Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator): Difference between revisions

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics: Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people Gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. 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.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ 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.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

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.”

Matt Walsh’s wife lists her name as Alissa Walsh on both her X account and Instagram profile

https://x.com/alissawalsh21?lang=en

https://www.instagram.com/alissa__walsh/?hl=en

Please change the name of Matt Walsh’s spouse from “Alissa Ann Linnemann” to “Alissa Walsh”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.19.197 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get a Wikipedia account, make some edits, and then you can change it yourself, if you cite your source. Pascalulu88 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More needs to be added about Matt Walsh’s defense of Nazis (who were evil) and Confederates (who were slave-owning traitors). Walsh has a history of defending and even idolizing even people–Trump is not the first by a longshot. This needs to be expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.253.76 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2025

And do you have any reliable sources that discuss this? We’re not adding material to the article based on your opinion and hyperbole. Meters (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He stated an opinion but where was the hyperbole? Pascalulu88 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In follow up (the IP unfortunately never answered) I see that Matt Walsh diffused concerns about antisemitic jokes more recently in his 10/15/25 show, as noted by the Washington Examiner here —Wuerzele (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that Shiloh Hendrix used a racial slur several times towards a child, but the video shows otherwise. It starts after she evidently used the term once toward the child but only repeated it in answering the individual with the camera and the child was a fair distance away and not involved in that interaction.

The language as is gives a false impression as to what happened and should be changed. Perhaps it will be but the way it is just justifies this website commonly being known as “Wokepedia”. 2603:6080:EB00:94:3411:6DB4:50A7:4305 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No sources have been supplied to support that interpretation. Also, may I suggest that some hairs are simply not worth splitting? DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revert this ridiculous and undiscussed change please https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Walsh_(political_commentator)&diff=prev&oldid=1316946811 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:D82:9C2:B6B4:C7C4 (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Reverts are almost always controversial and thus not suitable for an edit request.
Nevertheless, I have taken the time to read through the talk page and I see no consensus for or against this phrasing despite multiple discussions about this issue/dispute.
Furthermore, it would be appreciated if you refrain from referring to other editors’edits as “ridiculous”, certainly without precedence.
If you want, you can make a discussion topic to try to establish a consensus for your preferred change. If you do this, be sure to tag the person whose edit you want reverted as well so they can explain their edit.
Happy editing,
Slomo666 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve started an RFC below to find that consensus 2A00:FBC:EE1F:2437:51C:3C72:D59:1BD6 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Since this seems to come up every couple of months and due to a recent change: Should he be referred to in the lead as

1. Conservative
2. Right-wing
3. Far-right
4. Neither

2A00:FBC:EE1F:2437:51C:3C72:D59:1BD6 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 4 – If only to remove disputes over his political description. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 4 We have this dispute across the spectrum, from Charlie Kirk to Zohran Mamdami. What does it accomplish? It wastes a lot of time. Follow MOS:LABEL. Let the article’s text say who the subject is. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 The sources describe him as all three, this one seems the most neutrally descriptive Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 per Iggy pop and neutrality. CNC (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, there’s no real debate he is right-wing, but it’s also so self evident it doesn’t need to be stated, which would be even more neutral. Dronebogus (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right-wing is by no means a WP:CONTENTIOUS label making it not neutral like far-right and Conservative would be if it creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. MOS:FIRSTBIO utility also matters here. CNC (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Every political label is contentious except for maybe describing communism as left-wing. Dronebogus (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In order of preference: 4,3,2 4 is best if only to pe-empt this discussion coming up again. (It is perennial at this point.) Teahouse convinced me of 3. I will try to keep it brief and not include too many arguments: 3 is the most factually accurate based on the article’s content. 1 is just not accurate whatsoever, 2 could include 3, but is less to the point, which I think does not serve the first sentence of the lede. Slomo666 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 4 any other label is just going to be relitigated in 0.0 milliseconds —Dronebogus (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 4 per Muboshgu. These disputes over the supposed correct and applicable “labels” are tiresome and worn out. Let the text in the body of the article accomplish what a complicated “label” cannot. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 (Summoned by bot) given the sources describe him as 1, 2 and 3; I’d suggest going with 2 as it is the broadest. TarnishedPath^talk 00:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 fits him best, but skimming through sources sees 2 also being prevelent. I don’t like 4. Having the article title being “political commentator” only to ignore politics is disingenuous.Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 01:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 4 per others that this is a tired discussion that comes up constantly, particularly on any right wing figures page. 2 as a second choice. If everyone on the right is far-right, then no one is far-right. Ratgomery (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 4 per my comment in the discussion. Political labelling in the lead sentence prejudices the reader, both against the subject and the encyclopedia. Let the readers read the article and judge by the evidence. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 (Summoned by bot), the reason being his espoused views perfectly fit the description Far-right as simple as that. The problem is that the lede is biased towards anti-transgender and not capturing the spectrum of his faaar right views: It lacks his white supremacist views, anti-Muslim and racist views. The Catholic church cancelled speaking engagements being concerned about just that. He is not merely right wing – All this is buried in teh long page and NOT OBVIOUS if one just leads the lede. I had never heard of this man and had to read a bit. Its a shame that barely 24 h after the bot summoned me, someone changed far right to right wing. This is plain wrong. He does NOT fit teh definition of right wing. Completely agree with User:Babysharkboss2 on option 4 : Wanting to neutralize to defuse seems to be a sign of the times… tiring of the discussion is no option[ [User:Ratgomery|Ratgomery]]. —Wuerzele (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like a lot of original research on your part. Most sources clearly don’t call him far-right. Stick to the sources. 2A00:FBC:EF53:F3A2:5CE0:770B:424C:250B (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 3. All three terms are correct so we must decide which is most appropriate and informative for our readers. That means that we should use the most precise term that is accurate and supported by sources. That is “far-right”. Let’s just dispose of the other options briefly. Option 2 (“right wing”) is so broad as to tell readers almost nothing. If the same term can be correctly applied to both Hitler and Churchill then clearly it isn’t telling us much about anybody’s politics. Right ring, but what sort of right wing? Far-right, obviously, so let’s just say that. Similarly, Option 1 (“Conservative”) is too broad to be helpful. It means different things in the US and Europe. It also means different things when we are talking politics and religion. That’s a problem because this article does both. Conservative, but what sort of conservative? Far-right, obviously, so let’s just say that. As for option 4… What are we even doing here by considering this? That would be a cowardly abdication of responsibility and a betrayal of our readers. When they come here to read an article they have a right to be told what the subject is and not left in the dark. —DanielRigal (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 4 or 2. Most sources label him conservative or right-wing, but since it’s not completely clear which one is more prevalent, not having a label at all seems like a sensible thing (this would also be in line with WP:LABEL). I would also be okay with right-wing as a middle ground between all three 2A00:FBC:EF53:F3A2:1408:BD47:6478:6D14 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (Summoned by bot) 2 Sources describe Walsh as any one of the three. I think conservative is too broad, but I do not share DanielRigal‘s concern that right-wing fails to properly describe Walsh’s views, as it is qualified by the preceding word, American (which gives readers the proper context that Walsh is on the modern American right). On the other hand, far-right feels contentious considering the lack of consensus on using that term in the sources. I also don’t support not having a label, because readers need context. mdm.bla 19:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is willing to do some source analysis I’m willing to be convinced otherwise as relying on what’s in the article is a very limited list. Ideally divided by RS and usage, rather than just evidence of being X, Y or Z. CNC (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, even if I were willing to delve into his views or perception, which is a prospect I am not particularly enthousiastic about, is that this cannot ever answer the question in a way that will satisfy everyone.

