Talk:The Daily Wire/Archive 1

Infobox: website or newspaper
There's an RfC on whether a news website should use Infobox website or Infobox newspaper: Talk:The Times of Israel. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018
"...and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies." Remove the previous line. It was stated as being factually incorrect, but can easily be shown to be true. The following article from the NY Times is, I think, an accurate enough citation. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/us/black-commencement-harvard.html 67.254.228.118 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  spintendo   22:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * there is a very clear request here to remove text and the OP gives reasons why. As for the merits of the request, Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per the source currently on that sentence in the article and another page on that same website, calling them "segregated commencement ceremonies" spins the truth well out of context. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is as far as I can tell no substantive difference between the Snopes piece and the NY Times piece. Both note that this was a separate unofficial ceremony. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit June 21st-23rd 2018
I recently added more details to the section of the article which discusses articles published by the Daily Wire that were criticized by certain fact checkers. Someone reverted these changes, citing "excessive level of detail" and "back-door editorializing".

The details that I added were certainly not excessive, as they are critical to understanding the criticism of The Daily Wire's coverage. Take the Harvard commencement ceremony story as an example. While it is certainly valid to criticize The Daily Wire for describing the separate commencement ceremony at Harvard meant for specifically for black students as "segregation", the original content of the article would lead the reader to believe that The Daily Wire had completely fabricated the story, which is incredibly far from the truth.

Additionally, my edits certainly do not involve "back-door editorializing", the article as it was previously written presents a quite biased view of The Daily Wire, as a previous editor mentioned in the talk section. By adding factual information that makes it so the reader is not misinformed by the article I am not "editorializing", if anything I am eliminating editorialization that existed in the previous iteration of the article. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There were two things added here:
 * A random hot take from a Ben Shapiro podcast appearance. - This is certainly undue and excessive for this article about something other than Ben Shapiro. If you have a reliable source commenting on The Daily Wire's editorial stance on climate change, let's see it. Ben Shapiro's personal opinions only belong here with a very good reason, which would typically be supported by a reliable, third-party source. Like everyone, Ben Shapiro has many opinions on lots of topics, including those he is not qualified to speak on. His opinions are only notable to the extent they are supported by reliable sources.
 * Added details from Snopes - Wikipedia doesn't whitewash information by presenting a false story as "disputed", which is a euphemism. If a story is false, such as these ones published by the Daily Wire, we say, in straightforward language, that it's false. If the Daily Wire accuses "leftists" of doing something bad, do not editorialize by renaming them "vigilantes", especially since these people do not exist. Saying Snopes "felt" is was inaccurate is editorializing, because it is implying that this was an opinion. It was not, it was a reliable source reporting that Daily Wire was wrong. If The Daily Wire cannot figure out what words it wants to use, they shouldn't be in the "news" business.
 * If you would like to expand this, do so in proportion to reliable sources, and without the editorializing shift in tone. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely needs to be acknowledged in the page that Harvard actually did allow a separate commencement ceremony intended for black students, even if Snopes considers it inaccurate to call that "segregation". The original page made it seem like The Daily Wire completely made it up. The New York Times published an article acknowledging that there was a separate commencement ceremony offered to black students which other races were discouraged from attending, though they did not describe it as "segregation". The Miami Herald published an article suggesting that is was not unreasonable to complain about the "segregationist tendency" of the event. Did Snopes publish an article saying that the Miami Herald's article is "mostly false" for describing the practice of a separate graduation ceremony meant for one particular race as segregationist? No, they didn't, probably because the Miami Herald is not known as being very conservative. Just because Snopes says that it is a fact checking website does not mean that it is free from bias, and even they stopped short of calling the article "false". This page in its original form made it sound like The Daily Wire completely fabricated the Harvard commencement story.

The original confederate grave article (linked here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/19851/year-zero-vigilante-protesters-start-dig-remains-john-nolte) uses the word vigilantes twice, including in the title, and never uses the word "leftist". Also, they issued a retraction on this article, which was published back when they were first getting started, within a few months of being founded. This information ought to be acknowledged in the page. Have you actually read the Snopes articles? I'm genuinely not saying this to be rude, but if you had you would know that these "vigilantes" did exist, and they did dig up grass near the grave of a confederate general, but they did not actually dig up any bodies. I agree with you that "disputed" is too soft of a word, but even Snopes describes this article as "mostly false", not "false".

Also, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of including Ben Shapiro's views on climate change. My reason for including them are not to assert that they are true or that Ben Shapiro is "qualified to speak on" the issue, but simply to add the very relevant fact to the article that the editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire actually does acknowledge the reality of climate change.

I don't mean for there to be any hard feelings here, and I do understand a few of the issues you raised with my first edit, but the article in its original form simply doesn't tell the full truth, as it withholds valuable information from the reader. Although you are absolutely right that this information does not make every piece of the stories in question true, it is important information to include if the page is to be complete and honest. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Directed primarily towards Snooganssnoogans: Where specifically am I using weasel words or synthesis? I'm not sure which parts of my edits you are referring to. DiscoStu42 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You talked about how Snopes "feels" something - WP:WEASEL. You added WP:SYNTH on how a Miami Herald op-ed repeated the same falsehood. There is more to the falsehood on the Confed General grave than just the bit you mentioned. The climate change stuff is primary sourced and appears to place Shapiro's fringe beliefs on climate change in a moderate light and somehow relates it to DW's record of pushing climate change denial - violates WP:SYNTH, WP:WEASEL and WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Shapiro's fringe beliefs on climate change Now I begin to wonder who is stating unsourced BLP information. w umbolo   ^^^  14:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Shapiro has promoted a bunch of falsehoods related to climate change. To portray him as a voice of reason on this topic as the other editor sought to do on the basis of a youtube clip (which I have not seen and have no interest in watching) which appears to be summarized in WP:WEASEL fashion is not good enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Why should one accept Snopes over The Miami Herald? There are the objective facts about what Harvard did, and then there is how you describe it. It was absolutely overreach of Snopes to describe this as presenting false facts. If you would like I can change "feels" to "stated", which may be more precise, but it is still very important to include the fact that it was not only The Daily Wire or right wing news sources who characterized what was done by Harvard as segregation. It is not synthesis to simply state what the Miami Herald said.

