Talk:Mark Dice

He got 100,000 subscribers on 5/19/2013

Under the playbutton section in the infobox it says "???" and after some research I found out that he hit 100k on 5/19/2013.

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2018

The three question marks that are where the date he hit 100k subscribers should be changed to 5/19/2013 or "2013" to fit the format. Alex Microbe (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

 Done Fish+Karate 12:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Author?

The lede mentions him as an author based on a casual NYT mention as such. Author implies that he wrote books. Is there any source regarding this? Did he write at least one book? Or just texts on his personal website? Someone Not Awful (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

[1].Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

YouTube subscriber count

Mr. Dice has raised an interesting question on twitter. At least some other youtubers have their subscriber and view counts in the first paragraph of their article. I don't personally know what standard practice is in this area, or what general guidelines are used to determine when this data is included or not. I'd like to discuss it.

He also has other concerns about the article and I've invited him for a civil discussion of these issues. I'd like to remind everyone in advance, Mr. Dice included, that our discussions here must be respectful and kind, and that this is not about evaluating in any way whether his ideas are right or wrong or whether anyone likes him or not. It's about whether this Wikipedia entry is well-sourced, neutral, and an appropriate biography which complies with our stringent rules for WP:BLP's.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimmy. To the Editors: Why does my page read like my career ended in 2015, when my career exploded at the end of 2016? To anyone who has been following my career, it's obvious this page is outdated and casts me in a negative light. I was the first conservative YouTuber to reach 1 million subscribers (2017). And my last two books were Amazon best sellers. The True Story of Fake News (2017) and Liberalism: Find a Cure (2018) both hit #15 on Amazon's best seller list (of all books, not just in a category).

And the "Controversy" section is just as big as the "Career" section! haha. Look at my YouTube videos from the last few years. They average over 250,000 views per video in the first 24 hours after they're released. I regularly debunk fake news from the mainstream media (remember the BuzzFeed bombshell from a week and a half ago that Robert Mueller's office debunked?) My channel is fun and educational, and very popular among Trump supporters. I think it's unfair that my Wikipedia page doesn't accurately reflect what I do, or the impact that I've been making. --MarkDice (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr Dice, can you provide any RS baking these claims?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Remember that subjects of biographies are not expected to know all our jargon. :-) To be clear "RS" means "reliable sources". WP:RS is a good starting point to read about the policies here. Mark, just so you are aware, a conversation like this will usually take several days. Different people live in different time zones around the world of course, and so the people most interested in helping may not be online at the moment. I will also post a notice on the biographies noticeboard to attract the attention of people experienced in biographies but who are unlikely to have any particular axe to grind other than compliance with our broad editorial policies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Mr Dice, thanks Mr Wales we sometimes forget.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

One more thing I'd like the Editors to look at are my Most-Viewed YouTube videos. Dozens of the most-viewed videos I've produced speak volumes about what kind of work I do, and what I stand for, right? On YouTube.com/MarkDice if you click "Uploads" and then click "Sort By" and then filter them by Most Popular, the will be organized in a list from post popular down. What are those videos about? What is the overall theme of them? That's what I'm about, and that should be reflected on the Wikpedia page about me. --MarkDice (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As Mr Wales said above read our polices on reliable sources. In essence we cannot use original research wp:OR to judge what a source says (or what it is about), only take it word, literally (in a sense, we can infer facts). Moreover (and generally, please read wp:sps) we do not use primary sources for facts (only opinions) we use secondary sources. This means that whilst we could use your videos for your opinions "according to Mr Dice..." it would not (for example) trump a reliable third party source claiming that is a conspiracy theory or racist.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

