Talk:The Daily Wire

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Daily Wire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Tennessee Low‑importance The Daily Wire is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing: Websites Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Low-importance). Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 01-08-2020 by Loksmythe. Embutler (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination. Speedy keep, 7 February 2022, see discussion. no consensus, 31 May 2016, see discussion.

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: FMSky (talk · contribs · block log) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I've read the Daily Wire for years, and I have never seen them report something that is factually false. They report the news with a conservative slant, but it is certainly not "fake news". The sentence labeling them "fake news" is clearly not a neutral POV. 129.130.19.197 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, we now have four editors objecting to some or all of this sentence. Isi96 inserted the original on 20 October 2022; Aquillion changed the first word to "Multiple" on 13 January 2023; so I guess at least two editors think the sentence is okay. Anybody else? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

It should be removed. They're a conservative site but not fake news. Fake News is something like InfoWars - FMSky (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, we now have five editors objecting to some or all of this sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Peter Gulutzan: Shouldnt it also be removed from the lead then? (the part "The Daily Wire sometimes misstates facts to advance a partisan view")-- FMSky (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

In an earlier talk page thread mentioning that sentence, Section accuracy - misquote of Newsguard, I said "... unless others oppose, I don't intend to continue this." So I'd support removal but I'd be breaking my word if I did it myself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This discussion seems to be about the line "Multiple scientific studies have identified The Daily Wire as a fake news website", so it shouldn't be used to remove sourced partisanship claims, or that they sometimes misstate facts. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Kind of have a "he said she said" scenario here. Sure, "fact checkers" have said DW has "mistated facts to advance a partisan view". That's funny, because the DW exists almost exclusively because they claim exactly that about these "fact checkers" and others quite often, and millions of reasoning people believe them and not the "fact checkers". Like most issues of POV on WP, this is an issue with the "reliable sources". Are we really so committed to the dogma of the reliable source list that we will just cite "fact checkers say they lie sometimes", when the very same are direct competitors and philosophical/political enemies? This might be like citing the DNC said the RNC was lying, without any regard to the obvious fact that the DNC exists only in a world where an RNC opposes them. Hardly a source for NPOV on the topic.

The whole "fact checkers say they lie" lines are entirely POV. Of course they say that. The only sensible way this might be okay is with strict quotes and attribution. All these lines still in the article should be removed completely. 174.205.34.10 (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

KaijuEditor today reverted the removal. I hope KaijuEditor will come to this talk page, acknowledge that there was support for removal, and acknowledge that WP:ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." And I hope that others will chime in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

was blocked as a sock FMSky (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC) _{(The author of the previous comment was also blocked as a sock. Wikipedia apologizes for the inconvenience.}Reply

Its already addressed, leave it! – KaijuEditor (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is from a year ago and doesn't reflect current consensus. FMSky (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point – KaijuEditor (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, which is why you should revert your edit here FMSky (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This “consensus” is advocacy, therefore the edit will stay. – KaijuEditor (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It can't stay in unfortunately, as "fake news website" is not supported by any of the sources currently in the article FMSky (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please just follow the guidelines. – KaijuEditor (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are you a troll by any chance FMSky (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:No personal attacks – KaijuEditor (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This whole “discussion” is WP:BADPOV. – KaijuEditor (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

FMSky removed again, but KaijuEditor re-re-inserted after being unblocked, but Loriendrew has now reverted KaijuEditor's edit. Thanks to all who have supported the removal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

• FMSky was just blocked as a longtime block-evasion sock (fortunately, before this discussion was archived), which means their opinion doesn't carry any weight. I will also point out that while FMSky was an evasion of a blocked user for their entire time here, part of their rationale for their blocking was extensive WP:LOUTSOCKing. While this is tricky to discuss because checkusers cannot connect someone to an IP, with that in mind I do not see a consensus to remove here anymore. Under the circumstances, if people are still convinced that there's a consensus to remove this, I'm going to have to ask for a formal RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I support your restoration of that material. It should never have been removed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I agree. I also note that the 174 IP. never edited anything else, I would never pay attention to SPAs. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Aquillion has re-inserted with edit summary = "restoring disputed section per talk; given the heavy WP:LOUTSOCKing by one of the people arguing for removal and the fact that many voices arguing for it were IPs, I don't see a consensus to remove this anymore." Other participants were Unknown0124, Peter Gulutzan, 24.123.252.242, 129.130.19.197, 174.205.34.10, NutmegCoffeeTea, Loriendrew, Isi96. I don't know of a policy that IP opinions must be discarded, I do know that the requirement is not consensus to remove but consensus to insert. Let's see whether that exists now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Update: should also have mentioned KaijuEditor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Five academic sources is more than enough to support the attributed sentence it is used for, and I support the restoration of the sentence. — Newslinger talk 03:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not one mention of the numerous lawsuits they have filed against their ex-stars? Wikipedia is getting more and more pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-44770-24 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

how can DW be considered right wing over conservative when 3 of 4 of their main podcast hosts (Shapiro, Knowles, Klavan) are described as conservatives in their articles? ~2026-35033-7 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've added additional sourcing. But in general, while I can't speak to the discussions on those pages or whether they're correct, both Wikipedia and the sources we rely on are more reluctant to describe an individual as right-wing as opposed to an organization. For example, one of the sources I added specifically describes the Daily Wire as The Daily Wire, a right-wing media company started by the conservative pundit Ben Shapiro. It's possible for a conservative to found and run a right-wing organization for a wide variety of reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Conservatives are right-wing, with the MAGA ones, like Shapiro, being far-right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Shapiro isn't MAGA. Maga means make america great again. Shapiro is not that. ~2026-28489-12 (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why does Wikipedia allow DW to be called "right wing," and yet Daily Beast is not called "left wing." And it certainly is. ~2026-17256-64 (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are serious safety concerns with an upcoming film that is being produced by DW. This should probably be mentioned somewhere: here is a source that could be used. ~2026-20618-00 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

In March 2025, it was reported Jeremy Boreing would step down as co-founder.

This should be corrected to stepped down as CEO or President or whatever title he had. ~2026-28489-12 (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done. -Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply