Talk:The Daily Wire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Depp v. Heard paragraph

The paragraph regarding the Depp v. Heard trial does not establish notability. I removed it, but was reverted. This advertising expense of a media company promoting its articles and personalities is not significant, compared to their total revenue. (The sky is blue, and such.) That their advertising was effective (by getting millions of clicks) is not remarkable either. That the advertising purportedly smeared a party who was ultimately found liable for defamation is not notable. I'm certain that this paragraph, as well as the cited source, was initially added as some sort of "gotcha" prior to the trial's completion, but it is really out of place in a section that appears to be about controversies, as none of it is really controversial. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Non notable trivia. Support removal. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph in question. Yes, I don't think "company buys Facebook ads" is a noteworthy occurrence. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Support removal. It’s fairly predictable from the company’s hard right slant that they would take the anti-#MeToo side irregardless of Heard’s liability. DW has enough money to produce original movies so a few tens of thousands on advertising isn’t really remarkable. Dronebogus (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Also support removal, seems like a waste of space and just your stander POV push to insert info that is not notable. We don't pander to POV pushers here, we follow RS and due weight. PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion about this content, but we should WP:AGF about the editors involved because there are valid RS and due weight reasons for either inclusion or exclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That was assuming good faith, I stated core values of Wikipedia as a whole and how it is run. I did not accuse anyone here of wrong doing either. So perhaps, you should assume it yourself. Thanks =) PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It is notable they spent so much to smear Heard and get hits. This is part of their political agenda, so we document it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Vice is not a great source. You'll need to generate a consensus for including this. I'm not seeing it so far. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Section accuracy - misquote of Newsguard

The quote reads "does NOT repeatetly publish false or misleading information". According to the referenced source [8], it should read "DOES repeatetly publish false information etc.". Someone with edit rights please correct this immediatly. 83.175.84.96 (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Here is the new edit and the source. [1] Llll5032 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Llll5032 I don't think that is a good change. Regardless of the IP's claim, Newsguard did indeed write "Does not repeatedly publish false content". And adding "has continued to publish false or misleading information" is only quoting part of a sentence, omitting the part where Newsguard acknowledges that DailyWire made corrections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, changing that now. I think you and IP were both right that we needed adjustments so it is most accurate. Llll5032 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that your second edit fixes the problems caused by your first edit, but, unless others oppose, I don't intend to continue this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

NewsGuard is not a reliable source.[2] PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone in that discussion say NewsGuard is unreliable? We could ask RSN directly if NewsGuard is reliable, if you don't think it is. Llll5032 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Several in that discussion question it and talk about how its status has not changed, and as stated in that talk, it has been discussed several times. So if you want to ask RSN again feel free to, otherwise we will defer to the many past discussions on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone said NewsGuard's critical reports are inaccurate? The questions at RSN seem to ask if NewsGuard was too lenient to be sufficient for labeling another source as a RS. Llll5032 (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone said NewsGuard's critical reports are inaccurate? Please see WP:RS to learn the qualifiers of what a reliable source is. Just because you do not think they are wrong, does not qualify them as a reliable source. So again I have to refer you to past consensus at RSN if you want to follow with them and challenge the status quo. PackMecEng (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that NewsGuard should not be quoted in this article? Llll5032 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I began a RSN discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

My take is more like "the IP's complaint is not a reliable source", but it might be interesting if you can suggest a specific wording change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

An editor at RSN pointed out that the NewsGuard assessment was updated, so I changed the wording to quote its new top statements. Llll5032 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Conservative commentator and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson now in DW+

Dr. Jordan Peterson recently announced he would join DW+. I'd suggest to make mention of that in the Podcasts section. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T75gbpezxQE 190.22.9.36 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

Need to remove the section related to Covid reporting, as the article sourced does not directly call The Daily Wire “junk health news,” but rather any disinformation platform. From the time of publishing(March 2020), much has changed with the times and is no longer relevant for public information as we know it now. 98.24.65.222 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just come across this page, and realised that my reading of the source and changing this section may actually be contentious. Normally I'm involved in making sure sources are well linked, archived or correct. I've only seen now after my recent changes that there has been much discussion on this already. I want to note that my change was made entirely without seeing the talk page, so happy to update as needed. However 98.24.65.222 I think you are incorrect. I read the source content as the Daily Wire being one of the many on its list of such news, and it gives three referenced examples regarding their coverage on WHO and China controversies in March of 2020. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 05:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think 98.24.65.222 was correct that the lead-section sentence Its coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been described as "junk health news". was not directly supported, and I think the "referenced examples" that Lantrix mentions are so poorly expressed that the source can be regarded as poor. Lantrix's change to Their criticism of the WHO and China during the COVID-19 pandemic has been described as "junk health news" by the Oxford University Computational Propaganda Project. is not as bad. But the article says "This week’s junk health news and information focused on ..." i.e. it's only talking about what was said in a particular week in 2020 so 98.24.65.222 "no longer relevant" complaint is valid. And its main passage about Daily Wire, which it doesn't specifically say is junk, is The Daily Wire carried pieces that similarly position the WHO as a “co-conspirator” with China in the “cover-up” of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. This source criticized the WHO Special Envoy for refusing to discuss the dishonesty of China.[6], [7]. That's very misleading. [6] is this Daily Wire article, [7[ is this Daily Wire article. Notice that Daily Wire is not saying co-conspirator, it is quoting -- using quote marks -- a politician who says co-conspirator. I conclude that this source, whose first author is [a student named Hubert Au, is itself junk and not worth putting in the lead. The proper question is "is there consensus to keep?" and so far two editors, the IP and I, say no. Does anyone say yes? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree partly -- although the "junk health news" label may be due with attribution later in the article, it may not be stated with enough research to give WEIGHT for the top. If COVID-19 is discussed in the top, a clearer source like the NPR investigation, or multiple sources, would be an improvement. Llll5032 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Lill5032 has now removed the bad cite to Oxford in the lead but left it with attribution later in the article, and changed the sentence to Its coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been criticized for making inaccurate claims and promoting vaccine skepticism. with three cites: NewsGuard, Washington Post quoting German Marshall Fund of the United States, and NPR. The pretentiously named "German Marshall Fund of the United States" quote is actually from a paper by Adrienne Goldstein, BA History, which is mostly about Facebook and Twitter accounts rather than the website. The NPR article, as far as I can tell, doesn't support what's in the sentence at all. So I still support removal of the Oxford cite from the article, and removal of the sentence from the lead. Also I support removal of the Goldstein quote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I am removing the NPR citation from the top because, as you wrote, it does not clearly support the assertions at the top. The Washington Post article about the German Marshall Fund report [3] merits inclusion because it describes both claims and the Post (WP:WAPO) is a high-quality RS. Llll5032 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Now the sentence is Its coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been described as making inaccurate claims and promoting vaccine skepticism., linking to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, with cites to NewsGuard and the Washington Post 202 Newsletter. The newsletter is only valid for reporting that a report was "produced" by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (which the Washington Post newsletter writers shorten to German Marshall Fund), written by research assistant Adrienne Goldstein (whom the Washington Post newsletter writers mischaracterize as "researchers"). The quote is correct but Facebook "engagement centered around content critical of vaccines and vaccine policy" is not the same as inaccurate claims and promoting vaccine skepticism. I'm still waiting to see whether anyone supports any of the frequently-changing versions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Inaccurate claims" is stated directly by the cited NewsGuard report,[4] which is also referenced by the Post article.[5] Does any RS disagree with NewsGuard and the Washington Post about this? Llll5032 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post doesn't say it, and I see no other attempt to defend Adrienne Goldstein's piece, so I intend to remove those unless someone else defends. I don't intend to remove the NewsGuard criticism that you picked, except from the lead, and again I'm waiting to see whether someone else defends. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The Post writes,[6] "The study also found that the Daily Wire’s posts about vaccine mandates in particular drew significantly more engagement than their typical ones, “indicating that the site found success in pushing content that tapped into ongoing culture wars around U.S. COVID policies." NewsGuard has found that the site has "published unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims about COVID-19." Llll5032 (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are considering WP:PROPORTION, Kaiser Health News [7] also referenced the Post's story about the German Marshall Fund study. Llll5032 (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro disputed the Post's headline about the report [8] because he says the Daily Wire opposes mandates but not vaccines. Llll5032 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr Shapiro seems correct, although I'm sure you weren't depending on WP:HEADLINE of the newsletter when you inserted the material. Still, I don't see what you were depending on, since "X said that Y said" is not be the same as "X said". I have removed Its coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been described as making inaccurate claims and promoting vaccine skepticism.[12][13] from the lead. If there is no kerfuffle, I will also remove your insertion about "German Marshall Fund" from the body. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no kerfuffle, I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reasoning, but per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS, I won’t restore the content unless another editor joins the discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsGuard cites

