Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Don’t ask for money if you can’t even fix Mark Dice’s information.

Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5E40:35B0:CCF8:A64E:60D8:7476 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Donating or not donating has no bearing on activities here; donations are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, and they generally are not involved in day to day operations. It is not editors asking for donations. If you see incorrect information in this article, and have independent reliable sources to support your changes, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

What has this to do with improving the article?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

Hello, my edit request is regarded Mark Dice's bio/description. In the description it says quote " conspiracy theorist " this is incorrect in that all of his so called conspiracy theories were for comedic purposes and should not be taken seriously, for these reasons I think that the editors should remove Conspiracy Theories from the description. In his book 'The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction' he was not promoting conspiracy theories rather he was separating fact from fiction, and in the first few pages of the book stated the "I am not a conspiracy theorist." Thank You for your time. 7 71.112.160.88 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Since the description comes from independent sources, we'll go with how they label him, rather than how Dice labels himself. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The independent sources are subject to selection bias, as people tend to be louder when being critical of somebody. Dice's critics like to use the "Conspiracy Theorist" label and just leave it at that. The fact is, if you search for the phrase "Mark Dice is not a conspiracy theorist", you'll find examples of other "independent sources" who use that phrase. Perhaps they're not notable enough though because standing up for a conservative tends to not get one very far in mainstream media. ElmoBurnham (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to find sources to support your claims; if you have independent reliable sources that describe Mr. Dice differently, please offer them- but that doesn't change how the ones listed in the article describe him, so a balance would need to be found depending on the proportion of sources that describe him any particular way. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

By "proportion of sources" you're implying that a majority of "reliable" mainstream sources need to describe him as "not a conspiracy theorist" for the label to be removed? So if CNN, NBC, ABC decide to describe him as other than such that's what sticks? Okay then. ElmoBurnham (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you or Mr. Dice does not like how independent sources describe him, that needs to be taken up with them, or Mr. Dice needs to change what he does to cause sources to describe him differently. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

His latest book cites every claim made, there are hundreds of sources, nearly 1000 total. The very definition of conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia vastly differs from this description. There's nothing to change. Maybe Wikipedia should consider changing what it does? ElmoBurnham (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As noted, Wikipedia is not interested in how Mr. Dice wants to describe himself. He is free to describe himself as he wishes on his own website or in his own videos, which he does quite effectively as I understand it. Wikipedia's mission is to summarize what independent sources state about subjects, in part because article subjects(especially people) tend to write favorably about themselves, and that isn't going to change. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

We could say he denies it, not that it is not true.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps Wikipedia can say that the Mainstream media has called him "conspiracy theorist" which he denies. Seems a bit foolish to me that all it takes is that "reliable sources" call you something for Wikipedia entry to then state that is what you are. Two, or even five news outlets, giving someone a label does not make him factually so. I am operating under the assumption that Wiki entries are still supposed to present facts, and not opinions. The fact is that he is CALLED such-and-such by the media outlets. It is not a fact that he IS so. So even if your "mission" is to "summarize" what popular sources say, THAT is what should say: "Popular sources label him..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:D000:A200:619E:6004:F4B3:1B97:C3F (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

True, but its not just 4 or 5.Slatersteven (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no information about his youtube channel?

He has over 1.5 million subscribers and over 300 million views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATPsithlord (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read [[1]], we have discussed this before.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Also read the article, there's some information, including a link to it under "External links". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

ATPsithlord (ec) Subscriber numbers are easily gamed(anyone can create more than one account) as are view numbers(one person watching it 300 million times, perhaps) so those are not judges of notability on Wikipedia. What matters is coverage in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

And since 1.5 million subscribers was covered by a reliable source, it's in the article (noone has removed it on basis that it's not reliable, anyway). It has been argued to lack context, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1.5 million is not a lot, thats not even in the top 5000 youtube channels.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Like that, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Racism accusations

We should include his notable racism. It's quite noticeable through his social media accounts, specifically Twitter in which he claims "Black Crimes Matter," and "You're not helping to combat that "angry black woman" stereotype FYI."