To be specific - we need mainstream media referring to view counts and followers. I did add that The Guardian said you had 317,000 Twitter followers in 2018. If you have links to MSM reporting on your popularity then that would be helpful. Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If I could chime in here and say: let's look at the two examples that Mark produced on twitter of other people whose YouTube stats we do report on. Lisa Donovan and Tyler Oakley. For Lisa Donovan, we used to report on the numbers but as of October 15th of last year we removed them. For Tyler Oakley we still report them and source it to "SocialBlade". Would SocialBlade be generally considered a sufficient RS to cite the numbers? I wouldn't have thought so, as it seems to not be a site exercising editorial judgment but just a site that scrape youtube to create number pages for lots of people - if we did have a practice of listing youtube numbers, it seems obvious to me that we should take them directly from youtube, not from a spammy scraper site. (In my view, this would not in any way be invalid primary research, so long as it isn't some kind of undue synthesis. If someone is famous for being a youtuber, it makes sense to talk about how many video views they have. But it's probably more important to be consistent and thoughtful about the practice across all biographies.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The YouTube channel itself shows the number of subscribers. So does SocialBlade.com, the industry standard for tracking YouTube stats. Also, does Amazon have a database of which books were ranked what over time? I have an Amazon Author's account that shows what rankings my books have going back to the date they were published, but to cite that they were #15 on the Bestseller list (of all books) my personal dashboard can't be used as the source, so is there a public list that keeps track of the historical ranking of books (not the one next to the listing that shows the ranking at this time) I mean one that has logged the rank, to prove they were bestsellers? --MarkDice (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that youtube would be an RS for subscribers. As to books, amazon would only be a source for how many you have sold on Amazon, and I am not sure that is overly encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY would be an issue (as would snapshoting the YouTube subscriber count). We would want a secondary RS discussing this. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not so sure about this. If someone is described by a RS as a "youtuber" that establishes it as a part of their notability, and then there should be no problem with reporting on the latest number as of a certain date. It would be wrong, for example, to say "John Doe is a famous youtuber with over 7,000 followers as of January, 2018." That would be wrong because it isn't really up to us to decide if someone can properly be called "famous or not". I don't see a problem with, having established the notability of the fact, we use the most accurate number available, which is youtube itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question, whilst a YouTube page is a primary source (it is user created) does this apply to content that is created by YouTube itself (such as subscriber numbers), after all this (as far as I know) cannot be altered by the user, it is not his creation?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Not quite. A YouTube counter is WP:PRIMARY (or actually - really just raw data) since it is "original materials that are close to an event" (and does not contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"). It is not user generated, and hence it is WP:INDEPENDENT and probably is reliable to some degree (though YouTube, as well YouTubers, may have a commercial interest to inflate numbers in various ways). However, if no secondary source discusses the YouTube views - including it is problematic per BLPPRIMARY. They might be a source discussing this - I did find the Twitter followers number when searching for a secondary source discussing the YouTube views. Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is more or less correct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I did find - media matters transcript of Fox & Friends from 2015 saying "Mark Dice, whose YouTube channel has over 130 million views" (not sure of RSness - iffy, a bit out of date) and TruNews in 2017 (which does not seem like a RS at all) saying 315 million. Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr Dice is talking about subscribers, not views. I think none issue here (And this applies to Twitter as well) is that this is only going to be a snap shot out of date about 30 seconds after it is posted. I am not sure what encyclopedia such trivia stats are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Aha - I was looking for the wrong term. Per Variety (which I guess will be a RS for this -Variety (magazine) ) in Feb 2018: "Mark Dice, a conservative media commentator with 1.2 million subscribers for his YouTube channel.". Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also - The Hollywood Reporter (as of 2016) - "Dice is best known for his YouTube videos,... His YouTube channel has 630,000 subscribers, and he is adding about 1,500 new ones every day. The channel is viewed 15 million times a month. - so Variety + Hollywood Reporter at least tells us secondary RSes "care about this" - so quite possibly DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This [[2]] might be a start.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Given the above can we hold off editing the article for now as a courtesy?Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I find it very disturbing that Jimbo Wales is once again responding to the demands of a conspiracy theorist with a Twitter following. The last time he caved to Mr. Dice's demands and tried to influence this page, he introduced Amazon linkspam into an article in violation of our policy on primary sourcing, and just plain common sense that we don't link to booksellers. Dice is notable for being a conspiracy theorist. He happens to run a YouTube channel. I personally don't think the subscribers for any person should be included unless it somehow impact their notability and has been consistently commented on. It is frequently changing and that requires constant updating to make sure it is accurate.
  This is just Jimmy Wales trying to help a conspiracy theorist white wash his article by making it seem more positive than what the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources report. He should stop taking Twitter edit requests. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it disturbing. You should not. The fact that you don't like a person is not in any way a reason for us to not take complaints seriously. There appears to be an emerging consensus that it can make sense to include his youtube numbers. If you have an axe to grind, do it somewhere else. If you can point to me suggesting anything that would amount to suggest that we should "white wash" anything, please do, as you have surely misunderstood what I have said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

He is clearly trying to promote positive views of himself, when the overwhelming majority of sourcing views him as a conspiracy theorist. He has been doing this for years, and you have in the past assisted him in it, and you're doing it again. Wikipedia does not exist to promote Mark Dice's views of himself. It exists to report what reliable secondary sources report and how they portray him. In this case, emphasizing how popular he is on YouTube in the lede would be giving an undo emphasis to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Can users please remember to comment on content, not users conduct, if you have an issue with a users conduct either report it or complain on their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to this discussion that the only reason we are having it is because he somehow managed to convince the founder of this project to help him make it seem more positive. There was nothing wrong with the article before, and if Dice or any of his hoard of Twitter followers had come here (like the frequently do) demanding we make this change, they'd be shown the door. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the article in this regard before. There's nothing wrong with not including his subscriber count in the lede: it is difficult to maintain. We already have an (unsourced) box designed to explain when he reaches certain number of users. If there are reliable sources for current numbers, we can discuss it in the body "as of X date" Considering how this discussion came about is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you should permanently refrain from editing this entry and leave it to those who are more neutral.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think TonyBallioni brings objectivity and wisdom to this discussion, and I would encourage him to continue editing, rather than to abstain. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Me too. I think Jimbo Wales should permanently refrain from attempting to throw shade at our best admins. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

Me three. Jimbo Wales, I'm surprised to see you claim that admin X is not neutral and "just doesn't like the subject"--we hear that bogus argument all the time in AfD discussions, for instance. Slatersteven, wut? Whoever you were patronizing, the other party doesn't need your help, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Who said anything about the lede?Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

At least some other youtubers have their subscriber and view counts in the first paragraph of their article. in the first post. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, well that (depending on the article) might not refer to a lede, in this case it does. I am not sure it is relevant to the lede, but might be to the first paragraph in the body (assuming we accept this is not trivia, and I am still not convinced, but I have seen no better counter argument it should not be here). To explain to Mr Dice, the lede is the part of the article above the index which is a summery of the most important points (hence why I think it is inappropriate).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If it can be sourced to a reliable and neutral secondary source, like Icewhiz did for Twitter, I would support including it somewhere in the body so long as it is qualified by date. Discussing that he does have a following is important to show his reach. It should not be included in the lede, because given how short it is, it would be giving it undo prominence that he's just some other YouTuber with a large following. I'm all for including how large a reach he has, but it is important under the NPOV policy to do so in a way that is neutral, both in phrasing and in presentation.

