Talk:The Daily Wire/Archive 2

Climate change paragraph
A few points in response to your edit and edit summary of 18:11, 1 November 2021.


 * 1) It is irrelevant how many articles Daily Wire has published on climate change, or over what time range. What we DO know is that three were published... in 2017... which were picked up and remarked on by Climate Feedback. The small paragraph left no confusion that its second sentence was specifically referring the three articles mentioned in the first sentence. Your version infers that DW writes about climate change all the time, and that ONLY THREE articles four years ago were picked up and refuted; a supposition we cannot conclude. However, I have reorganized the two first sentences, using the same words but just in a different order, to more precisely indicate that it is "three of" DW's articles.


 * 1) You cannot conclude that it was CF's articles which 'caused' DW to correct their articles; we only know that updates to DW articles happened after CF's articles.


 * 1) Got it, about WP:HEADLINE; I have omitted "conveyed false information". However, one could include "misleading and confusing" because that was in one of the articles.

Platonk (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * And this is why I don't want to get in a protracted talk page discussion. Llll5032's most recent edit is fine as-is. This is called "incremental change", not "edit warring" or "whiplash for readers" or any other hyperbole-laden terms
 * To address each of your other points:
 * "It is irrelevant how many articles Daily Wire has published on climate change..." Which is why I changed it to "several". You inexplicably specified there were only 3. Llll5032 improved the language further.
 * "You cannot conclude that it was CF's articles..." You're correct. I'm basing it on the articles themselves which state "This is the second time that the Daily Wire has updated an article after a Climate Feedback review" which at least implies a causal relationship. Again, I think Llll5032's edits reasonably encompass that.
 * "I have omitted 'conveyed false information'"...you didn't make any substantive change to encompass that; I deleted the "false information" part and you kept it as-is...which means we agree about the phrasing. If you want to add phrasing from the article itself like "misleading and confusing" I don't have a problem with that.
 * For your edits below, I don't think they are necessary. Llll5032's edits are fine; in particular the quotes could be misconstrued as "scare quotes". Buffs (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I add in here that I don't agree with the conclusions drawn by these critics above, but, they also meet the criteria for inclusion and should be included at this time. I do not hold this view for all the listed criticism. Buffs (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggested language by Platonk
Rather than editing over top of Llll5032's edit, and causing more whiplash for readers watching the language change like a tennis game, this is the language I propose. ? ? ?

In 2017, climate scientists described three articles published by The Daily Wire as "inaccurate" and "misleading". Those articles expressed skepticism that climate change was occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Though The Daily Wire changed two of their articles, Climate Feedback's follow up reported that the updated articles were still misleading.


 * See above. No, fine as-is from Llll5032's edits. Buffs (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this climate paragraph could add citations to more recent errors highlighted by Climate Feedback and Newsguard . Those additions may affect the existing wording. Llll5032 (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the refs and rewrote the paragraph, Valjean, Buffs, and Platonk. Llll5032 (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added "and 2021" because of the new article (from 2021). In the recent RfC on RSN, DW-defenders were asserting that DW had changed and for some reason we're supposed to have granted them some leniency or kudos for that. Well, it seems they haven't changed; four years after egg on their faces, The Daily Wire is still publishing misleading articles on the subject of climate change.
 * And it looks like DW has already 'corrected' the 2021 article they published just 9 days ago. However, note that the URL for the corrected article still says "despite climate change fearmongering study shows the great barrier reef is growing quickly". And don't believe that people don't read URLs; they do.
 * Old headline: Despite Climate Change Fearmongering, Study Shows The Great Barrier Reef Is Growing Quickly
 * New headline: (CORRECTED) Coral Cover On The Great Barrier Reef Improved, Report Says
 * I find it deplorable that an organization that considers themselves 'professional' could twist facts this badly. Don't they even have a working editor staff? Do they even conduct any fact-checking? Platonk (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mentioning the coral reefs correction, Platonk. Has Climate Feedback acknowledged this? We could cite CF and add 2021 if it does. Llll5032 (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I couldn't find one. I used the search within climatefeedback.org as well as a google site search such as "daily wire site:climatefeedback.org". It's probably too soon. There's no telling when DW changed their article.
 * And any web-based content provider worth their salt would have created a new URL for the new article and made a redirect in the old name; that way, the reader would land on a page that did NOT have the old title. No surprises there, though. They're all about the clicks, engagement and sharing; just like Facebook. Platonk (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no need for disparaging remarks. Virtually every news publication does this (NYT, WSJ, CNN, etc). All of them make corrections as soon as they are known and can be published. Would you rather they wait extra time or fix them in a time-efficient manner? Buffs (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a big difference between what RS do when they make a correction and what TDW does. TDW has a de facto position of denying the scientific consensus on climate change because that is their position, and they will always shade their wording to deny or undermine that consensus. They are thus ALWAYS an unreliable source for that topic, as well as some others where their bias is so strong that they deny or undermine facts. This is what happens when sources are extremely biased; their bias gets in the way of accurately reporting the facts. They do not believe the facts.

TDW's track record reveals that lack of fact-checking isn't the real problem, but deliberate opposition to the facts is the problem, and then they dare to write their misleading opinions as facts. Later corrections, always because they've been called out, are just smoke and mirrors as they will do it again. They don't learn from that experience because learning the facts and then applying them to their editorial decisions is not their modus operandi. They believe and push disinformation, usually in harmony with Trump's positions. -- Valjean (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

, I would rather that they do their job truthfully and correctly in the first place. Correcting an article might keep a publisher out of legal trouble, but it doesn't correct the misimpressions that they have already spread to the public. As the author in this article wrote: "This Daily Wire article, which has been viewed over 150,000 times on the site, has left many more people misinformed as it has been picked up by other sites across the web and was shared on Facebook more than 70,000 times before the changes. The Daily Wire is unlikely to contact all these people to notify them that they have been misinformed."

This repeated lack of editorial oversight before publication is the reason DW is considered generally unreliable as a source for Wikipedia. And even after pointing it out to them for years, the fact that DW doesn't seem to be correcting their lack of editorial oversight proves that they don't even care. And you're wrong, Buffs; most other publications do change their URL if they update their articles to be vastly different than the original headline and the headline text is part of the URL.

Unlike you, Buffs, who likely already knew about this behavior pattern of DW's (while excusing, condoning and/or defending them), I am just now discovering the depths of their prevarication.

(This comment was drafted before I noticed Valjean's comment directly above) Platonk (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of claims...no evidence...more snarky replies...stop. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

So now it's all opinion?
Re your edit (which I reverted): So now you're implying that DW puts out just 'opinion'? If a 'news agency' is repeatedly espousing 'opinions' as if it's news, then they are not a news agency. And if their opinions do not align with the current Scientific consensus on climate change, then they are espousing a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. So which are they — a FRINGE source or news? You keep defending this generally unreliable source like it's your advocacy. You cannot keep whitewashing DW's actions in the WP article The Daily Wire and excusing their blunders (lies) as 'opinion' whenever they fuck up. Your continued 'increment edits' (as you called them) are disruptive and tendentious. Platonk (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "opinions" = "statements" = what was written in the article. Poor choice of words on my part.
 * I never said "now it's all opinion". You are putting words in my mouth and using it as an excuse to harangue/belittle/berate me and to excuse your overtly hostile/profane attitude. You repeatedly accuse me of poor behavior and direct your actions in what appears to be a personal vendetta. Please stop your uncivil behavior. Buffs (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. Since your edit was consistent with all the other edits you've made on the subject, it is unlikely that your edit was a simple mistake of 'poor choice of words'. How else would any editor differentiate between another editor's 'simple mistakes' and their 'deliberate edits' — context and consistency. And by the way, you shouldn't internalize statements made about Daily Wire unless you are Daily Wire. Platonk (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are nitpicking and making constant personal remarks; no, I never said "now it's all opinion". Posting a link where I never said that phrase doesn't somehow make it accurate. Please stop. I explained it was a mistake. I'll rephrase.
 * I am not "internalizing" anything. You are making repeated remarks about me personally and profane remarks about the subject of this page. Neither are WP:CIVIL. Please stop. Buffs (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed "opinion" to "statement" (both are synonyms...not that far off). No source supports the claim that DW denies climate change is occurring nor that humans do not contribute to it. If you disagree, please cite where and feel free to add it back in. Buffs (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Create link to Matt Walsh page
I created a page for the last remaining host Matt Walsh, host of "The Matt Walsh Show". I am unable to link it since the page is semi-protected, but would someone who has edit access be able to update this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_walsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corgidad101 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Valjean (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Candace (show) into The Daily Wire
CANDACE is a product of The Daily Wire and is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. The current article is cited only with press releases and announcements of the launching of a new podcast (one of several for Daily Wire, a podcasting company). Per Notability (organizations and companies) § Products and services: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy," and "If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format." Adding the Candace (show) content would not make this article unwieldy and would give the reader a better understanding of the scope of the company and its products. Platonk (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Platonk (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for several reasons. First, Daily Wire is a media company. They have feature-length movies, podcasts, radio broadcasts, printed journalism/commentary, and investigative journalism...they are hardly just "a podcast company". 2. If anything, it would make more sense to merge with Candace Owens. 3. It's a relatively new show and there is plenty about it, it just hasn't been written into a WP article yet. Buffs (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Merging it with Candace Owens and linking it here makes sense. Llll5032 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I wouldn't have been able to create this article and have any significant references if this wasn't drawing media attention. Candace Owens is constantly drawing both positive and negative criticism for her comments and points made on this show. Dswitz10734 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Press releases and announcements of starting a new project do not contribute to notability. From WP:SIGCOV: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, ... and the subject's website are not considered independent. From WP:SBST: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, ... is not significant coverage. Where's the meat (significant coverage) to go along with the potatoes (announcements) ? Platonk (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a recent story by an independent secondary RS. Llll5032 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * After reading that article and watching the video snippet, now I get why the Candace Owens article is so long. Such a character. However,, I'd like to point out that this article does not appear to add notability to the "show" called "Candace" merely because someone is discussing the same topic as brought up by Owens on the show. Just like it has been reported that some Facebook groups/pages use controversial topics to get more Likes and engagement which raises their rankings in the Facebook news feeds of users, so too do a lot of these extreme commentators engender outrage to get further media coverage and spread their message. But is that sort of 'coverage' really leading towards notability? In my opinion it's not even notoriety. Is anyone covering "the show itself"? Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. In this case, the Australian article is focusing on Australia's plight and is using Candace Owens' talk for their content. So this falls under the class of "passing mention" (even though it's lengthy). In order to have a standalone article, the subject (the show) needs its own notability, not inherited notability/notoriety from a speaker (Owens) on the show. Of course the show should be mentioned/covered in both WP articles Candace Owens and The Daily Wire. Platonk (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that Owens herself is more notable than her new show is. Llll5032 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
At this point, the criticism section of the article comprises almost 50% of the article's body and should be condensed. I'm not asking for specific removals, but we don't need to highlight every specific criticism (see WP:SUMMARY). Buffs (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that some wording should get shorter, Buffs. I shortened the description of a recent study per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Llll5032 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I shortened Shapiro's response quote to NPR in this section too, per WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:DUE, WP:MANDY and WP:GEVAL. Llll5032 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a single, complete response by Shapiro/DW is reasonable. WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:MANDY, and WP:GEVAL don't apply (quote farm wouldn't apply to a single quote, Mandy...I mean, it doesn't seem to apply at all, and geval appears to be about a 1 for 1 balance...a single sentence isn't that), but WP:RECENTISM definitely does (like a whole paragraph about an accusation that DW and Facebook both think is highly flawed). Buffs (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even in shortened form now, it appears to be tied for the longest single quote in this article. Llll5032 (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Llll5032, what quote are you talking about? -- Valjean (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Valjean, Shapiro's quote responding to NPR, which Buffs has objected to shortening. Llll5032 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay Llll5032. You have done the right thing. We don't allow advocacy of fringe opinions in an unduly self-serving manner. We neutrally document them when they are mentioned in RS. While the article does document his fringe views, it shouldn't be a platform for pushing them. Documenting them should remain neutral. The whole quote should not be used. His complaint in that quote describes a wish that's blatantly fringe. We are not supposed to do what he advocates, and he's objecting to what NPR and Wikipedia are supposed to do, which is not allow him to use Wikipedia as a platform for fringe views. Editors are supposed to resist such efforts, so let's put a big lock on that effort. Articles that deal with fringe content, and this is one of them, must follow our PAG for fringe content. Failure to do so sometimes results in efforts to AFD them as garbage dumps for lies and deception. -- Valjean (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We get it. You hate DW and Ben Shapiro personally, but your comments do not "neutrally document" squat. "We are not supposed to do what he advocates" is your way of saying "We should do the opposite and oppose everything he says/does." That's not neutrality. That's opposition. You are literally advocating that Shapiro's views (which as a whole, are mainstream, not fringe) should not even be uttered on WP. That is the opposite of WP:NPOV. You've repeatedly made remarks that are untrue and then followed me around Wikipedia to continue to malign DW and Ben Shapiro. I don't want it to escalate further, but this is in violation of WP:BLP and WP:HOUND at this point and I'm just going to ask you to stop. Buffs (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's WP:AGF and keep WP:FOC here. Llll5032 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Wikipedia's mandate is not to ensure that conservatives are "not allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform". Describing all opinions that oppose his as "fringe" is absurd and assumes a premise that hasn't been proven. Shapiro and DW represent mainstream conservative opinions, not fringe views as a whole. I could point out dozens of things that, for example, the New York Times has published on that are wrong and call them "fringe". That doesn't make it so. Buffs (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if DW "represent[s] mainstream conservative opinions" (debatable), their presentations have been sufficiently "misleading", and their editorial oversight insufficient, so as to garner the attention, criticism and censure of many organizations which the Wikipedia community considers reliable sources. On top of that, the WP community has also determined that DW is generally unreliable and published that at WP:RSP. Platonk (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not mean they are not mainstream opinions (and you haven't proven otherwise). The two are not mutually exclusive. You're using circular logic. Sources aren't cited because they are not reliable sources and they are not reliable sources because they aren't cited. Buffs (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Buffs, please stop the "snarky replies", as you put it. We are justified in calling TDW a "fringe source" because RS do so. Extreme left- and right-wing sources are fringe. TDW is listed among the Toxic Ten, and all ten are called "fringe publishers" that together were responsible "for nearly 70% of user interactions with content that denies climate change on Facebook". Also, please don't put words in my mouth. (Just one instance: I did not say "that conservatives are "not allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform". I do not believe or advocate that.) Your hyperbole makes me appear to be a liar because you are not quoting me correctly. You're not AGF. Focus on content, not me. -- Valjean (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't once demonstrated TDW is extreme right wing in any way other than this single report by a leftist british publication that lumps all skepticism of any climate change/proposed solutions as if it is the same as denying its existence through a fatally flawed methodology. You are treating "TOXIC TEN!" as if it is the definitive conclusion; it isn't. It isn't even a reliable source. If you'd bothered to read it, you'd find that the Forbes article YOU CITE points out "the CCDH used a flawed methodology that overstates the scale of climate change misinformation on the platform and is designed to mislead people". This is a common problem with your edits. You say that a source says something when it doesn't. Forbes merely reported that such an accusation was made, but it clearly pointed out that the report was fundamentally flawed. Others are also reporting how flawed this report is  . They are a nonprofit ADVOCACY group. As such, it should be removed. Buffs (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Forbes did not point that out! And neither did any of the three citations you present as saying such. I just finished reading all 4 articles. The only ones calling the report 'flawed' are those on the Toxic Ten list (according to the Washington Times, a marginally reliable source for politics and science)... and Facebook, quoted by all 4 articles. Facebook is essentially the 11th on the list as the grand enabler, so they have to say the report is flawed. All four articles are quoting those they had interviewed, and not one article uses their own voice to say the report is flawed. You misrepresented it. In Forbes, The CCDH used a “flawed methodology” that overstates the scale of climate change misinformation on the platform and is “designed to mislead people,” Facebook said in a statement to Forbes." You left out the quotation marks and the words "Facebook said in a statement to Forbes". Platonk (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And stop tossing around false accusations such as ("This is a common problem with your edits. You say that a source says something when it doesn't.") That absolutely is a personal attack, especially considering it is false... and you just did that yourself! Platonk (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I misrepresented nothing. I pulled it word-for-word from the article. Yes, just like Wikipedia, I removed the "scare quotes" and that's it.
 * You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the CCDH report and its accusations are notable and should be noted here because Forbes published them and then at the same time say that the accused's statements have to be excluded because they "had" to respond. As I've been saying all along, this is guilt-by-accusation. Buffs (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those were NOT scare quotes; those were ACTUAL quotes that Facebook said. And the stuff in between the two short Facebook quotes is intended to be a paraphrase of the other stuff Facebook said to Forbes (but not exact quotes; hence no quotation marks around that). OMG! I cannot believe you misunderstand quotation marks! You cannot remove them. By removing them, you change the voice from Facebook to Forbes. So yes, YOU MISREPRESENTED the situation. And yes, the CCDH report is notable enough especially because it was covered by so many news outlets: BBC News, The Guardian, Forbes, Washington Post, Washington Post #2, Mother Jones, Homeland Security Today, Engadget, Free Press Journal, Yahoo!News, The Hill, The Hill #2. The only ones saying the report methodology is flawed is Facebook (now renamed Meta), the one who allowed the extremist views to proliferate on the Facebook platform even though it was against Facebook's policy, and because Facebook failed to mark those posts with a link to the correct science (which was the plan they had announced in March 2021 that they would do). You have multiple times twisted facts and misrepresented them on talk pages in the last seven weeks, and then you deny it when caught. I don't know the reason, and frankly it doesn't matter, but it is tendentious and is wasting my time, and every other editor's on this topic. Platonk (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Quotes of yours in the article have been removed as they are small and do not affect the article; they were removed as "scare quotes"...which is the same thing I was citing. Whether FB said it or someone else said it, the fact is that Forbes (and others) published it. You want quotes in? Fine, I don't care. The words are no different; it doesn't change the content. From what I'm reading, your contention is that it matters whether Forbes said it in their voice or FB's voice. Does it really matter if they summarized it or didn't?
 * "The only ones saying the report methodology is flawed is Facebook" Every publication you cited published the opinions of the CCDH and FB. You cannot say that the accusation is valid for publication but that a rebuttal is not. Either the source is reliable or it isn't. You cannot just cherry pick the accusations and assume the rebuttals are unworthy of inclusion. As stated numerous times, this is guilt-by-accusation and does not represent the body of work on the subject. Lastly, no, they are not the only ones saying the report is flawed. DW says it, RT says it, Townhall media says it, the Federalist Papers says it, as does virtually everyone they accused. It was published yesterday by a leftist group. None of this is "twisting facts". Your view is apparently that accusations should be included, but the accused are afforded no defending remarks. By that logic, we might as well just shut down WP. Buffs (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "defending remarks" (denials, rebuttals) by some of the Toxic Ten were only published in The Washington Times, which is "a marginally reliable source for politics and science", per WP:RSP. That, in conjunction with WP:MANDY, means we don't mention the denials in Wikipedia. Per MANDY: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not need to give the subject the last word. We include credible allegations from credible sources. ... If X is accused of being a white nationalist, and investigation has shown that X publishes white nationalist talking points but has not self-identified as a white nationalist, then the fix is not to add a self-sourced denial, it's to frame the statement as an accusation and establish the basis for it and the error bars around it: "X is described by multiple sources as a white nationalist". Most importantly, if the denial exists only in X's own words and no reliable source has any independent fact-finding showing contradictory evidence, then the denial is not compelling or significant per Hitchens' razor. WP:BLP matters but so does WP:NPOV. We don't legitimise fringe views just because they are asserted by an article subject. And the same would apply to content about any other controversial subject. Company Y has been successfully prosecuted for fraud. We don't need to say that the company denies wrongdoing. If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that "X denies the accusations" then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?" To put that in plain English, we don't have to include any of the Toxic Ten's denials at all. We do not need to give them the last word. This is not a newspaper. You have asserted before that we should include these sorts of denials or come-backs (the Shapiro tweet] comes readily to mind), but that is not a practice in Wikipedia. And I don't know why you keep asserting that "leftist" papers and groups have anything to do with whether or not content is included. This is about reliable sources and using Wikivoice. It's blatantly obvious that you are advocating for "the right", you even declare it thus, but it's not relevant in a discussion or argument — only RS is. Platonk (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Buffs, those were not "scare quotes". The use of quotes is very specific, and it does make a huge difference. If we are quoting, we must use quote marks. Otherwise, we're guilty of plagiarism. I'm pretty sure you're not advocating we do that.
 * You wrote: "Whether FB said it or someone else said it, the fact is that Forbes (and others) published it. You want quotes in? Fine, I don't care. The words are no different; it doesn't change the content." But your removal of those quote marks did change the meaning. It was Facebook, not Forbes, that said it, so Facebook was defending itself and MANDY applies.
 * If it were a person and BLP applied, we might allow a denial, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but in this case, the self-serving denials of any of the guilty parties are defensive fluff with no real meaning and shouldn't be included. Yes, you're right that "Forbes (and others) published it", IOW they published what Facebook said. You also list sources which defend TDW ("...they are not the only ones saying the report is flawed. DW says it, RT says it, Townhall media says it, the Federalist Papers says it, as does virtually everyone they accused."), but most of them are unreliable or deprecated sources, so we don't count their opinions or use them as sources. What counts is when actual RS defend TDW with serious arguments. -- Valjean (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I partly agree, but I think WP:WEIGHT (which as a policy outweighs the WP:MANDY essay) would suggest we follow the secondary RS when deciding how much to mention denials they decide to publish, while being careful to avoid any WP:FALSEBALANCE. Llll5032 (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Llll5032, you're absolutely right about secondary RS coverage because coverage by unreliable sources doesn't figure into the equation at all. What you write is partially true, especially from a journalistic "equal coverage" standpoint, but Wikipedia doesn't have exactly the same rules. We weight RS over unreliable ones, and as you recognize, we don't engage in FALSEBALANCE, so, in that regard, we don't always follow what RS often do. If RS don't engage in false balance when they publish denials, we can consider how they cover it, and we should include their slant on the denials. If they just publish it, without commentary (IOW equal coverage), then we must decide if it's a substantive denial/debunking of criticism or a worthless MANDY type denial. If substantive and not ad hominem, we should consider mentioning it. "You're not being fair" is a worthless MANDY type objection/denial, but a "you wrote X, but here is proof that you got it wrong because it's Y" type denial is a serious debunking type that should be included. That will often be accompanied by the retraction/correction by the RS.
 * BTW, here's some interesting news. Newsmax, an extremely unreliable source, actually punished Emerald Robinson, their White House reporter, when she uttered some bonkers COVID-19 conspiracy theory nonsense, the typical stuff uttered by many fringe sources and supporters of TFG. Good for Newsmax. "Twitter has also temporarily suspended Robinson “for repeated violations” of the social media giant’s coronavirus misinformation policy." Would TDW have done the same, considering their huge financial COI in the climate change area? -- Valjean (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that usually a specific denial deserves more weight than an ad hominem counterclaim. Llll5032 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I think we should consider WP:TALK, and, up to each commenter, strikethrough per WP:RUC of any of our own comments that were uncivil or outside the scope of the talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Let me know, maybe by email, of any concerns. -- Valjean (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, you tagged this section as WP:UNDUE even after it was condensed as you asked, by a third. Can you explain per WP:RESPTAG how the section should satisfy WP:DUE ("fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources") and WP:PROPORTION ("treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject") if it does not now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llll5032 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering the same thing. The point of WP:SUMMARY style is not to shorten content, but to encourage article splitting when a section gets too dominating. That only happens when it literally gets too large and thus becomes undue in proportion to other topics. Maybe we should create a sub-article on The Daily Wire controversy and criticism, similar to Chiropractic controversy and criticism. As long as the motivation and function is not to hide/shunt off uncomfortable content by creating an improper POV fork, we could work on it. Right now we haven't quite gotten there, but we're close. Currently the balance seems about right as TDW is the subject of lots of criticism in RS, and it is only what RS sources say that figures into the subject of DUE WEIGHT and BALANCE. Only unreliable sources have anything good to say about TDW, and they don't count. -- Valjean (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article could also add praise by non-RS, if it's been published by RS. Llll5032 (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is sometimes true. We have a whole paragraph of that sort in the History section ("The Daily Wire became one of the leading news sites and publishers on Facebook..."). -- Valjean (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to find where exactly to reply when Valjean keeps butting in and answering questions addressed to me