The argument will either be need to based on what each of the three concepts mean, and which of those definitions he fits best based on RS, or on how he is described by reliable sources. The former risks being too close to original research, the latter is very open to bias. (Which sources you decide are reliable for the purpose of defining the political label.)

On top of this, both methods will suffer from this (underlying) reliable sources issue: most of those sources are going to be from the US, which I fear will mean they are not adequately reliable as far as labelling people will go. Even outlets that are downright partisan against him and his will generally avoid using terminology such as “far right” in fear of backlash. In the US, I’ve come to learn, it is very common to (at least colloquially, but I’ve seen it in print and broadcast media too) use the term “conservative” as a catch-all to mean anything from reaction to “social conservatism” (note the intentional difference in links here) general social conservatism or economic liberalism. It may there also include much more authoritarian or more libertarian views. Frankly, I just don’t value conventional Statesian media to get any of this stuff right and not to fall, be it through the use of colloquialism or euphemism, into inaccuracy or self-censorship. (I advise everyone to read

User:DanielRigal/My Doubts by @DanielRigal for an explanation about the pitfalls here)

Sources will also likely immediately called into question by the “other” side (as a result of the tremendous polarisation in the US) as biased. (Whether that is true or not, although I think an argument could be made that everyone has bias, and this gets especially strong in such a polarised environment)

Reliable sources would have to be academic, I think, but I strongly doubt (although this is the US, so who knows) anyone in academia is spending time on this, in my opinion, rather unimportant pundit’s political views.

That is why I think it is better to leave the issue off the lede. I also think the whole distance between terminology in the US and elsewhere is partially the reason the lede currently links Conservatism in the United States separately.

Respectfully,

Slomo666 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say, on a personal title however, that I think both of the “campain against” subsections are striking evidence of his extremism. (I will note that this may be a bias I have, as a result of not being accustomed to the lengths partisan actors in the US will go to.)

This talk page also includes a section on him defending “Nazis and Confederates”… What is our litmus test here? (Because if the test is association, a falsifiable one, that threshold has been met.) Slomo666 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That section looks like just one person venting into the void. No sources presented, no follow up, no discussion. The existence of that section on this talk page is not an argument for anything Ratgomery (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The litmus test should be due coverage in reliable sources. There is no need to synthesis the debate, all I was asking for was source analysis per MOS:FIRSTBIO: “reflect the balance of reliable sources”. CNC (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with political labelling is that the meaning of the label varies both with context and with the viewpoint of the reader, so it is not constructively useful. Having a polarising label in the lead sentence is going to prejudice every reader differently. The only common factor is probably that every reader will be prejudiced. Some will be prejudiced against the subject, which is unfair and unencyclopedic. Others will be prejudiced against the encyclopedia and its editors for passing judgement instead of providing facts. Those competent to make their own judgement based on reliably sourced facts have to put aside the prejudice and those who are not will not anyway.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]