If we can't find reliable secondary sourcing to include it in the body, then it doesn't get included as its trivia. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence that subscriber counts have been manipulated in the recent past (ex: [3]) that we should not be including this information in this article. If it's present in other articles we should remove them from there too. I think we can show Mr. Dice's popularity (or not) in other ways than subscriber or Twitter follower counts (ex: [4]). I want to emphasize that I think this happens to all major content creators and should be omitted not because of anything MarkDice did wrong but because it's a generally unreliable metric through the malicious actions of others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of them either, but if you find the NYT or the Guardian or the like noting it in an article, I think its fair to have them in the body. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Except it's information that is both quickly obsolete and likely misleading even when it was published. So for the 2018 variety source Icewhiz posts below this was before YouTube did a round of purging (an action I coincidentally also cited to Variety) - so its own reporting casts doubt on the reliability of that information. The Twitter example is less than a week old showing that these platforms continue to battle this problem. I am suggesting subscriber counts are inherently unreliable and misleading information don't belong in our articles even if a RS takes note of them at one point in time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, you've convinced me. Was never a fan of them to begin with, but didn't take into account the purges, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable Sources (I think!) for YouTube subscribers of Dice - Variety 2018, The Hollywood Reporter 2016. Icewhiz (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the most important question. As TonyBallioni said, "[Wikipedia] exists to report what reliable secondary sources report and how they portray him". As it is clearly relevant to why he receives media attention, as covered in multiple reliable sources, we need to include it in the article. That Tony dislikes that it (somehow?) makes him look better (it doesn't, being famous isn't necessarily positive) is utterly irrelevant. People disliking someone is totally irrelevant to writing a good Wikipedia entry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What you mean that nice Mr Hilter may not be a good candidate?Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Do we have sourcing from publications like NYT, etc. where he has previously been covered? I don't doubt the numbers, my concern is with the weighting here. That being said, I think those are reliable enough sources for verification. I could get behind including them similarly to the Twitter stats, so long as the time of measurement is included. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I agree w/ barkeep above. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Well - it checks out vs. his YouTube page. If we were to include this, we would say "As of 2018, according to Variety he had Y subscribers". YouTube inflation issues aren't specific to Dice (they're fairly uniform for all YouTubers) - and I do think it is interesting to known he has around 1 million subscribers (as opposed to 10 million or 100,000) - as an order of magnitude it does tell us something about his on-line influence. Icewhiz (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the snarkiness of this comment, but lots of unreliable information is interesting. Given the repeated, continuous, manipulation of subscriber counts and video views on YouTube, and the repeated, continuous, manipulation of followers on Twitter I think despite the interest factor they don't belong in our articles. Full stop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nielsen numbers get massaged too - but let's roll with your comment - Dice is complaining we've got this info on other YouTubers but not him - @Barkeep49: - do we open up a project-wide discussion and nuke this off of the hundreds of other YouTubers (per my estimation - most of the YouTubers notable for YouTubing we've got bios for) with subscription numbers?

I would suggest that project wide we should indeed remove YouTube subscribers and Twitter followers as information in our articles, yes. How we go about doing that is a different discussion about which I would be amenable to a wide variety of methods - for instance I am guessing we could do so a normal edit uncontroversially in most cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

We cannot make Wikipedia wide decisions on this talk page, we can only discus what we do here. At this time the case for consistency is we treat Mr Dice no different from any other YouTube "personality". I find the argument compelling, and at this time it seems we do put such figures in articles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree and support that we follow the lead of many other Wikipedia entries. I'll gather some (rough) statistics and come back with it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No, but we can decide through valid arguments that it would be a bad idea here. That other articles follow a bad practice does not excuse it here if objections have been raised. Regardless, body over the lede if it is decided to include it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree we can't make Wikipedia wide discussions here. Importantly precisely because there is no formal global consensus we are able to make a local consensus decision here. I would suggest that the inclusion of Mr. Dice's followers count is not reliable information. As an example of why see above where Variety (a reliable source) reports on the subscribers, only for Variety (a reliable source) to report a little while later on how such counts were manipulated, whereby Variety casts doubt on its own reporting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I would rather we put this on hold until have have a community consensus on the wider issue, the last thing we should do is have double standards, even if by accident. We are will not be judged by how we treat those we do not care about but how we treat those we hate.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Subscriber numbers have previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube#Numbers in infobox. I oppose removing these numbers for inaccuracy reasons because e.g. {{infobox newspaper}} has |circulation=. I'm not familiar with the reliability of these metrics, including Nielsen ratings, but they are commonly cited and so we can assume that they are useful. See PewDiePie vs T-Series for a tangentially relevant topic. Regardless, over at the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube#Infoboxes and infobox modules, I have made the argument that Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS (a policy). As soon as there is more participation at WikiProject YouTube (which is concerned with all video platforms), I will try to estimate consensus for which infobox parameters should be removed from {{infobox YouTube personality}} in order to propose a merge with {{infobox person}} which is really the most similar infobox (also note {{infobox Twitch streamer}} which will also have to be merged). You can read all the arguments at the WikiProject talk page. With regards to the text, "popularity numbers" do not ever belong to the lead section per WP:NOTSPAM. I am not sure whether they belong to the article body, but per policies WP:V and WP:NPOV I recommend the following course of action: requiring a reliable secondary source for inclusion, using the {{as of}} template, and writing into stone some guidance that these numbers should not be updated without a new reliable secondary source. (Many articles about videos have something like "It has gained X views in the first 2 days" supported by a reliable secondary source) Finally, I just want to clarify that my primary concern has been that YouTubers are a very diverse occupation, so we should be using e.g. {{infobox singer}} for singers who are on YouTube. Madrenergic made the single most important observation, and that is the fact that infoboxes should not be brand-specific. I hope that this comment is considered short, because I did not even attempt to summarize the WikiProject YouTube talk page discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 19:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I was hopeful to see thoughtful discussion around the use of the numbers in the infobox discussions you linked to above. The discussion was thoughtful but was you and one other editor discussing it. This discussion has already had more editors contributing than the discussions you linked to and so I don't think that discussion sheds much light on what the right decision is for this article. As for your circulation question, I will point out that there are two substantial differences: first there are auditing circulation figures and second there is not, as far as I can find, any reliable sourcing suggesting that there has been widespread manipulation of these statistics by malevolent actors - this is not the case for Youtube subscribers/views and Twitter followers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a Reliable Source, a Variety article, that mentions the number of YouTube Subscribers I had at the time the article was published (1.2 million). https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/viacom-vidcon-acquisition-youtube-creators-react-1202693569/