The guy should have some racism accusations in his bio. Emo524 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Per the Biographies of Living Persons policy, we don't put mere accusations in articles about living people. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss Mr. Dice's comments, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Lol you miss the point. In the black community blacks are murder more by blacks than blacks being killed by Caucasians, cops, and other minorities combined and that’s including justified. “Black Lives Matter” normalizes fighting the police and ignores the bad decisions of those who clearly was shot and killed justifiably. They hide the facts it was the actions of the individuals that lead to their untimely death and use skin color as a scape goat. When others in the community see this twisted view on reality they are more likely to do the same thing. Not to mention caucasians are killed by cops way more than blacks every year and 99% that I have seen on tape for cops shooting both whites and blacks were justified. Mfaul92 (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is that this page are for discussing/suggesting changes to the WP-article about Mark Dice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mfaul92: If I see another post like that, I'm applying WP:NOTHERE to your account. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Mark Dice YouTube Statistics

If this is a discussion about Mark Dice is is missing 90 percent of his work and grossly understating the number of people that watch him every day, and his television appearances, number of number one books he has written and number of videos he has posted. Censorship is what i see here. Dan Guthrey (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Be bold and add that information with citations to reliable sources. Keep in mind the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, though. Furthermore, it's our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no censorship; Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources; there may not be any such sources for that information. If you have such sources, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan, you may want to read the WP:NPOV policy. Neutral on Wikipedia probably doesn't mean what you think it does. It's not about given equal space / consideration to all views, but to presenting views in relative weight / perspective as seen in independent reliable sources. The goal is to not present a false balance, but to give the reader an idea of how the views are generally seen. You see barely any mention of the moon landings being faked because those views are nearly universally considered garbage. There's an article about those views, and a bare mention because it does get mentioned in reliable sources from time to time, but that's it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have said this before, the truly notable do not need everything they have ever done listed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

How come if I look up Destiny, a YouTube and Twitch streamer, I can conveniently see on his sidebar that he has about 80 million YouTube views on his channel. Meanwhile, I look on the even more popular Mark Dice's Wikipedia page and I can't even see any stats for him? That is withholding vital information from people who view this page. (NOTE: I altered the title of this section since it seems to be discussing adding his YouTube statistics)JettaMann (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How come if I look up Destiny, a YouTube and Twitch streamer, I can conveniently see on his sidebar that he has about 80 million YouTube views on his channel. In contravention with our SOPs, an editor has added that information without verifying it to reliable, third-party sources. That is withholding vital information from people who view this page. It's apparently not vital enough: none of the acceptable sources we've cultivated in the article mention such. If you have further reliable sourcing, please share it here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So it's clear to me that the community and mods continue their open hypocrisy, in some mad thought that the rest of us will simply fail to recognize the idiocy and extremity to which these people take the line of sanity. The "filthyfrank" "artist" who surreptitiously told kids to kill themselves, through the use of multiple aliases has lots of viewers, and his follower numbers remain posted because apparently being a pseudo-celebrity "youtuber" is great, if your lessons to the world include suggesting to impressionable children their suicide. I see no way of helping this "foundation," under the current set of dynamics. Whatever it was you thought you were building at this, it is a joke, and deserves all the ridicule of an intentional failure. Because every attempt to make sanity, is rebuffed, or more likely simply censored. It's clear enough that Dice not only has a place in his media world, but with 1.5 million followers, has more of a place than many local newspapers. Arguments that I am simply arguing against the entirety without paying attention to grand discussions are disingenuous, those attempts have been chased in proper fields and erased, and IP's censored. I look forward to meeting you good people in person some day. I expect this post will disappear, but will have to find myself challenged by a strike of sanity if it remains. 67.52.60.180 (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

And many local newspapers do not have access to a market of 1.8 billion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

YouTube followers can be bought, and of course not all of the real ones will still be active. We've discussed this before and consensus was to remove them. I see they've been restored. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Youtube followers can be bought, politicians can be bought, Wikipedia editors can be bought. What is your point here? Sounds like censorship to me Kelthazad (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kelthazad: There are entire companies that generate shell accounts that exist just to like and share YouTube videos, Tweets, Facebook posts... But that kind of automated approach doesn't work here because thoughtful discussion is required instead of setting up a script to cycle through a hundred fake accounts and click a "Like" button. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The point is that the number of subscribers he has is irrelevant. It tells us nothing about him or his activities. Now if he was in the top 10 (or 100) youtubeers maybe that might be relevant. But we would still need RS saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand that these companies exist. Someone's facts should be challenged if this is used. However, in the United States (also where Mark resides), a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law." With that said, I do not think it is fair for any one person to claim that Mark Dice had bought views or subscriptions without any proof.