 * Please WP:AGF. Llll5032 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer your original question, "Can you explain per WP:RESPTAG how the section should satisfy WP:DUE ("fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources") and WP:PROPORTION?" Absolutely. First, it has been mildly condensed very recently, but overall it has been significantly expanded to the point that it encompasses almost half the body of the article. As such, it has too much weight to include unproven/unfounded accusations from self-published sources and every negative article Valjean can find. We don't need 3-4 paragraphs on climate change and COVID when a single sentence will do. WP:MANDY applies in spades here... Buffs (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MANDY refers specifically to a denial. For biased sources we follow WP:PARTISAN guidelines. Llll5032 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Buffs, I think the two short paragraphs on climate change could be combined into one. Which of the claims are self-published? Llll5032 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "paragraph" on Popular Information is based solely on the self published accusation of a democratic operative. Facebook found the claim to be unfounded and no one else has backed the assertion; only one source mentioned the accusation has been made. Buffs (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is referenced to three WP:SECONDARY sources with correct inline attribution, and Facebook is not an independent secondary RS. Llll5032 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're conflating a bunch of stuff. First, Popular Information wikilinks to Judd Legum because the publication is both self published and not notable. Second, the opinion itself is hardly notable per WP:MANDY. Third, posts made on Facebook indeed are not reliable sources, but the sources themselves quote Facebook corporate/official statements from the company, so, via these same sources, they are indeed reliable as pblished official statements. Fourth, like many of DW-detractor additions to the article, the sources don't actually say what they want them to say/doesn't back up their claims/exaggerations:
 * WP article quote "The investigative website Popular Information accused The Daily Wire in October 2019 of violating Facebook's policies by creating 14 anonymous pages promoting its content exclusively to boost engagement."
 * What is actually said in article 1: "In a similar campaign, operated by Daily Wire, the rightwing US news site ran 14 large Facebook pages anonymously, according to a report by Popular Information. The pages, which disclosed no link to the publisher, funnelled [sic] millions of engagements back to Daily Wire content." Literally two sentences of a 15 paragraph article. In it there is no accusation of violation of Facebook policies and it merely notes there was a claim that Facebook was doing something. It does not state whether the it was founded or otherwise, just how they were engaging with people.
 * What is actually said in article 2: (From a citation from a left-leaning publication mentioned in WP:GUNREL that should be used "with caution") It states that Popular Information made the accusation, but leaves out that "A Facebook spokesperson told Popular Information that they found no violation of the platform’s rules on coordinated inauthentic behavior", so the statement itself is without merit.
 * Accordingly that sentence is WP:SYNTH/based on the accusation. Even if they later concluded that the sources were using third parties, Facebook allows that behavior if it is noted that they were compensated (similar to YouTube's policies on advertising). None of these are misleading or improper, just basic marketing. If Facebook doesn't want to allow them, that's their business. Nothing here proves it's even remotely notable just because it was briefly noted in a few publications. It certainly doesn't meet the criteria of WP:UNDUE. It should be removed/consolidated. Buffs (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some other secondary sources have written about this controversy. Which assertion specifically needs an extra citation? Llll5032 (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, other secondary sources may indeed have written about it, but WP article quote as listed above is unsupported by the given citations. Buffs (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the accusation part wasn't explicitly supported by the given sources. I added a Guardian source that says " In another report, Popular Information said it uncovered a network of 14 big Facebook pages that, violating the company’s rules, pretend to be independent but exclusively promote content from the conservative site the Daily Wire". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is another secondary source with similar wording. Llll5032 (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "the accusation part wasn't explicitly supported by the given sources" FIFY
 * But the fact remains it's the same accusation by the same organization. Repeating the accusation across multiple publications doesn't make an accusation true. The fact is, these sources all say that FB didn't agree, so it's nothing more than an accusation. As such, it isn't notable. It isn't like Trump's accusation of voter fraud, which was highly notable. Buffs (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All the sources were published after FB made its decision. They are endorsing the notability of the story. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not every criticism needs to be present especially when none of the parties involved agree with the accusation. Buffs (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This one seems due, based on the coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the "coverage" is merely "Democrat says DW violated FB policies, but DW and FB disagree". It's nothing more than a baseless accusation that was mildly (not widely) reported. To report it as if it is "criticism" or "controversy" is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." At a bare minimum, the author/publisher's political leanings should be openly identified. Buffs (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They can be identified how the cited RS identify them, to avoid any WP:SYNTH. Llll5032 (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a case where the mention is proportionate to the overall significance, as shown by the coverage in reliable sources. I haven’t been contesting your understanding of the facts, because so many other editors have it right, but know that silence isn’t agreement here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The criticism section seems long because other editors have already "split out" what should have been in this article in the first place, including:
 * Candace (show) and The Ben Shapiro Show should be under the section The Daily Wire
 * Run Hide Fight and Terror on the Prairie should be under the section The Daily Wire

