will refute. I will also say that it doesn’t take a genius to do that, so listening to Walsh’s every word isn’t necessary. Pufferfishe (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC) “Oh, you listen to Walsh’s podcast, so you must be biased!” Yes, I, as a human with critical thinking skills, have my own views, and am quite opinionated, in fact. I think you’ll find that a lot of Wikipedia editors also fit that description ACROSS the political spectrum. Also, if I didn’t listen to his podcast, I wouldn’t have been able to provide context for the diaper plushie story, which most news outlets covering the story have conspicuously ignored. Pufferfishe (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

transgender "health care"

This is not the place to push unsubstantiated WP:FRINGE ideas about health care. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Outright falsities at beginning of article: Mutilation of healthy body parts and drugs causing irreparable health issues is not "care". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.204.140 (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Got any reliable sources to prove that? I invite you to find an article from a legitimate medical organization that claims transgender health care is "mutilation of healthy body parts and drugs causing irreparable health issues". Please, take your time. No, Matt Walsh is not an accredited health organization or an authority on the subject in any way. 2600:100F:A000:9459:CCBB:E4BC:B9FD:8B65 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC) It wouldn't hurt to be more specific about precisely which procedures or techniques he opposes. The current phrase seems perhaps lacking in NPOV. Jmaranvi (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Describing this issue as "Health Care" when it is a completley cosmetic procedure that does cause psychologic and physical damage does make this article highly biased. I would suggest specifying what procedures, spacifically masectomy and historectomy on minors. SgtSalmon (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced addition

In this edit, user Frippinator (talk · contribs) sneaked in the word "reactionary" even though it is not mentioned in any of the four sources present. 77.22.105.105 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)