Mark Dice had appeared on multiple television shows, so his renown must be worth something. 1.5 million subscribers is quite a lot. While this doesn't seem to place him in a "top 100", it is nothing to scoff at.

I will digress this conversation, as it is mentioned that his subscribers had been restored. However, I do petition to place that piece of information at the top of the page, rather than buried deep within it. Kelthazad (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If it was a terrestrial TV show with 1.5 million views might get cancelled. The top of the page is for a summery of significant parts of this article. It is not a newspaper style lead.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Kelthazad The US Constitution is not binding on private entities like Wikipedia. No one is saying Mr. Dice is falsifying his subscriber numbers to artificially inflate them- we are only saying that because subscriber numbers are easily gamed, they not usually a marker of notability or a significant piece of information. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not questioning whether Wikipedia has to follow the US Constitution, I think you missed my point. Wikipedia should be built upon facts and tangible evidence. The fact that some random person on the internet can decide what information is important or not is completely opinionated, unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. Even if evidence is supplied, that very same person can decide that "it is not good enough."

Your rebuttal to shows you haven't even validated the information being discussed. Mark has 1.5 million SUBSCRIBERS and over 300 million VIEWS. Please don't misconstrue these facts.

Let's take Drew Lunch for an example. This Wiki summary lists 2.5 million subscribers and 140 million views in the top summary of the page. So how is it really fair for the admins to decide to not readily disclose this information for Mark?

You all are downplaying Mark Dice's achievements and making his page seem like his just some conspiracy theorist with no credibility. This smells of foul play and it really shows that Wikipedia is capable of misinformation, censorship and credibility with its pages and its administrators. Kelthazad (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Drew Lynch Kelthazad (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

So, improve that article (Drew Lynch). Since the cite [2] doesn't support 2 mil, and is probably a crappy source in context per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_245#Are_The_Daily_Dot_and_Tubefilter_reliable_sources?, remove it (the numbers) if you can't find a better source. If you want to make helpful comparisons to other WP-articles, compare with good WP-articles, more at WP:Other stuff exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you random person for reinforcing my point on evidence not being good enough.

You may literally look up any YouTuber and statistics are provided. I was simply providing an example for the sake of discussion. Kelthazad (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Many of us have argued these states are trivial, what would matter is if they are in the top 10 (or 100 or 500), not in the top 6,000 youtube channels. All this does is tell us that Mr Dice is less important than [[3]], that is not much of an achievement.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Has the "YT-stats cited to YT" thing been put in a guideline or something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that I am aware, but YT is not an RS anyway, and we are not a list of trivial information.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, but if one would start to edit articles like say Angry Joe in that direction, a good guideline could be of use. The Drew Lynch example at least made an effort in the secondary source direction. PewDiePie has some secondary sources, but lead/infobox seems to be YT-direct. WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability is not a guideline, but has some points of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No but this is [[4]], of course this talks about video uploads, but the point is anyone can create information on YouTube (and manipulate it). Also WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes into play, what is in fact served by out of context statistics?Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you consider the current "In November 2019, KUSI-TV averaged Dice's daily videos as having 250,000 views and enumerated his YouTube subscribers at "more than 1.5 million".[23]" reasonably in-context statistics? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really, but at least its not in the lede. What does it tell us, what information (beyond a raw statistic) does it impart?Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Point. The numbers are seemingly big and impressive, but big compared to what? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Are they even big, its not even in the top 5,000 and if he were a TV show might even face cancellation. IN fact they are only big and impressive if you are talking about youtube 10 years ago.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to insinuate with "seemingly". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to insinuate with "seemingly". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In other words, “Mission Accomplished”? The point being that WP has successfully made its (incorrect) point appear to be fact. Dice’s main bio description should be “Internet Influencer”. Using “American Conspiracy Theorist”, while technically valid, is about a decade out date. While I enjoy his videos, I am not a rabid fan but at the same time I don’t recall reading anything about “The Illuminati” although I have seen The Bilderburg Group (an actual thing) mentioned on occasion.