Also, as for climate change, if you actually look at the full clip which the first 3ish minutes of you clip are taken (which is really the only part that deals mainly with climate change) he actually says that he would be happy to say that climate change in probably happening. Also do you know when that clip is from? It looks extremely old. The Joe Rogan interview is less that a year old. All of this being said, I am happy to remove the part about Ben Shapiro's views on climate change if it means my other improvements will stop being reverted. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I do see what you mean. Ben Shapiro's personal views on climate change should not be included in an article about The Daily Wire. I am happy to remove them. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Miami Herald article is an op-ed reprinted from the NY Post. Even though it is an opinion it goes to great lengths to explain why this optional ceremony was created. The op-ed doesn't mention the Daily Wire or Snopes or anything at all about the Wire's tabloid coverage of this issue. The op-ed is only barely even about the ceremony, it's mainly about a larger issue of a lack of community on colleges. Using it to support a point about The Daily Wire would be WP:SYNTH. Sources need to be about the Daily Wire. If Snopes says the Daily Wire published something that was false in context the source can be used to support that it was false. If another source mentions this event in an entirely different context, that has nothing to do with the Daily Wire. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, point taken, but we ought to at least fix the part that suggests that The Daily Wire said that "leftists" dug up graves when they used the words "leftist" or "leftists" zero times in that article, and used the words "vigilantes" and "protesters" two and three times respectively. We ought to change the "leftists" part to "protesters". Can everyone agree on that at least? DiscoStu42 (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I actually already changed that, so hopefully we can all agree. The article does call the (completely misrepresented) protesters "Taliban-left" so it's hard to see how "leftists" is particularly far-off, but The Daily Wire's over-the-top style isn't the main point being discussed, so it's seems better to go with simpler language. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about adding more information about what Snopes actually said? I still think it is relevant to include some key information which is omitted from the page but included in Snopes such as the fact that Harvard actually did have a separate commencement ceremony specifically for black people, even if it is false and a mischaracterization to describe this as "segregation". I also think it may be worth while specifying that the stories listed were characterized as "false" or "mostly false" by Snopes, because most of them were actually found to be "mostly false" rather than "false" which is a small, but relevant distinction. Do you have any objections to me making these changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoStu42 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do object. I believe it's undue, which I've already explained. The article already makes clear Snope's stance that these "stories that are taken out of context or not verified". The specific cited source doesn't call these mostly false. It call each of them "false". This source is useful as a summary of all the other sources. In fact, the main falsehood that source debunks isn't even mentioned in the article. As a summary it's sufficient, and as an encyclopedia article, this should be a summary. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to Snopes's confederate grave article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/are-vigilante-protesters-digging-up-confederate-graves/ and here is a link to Snopes's Harvard commencement article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-segregated-graduation/ Both of them clearly say "mostly false" rather than "false". Again, I do understand that it is not a huge distinction, but it is an important one to make if we want the page to be accurate. DiscoStu42 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * These "truth ratings" are very useless and mean nothing. PolitiFact's Obama Lie of the Year was originally labelled "half-true". Fact-checking websites often give the same claim different truth ratings. We shouldn't be citing "false" or "mostly false". Instead, we should summarize what was true and what wasn't. For example, look at this PolitiFact article on Ben Shapiro, which gives some criticism of Shapiro's method but doesn't "draw any conclusion" (in their own words), but labels Shapiro's claim as "false" (might want to watch Shapiro's response). w umbolo   ^^^  09:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I can go along with that, as long as we actually do summarize what was true and what wasn't. Take the Harvard claim for example, Snopes makes it clear in its what's true section, "black graduates at Harvard University are holding a separately organized Black Commencement ceremony". This is a very important fact, however this is omitted from the page. Perhaps we could just include quotations from Snopes saying what Snopes found to be true and what they found to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3712:1A00:61F0:CACF:5BCA:6F4C (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does the Politifact article state that it doesn't draw any conclusions. It explains exactly why it rates his position as false, summarizing with Shapiro’s definition of radical is so thin as to be practically meaningless and so too are the numbers he brings to bear.


 * These details about why the Wire's facts are false has drifted into minutia. Their relevance is not well-supported by the context provided by sources, and that's the important part. The source which is currently used doesn't mention the black commencement ceremony, and even if it did, that is not a "segregated" commencement ceremony, making the Daily Wire's claim still wrong/incorrect/erroneous/misleading/deceptive/etc., regardless of it happens to use the term "false". The goal is to summarize what sources say is important, not what editors believe is important. When you say this is a "very important fact", you need to support that with sources explaining why it's important. There is a lot of other material that could be drawn from these sources, such as the "Mohammed is now the most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands" falsehood. Why would the detail you consider important be more important than the main point of the source used in the article? Do you see the problem? We need to summarize the issue, not cobble together sources to support our own analysis. This is why we do not publish WP:OR, because we are a tertiary source which summarizes reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually we do kind of "cobble together sources" per policy WP:NPOV. We don't need sources to say what is "important", we need sources to talk about it. In this situation, if there were other RS saying the Daily Wire had not produced a falsehood, we would appropriately describe both viewpoints. In this case, we don't have those as you have pointed out, so we should only summarize the Snopes article. And for your information, the "Mohammed is now the most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands" falsehood is actually a truthhood - Snopes is the one that produced a fabrication this time. It's extremely funny how Snopes doesn't know the difference between two different names and the same name with two different transliterations. Furthermore, because the Snopes said a falsehood in the article, the article is now a questionable source. Wikipedia can't contain content sourced only to questionable sources, so you should argue the content's inclusion at WP:RSN. I am removing the content sourced to that Snopes's article. w umbolo   ^^^  14:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the RS noticeboard. 15:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What source is there for the claim that Muhammed is not the most popular name for boys? That would need to be proven to call Snopes into question.
 * Anyone who actually read the Snopes article would know that they take into account the different spellings of the name and added them together, showing only 636 Muhammeds/Mohammads/Mehmets/etc, but three times as many boys named Lucas/Lukas/whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Context matters, and I was referring to the cited Snopes's article's reliability, not on Snopes generally. w umbolo   ^^^  16:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And your argument regarding context is that the "Mohammed is now the most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands" falsehood is actually a truthhood -- which I'm not seeing proof for whatsoever. You further argued It's extremely funny how Snopes doesn't know the difference between two different names and the same name with two different transliterations, which suggests you didn't actually read the Snopes article. Ian.thomson (talk)
 * which I'm not seeing proof for whatsoever the proof is the article by The Daily Wire. which suggests you didn't actually read the Snopes article I read it and please read this section of that article:
 * It’s true that if multiple variant spellings of the name “Mohammed” are entered into the SVB database, then the results document that 636 of the babies born in the Netherlands in 2017 were given that name. But if the same rule were applied to, for example, the names “Lucas” and “Daniel,” it would be clear that Mohammed was hardly the most popular boy’s name in 2017. Almost 2,000 Dutch children were named for some form of “Lucas,” while more than 1,000 were given a variation of the name “Daniel” in 2017.
 * As you can see, Snopes thinks that Lucas, Luka, Lukas, Luke, etc. are all the same name with different spellings, while Muhammad, Mohamad, Mohamed, etc. are also all the same name with different spellings. What's actually true, is that the Muhammad names are actually all the same name, but with different transliterations. On the other hand, Lucas et al. are not all the same name, at least not in the same sense that Muhammad et al. are all the same name. w umbolo   ^^^  16:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Source A, which is already a questionable source, makes a claim. Source B, which has a reputation for pointing out problematic sources, says that source A is wrong.  Do you not see the problem with using Source A to counter Source B?  Our article Lukas quite simply states "Lukas is a form of the Latin name Lucas."  Luca is a very global shortened form of Lucas.  If you want to split hairs by arguing that regional variation somehow renders those completely different names, you're going to need to prove that everyone who named their kid Muhammad were from the same region, too.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lukas and Lucas are not simply regional variations. As the article you cite says, Lukas and Luca are different forms of the Latin name Lucas. In contrast, the Muhammad variations aren't different forms of Muhammad, but the exact same passive participle name with different transliterations (see the Muhammad (name) article). w umbolo   ^^^  21:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Carson story
The Daily Wire did not publish a false story about Carson. The explanation is at the bottom of the Daily Wire article. The Daily Wire explains how Snopes incorrectly read the article, and FactCheck.org did the same thing. I have removed the paragraph about the story. w umbolo  ^^^  21:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how one could possibly misread "Ben Carson Finds $500 Billion (Billion!) In Errors During Audit Of Obama HUD". That article explicitly states In one of his first acts as HUD Secretary, Carson ordered an audit of the agency. What he found was staggering: $520 billion in bookkeeping errors.
 * DW did publish a story claiming that Carson found the $500 billion error. Snopes and FactCheck.org said that the errors were found before he became HUD secretary.  They did not say that he found money, as DW is claiming other sources said about the story.
 * The Daily Wire is lying about what Snopes said. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Snopes said:
 * The audit was initiated before Ben Carson assumed his position at HUD, and it reckons an aggregate figure of accounting errors and not an actual recovery of $500 billion in funds.
 * The Daily Wire article nowhere states that Carson "recovered" the money. Seems Snopes is lying about what the Daily Wire said. w umbolo   ^^^  21:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the very part you quoted after taking off your rose-tinted narrative glasses. The audit was initiated before Ben Carson assumed his position at HUD.  before.  DW clearly credits Carson for the audit.  It would be misreading to say that they did not credit Carson for an audit that started before he assumed office.  The following bit is there because folks running off of the DW story treated it as recovered funds (which the DW piece's title rather implies).  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, the Consolidated Financial Statements Audit was reissued on March 1, 2017, the day before he took office. This implies that another audit was issued, like the Daily Wire states:
 * The same problems were detailed for each of the last three audits, and the auditors say the continued problems “were due to an inability to establish a compliant control environment, implement adequate financial accounting systems, retain key financial staff, and identify appropriate accounting principles and policies."
 * That seems to fit with the fact that the Audit was reissued on March 1, 2017; Carson's audit seems to be the third audit. w umbolo   ^^^  22:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We go by RS. I see no indications that both FactCheck.org and Snopes got this wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To make this as clear as possible, here's the sequence of events:
 * 1) HUD starts an audit that eventually finds over $500 billion in errors.
 * 2) Carson assumes office as secretary of HUD.
 * 3) The Daily Wire publishes an article explicitly crediting Ben Carson for the aforementioned audit, even saying that he was the one who found the errors.
 * 4) Snopes.com and Factcheck.org point out that the audit that found that the $500 million in errors started before Carson took office.  Snopes.com, addressing spin-off stories, points out that it was just accounting errors that were found, not actual cash.
 * 5) DW acts like Snopes claimed that DW claimed that cash was found, which it didn't and completely misses the central point that the audit started before Carson was even in office.
 * That you don't seem to get this raises serious concerns about your intentions with this article, Wumbolo. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, you forgot to add to #2:
 * Carson assumes office as secretary of HUD and a third audit is issued.
 * And to #3:
 * The Daily Wire publishes an article explicitly crediting Ben Carson and the previous two audits for the aforementioned audit, even saying that he and the previous two auditors were the one who found the errors.
 * w umbolo  ^^^  22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DW emphasizes while hiding when the previous audits took place.  They do not mention the two previous audits.  Why are you looking for every little technicality (no matter how much one has to twist things to arrive at it) to defend a discredited website, even citing that discredited site's own claims against well-established reliable sources?  We have articles on other conservative news sites (real news instead of fake news) where your efforts would be more fruitful.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't citing the Daily Wire; I was citing the official PDF. Also, the Daily Wire isn't hiding anything; it clearly stated that the previous audits found the errors:
 * The same problems were detailed for each of the last three audits, and the auditors say the continued problems “were due to an inability to establish a compliant control environment, implement adequate financial accounting systems, retain key financial staff, and identify appropriate accounting principles and policies."
 * But surely, now you're going to cast aspersions at me since I just cited the Daily Wire, even though I only cited it to say what it claimed. w umbolo   ^^^  22:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It says nothing about when those audits were started. It gives Carson all the credit.  I'm not merely casting aspersions, I'm pointing out very problematic behavior on your part.  This is not the first time you've taken without question the word of a discredited source against widely-accepted reliable sources (rejecting them out-of-hand).  In both cases, the unreliable source focused on some minor quibble in their rebuttal without addressing how their central claim was discredited.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"allegedly" false stories
per WP:YESPOV, should not include allegedly. User:2600:1700:e6e0:ecd0:71de:e289:cace:2a91 let's discuss here Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019
Change "Incorrect stories" to "Criticism and controversies", then add a sub-header labeled something along the lines of "Accusations of false or misleading stories" which the content can go under. This covers the content better and makes the section easier to extend, and follows an established format used on many other Wikipedia pages.