Here are additional Reliable Sources that describe me as a "Media Analyst," FYI.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/6/inside-the-beltway-independent-media-rallies-behin/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/06/tech-giants-facebook-apple-youtube-ditch-controversial-infowars-star-alex-jones.html http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/video-hillary-clinton-supporters-ok-repealing-bill-rights --MarkDice (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, why is "Dice has also attracted criticism and attention for his claim that the United States government orchestrated the September 11 attacks" in the Lede as if it's some central focal point of my existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDice (talk • contribs) 20:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 2 where the WT and Fox stories have been analyzed in the past (pinging Doug Weller and Binksternet as the users from those discussions who are still active and haven’t commented). Your conspiracy theories are noted because reliable sources cover them and they are one of the major reasons you have an article here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, why aren't my last two books mentioned in the Career section, when they were both Bestsellers? #15 on Amazon's best seller list (of all books, not just a category)? My 2017 book, The True Story of Fake News has over 1800 five star reviews from Verified Purchases. My latest, Liberalism: Find a Cure came out in November 2018. Two, best selling books, but the "Career" section on the page makes it look like my career ended in 2015, or that I haven't done anything significant in four years. Writing two bestselling books in the last two years surely should be in the "Career" page. It's not, because the editors are trying to have the page give the impression that I haven't done anything in the last few years. It's pretty shameful. --MarkDice (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Book titles we could enter. However the best-seller bit - we'd need a MSM source. We don't use Amazon directly for this, nor would we use a tweet from you ([5]). Find MSM discussing book sales rankings - and it might be possible to insert. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason this isn't mentioned are the lack of any reliable secondary sources covering the books - I've searched, and am unable to find any sources covering the books. A sentence that you've written those two books could be included but in the absence of any sources nothing more can be written. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

So, just pausing for a moment here, let's collect up the things that we may have some good friendly consensus on...

1. Following the pattern in other articles on youtubers, and because it has been of interest in reliable sources, we can add his subscriber count in the body. We don't have complete consensus on it being in the lede.
2. We can add his latest two books no problem, but what we say about them depends on finding reliable sources. I agree that we generally don't use Amazon numbers directly.
3. Regarding the request about the 9/11 claim, unless it is inaccurate in some specific way, or unless it is something that has been recanted or modified in more recent publications, I see no reason to change it at all. Even if recanted, it still remains pretty core as it is a fairly... noteworthy / notable ... thing to have said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   Jimbo Wales, to your first two points, it may be worth clarifying that both the Youtube subscriber counts and the information about his latest books must be cited to reliable sources. This is in line with the consensus here, and with BLP policy: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. For the rest, I agree with your summary. Bradv🍁 15:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   By my reviewing of the conversation spread across this page, Jimbo, Icewhiz, Slatersteven, Masem and wumbolo are in favor of the YouTube subscribers being included, myself, Tony, and Sitush opposed. Tony and Sitush have indicated that if the information is going to be included it should only be included in the body and not in the lead. Is there anyone who has weighed in on this topic who I have missed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding these topics: in general, Youtube follower counts are information that I support including in the Infobox, but not in the prose of the lead section. A WP:PRIMARY source (namely Youtube itself) is generally fine for this; as Youtube doesn't make historical data easy to access a secondary source would be better if one is available. Recent books published by this author should automatically be included in a Bibliography section (which appears to be missing entirely), otherwise they should only be discussed if reliable independent sources have discussed the book. Simply being an "Amazon bestseller" is almost entirely meaningless; even the New York Times bestseller list is problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the books were removed via consensus at some point because there were no reliable sources that mentioned them as being significant and every single one of them is self-published. I'd have to go through the archives. I still agree with barkeep (assuming this is still his position) that subscriber numbers are inherently unreliable, and shouldn't be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It is my indeed still my contention that YouTube followers are not reliable given the rampant repeated manipulation of them. They do not even meet the WP:SELFPUB standard because there most definitely is reasonable doubt to its authenticity as I document above (and would be happy to further document if asked). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't believe that the number of YouTube subscriptions is any encyclopedic and on top of that, they are massively manipulable. At best, in the body. ∯WBG^converse 07:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

So good they names it twice

Do we really need to say that he is a conspiracy theorist who promotes conspiracy theories in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I know that in the past, he complained about being identified as a conspiracy theorist, but it's really quite hard to avoid. I actually looked (some time ago) into some of his books to see if the term is unfair, and it really isn't. Not only do reliable sources say it, it's hard to see how it isn't kind of obviously true. However, if the argument is that he has recanted on those views, it would obviously be wrong not to report on the recanting - I don't know if that's the case or not. Or if the argument is that we put undue weight on it, because of his more recent success as a commentator who is not involved in promoting conspiracy theories, that's also something worth of consideration.

Your point is more about the writing style, though, and yes I agree completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a stylistic question. I agree it is a bit odd, but it is important to identify the views he holds as such. I'm not sure how to best phrase it, but we need to make clear that the views he promotes are very far outside the mainstream. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

How about

Mark Shouldice (born December 21, 1977), known professionally as Mark Dice, is an American YouTube personality, and author known for his conspiracy theories about secret societies, Satanists and the Illuminati control of the world.

If he is know for conspiracy theories we do not need to say more then that, it makes his a conspiracy theorist by default.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

We've been back and forth over the conspiracy theorist designation before, and consensus was always for inclusion, IIRC. We could possibly split the sentence to avoid repetition. Something like "...is an American conspiracy theorist, YouTuber personality, and author. He has promoted conspiracy theories, such as..." TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Still seem like a tautology, far too needy. Why do we even need this list in such a short lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This is how most biographies of living people start. What's the problem? Natureium (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

They're a big part of the reason why he is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is we hardly discus this (and in some cases not at all) in the body So if they are such a big part of why he is know why are they not a big part of the body?. But the main issue (as I said) is it looks too shout to much like "HE IS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, can YOU SEE HISCONSPIRACY THEORIES, HES ALONNY!.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If they're not discussed in the body, then they likely should be added there since the lede is supposed to just summarize the body. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

So they should be removed until the material is added, as it (at this time) is giving space to material not even mentioned.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As to the tautology, we could always just not mention they are conspiracy theories in the lede, what do we lose?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You know that according to MOS:FIRST, the first sentence of every article describes the article subject and why it's notable (with respect to WP:recentism). The rest of the lead is supposed to summarize the body, as per MOS:LEADREL. If we treat the lead sentence like the rest of the lead, we end up with those articles where the lead sentence is changed to "X is a convicted felon" as soon as X is reported to have been convicted. Of course, that sometimes ends up to be the case after careful discussion, e.g. the article Maria Butina. wumbolo ^^^ 19:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing you say that I disagree with. The current lede conforms with that, though I agree that we could expand more in the body, as I've mentioned, a large part of the problem here is that virtually any change to this article is contentious. The current stable version has been worked on over years into the form it is now, which is a compromise between reporting accurately, while also taking into the constraints of the BLP policy, which does not say we have to report on an article the way the subject wants us to, which has been basically the issue for the last two years, and that we're now fighting over again because Mark Dice has once again managed to get Jimmy Wales to come here to promote his POV on himself.