My impression of this page upon seeing it last night was a “WTF” moment as it was pretty clear that it was written with a left-wing bias. Now I’m a noob when it comes to page edits and proper WP editing protocols, it was still surprising that the page has to be locked down “to prevent vandalism” so I’m not getting into a hornets nest as my original intent was to change Conspiracy Theorist to Internet Influencer. It all makes it appear (to use an actual conspiracy theory) that Wikipedia is not as neutral as it claims to be. CTyankee1 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

CTynakee1 Like other users, you have some incorrect assumptions about Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about subjects. Any bias in reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. If independent sources tend to describe Mr. Dice with the term "internet influencer"(which I've never heard of, but okay) please offer those sources- though that would not whitewash how other sources describe him. 331dot (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes the Bilderburg Group is a real thing, that does not mean Dice is not promoting conspiracy theories about them, any more than me saying that it is a collection of men who dress as biffo the bear is a fact (after all both they and biffo the bear exist ergo, ipsofacto QED).Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

CTynakee1: You are correct. It does have a left-wing hate bias, just like most everything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia primarily only considers left-wing sources to be "reliable" because they have "authority." No matter how much CNN, the New York Times, etc. lies and gets things wrong, they will always be the most "reliable" and "authoritative". For example, any crack-pot left-wing website is fine, but Breitbart is banned, even though 99% of what they report on is factual. As Dice has written about, Wikipedia is very Orwellian. For a page like this, they block it so only a select few that have hours and hours to waste time on Wikipedia in their mother's basements can edit the articles. Since the mainstream media pretends to be unbiased, people that can't think for themselves will continue to believe everything they say, even though they are demonstrably wrong frequently. Then they'll say you should have WP:GOOD FAITH or some other BS that is not at all what Wikipedia is actually about. Few of them edit in good faith; they edit with an activist agenda. Dice's page is one of the finest examples of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Any Youtube dope is featured on Wikipedia with the amount of subscribers they have. But Dice is only known for "promoting conspiracy theories," which is what he did 10 years ago. Mostly everyone knows him now as a comedic Youtube media analyst, but it doesn't matter, even though all of these people know he is most well known for being a Youtuber. They'll say he doesn't have enough press in NYT, WaPo, etc., which of course won't mention him because he exposes their hypocrisy. And therefore since they don't mention him, he's not notable. It doesn't get more Orwellian. It's a brilliant scam by the evil people in control. I don't waste time looking at how they will respond to this. They will try to pretend to be objective by stopping completely moronic stuff like calling Dice a racist because he said "black crimes matter," but don't be fooled. I do an edit here and there, mostly on nonpolitical articles, but I don't have years to waste to become one of the elite people that control everything, and you likely don't either. I also don't care about learning to correctly format everything, because it's a waste of time.JimmyPiersall (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

JimmyPiersall Apparently you do have time to come here and rant about other users. And I have a 40 hour a week job and live on my own. It is not true that "any YouTube dope" is featured solely based on number of subscribers. That is not a notability criteria because it is easily gamed. If you are aware of such articles, please propose them for deletion. If you have information sourced to reliable sources(of which there are plenty of right leaning sources available) please offer it in a civil manner. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back because Politico just put out an article saying Dice has an "enormous" following. Here is the quote: "While Democratic campaigns and groups spend heavily on advertising on YouTube, they lag in organic content, with dozens of conservative and right-wing figures like Ben Shapiro, Mark Dice and Paul Joseph Watson and more official-sounding channels like Prager University cultivating enormous followings not yet matched by equivalents on the left." I wonder if this is enough for the elites here to allow Mark Dice for being known for YouTube videos instead of "conspiracy theories," which is an obvious attempt to delegitimize him. The article is also locked down because it was inevitable that there would be enough sourcing and reason to mark Dice as being known for YouTube. Also, Dice still isn't allowed to have his 1.5 million subscribers in his info box, but Jawed Karim, the guy who created YouTube and had the first YouTube channel, only has amassed 780,000 subscribers, and is not as famous as Mark Dice, but has his subscriber count in his infobox. There are tons of other Youtubers that have a YouTube infobox, but I'm not going to spend my time searching for them. I just looked up one of the only YouTubers I subscribe to, Kitboga, who is fantastic. He's very funny. He has 840,000 followers, and has a YouTube infobox! Imagine that. But Dice not being allowed to have one is all in WP:GOODFAITH, I know. 1.5 million just isn't enough subscribers to include an infobox!JimmyPiersall (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

AGF and lay of the ad hominies.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification (about what AGF means)

Just FYI: Apparently, "AGF" means: << "Assume good faith" >>.