Additionally, citations should be added for the Daily Wire articles referenced in the following lines(I believe these are correct, but should be double-checked): "Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies" - cited article "Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow" - cited article "The Daily Wire published an update to the story, reflecting similar criticisms from Snopes." - cited article

Finally, with the new header in mind, the controversy surrounding the Columbus Day video produced by The Daily Wire in 2017 is worth noting, if someone is up to writing that. Some relevant articles are here, here, and here, and the video itself here. 216.15.40.51 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. w umbolo   ^^^  14:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018
Change false stories section because simply using snopes.com and factcheck.com, both democratic leaning outlets, as factual is misleading and makes the page political. Snopes has been caught numerous times actually reporting falsifications, and the same goes with factcheck. Not changing it to something of substance will call in to question the validity of Wikipedia as anywhere near a reliable source of information. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Snopes may have been unreliable in the past. However, per WP:RSCONTEXT, we should examine the context under which a specific article is reported. If you have evidence that Snopes is wrong in this specific article, you're welcome to present it.  w umbolo   ^^^  12:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the title of the section, "Incorrect Stories." One typically doesn't see that as a subject heading on the wiki pages of different papers or sites. It's more generally framed as "controversies and criticism." I would vote that "Incorrect stories" gets changed to "controversies and criticism," because "incorrect stories" to me smacks of bias. I could pull up lists of "incorrect stories" from the NYT (whole books have been written about stories NYT got wrong, with critics coming from both the far left and the far right (see https://www.amazon.com/Record-Paper-Misreports-Foreign-Policy/dp/1844675831 for one example).

Perhaps a better parallel to Daily Wire would be Vox, which was started around the same time as the Daily Wire and is also an online only site. It has no such "incorrect stories" section despite committing its share of editorial sins: https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-fucked-up-a-story-1673835447