Per WP:NFILM and WP:NFF, neither film should have a standalone article. Per WP:NPRODUCT, the podcast 'shows' shouldn't have their own standalone articles. By having them split out into other articles (instead of setting up a redirect to this article), it leaves just a skeleton article for The Daily Wire which doesn't adequately describe the company and its products.

If everything were in this article, the criticism section wouldn't seem disproportionate, and readers would be able to better understand the scope and breadth of the company (Daily Wire). Platonk (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Platonk, don't films satisfy WP:NFP for their own articles if they are mentioned by enough independent RS? When they do, this article can mention and link to them. Llll5032 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, Valjean and Platonk, I suggest removing the maintenance tag per WP:WTRMT items 3, 7 and 8. Llll5032 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. In my opinion, I don't think it should have been placed in the article. Also, that template/tag is intended to be placed at the top of the page (not at a section header), but it doesn't suit there, either. Putting it into layman's terms, the template is intended to engender discussion of a perceived problem — which we had already been in the middle of — so placing it didn't really make any sense. Platonk (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. It served no purpose since this discussion was already ongoing. -- Valjean (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's mighty convenient a mere 24 hours after its placement. Why don't we see if there are others who want to give an opinion? Or perhaps give me a chance to even reply to questions Buffs (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does removing a tag prevent anyone from giving an opinion or replying to questions? Llll5032 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaving a tag invites additional opinions. Buffs (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the clear dispute and misleading verbiage, this tag should remain until they are resolved. 2 prominent examples are above. Buffs (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else agree? Llll5032 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. But if the tag stays (or is re-inserted), it should be placed at the top of the page per Hatnote, otherwise use Template:Undue weight section. Or perhaps use Template:Undue weight but use the parameters to fine tune the wording of the hatnote. I dislike sloppy hatnotes in the same way I dislike bare URLs slapped in as citations by experienced editors who know perfectly well how to make a properly formatted citation. Platonk (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Back to the original assertion in this section, "the criticism section of the article comprises almost 50% of the article's body" — actually the word count and character count above the criticism section (not even counting the infobox) is 735 words and 4826 characters, versus the criticism section of 407 words and 2912 characters. That places the criticism section at around 1/3rd of the article (less if you count the infobox). That's not an unusual percentage given the controversial nature of the organization. I think the solution isn't to further trim the criticism section, but to fill out the rest of the article. It is still pretty skeleton-esque. The controversies mentioned so far include reports by Snopes, Climate Feedback, Oxford Internet Institute, FactCheck.org, Popular Information, and NPR. If any one of them is trimmed shorter than it takes to clarify the matter, then more arguments will ensue. Again, if more 'balance' is desired, then please add to the article. Platonk (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * >1/3 is an unusual percentage. We can certainly mention them, but we don't need to include nearly as much detail. I'm going to make a change to it and then undo it myself so we have an example to work from. Unlike the baseless accusations above, I'm not interested in "whitewashing" anything, just giving it due weight. Buffs (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Buffs, remember that WP:DUEWEIGHT is "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Especially please read footnote 3 in WP:DUEWEIGHT. Llll5032 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, two sentences in a 15 paragraph article requires 2 sentences here? I don't think that's proportional. Buffs (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You might be right if it relied on only a single WP:SECONDARY RS. You could ask for better citations, or add a citation to a better secondary RS yourself, if that is true. Llll5032 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I support removing the tag. I think the issue (as much as there was one) has been addressed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I politely suggest that maybe it’s time for Buffs to take a short break away from editing. C.Clouds V 2.0 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Strike comment from sockpuppet per WP:SOCK Buffs (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears they have received a partial block. -- Valjean (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Section break for division proposal
Belatedly, the section essentially covers two things - the Daily Wire's accuracy (or lack thereof), and its manipulation of Facebook's algorithms. Both topics have enough sourcing to justify a section, but there's no particular reason to lump them together. Why not split the section into two separate sections titled eg. Accuracy or Reputation, plus Relationship with Facebook or something along those lines? There is no need to frame this as criticism or as a controversy - it is simply what the highest-quality reliable sources say about the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Llll5032 (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Give it a try so we can see how it works. It can be tweaked if necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The parts about Facebook have been watered down significantly from what was criticism to what you see now. Try reading some of the citations and you'll find that they are indeed criticisms or controversies. If you read only two, read this one and this one. Other than that, I wouldn't object to a dividing of the section, but I'm not sure how you're envisioning it. Like the other two say, give it a try and we'll see. Platonk (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at it. Feel free to restore anything you think ought to be added - but looking over a diff to before the current controversy started (as far as I can tell), it doesn't seem to have changed that dramatically. Either way, I'm of the opinion that criticism / controversy sections aren't usually a good way to organize those things.  If something is negative, due, and true (and reliable sources cover it as such), it should just be stated as fact, or possibly with attribution, in the appropriate place in the article - "some people have criticized the Daily Wire as inaccurate" is actually watering things down compared to "most high-quality sources state that the Daily Wire is inaccurate." Mind you, I agree that however it is structured the bulk of the article will reflect the Daily Wire's low reputation (because that reflects the bulk of reliable sourcing), I just don't think confining it to section described as "criticism" as though it is purely a matter of opinion is the best way to present it.  We could have a section for "reception" if we want to cover opinions directly, but most of what's there isn't opinion and ought to just be covered in a neutral "this is how it is; this is what most sources say about the Daily Wire" fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again
At no point is "climate change denial" brought up as more than the opinion of a single hyperpartisan entity. Climate change denial isn't even hyperlinked. As stated above, it's been removed for that very reason. Labeling DW as a Climate Change Denier is inappropriate. Buffs (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding "They are climate change deniers" doesn't make it so.
 * "A mistake that many on the Right make is to simply say that they don’t believe global warming is happening at all. The truth is that global warming is happening."
 * DW is not a climate change denier. Buffs (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Shapiro and The Daily Wire are denialist in several ways, even if they may not be in every way:
 * Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.
 * RS describe their positions and statements on climate change as false and misleading. -- Valjean (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone can read TDW and not see its constant drumbeat to undermine the findings of climate change science: Of course, we also have a number of good RS in the article as sources that must also be ignored in order not to see their denialist position. One must also forget the founding of TDW: "After the duo secured several million dollars in seed funding from the billionaire petroleum industry brothers Dan and Farris Wilks, The Daily Wire was launched in 2015." Hmmm... That could explain Shapiro's denials. -- Valjean (talk)
 * Reviews of articles from The Daily Wire - climatefeedback.org
 * Ben Shapiro mocked for saying 4C of global warming not an ‘emergency’
 * TDW articles on Climate Change
 * TDW articles on Global Warming
 * 7 Things You Need To Know About Global Warming, By By Aaron Bandler, The Daily Wire
 * How The Left Is Spreading Global Warming Alarmism On The Right, By RealClearWire, The Daily Wire
 * Valjean, are independent secondary RS describing the DW's stance as "denial" specifically? If so, they could be cited with quotes in the refs. Llll5032 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We already use two, so I have added them to the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is only those two sources, it may require in-text attribution to the Center for Countering Digital Hate per WP:PARTISAN, because Forbes isn't clearly calling the DW a denier in its own words. Do any other independent RS call the DW a denier? Llll5032 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It comes down to how we'd define "denial", and our climate change denial article includes many facets. TDW's minimizing of the dangers is a significant factor. To keep this simple, I have followed your suggestion and made an attributed version for the lead. Feel free to improve it. -- Valjean (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When you're defining "denial" as anything that isn't in lock-step with Greta Thunberg, you've decided to expand the definition well beyond general reason. Yes, Global warming is a threat, but suggesting that maybe it isn't as calamitous as the extreme left claims, isn't "denial". Al Gore claimed the seas would rise 20 feet "in the near future", but even the most dire scientific assessments put it at 2-3 feet in 100 years (by the standard you propose, the IPCC is a "denier"). The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a hyperpartisan leftist group. Just because something is nonprofit doesn't mean it doesn't have an agenda to push. Where is the reliability test for this group's opinion? Buffs (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not define denial or suggest we do so here. I just mentioned it and pointed to the article where we deal with that. This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of how to define "denial". -- Valjean (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to claim that it is just a single source, and therefore discount the 'Toxic Ten' report, its conclusions, and its authors. If it were just "the opinion of a single hyperpartisan entity" then other reliable sources wouldn't also be picking it up as news. If Center for Countering Digital Hate was simply an advocacy organization, or a fringe or conspiracy organization, major news media wouldn't be publishing their own articles covering the CCDH report. But instead we have at least these: The Guardian, Forbes , Mother Jones , Center for Homeland Defense and Security.