References

I hope this helps ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Mark Dice is absolutely being censored by this platform. If you are going to pretend to give the facts give them and punish those who write fake stuff.

KUSI-TV

I see that from previous talk page discussions and per WP:NOTCV not all works necessarily need to be listed, especially when self-published. I noticed that the TUSI-TV source seemed to only promote the existence of the book, also presenting it uncritically and without review. Since this was evidence of a press release I tagged the source as such. —PaleoNeonate – 05:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is very subjective and opinionated.

Please give one example of racism and conspiracy theories. No sources? Mfaul92 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Mfaul92 If there are specific passages of the article you have concerns about, please describe them and your concerns. Please note that Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The passage "Dice promoted the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories, claiming that the 2015 military exercises were preparation for a declaration of martial law in the United States" is cited. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I read the section of the NYTimes. It says """Mr. Dice has promoted conspiracy theories that the Jade Helm military training exercise last year was preparation for martial law and that the Sept. 11 attacks were an “inside job.”""".

That section has no attribution. It is hearsay and should be removed from wikipedia. meatclerk (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jessemonroy650: It's community consensus that The New York Times is a reliable source. Unless you have a good source demonstrating that Dice never promoted Jade Helm conspiracy theories in any way, that source is enough. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec)But it won't be, because per WP-reasoning it's a WP:Reliable source, generally one of best as newspapers go. Such is the nature of this website. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And because it's a consistently factual site, despite the noted left-wing bias [1]. However, if nonchalantly complaining that Reality has a well known liberal bias is what you want to do, I'd recommend you to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@GreenFrogsGoRibbit: your link showed up pink on my browser indicating an unreliable source, so I checked to see what it is, and I have to tell you that mediabiasfactcheck.com is not a reliable source, they're an amateur lot. Our article on the NYT does not say it is left wing. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh hel, I hadn't noticed that this is a stale months old thread. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh look, Archive.org saved a copy of Mark Dice's video "Martial Law Round Up Plan for Patriots Greenlighted Operation Jade Helm Exposed", which he took down because that conspiracy theory proved completely untenable and ridiculous.

And don't say this means he didn't promote it, the phrasing in the article is not in present tense but in past tense. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• He's argued that Bitcoin was created by the Illuminati as the Mark of the Beast, the Illuminati putting some pyramid at L'Enfant Plaza, who the Illuminati are voting for (check the video title! Also the general idea that the Republicans and Democrats are working for the same group), the Kardashians being Illuminati (multiple times), and that that Caltech proved the existence of Nibiru. Even if he backed down on the claims that the Nephilim are definitely from Nibiru, he also appeared on the "History" channel show Ancient Aliens to talk about the Illuminati working with the ancient aliens). That's not even bothering to link to all of the 9/11 Truther crap. (Not directed at anyone in particular, just making it clear): up to this point, it has been entirely possible to innocently question whether he promotes conspiracy theories. In light of this evidence, any deliberate argument that he does not promote conspiracy theories would really just be a roundabout way of asking for a WP:CIR WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"conspiracy theorist" [[5]], Where do we say he is a racist?Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't. Anything that points out that an alt-righter is alt-right is bad and a false accusation of racism it seems. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Mention he is far right and has engaged in edit wars on Wikipedia

Should we? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have independent reliable sources that make those claims, please offer them. We don't just mention things to mention them(even things that happen on Wikipedia); content must be sourced to independent reliable sources that discuss the claim. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... While this and other WP:DIFFs are a sufficient record to pass WP:BLP for discussion of his activities on talk pages, they do not demonstrate the noteworthiness necessary for articlespace. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting argument. Did not think of it from your perspective. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah okay, I was confused about the source, because the evidence is literally in the talk page archives. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not engage in WP:OR. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It would not be OR. We would literally link to the talk page archives, but I realize we need actual citations for this. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

While the archives would be enough to get past BLP for talk pages, it doesn't demonstrate notewortiness (that's the element that's OR). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Well noteworthiness is entirely subjective and would require consensus. I, however, do not want to start an RFC to establish consensus on whether that is relevant or not. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Madia analyst?

