Talk:Dan Bongino/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ref for wife's maiden name

http://www.severnaparkvoice.com/politics-opinion/bongino-family-home-severna-park#.U0lsnGt5mSN -- Jo3sampl (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If needed, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20180508013117/http://www.severnaparkvoice.com/politics-opinion/bongino-family-home-severna-park

-- Pemilligan (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Balance?

Amusingly, the main article contains a Democrat rebuttal to what Bongino says, which leaves the article suggesting Bongino is simply out for himself. That isn't balanced. If I changed the article, my change would instantly be deleted by a Democrat, which is why Wikipedia is called "Liberalpedia." Thus, I won't even try to change the article, but some ideologically fair person should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles. If you feel there is material missing from the article, find independent reliable sources and make the change or suggest it. If you are here to gripe about anything and everything, you are on the wrong site. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Dan Bongino is pretty unbalanced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VXBqnx2ONE His profanity laced Looney-Tunes melt-down should be featured on his wikipedia page, because it was EPIC!!! It really shows what kind of a person Dan Bongino truly is, in his own words. He's never going to pivot away from that kind of behavior. ItXardox (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds that way to you because you have no interest in hearing anything else. If you read the article in question Bongino *does* answer the question as to where the propaganda is. The article claims Bongino doesn't provide the source of donations and Bongino stated they did. The reporter in the above audio was being obtuse and smarmy and not really interested in an answer, showing what kind of reporter he really is. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dan Bongino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120808110545/http://www.bongino.com:80/about.html to http://www.bongino.com/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120413211504/http://crofton.patch.com:80/articles/getting-to-know-dan-bongino to http://crofton.patch.com/articles/getting-to-know-dan-bongino

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked. -- Pemilligan (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fox appearances May 2018

Rolled out frequently to discredit John Brennan. Wikipietime (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No mention of 2018 "Spygate The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump" book?

Why isn't there a mention of his new 2018 Spygate book? 96.83.95.49 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Politician" in Article Description

Changed this to read "American Political Commentator", as the latter is a more accurate description of subject's current occupation. "Politician" is inappropriate, as Subject has never held elected office and is notable primarily for his work as a Secret Service agent turned author, radio host, and cable news opinion contributor. Drmojo90210 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

He's run for office a couple of times. Therefore politician. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Race

Why do you keep taking out my African American heritage. Are you racist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:180:670:5d7a:6709:1aa7:f22a (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

reference 39

ridiculous excuses for real sources of information like the blaze should not be used anywhere for anything -- 2607:FEA8:F1A1:5F60:DD63:7D8D:D20D:3D6A (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use numbers to identify references as the numbers can change whenever someone edits the article. Is this the reference you are referring to? (At the moment it is 42, not 39.)

References

You have a point that TheBlaze is rated "generally unreliable for facts" at WP:RSPSOURCES, but that entry continues, "In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions." That may be the case here, as it is relating Bongino's version of events. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

Request to revert the latest change to the article that identifies the subject as "conservative" instead of "far-right" (last edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Dan_Bongino&type=revision&diff=1001960902&oldid=1001915820). As identified by at least two mainstream sources, the subject falls within the spectrum of far-right instead of conservative. There is a wide gap between conservatives, such as George Will, Jonah Goldberg, or Rick Wilson, and Bongino, making the far-right identifier useful. The references included both identify him as far-right and state his activities/views that differentiate him from 'mainstream' conservatives. GreenTreeHill (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is cherry picking a perjorative word. A lead or any mention must come from reliable sources, not editors, as Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Comparing Dan to other Republicans is your original research. I'm going to remove this. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:

This article makes value claims and looks down on the intelligence of the reader

Consider the following snippet from the Political views-section:

"During the 2020 election, he promoted false and baseless claims of voter fraud.[1] After Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Donald Trump refused to concede, Bongino backed Trump's claims of election fraud,[49] and falsely claimed that the Democrats rigged the election.[50]"

Is it really necessary to spell out for the reader in such a blunt manner what the writer of the article thinks that the reader should think? It would be much more appropriate to phrase it in a more neutral tone, something like this:

"During the 2020 election, he promoted claims of voter fraud.[1] After Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Donald Trump refused to concede, Bongino backed Trump's claims of election fraud,[49] and claimed that the Democrats rigged the election. These claims have not yet been proven."