You also wouldn't have i24NEWS and The Straits Times calling out Daily Wire for their anti-climate-crisis advertising during the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference.

And you wouldn't have The Independent writing an article exclusively about a particular video clip where Ben Shapiro mocks Scientific American for "[agreeing] with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term ‘climate emergency’ in its coverage of climate change." The National Memo also published something about the Shapiro clip and wrote "This is not the first time that Shapiro has said something ignorant about the climate crisis; he once theorized that people affected by rising sea levels could just sell their inundated homes and move."

And Al Jazeera wouldn't be publishing an opinion piece by frequent contributor freelance journalist and media studies professor David A Love where he writes "The Daily Wire ... spreads content laden with climate change denial, misogyny and homophobia".

But of course certain editors here think that it's just "a single source" that is calling Daily Wire climate change deniers. Oh, of course not, because taking things "literally" Shapiro admits that climate change 'will happen (ahem... over the next 100 years)' and 'humans will adapt', all the while bitching about what anyone/everyone is trying to do to mitigate the problem... you know, trying to adapt. In this Ben Shapiro monologue (17:20-21:17 timestamp) Shapiro whines repeatedly 'what are they talking about' and "who.gives.a.crap".

But that's not denial. Right? Platonk (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * LOL. Your first 5 articles are the same thing: "CCDH claims X". They aren't reporting the accuracy of the claim, only its existence. Everything else is an attempt to claim criticism is the same as denial and spin/vilify anyone who disagrees with your opinion via WP:OR. This "assessment" is a jokeBuffs (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed my sarcastic humor. My post effectively countered your fallacious argument: At no point is "climate change denial" brought up as more than the opinion of a single hyperpartisan entity. The four (not five) articles show that the CCDH report has been taken seriously, not jokingly and not dismissively, by other reliable sources who felt it newsworthy enough to write about it. Followed then by 5 other agencies reporting similar conclusions about Daily Wire while not based on the CCDH report. So that makes 10 organizations who publish that Daily Wire is a denier of climate crisis issues as they are known in present day. And that's just those I found today using an internet search, suggesting there are probably many more if I chose to look further. On the flip side, I found no results from my search that counters the label. Ten reliable sources for and zero against do indeed "make it so" and due weight policies suggest we should mention it thus in the article. Therefore the phrase "at no point" is a lie, and the label of "climate change denial" on Daily Wire is the opinion of far more than a single hyperpartisan entity. If you're still having trouble with the label, maybe you should read this short explanation from National Center for Science Education titled "Why Is It Called Denial?". Platonk (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Daily Wire is a denier of climate crisis issues" is never brought up once in those 4 articles. Most simply say the "CCDH study claims X". They don't conclude it's true or not. Saying reliable sources "felt it newsworthy enough to write about it" doesn't mean they necessarily agree with it. Reporting that something happened is not synonymous with agreeing with an organization's conclusions...in fact, they also reported that Facebook disagreed. By your logic, that opinion should carry the same weight. The ads by DW in the two were in regards to the conclusions that some (not all) are pushing about what must be done (you seem to have a lot of sources with a leftist bent). Even Al Gore notes that we've got some warming "built into the cake" right now. If we crater the world economy and do everything that they want, the seas will still rise 0.6 to 2.8 feet over the next 100 years (according to the IPCC). Instead, DW and others advocate using technology and shoring up our shorelines over stopping use of all fossil fuels cold turkey (or worse, the US takes drastic steps while China and India do nothing). Opposing such drastic steps is not climate change denial. Likewise, even in the worst case scenarios from the IPCC, what will happen in the next 100 years will not be cataclysmic by anyone's definition; that's not denial either. Buffs (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Reboot. You're getting far into WP:TALK and WP:FORUM territory. This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of how to define "denial". Take that discussion to Talk:Climate change denial, but beware of engaging in forbidden WP:Advocacy of fringe opinions, and climate change denial is indeed fringe. That's what's happening here, and it must stop.

The issue here is what RS say about TDW's views and coverage of climate change, not what some consider (IOW WP:OR) "general reason" (see WP:Verifiability, not truth). Reliable sources describe TDW's coverage of the subject as misleading, false, inaccurate, lacking evidence, and denial. What more is needed to make it clear they are not siding with the scientific consensus? (That's rhetorical...Do not answer!) Their big oil backing is cited as a possible motive for their constant criticism of climate change science and climate change advocates. There is nothing left to say but what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're defining DW as denial and I contend it doesn't match the description. The idea that we shouldn't discuss the idea is absurd. Buffs (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that our personal understandings of "denial" do not trump what RS say. We must avoid OR. If most RS say that blue is green and up is down, we must say "blue is green" and "up is down". Period. OR is not allowed. RS define reality for us. (I obviously chose absurd situations, but that is how it works here. Personal beliefs do not trump RS.) If you want to discuss "the description" in a way that contradicts what RS say, don't do it here; do it at the main article Climate change denial. The result of such a discussion would have repercussions here. That's the way to deal with it. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valjean (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then, Buffs, you can blame the internet search engines. Or perhaps the search results for "daily wire" "climate" deny simply reflect that "leftist bent" sources are the ones outraged about climate change deniers and who are writing about it and naming names, while "rightist bent" sources aren't defending Daily Wire by name and thus don't appear in the search results. Contrary to your accusation, I don't select sources based on their political "bent"; I select them based on their search engine rankings (closest match to search string), what they have to say (is it relevant), and if they are reliable sources (I check WP:RSP if I'm not sure). Platonk (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Before you again start arguing semantics, I again point you to Why Is It Called Denial? because you clearly have not read it yet, and it elaborates on what is "a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature". Until you read it and understand it, you're wasting everyone's time. If you're going to argue about the placement of a label, then the least you can do is understand the label itself. Arguing about the meaning of the label is futile because you would be fighting against scholars and journalists everywhere. Platonk (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We have to paraphrase what the sources say sometimes. If we couldn't, then it wouldn't be possible to talk about things like this at all because the sources inevitably use different language. If anyone thinks that the climate change denial category is inappropriate even in a case like this (where there is extensive sourcing detailing the subject's climate change misinformation and its significance), they should probably be challenging the existence or name of the category itself rather than just its inclusion here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And if I bring that category up people will say it's a niche categorization and to talk about it on the DW page. It's a catch 22. Insults such as insinuating I'm stupid or haven't bothered to read anything is just par for the course for some people. Even "misinformation" (which is all too often just disagreements of opinion/disagreement on what specifically to do) is not "denial". If you can't see that, this discussion is pointless. Buffs (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't take this position, you just want to kill the planet.
 * Your position includes facts that are unnecessarily alarmist. Here's what the scientists say is going to happen.
 * You're just trying to minimize and delegitimize the research. DENIER!
 * That's not denial. Those are facts. Buffs (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A reminder. Platonk (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a reminder. This is taunting/using warnings as a means to disparage someone. Valjean is already wikistalking me (after swearing to leave me alone as part of the condition for the lift of his most recent block...see how unseemly that is?), I don't need an additional tail. Knock it off. Buffs (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting ownership of this article and talk page? Stop the PA. No one is "stalking" you. WP:FOC. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What? No one is asserting ownership of anything here. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest this article should match the phrasing that a plurality of cited RS use to describe the DW's position (per WP:PSTS and WP:WEIGHT). The phrase may or may not be denial; it could be skepticism or something else. Llll5032 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. When in doubt, attribute. That's what we're doing. An attributed opinion is always welcome. We document how RS have described the coverage of climate change by TDW, and they describe TDW's coverage as misleading, false, inaccurate, lacking evidence, and denial. Any other suggestions are welcome. -- Valjean (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Valjean. I'm proposing a more summarized version with this revision. Llll5032 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposition to proposed left wing solutions would be much more accurate. Buffs (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your original research isn't usable, Buffs. Present some independent reliable sources. Platonk (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Labeling the scientific consensus as "left-wing" does not work. You are not talking to ignorant simpletons here. Everybody who has been editing in the fringe theories area for a while is familiar with such tricks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF I'm referring to specific solutions proposed by the left to "solve" global warming, not "scientific consensus". Buffs (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From the article:
 * The title of this Daily Wire article inaccurately claims that global temperature has not warmed over the past 19 years—in direct contradiction with observations—and the article provides no evidence in support of this bold claim.
 * This post at The Daily Wire, which has been widely shared on Facebook, claims that a recent study of variations in Earth's orbit recorded by 90 million-year-old rocks provides evidence against a human cause of current global warming.
 * If I assume good faith, I have to conclude from the assumption that you never saw those quotes and that now you have ssen them, you will retract your uninformed "left wing" bullshit now. Is that correct, or do you want to refute the assumption? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Top
GuardianH, do you want to argue for your recent edits to the top that I reverted? Llll5032 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. Honestly, I think the entire paragraph should be reverted back but placed under the Accuracy section. That way, it maintains WP:ONUS, WP:RE, and MOS:LEADREL. GuardianH (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by WP:RE? Llll5032 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Although the current version seems to be good, some of the additions should be considered, but no more edit warring. Therefore GuardianH should seek to defend them here. I'm willing to consider the possible inclusion of some, but not necessarily in the lead. This diff seems to contain most of the changes that were deleted (bold were not deleted):

The inclusion of "far-right" in the lead is good and should be restored: "... far-right "

One change that was added and then deleted did seem to have dubious wording, yet made an important point: "Despite the Daily Wire's often false and misleading coverage, it has maintained a close relationship with former U.S. President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis." The relationship is not "despite", but "because of". Trump and DeSantis push misinformation, so it's not some mistake that they like TDW. They stick together and use unreliable sources "because" those sources are a vehicle for their misinformation. In some cases, it's clear that Trump gets his false views from these sources. Because the exact "because of" fact may be hard to source properly, it's probably best to not state it. A simple statement that Trump and DeSantis support TDW would be worth including if properly sourced.

So GuardianH, I eagerly await your response, but with a view toward inclusion in the body, not lead, and no more edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Valjean, I completely agree with you over the inclusion of "... far-right" and with replacing "despite" with "because of." However, I don't think these changes should be placed in the body—it needs to be in the lead as it is important information about the Daily Wire that cannot be placed elsewhere. People need to realize that and understand the radicalism of Trump and Shapiro as far-right rather than mainstream (although mainstream conservatism is practically far-right by many objective standards) conservatism. GuardianH (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We can easily fit the "far-right" in the lead, but I doubt you're going to get acceptance for inclusion of the other points in the lead, especially before they are included in the body, which is a requirement for all lead content, so start by defending their inclusion in the body. Note that I am NOT arguing for inclusion of "because of". Read my full statement. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to clarify why I would not include such language. Your wording "it has maintained a close relationship with" is OR, and so is my statement. It is generally true that Trump and DeSantis depend on and promote unreliable sources, but do you have any secondary sources clearly stating as much about them and TDW? You'd need that. We can't include OR in the article. We need to keep what is true separate from what is verifiable. We are mostly concerned with the latter as documenting what is true is not always easy, and people's ideas of what is true are often subjective and conflicting. Fortunately we can usually verify what is true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I count more sources that describe the DW with "conservative" or "right wing" than "far right". Llll5032 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what relevance number has in this situation. It's relevant when deciding WP:Common name, but of little relevance where nuance is more important, especially when going deeper and deeper into the defining terms used for localization on one wing of politics.
 * To illustrate, let's say "She is a person. She's also a famous person, and a notorious one." So we have person, famous, and notorious, all true. Counting numbers may lead us to choose "famous", but that's much less informative than "notorious", even if far fewer sources use that description. They are all true, but we should use the most precise word(s). We could say "She is a notorious[1] and famous[2] person." That would be a good and informative description.
 * So DTW is described as "conservative", "right wing", and "far right". They are all true, but which is more precise? Those are the word(s) we should use. We could write that "DTW is described as a conservative,[3] far-right[4] website." That would be more informative than just conservative (What type of conservative?) or just right-wing (Duh. Well yes. They're obviously not left-wing, but what type of right-wing?)
 * My point is that precise information is more important than numbers tell us. The current "conservative news website" is uninformative, as conservatives come in many variations, from slightly left-wing to radical and violent extremist far-right terrorists. It's like choosing to describe the woman as a "person". Duh. What type of "conservative" is DTW? It is "far-right" conservative, and we can use RS for both words. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because far-right can be a contentious label, in my opinion citing a few high-quality sources would be required, with a precise description like "(sometimes described as far-right)" if such a phrase is accurate, per WP:WEIGHT Llll5032 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)