@Binksternet:, why do you disagree with calling Dice a media analyst? I'm curious to hear your thoughts. X-Editor (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Their edit summary is pretty clear. This label has apparently been repeatedly rejected, so it can be said that there is a consensus that it not be included. If you want to change that you need to present your arguments for including it, the most compelling of which would be evidence of a reliable source using this term to describe him. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I found this Newsweek source. X-Editor (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

My edit summary was mentioned above, so for the record, here it is: "Again with removing 'media analyst'. There was no consensus to include this label in the 2017 discussion nor the 2019 discussion. If you want the label in the bio, start a 2021 discussion."

In the 2017 and 2019 discussions, concern was raised on two major points: that the label "media analyst" was applied lazily by overworked journalists who were getting it from his own website, and that there was a complete absence of reliable published descriptions about how he analyzes the media. The media analyst label was seen as unsupported in context despite its appearance in a few reliable sources. The policy is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. You can look through the talk page archives to read the threads. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thanks for your response. I've decided not to pursue having media analyst in the bio, seeing as it's a very lazy label as you pointed out. X-Editor (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Awesome. Just as an aside for the record, Newsweek really is not what it once was. Prior to 2010 they were a top-tier source, but in the time since they've undergone a number of changes in ownership and affiliation, and from about 2018 on have become increasingly sensationalist, which goes hand in glove with lazy journalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Newsweek is average imo. They aren’t great, but I don’t think they’re bad either. X-Editor (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

We need more than one source for this after all it would be odd to say "according to Newsweek".Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Please post the entire stories as it leaves the reader with an impression of an imposter; and most of the points brought up have a whole story to them. We are not to judge; we may know the truth. 24.200.81.193 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Uppercase “Promoting” in the bio

It is really bothering me. (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't either, where is it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It says “promoting conspiracy theories” as a separate thing he is known for, while promoting is lowercase. Sorry, I’m not sure if that’s called a bio, I’m a new editor here. It’s just below his picture. (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the so-called infobox. I think that's just how "we" do it, compare infobox at Jelly Roll (rapper). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

My life is a lie. Wikipedia, you win. 😭 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Please archive and close, thank you. - Tyrone (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

He is a best selling author. 94.139.154.25 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We mention his books [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• You have not specified where to add the text to. I assume it's the lead.
• Only one source in the books section says that one book is best selling. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 13:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have extended permissions. Could someone please add the other books such as Liberalism: Find a Cure, The True Story of Fake News, Big Brother, & Hollywood Propaganda. It would be a simple task that I would do if I had permission. All one needs to do to see the bibliography is a simple search on Amazon or on his website. The books are widely sold. Thank you CurrentlyResearching (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@CurrentlyResearching Existing is not enough, especially if these are selfpublished. Independent WP:RS who noticed the book and bothered to write something about it are needed, check the refs used in the bibliography section for examples. No blogs, webforums, etc. What have you got? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång If you need sources for the books hes written that leaves out a lot of books then why not change it to "Books written by Mark Dice" instead of bibliography? Supremebloxboy (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What does it add or tell us about him. We can say "and he has written a few books".Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Can use WP:COMMONSENSE and just put that he has self published books, just don't phrase it in a promotional way and I think it serves the reader well. Eruditess (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations being used incorrectly

In the lead there is this sole citation for supporting a line stating "formerly known by the pseudonym John Conner", Yet no where in that entire article does it state that fact. Only mention of a pseudonym John Conner. Also a google search of "Mark Dice John Conner" really only returns this wikipedia article along with a lot of blogs stating he was called John Connor. Can we find any actual WP:RS that says he went by the name John Connor. No blogs. No Opinion pieces. Eruditess (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The question here appears to be whether Dice ever used the pen-name John Conner. He certainly did, publishing the Resistance Manifesto online (archived version from January 2005) under the John Conner name, and then publishing a book with the same name. A later revision of the book is credited to Mark Dice, and it says "The original version of The Resistance Manifesto was self-published in late 2005 by Mark Dice under the pseudonym 'John Conner.'" So the fact isn't really in question, and it doesn't need to be bolstered by a secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet, why dont we add that information to the article, not bolstering if the information is presumed? Eruditess (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I took a stab at it, adding stuff about the website and book, highlighting the pen-name. I also shifted the Resistance section upward to come before the conspiracy stuff, for chronological reasons. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