My largest point here is that the stable version is sourced and has had some sort of consensus for a while. Not everyone likes every bit of it, but it took a while and a lot of disputes to get us here and it is a workable article. It can obviously be improved, but we should not be rushing to change the stable consensus version because Jimmy got a Twitter edit request. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

How are they not discussed in the body? Basically the whole career section is about him as a conspiracy theorist. Natureium (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

And you removed the 9/11 conspiracy, which is what the whole last section is about. Natureium (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This article has gone through so many revisions because we've tried to both take into account the valid BLP concerns while also reporting accurately. That things are in the lede that aren't in the body now doesn't mean they weren't at some point, but the version histories just got confused (I'm not sure, just pointing out that this article has been extensively discussed everytime Dice goes on about it on Twitter, so things getting moved around is entirely within the realm of possibility.) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

We discus two of his conspiracy theories, and one of those in little or no detail (as it is not about his views, but actions in sending DVD to US solders), if it is not in the body (I do not care why) it should not be in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

And the last section is not about his 11/9 theories, they are about his spat with some bloke called Reagan, no not that one (or even the former president).Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that him sending DVDs about a specific conspiracy theory does not mean he supports than theory? Natureium (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No I am saying that what we talk about is the spat, not the theory, so the lede should talk about the spat. The lede is a summery of the article, so that is what it should reflect, what the article considered significant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Everything in the lede, which I just restored, is in the body. It discusses his Satanist accusations, his secret society, and illuminati accusations. It could be flushed out better, but probably part of the reason why it is more discussed in the lede is because that's where the people who come to this talk page periodically take issue with it, so we've been using RS to source it there. We can expand on it in the body beyond what is there now, but we should not remove them from the stable and consensus version of the lede.

I'd be fine discussing the fact that he sent DVDs about said conspiracy theory in the lede, but I'd also like Natureium's views on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I missed the half a sentence on satanism (well no, on an accusation that one woman is a Satanist, I am not sure that qualifies as a conspiracy theory). We have almost as much in the lede as we do in the body, a passing mention. But I can not even find that much about secret societies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think an explanation about DVDs in the lead would be fine, since that's what almost half the article is about. Natureium (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Coming from Jimmy Wales' request on BLP/N , there is absolutely no reason to load up the lede on that much about his conspiracy theories. First, on calling him a conspiracy theorist, the NYTimes article given doesn't support that language, only the book source does, and one source is not sufficient to label someone. That he espouses conspiracy theories is fine, but we should avoid a label not frequently used by sources (in contrast, it is almost impossible to not trip over the use of "conspiracy theorist" with someone like Alex Jones). I would write the lead as Mark Shouldice (born December 21, 1977), known professionally as Mark Dice, is an American author and YouTube personality, known for using his outlets to propagate conspiracy theories related to secret societies, Satanists, and the 9/11 attacks. With all that's in the body, that's all you can really can say and really need. --Masem (t) 18:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That is what I would have thought.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The AJC does, as does WaPo. As I mentioned above, a large part of the reason this article is so choppy is that every time Dice goes on a Twitter rant about this article, we scramble to show them what we say about him is true (see talk archive) and to source it so that he doesn’t get to write his own biography. We have also been careful to balance BLP concerns with accurately portraying his views and what sources say about him. It’s very difficult to write an article when people are being pointed here from Twitter, including the founder of this project. Legitimate concerns should be addressed, but updating this article at the speed of tweets isn’t the way to do it, which unfortunately has basically how it got to this place, TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm reading above in more depth, and I see the biggest issues is that all sense of objectivity about the subject has been thrown out because the media has shown strong contempt for this person. That should not be how WP works at all, per BLP and NPOV. There are absolutely neutral facts like YouTube subscriber count and published books that can be sourced via primary sources without any issue because they are not contentious pieces of information, that would be present in any other page about an author and/or a Youtuber, but suddenly, because this guy is labeled a conspiracy theorists, the rules change for that type of information? That is not how WP works. Yes, I expect to see information about how the media criticizes his conspiracy theory issues from UNDUE, but objectivity has to be addressed first, which seem to be the basic questions that Jimmy Wales is asking about too. --Masem (t) 19:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Objective facts are important: barkeep convinced me against including subscriber numbers for reliability reasons, but its not that strong and I wouldn't mind having it in the body if it was worded correctly and there was consensus to do so. The issue here is that through the subject's own efforts to have his followers change this article to his liking, even minor edits can be controversial.

The argument against including the information in the lede is UNDUE/NOTSPAM as wumbullo has noted. The issue with that when you have someone who is a conspiracy theorist and reliable sources cover as such, overemphasis on one thing that hasn't been covered as much in the media (his subscriber data) in the lede causes him to be seen as "just some other YouTuber", which isn't the case here. That's also not in keeping with NPOV.

In this section, I actually like your wording. I think describing him as a conspiracy theorist is supported by sourcing and consensus (again, see past discussions), and I'm not inclined to let him decide he's not a conspiracy theorist despite major media outlets discussing him as such. If people do think as a stylistic device, we don't say "conspiracy theorist/theory" twice, I think describing him as such (since it is supported by sourcing and is an accurate description) is more important and frames the article neutrally and correctly for readers.

So, in short on your proposed wording, I'd just take out conspiracy theories and add conspiracy theorist if there's a stylistic consensus here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree we have to be vigilant when there's the type of meatpuppetry to get an article changed, that's why 50/300 was made way back from GG. But the questions I'm seeing raised by the subject and highlighted by Wales all seem related to the objectivity of the article, which per BLP/NPOV should be priority. --Masem (t) 19:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is fairly objective: yes, it can be improved, I'd agree (and have said so many times here.) The question is undue weight and that includes what we include in the lede, which is what Wales was promoting here. The conspiracy theorist part has been discussed to death in the past, and has consensus and sourcing. The subscribers issue is distinct, and we have sourcing for it now. If there's consensus to include it over barkeeps objections (which I support), it would be best to include those in the body, as when in the lede gets into PROMO issues, which is of course why Dice wants them there.

If there are other objective facts that can be included, I'd support it, depending on how it is worded. What we want to avoid is portraying Dice as just some youtuber with a couple of weird views as that is not at all what the RS portray him as. Finding the correct balance here is difficult, and that is what the current article tries to do.

I suppose my response is basically "Let's not rush through this because Jimmy has shown up." TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TonyBallioni, including re the objections of barkeeps. And this sort of brown-nosing that seems to go on when Jimbo is around needs to stop: he is just another contributor and his views carry no more weight. I'm sure he would agree with that. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Jimmy was trying to get this expedited (it is never appropriate to rush if someone from social media says something needs to be fixed but editors are blocking it), but more about simply point out the lack of objectivity that was originally raised. It's a 100% fair question, and for myself, part of the larger problem WP has had in the last several years focusing on mirroring what the current media says rather than taking a larger holistic view on controversial topics (Eg avoid recentism in covering these). --Masem (t) 21:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy should stop getting involved because, true or not, some people both on and off Wikipedia think he has some sort of power here and the perception works badly in both directions. As for the sycophants, well, we know who they are. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The best way to emphasize that I have no special editorial power is for me to engage in ordinary editing. And to the extent that my editing has a higher degree of influence than that of some others, this is also a very good thing. It is very important that we all focus on the moral demands of NPOV, even for people we disagree with. I think it very important that I speak up for NPOV.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Except what you’re doing is trying to bully editors who don’t agree with a conspiracy theorists view of himself off commenting here for supposed lack of neutrality and have every step of the way made it seem like those who don’t agree with you on this article somehow have some other agenda. Speaking for myself, I have no agenda other than ensuring NPOV is followed and that Dice does not get to dictate what his biography says about himself, but that it instead reflects what sourcing says. You are actively helping undermine the moral demands of NPOV because some guy with more Twitter followers than you asked you too. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, TB. Jimbo, it is impossible for you to engage in ordinary editing, if only because you have a "higher degree of influence". That you think that extra degree is A Good Thing sounds like arrogance and, whatever it actually is, certainly isn't a positive for the project. You're not even particularly competent when you do edit, hence the Marsden mess and the one I mention below re: the Duchess of Sussex thing. Basically, you try to steamroller things but think that wrapping it up in nice words makes it acceptable. Well, sorry, but I don't wrap it up and I don't think it is acceptable: you need to back off, not just this particular issue but pretty much everything in article space. You've made this bed for yourself. As a compromise, perhaps stop giving hope to people that you could offer assistance in cleaning up articles and perhaps in article space just deal with dead people and inanimate things? I seem to recall you had an interest in the British aristocracy - most of them are dead, for starters. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sitush can you clarify: where do you stand on the YouTube subscriber piece? You say above you agree with Tony including my objections but Tony has stated a first choice (not at all) and a second choice (body only) and it would be helpful if you could clarify for purposes of determining consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I'd rather they weren't mentioned anywhere, in any article, for the reasons you gave, but if we must mention them then we'll have to have some sort of figure in the body from a reliable source. The problem with that latter idea is that I don't think sources actually agree and the figures are easily manipulated, indeed rather pointless in many respects. Eg: the very threads here have probably bumped his figures up a bit, at least for viewing if not for subscribers. This sort of thing is all grist to the mill of self-publicists and we shouldn't pander to it.

If we must, then agree on a source and have a separate list article that shows, say, the top 20 from the source, updated on a fixed basis and admin-locked in between those updates. The bio articles can link to it, the source at least is common to them all and so is the timing. But it still smacks of a NOTNEWS situation. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

As requested, here is a Reliable Source, a Variety article that mentions the number of YouTube Subscribers I had at the time the article was published (1.2 million). https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/viacom-vidcon-acquisition-youtube-creators-react-1202693569/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDice (talk • contribs) 20:38, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

I am not questioning is he is a conspiracy theorist, I am saying we do not need to labour the point in the lede. Our readers may not be informed, but they are not dumb and are capable of understanding that someone who supports conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist without it being smashed into their heads with all the subtlety of half a house brick.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The idea that Our readers may not be informed, but they are not dumb and are capable of understanding ... is unsettling for me but I can't quite put my finger on it. However, for starters, I think you overestimate intelligence and you subliminally overestimate the abilities of many contributors, too. I've seen plenty of "dumb" contributors, all of whom were presumably readers first even if only of one article, such as this one. I come across "dumb" contributors every day and I should imagine they're fairly representative of the wider population. Your faith in human nature etc is touchingly naive. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between not being informed, and being informed yet not getting it. We are telling the reader he is a conspiracy theorist, we do not need to say it twice, if they did not get it the first time saying it again is not going to make any difference if they are that dumb.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone who promotes and creates them is a conspiracy theorist; someone who believes conspiracy theories is a different beast. Dumb? - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What? We say he is a conspiracy theorist, there fore he promotes and creates them. Why do we then need to say he promotes consporocy theories, by being a conspiracy theorist that is what he does.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

As long as it is in 2 separate sentences (which it is) - it is fine. Per the sources in the atricle Dice is a notabble conspiracy theorists (so - it ranks right up with YouTuber). In separate sentence we detail which conspiracy theories he promotes. It only looks odd since they are next to each other. I will add a paragraph break, and the lede probably should detail other stuff too.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say it now reads better (but right now that may not be reliable (by any definition we use). But I would prefer it if there was a line or two between to make sure I am just not reading it right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark here. I've been in a bunch of TV shows, and the only one that's listed is Decoded. I was also in the History Channels' "America's Book of Secrets" and here's a Reliable Source...the History Channel's own website which mentions me by name. Is that a good enough source for you guys? Here: https://www.history.com/shows/americas-book-of-secrets/season-3/episode-7 --MarkDice (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I would rather we did not clutter up the article with every TV show appearance you have. Really we should only have your major work.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need to list them all, but it should indicate that it's been a dozen or so, and mention at least two. The haters are trying to hide the breadth of my career and the shows I've been in to downplay my work. It's only fair to fix the article to reflect that I've made appearances in a variety of national television shows on the History Channel, E! channel (secret societies of Hollywood) and the Discovery Channel. --MarkDice (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Analyst redux

Here are additional Reliable Sources, that describe me as a Media Analyst.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/6/inside-the-beltway-independent-media-rallies-behin/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/06/tech-giants-facebook-apple-youtube-ditch-controversial-infowars-star-alex-jones.html http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/video-hillary-clinton-supporters-ok-repealing-bill-rights --MarkDice (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

These have been discussed before multiple times and held not to be reliable (see archive). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

So TonyBallioni, Fox News and the Washington Times aren't reliable sources? That's ridiculous. --MarkDice (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussion can be seen at Talk:Mark_Dice/Archive_2#Analyst?. The Washington Times has a broadsheet version and a tabloid edition. To me, it looks like not a very reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Fox News definitely is not reliable. And a quick way to make someone a laughing stock would be to do inline attribution, ie: "According to Fox News ..." - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me guess, you think CNN is a reliable source? hahaha. --MarkDice (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to point to a recent discussion at RSN here [6] that there is consensus that the news part of Fox News is reliable, if not biased - that second source is usable, but it is also only one source. But there are other parts of Fox News, particularly its talking head and opinion aspects like Insider, that we should definitely treat with extreme care and avoid as an RS for factual information. --Masem (t) 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Insider definitely isn’t RS nor is WT. The other Fox source is from their media reporting division, which has some issues as it typically tries to portray non-right-wing news sources as untrustworthy, so while it may be RS to some facts, I’d put it on the very low end of acceptable Fox sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As I noted, it's biased (very few news sources aren't these days, but that doesn't make then non-RSes). The only issue in this case is that searching Google news, the only usable source calling Dice a media analyst is Fox, making it a questionable title to add, even though in an OR-way one can argue it does apply. --Masem (t) 22:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There is [7], [8] and [9], but [10] says "self-described". wumbolo ^^^ 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I was aware of that discussion, Masem. It isn't reliable for this. You may as well cite Russia Today for saying Putin is an Olympic high-jumper. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/21/a-short-history-of-the-word-dotard-which-north-korea-called-trump/?noredirect=on

The London Telegraph calls me Media Analyst here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/12/09/dumpstarwars-alt-right-twitter-call-rogue-one-boycott-claiming/

The Kansas City Star calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/article224555505.html

The Daily Caller says I'm a media analyst here: https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/23/cnns-chris-cuomo-wants-tolerance-of-naked-men-in-womens-restrooms/ --MarkDice (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

NewsBusters calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/06/03/london-terror-attacks-cnn-host-reza-aslan-curses-out-trump

Miami New Times calls me a media analyst here: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/walmart-allegedly-pulls-rick-ross-album-from-shelves-over-trump-assassination-lyric-8124365 --MarkDice (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo one is new, and needs to be analyzed. To my knowledge, all of the rest had previously been discussed and either rejected as not reliable or as simply repeating the description Dice gives himself. I’m open to analyzing the WaPo source in light of this, but I would want a strong consensus before adding it to the lede as the consensus for literally every other source has been its lacking for one reason or another. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the UK Telegraph casts Dice as a member of the alt-right which does not lend any credence to his named career as "conservative media analyst". They're saying "don't believe this guy". Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The article unambiguously states in its own voice "conservative media analyst Mark Dice". wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Not quite. The article says that some alt-right people have been touting ridiculous beliefs, then it lists a few including Dice. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, the WaPo article from September 2017 mentions Dice in passing, without describing his career in any detail. Other observers who do focus on Dice describe him as stating his own beliefs rather than analyzing the media. When he talks about the media he overlays his conspiracy theorist viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If you know the style of the Telegraph, you'd recognise that article as being an extended comment along the lines of "what a bunch of crazy people". It is evident from the very first paragraph and is the theme throughout. And it isn't as if the Telegraph is known for its liberal political stance. - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the issue here one of legitimisation? Calling someone a "media analyst" rather than a "conspiracy theorist" or something similar almost gives them an academic status. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, yes, that has been the concern in the past. You have someone who is trying to control how their own biography reads. We do have NPOV and BLP obligations, but part of the NPOV obligations is making sure Dice is covered accurately, which in his case happens to be predominately negative. We don’t want a hit piece, and have a moral obligation to prevent that, but we don’t want to portray him as anything less than he is either. There’s a difference between a conspiracy theorist who comments on the media (Dice and virtually every other conspiracy theorist) and a media critic who happens to also believe conspiracy theories. The latter describes your crazy uncle, the former describes someone who is causing actual harm to the public. We have an obligation to frame it in the correct light, and that is a difficult balance. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"You have someone who is trying to control how their own biography reads." I think that's obviously false. He is trying to get things that he views as errors corrected, and you don't like him, so you inflate that legitimate right of complaint into some kind of transgression. I don't at all find your either/or here compelling, for a couple of reasons. First, I think you may have accidentally written this backwards. A crazy conspiracy theorist uncle who comments on the media (as they all do) doesn't really cause harm to the public. A media critic (who writes books and has a million followers on youtube) who also believes conspiracy theories strikes me as much more likely to have a negative impact on the public. But perhaps that's what you meant to say?

But further - your view that he is causing damage to the public is not in any way a reason to try to make his article more negative. That isn't our job, it isn't what NPOV is about. What I hope you can do is see that if you want to sound the alarm about some things in culture that you don't like, it's extremely important to be accurate and factual. If he's just a crazy uncle, then we don't need an article. It's the fact that he has impact on culture (whether we agree with it or like it or disagree with or hate it - all of which is irrelevant) which makes him notable in the Wikipedia sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This statement contains so many errors I don’t even know where to begin:

1. NPOV requires that we accurately portray the subject as he is covered in reliable secondary sources, assigning due weight. If that coverage happens to highlight negative things about them that they don’t like, we highlight the negative things about them that they don’t like.
2. I got my order correct. A conspiracy theorist who peddles his harmful theories to the public is much worse than a media analyst who privately believes conspiracy theories. There’s a major difference there and it strikes at the heart of NPOV to portray it accurately. The conspiracy theorist/media analyst point has been discussed to death in the past, in fact as a neutral 3rd party, it was one of the things that first got me involved with this article when more eyes were requested for review.
3. Yeah, he’s been trying to control what we say about him for years, and this is the second time he’s recruited you to undermine the work we’ve done to achieve a consensus version of this article. If you don’t believe me, Ian.thomson can discuss how difficult dealing with the twitter followers was even two years ago.
4. You’re right. He’s not the crazy uncle and sources make that clear. We have an obligation, both to our readers and to him to portray him as reliable, independent, secondary sources do.

I will again repeat how disturbing it is that you are throwing your weight around based on a twitter request of a person who has been trying to undermine our editorial processes for years. The current stable version is a product of years of work and compromise to get to a place that takes into account valid BLP concerns while also not portraying Dice for anything less than he is. Your intervention here seriously damages the project you founded, and you need to stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a Bachelor's degree in Communication, so yeah, I have the credentials to be a media analyst...and that's what I do on my YouTube channel, and in my bestselling book, The True Story of Fake News. Not to mention the multiple Reliable Sources that also identify me as one --MarkDice (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well, anyone who uses the words "fake news" in the sense that you do is almost a self-describing conspiracy theorist, sorry. You're entitled to your opinion but even, say, a million people, agreeing with it (and some probably buy it for laughs or out of curiosity) doesn't come close to the number who would consider it bizarre. It doesn't matter that the book is a "bestseller" (if indeed it is, and on whose terms): plenty of stuff sells well that is obviously not particularly good for mankind. Heroin springs to mind. - Sitush (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You know someone can be an right wing media analyst and a conspiracy theorist at the same time?Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes but right now we don't say media analyst at all. I think it fairly obvious that when multiple reliable sources call him that, when he calls himself that, and it is plainly obvious as a matter of simple fact that a huge portion of his published work is... analyzing the media... that it would be silly not to include it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I Agree, being an analysts does not mean you are right.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• A couple years ago, Dice did rally a bunch of users on Twitter to replace "conspiracy theorist" with "media analyst," or use that title to downplay conspiracy theorism as much as possible (including legal threats). His analysis of the media is conspiracy theorism, but then again we're already being redundant since CTs are what his books and Youtube videos spread as well.

If it'd get this over with, I'd be fine with "conspiracy theorist, media analyst, Youtube personality, and author." Don't hide conspiracy theorist in the middle as if it's a side gig, the other three are the means by which he spreads his conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No issue with that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I’d put media analyst after YouTube personality but before author if we’re moving towards “We’ll add it if you shut up”, which this basically would be. He’s a YouTuber before any of the other professional things, and the order here does matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I oppose putting conspiracy theorist first because there are only two articles (Ralph René and Jeff Boss) out of about 90 in Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists that do. I am neutral on including media analyst or media critic, though I prefer the latter for consistency with Category:American media critics. My concern is that Dice is independent, so the article media analyst does not seem to accurately describe him as he has not worked in the media. wumbolo ^^^ 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you link to one who is primarily notable as a conspiracy theorist.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones wumbolo ^^^ 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Both Jones and Dice's media output either advances the CT worldview of an NWO or are else stories to complement and reinforce that worldview (even if they disagree on specifics). I don't see why the Jones article lists him as a radio host first and conspiracy theorist second, either. Or David Icke for that matter. The only reason I can think of is that it makes the references look nicer.

I'm curious how many of the individuals in the 9/11 CTists category are those whose works primarily promote CTs (e.g. Jones, Icke) compared to those who are notable for other reasons but just happen to advocate CTs (e.g. Ed Asner). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Frank Gaffney. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the need to mention media analyst in the lead at all, since to mention it would require us to use words we tend to avoid, such as "claims to be" or "self-styled". It is pretty much a self-styling, as even the sources he mentions suggest. Having a degree in something doesn't necessarily make it what you do after completing that degree, and his "analysis" - after a brief scan of his Twitter stuff - seems, in my entirely subjective opinion, to be little more than rantings. Perhaps his YouTube stuff is different (I can't check, and if I said why here I have little doubt that he would turn it against me) but on the evidence of sources that I have seen, it doesn't wash. And, like TonyBallioni above, it doesn't help in swaying me that it is Jimbo who has raised the issue. We have systems in place for dealing with subject objections and while Jimbo is entirely within his rights to use them he should know by now that his presence is almost always toxic and his understanding of policy and consensus isn't anything like as good as he likes to think it is - anyone remember the Duchess of Sussex "bit of fun" last year? I'm quite happy to be the boy who shouts out about the emperor's new clothes if the, er, cap fits. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude – while the term "conservative media analyst" is supported by several sources, including WaPo, we don't need to include every single title given by the media, nor should we. Other terms used to describe Dice are YouTube wingnut, right-wing online activist, rightwing conspiracy theorist, mainstream media critic, and far-right YouTube pundit. The current lede "YouTube personality, conspiracy theorist, and author" seems to summarize the subject well, so I say we leave it. Bradv🍁 16:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a title he claims himself (indeed claims academic accreditation for I believe) that the media have often accepted. This is not some title bestowed by the media.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)