216.165.95.129 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Simon


 * Per WP:CSECTION, "Criticism and controversies" would be an inappropriate title. I'd rather remove the section entirely as it cites a wildly dubious Snopes article, a minor error mentioned by factcheck.org, and a couple of climate change inaccurate reporting which has been covered by well-cited scientists but still probably needs WP:SECONDARY coverage of the criticism. w umbolo   ^^^  12:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clearly showing bias Aphtermath (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Label of Incorrect Stories section
Wouldn’t it be NPOV to give the same section heading to what is now called “incorrect stories” as is used with other news or opinion sites on the other side? After a dozen searches or more, I could only find one left-wing news source that had on its Wikipedia page a section with a similar name (False Stories). The source was NowThis. The coverage of Jussie Smollet was not under that heading for CNN or MSNBC, the false coverage of the Covington boys story was not under such a section for Washington Post, etc. Surely those stories are more incorrect and worthy of a separate heading than describing separate graduation ceremonies as segregation, for example. I just want fairness here. As soon as there is a “false reporting” or “incorrect stories” section for the Wikipedia pages of Vox, The Young Turks, Mother Jones, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC, it will be fair to have an “incorrect stories” label on the Daily Wire page. So shall we change the label on the Daily Wire page to “Criticisms and Controversies” or “Controversies” or “Allegedly Incorrect Stories”, or do we add an “Incorrect Reporting” section to the Left-Wing sites previously mentioned. Yes, the stories may have incorrect information; I am not arguing about that. But even criminals are called suspects, and the same label used for incorrect reporting from Washington Post should be used for The Daily Wire. Biasbalancer1 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect reporting is a minor mistake, not a controversy. w umbolo   ^^^  22:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo Okay, it just seemed oejorative when it was not applied to the other sites, which (due in part to their longevity) have probably made more incorrect reporting. I guess the problem is not with thos page then, but I want there to be a NPOV for journalistic errors by different sites. Biasbalancer1 (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't waste your time, Wikipedia is maintained by editors that are heavily biased to the left. I would recommend not taking any political content on the site seriously. 2401:E180:8830:8194:C884:CBC2:4E92:5AD5 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Stories
The section "Incorrect Stories" should not be included, as the title is asking to be riddled with controversy over what is and is not correct or incorrect. This has been shown by the frequent deletion and submission of this section several times. Information on Wikipedia is meant to be black & white, not subject to debate and frequent editing. As this section includes information that has not been decided on by the public, it should not be displayed as fact on Wikipedia. For this reason, it needs to remain removed from this page. Damion4162 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RS WP:V WP:WEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Obvious biased sources
This entry uses obvious and well known biased sources like "climate feedback" - that obviously has an agenda to promote the worst possible outcome regarding climate change. The person who included these articles in "controversies" obviously never read them and found a random source that confirmed their biases. And used the same source 3 times to claim that a dailywire article was "controversial". Is this a web based encyclopedia or a liberal outpost? Which is it? Mikael9801 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Climate change
There has been some back and forth on the climate change section in the article. It was all sourced to climatefeedback.org which is a crowd sourced website of scientists, I do not believe they meet the requirements for a RS. Especially with how the section was written. The Daily Wire has published a number of articles doubting that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading. We could do something along the lines of according to Climate feedback.org, a crowd sourced scientific website, they are bla bla bla. Or whatever, as long as their opinions are not in wiki's voice and proper attributed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, no need at all. The website is run by recognized experts and every word is by recognized experts. The text already attributes the text to experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:USERG which is why I mentioned it is a crowdsourced website. As I said, I have no issue attributing the material to them. But again not a RS for statements of fact on it's own. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The website is not a random forum or whatever you think it is. The folks who run the website send out invitations to relevant experts to review pieces (e.g. the same thing that peer-reviewed journals do). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion at the RS noticeboard about whether we are allowed to cite "a highly respected and influential resource" run by recognized experts and whose reviewers are all recognized experts. This is where we are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is great, it has nothing to do with them being a RS or not being part of WP:USERG since it is still user generated content with no editorial overcite. Please produce a policy that goes along with your theory of how RS work. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Climate Feedback editors provide a clearly stated summary of the scientists’ comments. "no editorial overcite" Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not an editorial review, they call their contributors editors... Kind of like here actually. PackMecEng (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to make the same point about peer-reviewed journals; if this website is "crowd sourced" then all peer-reviewing is "crowd sourced". The people by themselves would pass WP:SPS, being "established expert on the subject matter"; that there are multiple reviewers and editorial control means it is clearly WP:RS. Here's a reliable source for it being a reliable source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is fine, but it would be an opinion of a notable expert. Not a statment of fact. In that situation we would say "so and so says X" not just X as fact. PackMecEng (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most of the cited experts have an h-index of at least 60, and people in don't tend to have much more. It's still undue though.  w umbolo   ^^^  18:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I no issue citing them or the information. Just not the way it is currently presented. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets RS requirements for attributed content. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Did I just read someone claiming that WaPo is a reliable source and since they say Climate review is a reliable source then it must be? When did wikipedia drown in the gutter?! Mikael9801 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of "right-wing" and "conservative" in the same sentence
I would like to bring up a point that I made when I made an edit to the article, which shortly after got undone. This point was redundant language, which is seen in the first line of the article: "The Daily Wire is an American right-wing, conservative news and opinion website founded in 2015 by political commentator Ben Shapiro, who is the site's editor-in-chief." I am bringing this up because generally speaking, "right-wing" and "conservative" tend to mean the same thing when speaking of politics, and being that the Daily Wire leans to the right in terms of bias, I feel it's appropriate to use one of those words in the opening but not both because it's a bit redundant. If you have an opinion on this please let me know. Thanks! Unknown0124 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that it seemed redundant, but that's not necessarily a problem we, as editors, can solve. Generally, we stick closely to sources. If there are differences which are not contradictions, sometimes we can summarize in our own words, but this is not always as simple as it seems. The source cited in the lede didn't describe The Daily Wire as conservative, it described it as "far-right". The source did, however, describe Shapiro as conservative, and it was clear from context that this applied to Shapiro... but that's starting to seem like original research, so we need to back up and try again. These terms clearly overlap a great deal, but they do not mean the same thing, so we should handle this carefully. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020
Change "far-right" to "conservative." The Daily Wire, although a paper with a conservative bias, they should in no way be labeled as "far-right." The owner is literally an orthodox jew. The reference that would validate the label of "far-right," strikes me as a poorly written news article that, instead of writing a news story, relied heavily on copying and pasting a statement written by the students and showing tweets without further reporting. I follow multiple newspapers and Daily Wire is an honest paper that prioritizes the truth over politics, which I don't see a lot of papers doing these days. 99.95.112.145 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The cited source, a WBUR.org article, states that the actual article was published by the Boston University official newspaper BU Today: read the full story published by BU Today. The BU Today article itself was written by a staff writer of that publication. That is a decent source, but it may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to one source, as I could not really find anything else with a Google search of Daily Wire + far-right. The only other source was an Al Jazeera opinion piece from Dec. 2019. Breitbart News for instance cites multiple reliable sources for the label. --Pudeo (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Right-wing" seems to enjoy a wider currency: New York Times : The Daily Wire, a right-wing media company, Newsweek: right-wing media outlet The Daily Wire, Business Insider: right-wing news site The Daily Wire. I will make the change with these refs. --Pudeo (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The unsurprising business relationship that monetarises the selling of hate
These articles explain how Shapiro's business model converts bigotry and fear into shares and likes on social media platforms. Moreover, the recycling of years old stories as real time news to inflame the sensibilities and emotions in their conservative audiences. It's all here:


