Talk:Dan Bongino

Really? The terms being used in the USA are either conservative or libertarian on the right and liberal/progressive/socialist on the left.

To put this judgmental term in the first sentence of the introduction proves the left-wing tendency of the writer of the article and promotes a certain biased framing. If you would listen to Bongino you would realize that he is mostly right of the time but thats a different story. Change the word "right" to conservative.

80.131.60.133 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

I won't take a stance either way on which direction the bulk of media considered reliable by Wikipedia leans, but one must understand that one of the major tenants of Wikipedia is "Verifiability not Truth". It may well be a double edged sword at times, but it certainly beats the alternatives. Although perhaps slow going at times, similar to a slow-moving republic vs a monarchy and their ability to force their whims through, the best solution would be to request a reconsideration on which sources or reliable or perhaps even a request for Wikipedia to entirely change its stance regarding left and right wing descriptors perhaps based on how outdated and/or subjective they are. Until then, however, Wikipedia goes off of what reliable sources say even in regards to such political descriptors. Kensai97 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Dan is not a 'STAUNCH' Supporter of Trump. As with all liberal media, the tone is grossly misleading in an effort to undermine a star of the conservatives. 24.13.95.34 (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I can get behind this change. Neither source mentions the word 'staunch' at all, and at least in the case of the first source listed there isn't any other similar used either. I can't confirm if that's the case in the second source as it is behind a paywall, but I was able to successfully run a word search through the article before the wall went up to confirm a lack of 'staunch's. That said, please assume good faith. Saying the resulting tone is 'grossly misleading' is one thing, but the rest of the sentence was unnecessary and only serves to cast aspersions on the motive of an editor. Kensai97 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I have no particular opinion one way of another with respect to Mr. Bongino but the way he is portrayed in this article is very demeaning. Being anti mandate does not imply that one is anti vaccine. Also, elaborate on his businesses. Don’t imply there were nefarious practices. 168.235.137.251 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Plus using NYT descriptor "far right" then locking editing on the page betrays Wikipedia left bias. Try searching Wikipedia for "far left" as descriptor of subjects. MurMiles (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

The NYT article doesn't use the term "far right" though it frequently describes him as "right wing." Conservative seems to be favored over "right wing" in similar biographies (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh). I'll leave as "conservative" for now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Since Bongino was permanently banned from YouTube, should these categories be removed from the bottom of the article? "American YouTubers", "Commentary YouTubers", "Male YouTubers", "News YouTubers". The category "YouTube channels launched in 2013" is still accurate. But he is no longer a current YouTuber. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd lean towards keeping them in much the same way that an actor/actress would still be referred to as such even after retirement or death due to their earlier work. This is also the case even if someone acted only in films which are now completely lost. Obviously being forced off the platform is at least a bit different though. Unless, of course, there's a good replacement already in existence such as 'former youtubers'? I haven't checked yet while writing this. If there is, I'd lean towards swapping them out. If there isn't, I'd lean towards keeping them. Kensai97 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I removed them, before seeing this. They're not applicable IMO, as the subject is no longer provides content to youtube, nor can his old content even be viewed there. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

What's the other half? Is there a reason it's not stated?65.96.123.186 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Usually when only half is mentioned like this, the other have is just generic white American, really. Not a big deal. ValarianB (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Half Yog-Sothoth like Wilbur Wateley, obviously. Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

This is not a page about Covid or policies related to it, so using the word "falsely" here is inappropriate, especially because no citations were provided to back up this assertion. Let the quote stand on its own without making a personal stand on the issue of Covid policies.Chrkelly (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

The citation is literally at the end of the sentence you refer to, New York Times. ValarianB (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

The New York Times citation requires a subscription so I can't view it. The second one contains his quote (which I was not disputing) but does not contain any evidence or even an assertion that what he said was indeed false. My point really is that an article about Dan Bongino is not the place to spark a debate about what Covid policies are appropriate/effective/whatever. Whatever statements he has made are certainly fair game for inclusion, but applying the word "falsely" here veers off from strictly facts about him into editorializing about what he said. Chrkelly (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Chrkelly, please read Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic which has hundreds of high quality references. I subscribe to the New York Times and I read that article. It called Bongino's claim false and it is false. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Only certain masks are effective i.e. N95, military protective masks made for biological and chemical agents. Most masks that people wear made of flimsy materials are completely ineffective in stopping any transmission of disease. Dacroce1 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

There are now, well over 65 "peer reviewed" studies showing that MASKS- INCLUDING N95’s... do not work on viruses!! The particles are to small. The cdc just said that an n95 mask will not work on smoke!!! AND YOU CAN SEE SMOKE!! At best, an n95 mask may filter out 95% of particles smaller than 10 microns... viruses are between 1.2 and .06 micron. See the problem?!? 2605:59C8:28F5:6A10:F490:AB71:3BF3:E6EF (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you have a reliable source for "The cdc just said that an n95 mask will not work on smoke..."? Faolin42 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

"Bongino has called the investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion a "total scam",[42] and is a proponent of the Spygate conspiracy theory.[43]" Given the information released to date from the Durham investigation the assertion that Spygate is a conspiracy theory is not correct. I respectfully suggest that the last part of the above text should be changed as shown below:

and is a proponent of the Spygate conspiracy theory.[43] - should be replaced by and correctly spoke out against the Spygate collusion against President Trump.