Something like that. The current article reads almost like it's written by a political activist, it damages public trust in that wikipedia strives to be unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.199.13 (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I mostly like your version better, but that last sentence would absolutely need a change. "These claims have not been proven" would be better because the 'yet' suggests in Wikipedia's voice that they probably will be while it's more neutral without it. However, considering the sources at hand, saying that "These claims have been debunked" would still sound more accurate while still more encyclopedic than the current version which reads more like a diatribe with sources. I'd like more input before a change though, even though it seems pretty much innocuous even if people do disagree. Perhaps if nobody opposes I'll change it in about a week since it can always be reverted later and it wouldn't close the door to discussion. Kensai97 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence

was recently changed. --Malerooster (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Regarding this line of copy:

After Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Donald Trump refused to concede, Bongino falsely claimed that the Democrats rigged the election.[

Suggestion: Remove the word "falsely." This word suggests the opinion of the writer of the line and is not possible to substantiate in fact at this time. For example, many states changed rules of the election without going through state legislatures. Factually, that is illegal. This allowed states to convert to mail-in balloting which promulgates ballot harvesting. Therefore, many people would say that Bongino's statement is correct. In fact, it is a stretch to say that Democrats did not move to alter the outcome of the election using the pandemic as the impetus. A Wikipedia entry should be neutral on the matter.

2603:8081:7306:2F7B:59F:2C45:2E39:47E4 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 2603:8081:7306:2F7B:59F:2C45:2E39:47E4 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: there's consensus throughout Wikipedia that we should describe claims of vote rigging/electoral fraud in the 2020 US election as false, because reliable sources do. See WP:NPOV, "neutrality" at Wikipedia is kind of a different thing to "neutrality" in the colloquial sense, we reflect the mainstream viewpoints published by reliable sources, and give little weight to fringe viewpoints like those alleging widespread electoral fraud; see for instance Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. To get something like this changed is an uphill battle, and would require you to either a) provide reliable sources disputing that these claims are false and establish consensus to alter Wikipedia's description of these claims, or b) change established Wikipedia policy, both of which would be a waste of your time to try and do. We don't give any weight to the original research of editors, such as the arguments you've laid out above. Volteer1 (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fringe according to whom? The same liberal media outlets who pushed Russia collusion for two straight years and wanted Biden to win? 90% of the mainstream media is liberal, so if Wikipedia is limiting "truth" to what they report, it will reflect the same bias. This is why Wikipedia will never be a reliable source of information about any topic which easily lends itself to politicization. Take for example the Secret Service section of this very article. Only critical opinions of the book are included, not one quote praising it. I'm sure there were positive comments about the book, yet they're nowhere to be found in the article. Why are opinions of the book in the article to begin with? Why not just say that he wrote a book about his experience in the Secret Service and leave it at that? Those are rhetorical questions. The reason is he is an outspoken conservative voice, and that doesn't sit well with editors who act as gatekeepers for their preferred ideology.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:e101:d8c9:7c24:317d:2054:e24e (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

If we remove all the links from this wiki post it will help us get this dimwitted whackjob to fade into the ether. 2600:8800:0:6B:CC8C:165D:5335:E08B (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. TGHL ↗ 03:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is extremely hostile to its subject

From the offensive initial sentence to the hostile and sneering tone throughout, there is no way that a claim of NPOV is credible. I might add that a "Wikipedia consensus" based upon "reliable sources" is simply a deceptive way to describe overt left-wing bias. This article is useless as a fair-minded bio of Don Bongino. WBcoleman (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his name is "Dan."65.96.123.186 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Bongino is a self professed climate denier. “These climate change alarmists have been wrong about just about everything. All their charts have been debunked,” he said on Fox in 2019. “The climate’s been relatively stable. There’s not any evidence that storms are out of control. All this stuff is made up.” https://www.foxnews.com/media/the-five-debate-meats-impact-on-global-warming He has promoted an anti-clean energy agenda, including that wind energy was a significant contributor to deadly blackouts in Texas following February 2021 deep freeze, stating that "liberals were trying to cover it up". https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Biggest-Lie-of-All-Ep-1459-Podcast/B08WRW2YQW Msdt188212 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Change "right-wing" to "conservative"

This is needlessly inflammatory rhetoric 162.72.103.117 (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Request

Change "right-wing" to "conservative"

This is needlessly inflammatory rhetoric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.222.142 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Rumble.com/Bongino

I can't get into your web site. it comes up with site not available 2600:1006:B02D:3392:708B:B8AC:7718:711D (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dan Bongino article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Disgustingly biased

On many occasions throughout this bio, false claims are made with very little to no context to support them. Once I got through all of the petty fogging I was able to get some honest substance. Speak facts not the opinions of sheep. 2600:1010:B144:B263:E078:C93D:FF95:36FD (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)