Something's gone wrong with the cite for the sentence that begins "The credibility checker NewsGuard assessed in 2021 ..." -- I know it was good a few weeks ago, but now it's just a redirect to NewsGuard's ratings criteria page, and I can't find the original. Maybe it's a momentary glitch so I didn't add a citation-needed tag, yet. There are other cites of NewsGuard in the article that refer to an earlier study, which is now marked "Dated Content". Maybe they should be replaced but until we have something about current content again, that would be hard. By the way, I know from a Twitter complainer that NewsGuard rated dailywire.com "green". See also earlier thread Section accuracy - misquote of Newsguard. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: original's on wayback. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I added archive-url for the cite about "The credibility checker NewsGuard assessed in 2021 ...". Now I propose: (1) Instead of "2021" we might say "2021 or 2022" because I'm a bit concerned about the url which has a date in it: "www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Daily-Wire-Nutrition-Label-March-2022.pdf". (2) We could remove cites [7] and [8], the "Gregory, John" cites of NewsGuard from 2020, because I'm a bit concerned that NewsGuard labels that "Dated content". Any better proposal, or veto? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the archive link. The document indicates it was "updated on Aug. 11, 2021". It may have received new uploading or trivial updating since. The DW stories it evaluates appear to be from before that date, so if I am correct, I suggest keeping 2021.

We should keep cites to earlier reports that refer to specific DW content in 2019-2020. We could update some information if the 2021 assessments changed from the previous report, or note both reports. Llll5032 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Re 2021: okay. Re dated reports: to support a sentence saying "... often misstates facts ..." the article cites the dated report which indeed says "often misstates facts". But the later report instead says "has sometimes misstated facts". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We could change the assessment in the second paragraph from "often misstates facts" to "sometimes misstates facts". Llll5032 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I changed it. Llll5032 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2022

Change "Farris Wilks, a fracking billionaire, manages Bentkey Ventures, LLC (formerly Forward Publishing, LLC), which publishes The Daily Wire." To the slightly more formal "Farris Wilks, manages Bentkey Ventures, LLC (formerly Forward Publishing, LLC), which publishes The Daily Wire." KirasGravitas (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's an explanation of who he is, someone with a billion dollars from fracking, not swearing Battlestar Galactica style. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

Please let me correct some factual errors. 69.131.149.187 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Wilks Brothers contribution.

This article claims that the Daily Wire was founded with funding by Dan and Farris Wilks. This line has three sources cited, however, of those sources, Slate says it was from the "Wilks Brothers" but doesn't go into it beyond that and both of the others explicitly state that it came from Farris Wilks with no indication that Dan was involved. Those two sources seem to align with TDW's claim that the money came from Farris, not the Brothers' company.

Either better evidence should be found supporting that it came from both brothers, or the article needs to be updated to reflect that Dan was apparently not involved. 24.164.47.109 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This article says of the Wilks brothers, "Today, they own Forward Publishing, which includes the conservative website The Daily Wire." Llll5032 (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This is from the Daily Wire about page: "The Daily Wire, LLC is wholly-owned by Bentkey Ventures, LLC (formerly Forward Publishing, LLC) which is itself owned by Jeremy Boreing, Ben Shapiro, Caleb Robinson, and Farris Wilks." https://www.dailywire.com/about

Might help... JonesyPHD (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Climate change at top

Razr Nation, I reverted your edit that deleted climate change from the second paragraph. I think the claim, which has been in the article since late 2021, was well sourced. But if you still think the sources do not support this claim, as you wrote in your summary, we could discuss and reconsider. Llll5032 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The general accusation has been around for a long time, the specific phrasing "It has been a prominent publisher ..." is due to a December 2021 edit by Lill5032. The cited source is a Forbes article, but it is merely saying that the Center for Countering Digital Hate said it, it does not endorse what the Center for Countering Digital Hate said, and it goes on to report that Facebook said the Center for Countering Digital Hate methodology was flawed. In an earlier thread about this, including LIll5032's contribution on 23:30, 29 December 2021 (see above), I gathered that there was some support for an in-text attributed statement, but that's not what's been re-inserted. I support the removal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The addition of the content to the top in December 2021 was by Valjean. Later I edited the wording, and the paragraph has been edited since then by some other editors and me. In the three references cited at the top for the claim (with more in the Accuracy section), most of the factual support is from the Climate Feedback fact checks. Do you dispute the Climate Feedback fact checks? Llll5032 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I was wrong to address only the first cite, sorry. Re the second, which is about the 2017 article Climate Scientists: Climate Models Have Overestimated Global Warming. That happens to be the same as what Nature said: "Published on 18 September in Nature Geoscience1, the analysis focuses in part on the fact that global climate models used in the 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to overestimate the extent of warming that has already occurred." So the opinion that it's false is opinion. Re the third, which discusses an episode of "The Michael Knowles Show", I believe you're aware that Daily Wire explained to NewsGuard that they do not apply the same standards to transcripts of talks as they do to reports or op-eds. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify some of these questions, perhaps we should add more refquotes to the citations at the top to make clear what is supported by the RS. Llll5032 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I added some refquotes and another ref. Llll5032 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For Peter's questions about the validity of the sources' own conclusions, perhaps we should ask for opinions at the Climate Change project talk page or Science project talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your added cite [9], Gregory in NewsGuard (2020), stamped "Dated content", is about Knowles, which is already in cite [8], Gregory in NewsGuard (2022). I have no "questions about the validity". I have this question: do you believe the Forbes article is one of the "fact checks" which shows that Daily Wire is "prominent" and has made "false" statements which are "denying" climate change? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The Climate Feedback and NewsGuard articles contain the fact checks. The Forbes article is not a fact check; it is a source for the word "prominent". I agree that we could remove the 2020 NewsGuard reference from the top, because as you pointed out, the later 2021 report also includes the Knowles article among its examples of "inaccurate or unsubstantiated claims about climate change". Llll5032 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RSCONTEXT "Sources should directly support (See WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation) the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." The sentence says "... according to fact checks" but the first cite is, as you admit, not supporting that, it is only supporting "prominent", which you inserted. I disagree that it is okay to use that cite because I believe an after-the-sentence cite should support the whole sentence. Does anyone else have an opinion about this specific matter: whether to keep the cite to Forbes in this place? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Forbes citation (which was added by Valjean, not me, after a talk page discussion) currently follows the order in which the sentence describes the information. I agree that we could remove it, or change the order of citations, if it is easily misinterpreted. Llll5032 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I changed the refs order because I doubt the change will be controversial. Llll5032 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

On my cellphone, so difficult to analyze things. Placement of refs is important. If a ref supports a word or phrase, it should be placed or, in this case, moved there, not removed or deleted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

So now the question becomes: does anyone agree with putting the Forbes cite after the word "prominent"? I don't. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, if you rewrote the sentence instead of removing the sentence, what would it say? Llll5032 (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Peter, strictly speaking, as long as the word is not challenged, the ref use in the body covers it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Lill5032: I wouldn't, I joined here to approve of the removal by Razr Nation. The discussion about placement of the Forbes cite has become moot because X-editor has shifted it back to the end and removed "as described in various fact checks", here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree. Sorry for the late reply, I used to be quite active ten years ago and am just slowly coming back. When I was writing featured articles, Forbes was famous among the list of sources considered as not valid for contentious claims. There is no question that The Daily Wire is a prominent institution, we don't really need a citation for that. But if you want to claim that DW has been prominent for denying climate change, then you need high quality sources that support exactly that statement, and the sources available in the article do not. → Call me Razr Nation 00:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that there's more opposition to the use of Forbes for that, but it's gone anyway now from the top. We still have a paragraph in the body about climate change, with multiple cites of Climate Feedback, but I suppose that proposing changing or deleting it would be only appropriate in a new thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)