Talk:The Daily Wire

NPOV problems

I recently reverted additions to the lead surrounding The Daily Wire.

The first source states:

The website has also made inaccurate or unsubstantiated claims about climate change

The second:

"An October 2019 article headlined "KNOWLES: AOC Travels To Europe To Cry," made false claims about climate change."

But is this particularly notable in the context of American conservatism? I'm struggling to see how either of these things are notably different from a news agency like National Review, Wall Street Journal (at least the OP-eds), and the like. I'm not suggesting that Daily Wire is a hub for reputable journalism - overwhelmingly, the site obviously isn't - but I struggle to see how it notably differs from a website like Slate, Daily Kos, Salon, or, on climate change, many conservative websites.

Is there a reason for the suggested lead addition? None of the sources cited seem to justify the broad, significant attention given. KlayCax (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I restored the stable version of the second paragraph of the top from before Nov. 22, because that version better summarized the emphases of independent WP:BESTSOURCES. 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." KlayCax, if there are as many similar RS descriptions about other publications, the questions could be addressed in those articles. Llll5032 (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Steven Crowder Dispute

Does the dispute with Steven Crowder really need to be so high up on the page? I don't think it should be in the history section and would be more appropriate further down, perhaps in the reception section. AstralNomad (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"History" chronologies are often the most neutral format for articles about contentious topics, but perhaps the description of the dispute could be shortened per WP:10YT? Llll5032 (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Far-right

Shapiro has been repeatedly referred to as far-right in recent years. I think this deserves mention in the lede.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Fake news

"Multiple scientific studies have identified The Daily Wire as a fake news website." How many of those five sources explicitly mention The Daily Wire? Only two, unless I'm missing something. We all know it's a conservative website, and even the owners acknowledge that. They're not going promoting the news through a conservative lens while claiming they're objective. Would this ([1]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-wire) be worth a look at? Unknown0124 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked at those cites. Grinberg et al (clicking on the pdf of supplementary material) shows what annotators thought of Daily Wire's tweets, which may differ from Daily Wire website for all I know. Anyway, elsewhere I read orange is supposed to mean "where annotators were less certain that the falsehoods stemmed from a systematically flawed process". Allcott et al mentions dailywire.com but explains "G-O represent the black domains, red domains, and orange domains in Grinberg et al. ... GNR represents Guess et al. (2018)." i.e. they're only repeating others. Guess et al (clicking on the pdf of supplementary material) mentions dailywire.com but explains "In the main text, we rely on a list of untrustworthy websites compiled by Grinberg et al. (2019)." Ognanyova et al indeed does not mention Daily Wire in the article, it does point to supplementary data on GitHub but I didn't see Daily Wire there either, maybe I missed a file. Anyway, in the article I read "Fake news exposure was determined based on the browser history of participants. People were considered to be exposed if they had visited any of the sources in a list of domains categorized as fake news by Grinberg and colleagues (2019)." Osmundsen et al does say "Fake Republican: babylonbee.com, dailywire.com, ilovemyfreedom.org, theconser-vativetreehouse.com, iotwreport.com" and I couldn't figure out where they got evidence but it's not from Griberg et al. Therefore I agree that there are really only two cites if we exclude the ones that don't mention Daily Wire or merely repeat Grinberg et al. I'd not have considered them to be due but, well, somebody else did, and two is a multiple. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I also checked each of those cited articles and every one of them references

Grinberg N, Joseph K, Friedland L, Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. Fake news on twitter during the 2016 us presidential election. Science.

while that Science.org article itself doesn't give evidence of purported fake news.

It's also notable that Osmundsen et al labels babylonbee.com as a republican news source when it's a comedic satire site that doesn't claim to contain news and cites websites like The Hill, whose overall site is center-left but articles are lean left to be "fully center" in order to claim 'democrat voters prefer centrist news sources'. The flaws in that study call into question its credibility and, more importantly, mean this web page should not be referencing it as a verified scientific study. 24.123.252.242 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bentkey Ventures & DailyWire

Hello,

I was reviewing the two articles, and it appears that in the Bentkey Ventures article, the Dailywire is listed as a subsidiary, and in the Dailywire article, Bentkey is listed as the subsidiary. Would be good to get a little clarification there. 2603:8000:3F00:1A42:1A47:CEBD:B09D:C21B (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Bentkey Ventures is the parent company of The Daily Wire, and doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Bentkey is also the name of the children's programming on the Daily Wire's streaming video service. Bentkey is a word Jeremy Boreing seems to be fond of, so it gets reused. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Add onto the fact that Daily Wire is politically charged, so that could also be a reason why the Bentkey name was reused instead of DW Kids. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

Brett Cooper’s show is a YouTube based show, not a podcast. 98.4.56.137 (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton These lies don't need protection Schantinker (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Update address

Their office is located at 200 Oceanside Dr, Nashville, TN 37204 according to Google. The building matches the building that is in the background of the Jeremy's Razors and Chocolate videos 72.250.20.196 (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reception

Everything in reception is just criticism of biased sourced against DW. Isnt there more to put in? Their growth? Their popularity? 166.181.88.138 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly like DailyWire but you're right. The problem is that the list of "reliable sources" (known as WP:RS) doesn't include conservative or right-leaning sources that would be willing to discuss DW in a positive light, or even in a factual light in terms of their growth and popularity. WP:RS is the main means of controlling the discourse and editing process on WP to ensure it stays biased in favour of whatever viewpoint predominates among WP editors (which, for almost all of its existence, has been a sort of lazy, default progressivism). WP:RS is (and always has been) regularly culled to keep pace with the Overton window, whereby increasingly gentle right-leaning sources are hacked off until there's nothing left. I'm aware of several pages on Wikipedia that illustrate that it doesn't matter what standard of proof you have - you can have direct evidence of a group colluding to engage in wrongdoing in a private chat and firsthand admissions from the participants - because WP will simply remove the sources that refer to that proof from the list, thus making them uncitable and offering those with power over WP:RS policy complete control over the worldview that WP reflects.

It doesn't matter even if a pool of experts in a peer-reviewed study declare that the only news source reporting accurately on their field happens to be conservative/right-wing (which has literally happened before) because that source will never be added to WP:RS, even for the very subject (intelligence research) in which it trounced every single source of highest preference in WP:RS (which were all judged with negative-to-very-negative scores). The idea that WP is neutral is laughable. It's highly debatable whether it's even possible to have a neutral encyclopaedia. Frankly, in my own research, I don't consider WP any more reliable than ProleWiki (communist), Conservapedia (neoconservative), or Metapedia (dissident) -- at least those sites make their ideology clear up front. I treat WP as "Wikipedia (progressive)" in a mere list of many such sources. I tend to agree with O'Sullivan: "All organizations that are not [explicitly] right-wing will over time become left-wing." Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Elliott, your discomfort with editing here seems to be evident, not only from the statement on your userpage, but your expressed opposition to our RS policy. That's unfortunate. You need to stop your forbidden advocacy of fringe POV. Opposition to policy is a fringe POV.

Wikipedia's editors seek to follow the site's policy about reliable sources, so they oppose the addition of content from unreliable sources. Research with social media shows a clear conservative partisan bias includes a reliance on such unreliable sources. That research found a tendency to suspend conservatives more than liberals and delete content added by conservatives more than content added by liberals because:

conservatives share more falsehoods and low-quality information online even when you let groups of Republicans define what counts as false or low-quality... It found that accounts that shared pro-Trump hashtags were both more likely to post links to low-quality sites — including those purveying falsehoods about the election — and more likely to end up suspended than those that shared pro-Biden hashtags.

So think about where you stand. Are you with those who use poor sources or with the RS policy and those editors who support it and who reject those poor sources? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you just cite the Washington Post concerning Republican credibility? The same Washington Post whose editors quit because Bezos asked them to not be openly biased? That's really funny. 24.123.252.242 (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge of Mr. Birchum into The Daily Wire

Of the sources currently in the article, we have:

1. A press release from Deadline Hollywood
2. A directory listing on IGN which only confirms the release date
3. Another press release from Deadline Hollywood
4. A news article from the Washington Examiner, listed on WP:RSP as a dubious source
5. An article on Vulture which is about an earlier pilot of the show back in 2012 and not the series proper. It's also paywalled, and the link to the pilot within the article appears to have been taken down

In further searching, I was not able to find much in the way of sources.

1. Animation World Network had just about the only reliable third party sourcing I could find
2. Newsweek also gave a write-up when the show debuted
3. The website Bubble Blabber had reviews of each episode, but I'm not sure if this site is considered usable (there is a credited editor)

Everything else I could find was random YouTubers reviewing the show, partisan self-published blogs, directory listings, TV Tropes, social media postings, and other material unsuitable for sourcing.

Given that the only two good sources I can find were on the day of its release, this seems to be failing the test of WP:SUSTAINED, unless the Bubble Blabber reviews can be seen as passing WP:RSOPINION. It's the kind of show that's likely to get almost no coverage beyond the partisan fringe echo chamber it's targeted toward. With that in mind, unless someone can find substantial, reliable coverage beyond the first episode, I propose this be merged to The Daily Wire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I definitely, and fully, support this merger. I would agree with you that the sourcing on this page is relatively slim, not enough to justify it being a separate page. Maybe it could have one line in The Daily Wire but that may even be too much. I'd leave that up to your editorial judgment if you think that one line for the series would be justified. And Bubble Blabber is arguably, not really that reliable, to be honest (someone has attempted to create a draft page for it, but it has been declined multiple times and since the six month clock will be up next month, it will probably be deleted then). Historyday01 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest: the only reason this is the subject of a merge discussion is in order to marginalise it based on cherry-picking and personal dislike of the source. I don't really care about the DailyWire one way or the other, but we have articles on countless TV movies that don't even rise to the level of Lifetime or Hallmark and articles on shows from other niche streaming services. None of them have better sources or more sources or are more notable than this (which I'd argue is intrinsically notable as, as far as I can tell, the first explicitly conservative, ideological cartoon show of any stripe in the Anglosphere, and on what seems to be positioning itself as a serious right-leaning independent streaming service/content creator -- also a first). It dovetails into the subject of parallel economies and other interesting topics, which none of the innumerable, less notable televisual media does.

This is an expected outcome and fundamental flaw of removing all conservative sources from WP:RS: a project like this clearly isn't going to get much play in WP:RS sources but there exists plenty of chatter regarding its existence that we can't capture, even as evidence that this is significant to a not-insignificant group of people. We also can't possibly capture a balanced Reception section as all WP:RS are going to be strongly opposed from the word go, but that doesn't matter when the threat to the article is existential. I suspect that any source provided here would end up with the aforementioned brush-off pertaining to BubbleBlabber: "well, y'know, it's not really that reliable: we can just ignore them". As far as I'm aware, BubbleBlabber is no different to - no better or worse than - any of the other dozens of interchangeable pop culture-centric sites that are none of them what you would call "scholarly" and yet regularly used in pop culture articles because what else are you going to use? Generalised news sites don't bother to cover many Adult Swim shows either.

There's also a compulsive part of me that just doesn't want to see an article on an animated sitcom deleted. I'm a big fan of the genre and we have articles on quite literally every other series from extensive lists/databases. It'd seem strange and targeted to have this one hole, especially when every single one of my own personal DB of >200 such shows links to a WP article in at least some language. I'm very much against deletionism in general, but we "lost" that debate a long time ago so it's just a declaration. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Other "notable" shows like The Nutshack got redirected too. This is not a partisan issue. The show's conservative tone is not why it doesn't seem to be notable. It's the lack of coverage from reliable independent sources. Your constant whataboutism isn't changing a thing here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This show is somehow getting a second season in February 2025, semi-indirectly ties into Crank Yankers, a show that aired internationally and features has actors, people heard of, like Roseanne Barr.

The sourcing sucks, no question, the show is being ignored by the media, critics and even it´s target audiences so plentiful sources won´t magically come next year either but how many obsucre OVAs or manga that never left Japan are on this site with fewer sources? If just one season of this truly terrible show existed then I would understand why it can be regarded as a footnote but that soon won´t be the case. Let´s table this till then. Residentgrigo (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't sit around and hope something might become notable later. And whataboutism with other articles doesn't cut it, either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)