He is not a conspiracy theorist, he is a political commentator who makes fun of CNN and does prank surveys with strangers. Mark Dice is a media analyst, political activist, and author. Anything but a conspiracy theorist. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4412986/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm He has been on the following series, History Channel's Decoded, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Secret Societies of Hollywood on E! Channel, America Declassified on the Travel Channel, the Sundance Channel's Love/Lust: Secret Societies Horrified895 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: "Conspiracy theorist" is reliably sourced already in the text. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022 (2)

Can you stop slandering people like him. He is an entirely different person once you watch his youtube videos. Referencing mainstream media articles shouldn't count as actual sources. Horrified895 (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:Reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

Remove "conspiracy theorist" 38.101.158.253 (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: "Conspiracy theorist" is reliably sourced in the body and the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

Remove the hateful and divisive language of "right-wing pundit", "conspiracy theorist", and any other intentional language used to defame. 47.197.115.181 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and they describe Dice with those descriptors. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Mark Dice on Wikipedia

Mark Dice is not happy with is article on Wikipedia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqEbZGIimHA Someone Not Awful (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

So?Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Dice is free to feel as he wishes. It is not his article, but an article about him, that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about him. If he does not like what independent reliable sources say about him, he needs to take that up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I did note not only was he not wholly honest (we in fact mention far more about conspiracy theories than just a few books about the Illuminati), but also he manages to throw in some bizarre conspiracy theory implying Soros secretly (or indirectly) funds Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, he did donate, but it isn't a secret. MrOllie (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

But this was not Dice's claim, it was about Soros funding google who then funded Wikipedia. But this is straying well into wp:forum territory, so I will leave it here. Suffice to say I am not seeing how we can use this video, or what relevance it has.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess use as WP:ELMAYBE #4 won't be that popular. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

what did you think of the video MrMemer223 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrMemer223 He seems to be a very shouty man, and not very listenable to for that reason. The louder they speak the less valid the point they make. Did not bother top lists to the end Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

anybody reply to this video LOL MrMemer223 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not that Mark Dice is unhappy with this article on Wikipedia, it has to do with the idea that Wikipedia promotes a Left-Wing bias. I go to these talk pages to correct Left-Wing bias that I have seen in these articles, and will continue to do so, quoting my sources.Easeltine (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Mr Dice is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Easeltine Wikipedia does not "promote" any ideology; it summarizes independent reliable sources. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia; sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves, as you have done. Mr. Dice is free to do the same. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Consider correcting other kinds of bias too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, judge for yourselves, watch Mark Dice videos on the Beach that he does. Obviously, these people do not read Wikipedia.Easeltine (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I did, and as I may have pointed out here they are riddled with innacuracies about this page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

many of the tidbits in this article, the he said she said cat fights and rumor mongering and the one off comments on YouTube are off passing interest and do not read as encyclopedic even if factual. I'm going to condense them down into a representative few paragraphs, and trim the less notable. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2022

Change "Claiming a life-long interest in "current events, politics and how the world works"," to "Dice has spoken of his lifelong interest in "current events, politics and how the world works"." The article is perfectly content to objectively describe him as a conspiracy theorist, yet uses the scrutinous term "claiming" when mentioning something Dice has said himself. DeaconShotFire (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

eh why not --FMSky (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

Please IMMEDIATELY Take out biased far left liberal comments like "false election fraud claim" Election Fraud frequently happens in other countries. It is NOT a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is "objective" not biased and subjective. Mark Dice is NOT a theorist. Left Wing Activists such as this current author are extreme far left activists. Mark Dice's Wikipedia Bio profile is strictly sabotaged by "BIASED extreme LEFT Wing OPINION" not FACT. I request labels and negative comments to be taken out, words such as "false election fraud claims, “and the LIBERAL talking point "Conspiracy Theorists”. These Liberal buzz words are "INFLAMMATORY" and NOT FACTUAL. They take away any objectivity and "CREDIBILITY" in this Wikipedia post. 2601:640:8800:2D90:55AA:DA54:980C:55A8 (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The claim the 2020 election was stolen is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)