PatriotComeLately (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

No, nothing's changed. There is still no evidence for Trump's false claim that the FBI planted a spy in his campaign. He was repeating one of McCarthy's conspiracy theories. Read the Spygate (conspiracy theory) article. You'd have to use reliable sources to make the change there before you'd have any success here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me ) 18:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I wish to add the hyperlink for the Bongino Report (i.e., https://bonginoreport.com/), where it is mentioned. Seems biased that the Drudge Report has its hyperlink associated with its mention, but not the Bongino Report. Jbshields59 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

The link to the Drudge Report is a link to its article on Wikipedia, not to the website itself. The Bongino Report doesn't currently have a Wikipedia article, so it would appear as a red link to a non-existent article, as you see here. You're welcome to write an article about that site, if you can provide sufficient reliable, published sources to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and verifiability. Such an article could contain a direct link to the Bongino Report, as its official website. ‐‐ElHef  (Meep?) 13:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Change: " he promoted false and baseless claims of voter fraud."

To: "he promoted claims of voter fraud."

Change: falsely claiming that face masks are "largely ineffective"

To: Claiming that face masks are "largely ineffective" 2600:6C5D:477F:1B00:5C21:6639:B914:5CBE (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done: No. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Like a lot of songs have him obsessing over him, even asking to be his son. has bongino responded to nick? Korris8 (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

This section should not really be titled "political views" because it doesn't actually talk about them -- it is just a list of instances in which he said things that were very dumb, which is not really the same as an explanation of what his overall views are. Some of the stuff has seemingly nothing to do with politics at all, like this:

In 2019, Bongino published Exonerated: The Failed Takedown of President Donald Trump by the Swamp. It was on The New York Times Best Seller list with a dagger (the NYT Bestseller list version of an asterisk) indicating the book benefitted from bulk sales. In August 2020, he denied that his book benefited from bulk sales, maintaining the only event at which books were bought in bulk took place over a month after his book appeared on the list.

The entirety of this sentence (aside from the name of the book and its publication date) are an irrelevant aside about how the New York Times calculates its bestsellers, and then some random thing he said about that. Yet the book was, presumably, full of his political views -- why not mention what they are?

I cannot imagine that they are so nuanced it's impossible for us to discern them or describe them. He is some guy who had a show on Fox News; this is not a Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel situation.

I imagine it would be very easy to say what his views are, since he has spent many years as a pundit, where his job is to sit around and express them all day every day. If they are dumb, that should not make any difference: we should still explain what they are. Surely someone has written about them in a source we can cite?

However, in the meantime, and given that nobody has yet done this, I don't think the section should be called "political views", and should either be part of the body text, or be called something else like "statements". jp ×ばつg 🗯️ 22:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This Wiki must be revised, the information is out dated. The whole premise that Spygate is "conspiracy theory" is false, Russia collusion has been proven to have been paid for by Hillary Clinton and the parties involved in it's creation were coordinated by CIA head, John Brennan. Every name mentioned in that book and the assertions of their actions have also been proven as factual. His follow on books titled "Exonerated" and "Follow the Money", support and prove his reporting in Spygate as factual. Work to oust Trump from office is not a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy. Wikipedia has not updated his work since 2019, which shows his 'theories' are factual but instead they have updated the slander against him. 130.76.113.63 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your assertion is at odds with our Spygate (conspiracy theory) article, and unless there is consensus to update that article, there's no reason to update the Spygate content in this article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dan has not even been sworn in yet. He is winding down his show and legally divesting himself from his business. Currently, he will be on Rumble until March 14th 209.87.169.132 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is there a source we can cite for this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

update the information that appears in a Google search result snippet from a Wikipedia page. From conspiracy theorist radio show host to former U.S. secret service agent and NYPD officer USuckIT66 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The lead does not summarize the body of the article. Anyone want to take a stab at it? I might if nobody else does first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Could you explain in what a way the lead does not summarize the body? -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I mean, go section by section -- there are entire large sections that aren't even mentioned in the lead. The lead isn't just a list of titles and positions; Wikipedia leads are fundamentally summaries of the article, usually in rough proportion to aspects of the subject as represented in the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do we have a source saying he has started his FBI job? -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]