 * Facebook allows prominent right-wing website to break the rules
 * The dirty secret behind Ben Shapiro's extraordinary success on Facebook

According to the second article:

"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has a relationship with Shapiro, who Zuckerberg has hosted at his home. According to a source who has spoken with Shapiro, Zuckerberg and Shapiro remain in direct communication." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.165.110 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Popular.info
I’m not sure this website meets the criteria as a reliable source. The section also editorializes on what Facebook’s policy may or may not do. I can’t find any secondary sources that are reporting the popular.info story. Fusion2186 (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources exist, just look for them. MSN, The Daily Beast Ajak 9 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m still not sure it qualifies. Popular.info is self published (wp:sps) by Judd Legum as a newsletter. It receives no editorial oversight except from Judd as far as I know. This same information was removed from the Ben Shapiro page for the same reason. I’m on mobile but I can’t link to it, but have a look on the Ben Shapiro talk page at their reasoning. From what I can tell, the other secondary sources are only quoting Judd Legum. Fusion2186 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's dishonest to claim that only Popular.info was cited, this Guardian piece was also cited in the paragraph you removed. As for the Ben Shapiro talk page, the problem was that there was only one source cited.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ian!

Accusing me of dishonesty doesn’t show much good faith on your part. It’s much simpler to assume I may have been inaccurate. Try to assume good faith from here on out.

As far as the guardian article, again I stand by my previous statement about it being a self published source. The guardian has done no original research but if referencing Judd Legums news letter. This is easily demonstrated with the inline citations and links on the guardians page. I reverted my deletion. Please refrain from restoring it without attempting to reach a Consensus on the talk page. Fusion2186 (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is not self-published. MSN news is not self-published.  Daily Beast is not self-published.  SPS doesn't mean we can't cite otherwise RS sources that also happen to site an SPS.  That's like arguing that citing a secondary source is original research.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving this material here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Reverting per WP:BRD cycle - this material has originally been added by IP; it was challenged & removed." In addition, the edit also change "opinion website" to "news and opinion website", which does not seem to be an accurate portrayal of the site. I would be happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * only the Roanoke ref calls The Daily Wire an opinion website, and it calls it a "news and opinion" website. So that should definitely be kept. w umbolo   ^^^  08:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some descriptors:
 * Rep. Mary Franson's Facebook posts appear to link March for Our ...| Minneapolis Star Tribune | Soon after that, she reposted a comment from Ryan Saavedra with the conservative opinion website The Daily Wire.
 * The right wing's conspiracy theory network is now going after high ... | Media Matters for America (blog) | Meanwhile, major conservative sites like Breitbart.com and Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire decided that they could produce good content...
 * I'm not seeing it consistently described as a "news" site. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Almost always it is labelled a "news site", sometimes an "opinion site", and sometimes both. Here are some descriptors for it being a "news website":

w umbolo  ^^^  12:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent compilation, for which you are to be (belatedly, my apologies) commended. Though one thing that leaps out of me is that outside of Salt Lake City and The Blaze, it's not so much a "news site" as a site where one may obtain 'conservative news.  Or intermittently, 'right-wing news'.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Liberal bias
Criticism makes up more than half of the article but you cannot find much criticism in articles dealing with left-wing sites like TYT. Where is the balance here?80.131.52.200 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * that's because TYT didn't publish any falsehoods. However, there is a policy called WP:UNDUE which says that we should tend to give weight to how much reliable sources discuss an aspect of the subject. w umbolo   ^^^  09:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * TYT doesn't have a perfect record.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:5209:6900:380e:9f41:9f04:9841 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"Climate Feedback" and "Snopes" are well known to contain Leftist bias. Most of your Wiki article is simple Leftist bias. Robinmartin1973 (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Snopes definitely leans toward the left. With that said, the issue with the article isn't so much that left-leaning views on the Daily Wire are included; it is more that no one has yet created sections for the other notable perspectives. Look at the article for Ben Shapiro, for example. It includes some left-wing viewpoints and criticisms while being relatively thorough in covering Shapiro's views. The current Daily Wire article seems to have issues with WP:UNDUE, but the solution would be to expand the article rather than to remove criticisms. DirkDouse (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't be thorough on an article about a non-notable (fails WP:GNG) website, which was kept after an AfD with extremely poor arguments. w umbolo   ^^^  09:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the arguments in that RfD were weak. With that said, the RfD was in May through June of 2016. Considering that the Daily Wire launched on September 21, 2015, it's not surprising that there was limited media coverage at the time. As of now, there are plenty of sources on the topic and the site has received substantially more coverage. E.g., this article and it's various links/sources:
 * * https://api.newsguardtech.com/3c973648-e576-41f7-b505-923963f656d3?cid=54ac2f8b-386f-403c-a4f0-47cf658b6ca5
 * DirkDouse (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're definitely right DirkDouse. I mean, Snopes leans to the left almost as much as The Daily Wire leans to the right. ;-) The Fence Straddler (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * DirkDouse hasn't edited this year. Looks like Snopes has been accused of being left wing and right wing. In any case, we can use them as a source. Doug Weller  talk 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is blatantly biased, clearly focusing on criticism. It is obvious that this article was written primarily by those who disagree with Shapiro. If their is a section devoted to criticism, that is reasonable, but to put the criticism in a main section suggests that the article itself takes a stance, which is just unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:af42:7300:987a:7267:7603:d62a (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

controversies
I think some changes need to be made in this section.

Original text:

--"According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified", including reports on protesters digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.[16] According to FactCheck.org, The Daily Wire incorrectly credited Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson with finding over $500 billion in accounting errors made by the Obama administration. FactCheck.org reported that the errors were discovered and published by HUD's independent inspector general before Carson became secretary.[17]

The Daily Wire has published articles expressing skepticism that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Climate scientists have described the articles as being inaccurate and misleading.[18][19][20]"--

It seems to me, that in this section, Wiki has recognized Snopes and Factcheck the arbiters of truth to cast judgement against other sites for Wiki to convey and even uses a quotation of the opinion of the author to reinforce it. I think this section is astray of WP:NPOV by quoting the minority opinion of one website on the interpretation and verbiage of another. there might also be issues with the quotation being problematic under WP:SPS and WP:RS I think it needs to be rewritten or removed entirely. Fusion2186 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Climate change is real and humanity is its dominant cause right now. This is not a political opinion, this is science.  Sources that doubt climate change are WP:FRINGE.  If you don't believe me, head over to Talk:Climate change and see how long it takes you to get a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, "that's not what they meant" would only begin to be a valid defense if you could demonstrate that Daily Wire didn't mean those things. It's otherwise a spurious claim.  There's a reason the Daily Wire is not a reliable source: Snopes and FactCheck.org's assessments of the site are accurate.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Ian!

Strangely enough, I missed the memo concerning Wikipedia’s official position on climate change. Would you please link me to the policy regarding Wikipedia’s official stance on climate change? Thanks in advance.

Also, if you re-read my previous comment, I proposed that the comments from Snopes and Fact-check should be re-written or discarded. I suppose I may not have clearly stated that I had no issue with the climate change portion of it, but rather the comments on the other stories. Let me know what you think. Fusion2186 (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding climate change, I linked to it on your talk page. As you can see in the article on the subject, it clearly says that humanity is the dominant cause of it.
 * Stop WP:CIVILPOV-pushing for Daily Wire already. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like that passage:

-The Daily Wire has published articles expressing skepticism that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Climate scientists have described the articles as being inaccurate and misleading.[18][19][20]"--
 * These are from ClimateFeedback and that source is green on the wikipedia WP:RS so seems to check out. Eruditess (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020
Remove the second sentence of the global paragraph, "Many of the website's stories involve unverified information and may be considered fake news," as it is an overtly misleading statement based merely on an article by the Business Insider involving pure speculation. Such a statement needs to be verified, as it speaks to the very heart of the company's work product. The article cited regards a reported tactic used by the Daily Wire's Facebook page to coordinate false messages across social media. No proof has been shown to this, and the BI's article relies mainly on "maybe's" and no reliable information.

Overall, this sentence is an opinion of the Daily Wire at some point in time and does not provide an accurate characterization of the organization's long history of evidence-based commentary.

The statement is based on a weak premise and should be removed as it only serves to smear the company. Counselor 777 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Unverified information" is cited in the Controversies section ("According to Snopes, 'DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified'"), but I cannot find a WP:RS (including BI) that says The Daily Wire "may be considered fake news". So in my opinion, "Many of the website's stories involve unverified information" can be kept in the top in some form, but "may be considered fake news" should be removed unless a WP:RS says it. What do you think? Llll5032 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Daily Wire regularly publishes or shares false or misleading information under the guise of being a news site. This is fake news. To be clear, many, many sources directly support that Daily Wire is a fake news site, even if they don't use this exact phrase. As encyclopedia editors, we are expected to summarize sources in our own words.
 * A small number of such sources are here:
 * Nieman Journalism Lab includes Daily Wire in their fake news roundup since at least least year, and again in July (and maybe others). The July one is based on a briefing from the Project on Computational Propaganda at the University of Oxford. NBC News has used the phrase to describe bogus medical claims pushed by Daily Wire in July 2020, and previously in Sep. 2019. Poynter cites CNN for another example from last month. It goes on like this. The purpose of the lead should be to summarize this to readers. Directly calling this fake news is the most neutral and succinct way to summarize this information. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am setting this template to 'answered' pending consensus.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.

To label a news outlet as "fake news" in its entirely based on several mentions by other news sites is an incredibly low bar for credibility. How is the public to trust such a factual allegation--to be fake news--out of a series of opinions from competing news outlets that are themselves commenting on controversial topics. None of the articles cited produce a history of fact-driven investigations that prove that the Daily Wire is in fact "fake news," which to the common public means one that is persistently producing misleading, errant information.

If the criteria set before us is "find an article where one news outlet calls another a fake news site" then CNN, Buzzfeed, the Washington Post, and others should also receive the label. I can cite hundreds of times where it has either exaggerated or omitted crucial information in a given story. I can also find articles and videos calling these before-mentioned companies as fake news.

A more proper approach may be to cite under the "controversies" section that some believe the site to be fake news. That would be more accurate.


 * The statement, "Many of the website's stories involve unverified information and may be considered fake news." is completely wrong. The daily wire covers only real news. Brosiah (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You've already explained your positions, but you will need to establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources. The Daily Wire is neither reliable, nor independent of itself. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You speak of a consensus, but the sentence under question is still posted onto the webpage as if its accuracy is not under dispute. If the statement "Many of the website's stories involve unverified information and may be considered fake news" is under dispute, then it should be removed as we have reached a deadlock; we may then proceed to find a third party or follow the consensus steps for a solution (reach an agreement). It seems as if you've made a decision as to the validity of the statement without (1) rebutting my assertions (made in the second comment) and (2) reaching out to another unbiased editor for a fresh perspective. Why should your opinion on the matter, based on biased (not independent) sources, such as CNN and NBC, settle the dispute? These sources are also not independent of themselves, a factor which appears to be in use when determining credibility.


 * As you mentioned, let's begin the process of a consensus by you rebutting my points. Why does one competing news site get to call another "fake news," and it be determined to be a statement of fact? If I find an article by the Daily Wire that says CNN is fake news will that be enough to label CNN as a "fake news" outlet?


 * On a strictly technical level, you are mistaken about how WP:CONSENSUS works. Per Edit requests:
 * In general, if you want to make an edit request:
 * Propose a specific change on a talk page. Don't add an edit request template yet.
 * Once there is consensus for the change, and any final details have been worked out, put a template on the talk page along with a short, clear explanation.
 * A user who can make the edit will notice the template has been added, and will respond to the request.
 * You are currently still on step 1.You are requesting a change which doesn't have consensus. Templates are for changes which are either uncontroversial, or which already have consensus. By all means, continue to build consensus on this talk page if you wish, but until you have that consensus, the template should remain set to "answered". That's how these templates work. There are other processes for building consensus, and for "reaching out to another unbiased editor for a fresh perspective", but this still starts with discussion based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's clear that several editors, both brand new and experienced, have had no  problem finding this discussion, right?
 * As for your specific points, I am not inclined to rebut them on your terms. As a likely fan of Ben Shapiro, you may be disappointed to learn that this is not a platform for a formal debate.
 * WP:RS explains what is and is not a reliable source. Almost all major outlets will have controversies, but we still evaluate all sources by their reputations for accuracy and fact checking. If you think some other outlet is unreliable, well, to be blunt, this discussion has probably already been had and you will find that patience is short for yet another rehash of this. Check WP:RSP, or the other article's talk page, if you want to familiarize yourself with these tedious debates. This article is about The Daily Wire, so we evaluate sources about the Daily Wire. Those sources support that it has repeatedly published fake news over the last few years.
 * Framing this as "competing news sites" is simplistic at best. Reputable journalistic outlets will often cite their "competitors". Oh, and CNN and NBC are independent of The Daily Wire, thus they are independent sources. That is the only relevant definition of "independent".
 * Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you didn't just get here by accident, why are you here for your first edit? This discussion is pointless as the community decided at [[WP:RSN] "There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified." 09:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think these are well-made arguments, and thank you for taking the time to respond. To me the term "fake news" (generally used on WP for hoaxes ) seems weighty to use in the top without a precise explanation later, per MOS:LEADREL ("harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article"). In my opinion, if "fake news" stays in the top, the Controversies section should repeat the term and prove it is WP:DUE with "prevalence in reliable sources". Llll5032 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021
I would like to make the following updates. The industry is not specified but should be media and entertainment. The Daily Wire has released a movie and is planning on another in the near future. In addition to updating industry/company type, two new key people need to be added. Due to the following people's recent activity with The Daily Wire and future activity those key people include Candace Owens and Gina Carano. Respectively, the pages on Candace Owens and Gina Carano also need to be updated to reflect the change. LibThom3 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. While you did not provide a source, it is easy to find one about this matter, however given this information is very new and the details are vague, this information may not currently be as WP:DUE here as it would be at Carano's page. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"controversies"
Needs to be updated that the sources such as Snopes or Factcheck aren't reliable themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyromilke (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your own basis -- dare I say source? -- for that assertion being...? But see WP:SNOPES.  (Which page also cites FactCheck, though does not expressly list it, as it happens.)  109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge The Ben Shapiro Show
In case any interested editors here have missed it, there's an RFC/merge request proposing redirecting The Ben Shapiro Show to the main subject article. Talk:Ben Shapiro. As it's "produced by The Daily Wire", I've suggested that this article might be the better target. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of Including "Controversies" Section
Looking at the pages for other news sites, it seems the Daily Wire is one of few with a dedicated section on controversies. It's commonplace for news sites to release information with which not everyone agrees, or which cause a widespread public reaction, and yet a dedicated Controversies section is missing from news companies with a much more significant history of controversy, such as CNN and Fox News. Bearing in mind that the Daily Wire as a news entity has an overt political bias, the inclusion of a Controversies section is therefore suggestive of of non-neutrality. Propose remediation by removal of the Controversies section, integrating the content into other sections where appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.65.168 (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this hasn't been answered yet, the controversies are not about information that people dislike, they appear to be related to factual accuracy issues and supported by decent sources, not the random public's reaction. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021
“”According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified"””

- Snopes is a politically biased source and it’s political bias should be disclosed the same way the daily wires is at the top of the article. “ according to

“Snopes, a left leaning fact-checking website, …” 69.124.165.23 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021
To remove web links/sources that are no longer valid. Bkaylene93 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. I checked each of the 36 citations listed in the References section and fixed those that failed (404 error, page not found). Platonk (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021
"The site has been criticized for its lack of transparency and misstatement of facts.[3]" In the beginning is 1, an objective opinion and 2, the source is invalid (has been removed). Furthermore, this shouldn't be in the introduction, it should be in the controversies section. Thank you. Clpsharp (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔️: seems to have been removed from the lead. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021
The phrase in the opening paragraph about the Daily Wire being criticized does not belong so high up on the page. It does not get criticized any more than other news sources, nor is it significant to understanding the basics of what the website is (simply, a news page). 98.169.146.124 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔️: seems to have been removed from the lead. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk)
 * I re-added this to the top, along with some other themes that merited inclusion per MOS:LEADREL: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Llll5032 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Article subject's usage subject of an RfC
Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Buffs (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)