Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyGzpIOIniI

Failing general notability guideline

I have done WP:BEFORE, and I couldn't find any significant WP:RS coverage in GNEWS, and no coverage whatsoever in other searches. Let me break down Dice's mentions in online sources:

1. Very often sources, admittedly very often very reliable, include a tweet by Dice followed by a very short description of his job and/or his context, usually insignificant. Tweets and Twitter drama are not noteworthy, e.g. failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, that is why we do not have a "List of tweets by Donald Trump" even though probably nearly all of them are discussed in RS.
2. Not sure but this source might be downplaying Dice's notability: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfls-conspiracy-katy-perry-satanic-witch-illuminati-20150126-story.html
3. We are citing a media criticism organization? Breaching WP:BLP much?
4. I found one more significant source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/whats-next-alt-right-milo-yiannopoulos-mark-dice-plan-new-projects-945250

Disseminating the lead:

1. YouTube personality* — WOW! a shocking FOUR videos by Dice are notable!
2. conspiracy theorist — why do we have the conspiracies backed by Dice listed in the lead sentence? They are very obscurely mentioned in sources and usually only in Dice's tweets and books (see below for books). I would only ever mention them in some section in a comprehensive FA
3. author — three^† RS call him an author. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

* alright, some RS do mention the fact that he has a YouTube channel and does man-on-the-street interviews and vlogs
^† maybe four?

And finally, the only notable things Dice did were uncover one hoax, organize one protest, and send some papers to troops in Iraq. This is my take, and I believe all sources I have not mentioned but currently appear on the article are primary and are not third-party, and can only breach WP:SPSBLP. I don't want to just nominate for deletion and get an extremely heated discussion without achieving anything, especially if my concern of WP:GNG is unsubstantiated. wumbolo ^^^ 11:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Feel free to nominate for deletion, but someone who has been covered in the NYT and the Guardian is unlikely to be deleted. Re: conspiracy theorist, the NYT discusses him in context of his conspiracy theories as do other reliable sources. It’s kinda why he’s notable. That’s why we have it in the lead. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This and this (blog?) are the only Guardian articles mentioning him. These mentions are very trivial. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail I don't see any detail in the Guardian and NYT sources. wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The source you claim is downplaying Dice's notability is not: Notability is a feature of WP editing and news outlets don't care about it. That source was downplaying his credibility, nothing more. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is perfectly acceptable for the BLP claims for which it is used; their accuracy has never been disputed by any other RSes and the worst criticism ever leveled at them is "they lean to the left a bit". The rest of your commentary reads like a newb's WP:IDONTLIKEIT complaint. What you leave out of your commentary is even more telling: References actually used by the article include academic books, noteworthy reviews of Dice's books, articles specifically about Dice, and several more articles that devote significant coverage to Dice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? You say academic books, I see zero books at all in the references, except Dice's and one that only supports two words: conspiracy theorist. noteworthy reviews of Dice's books I don't see any, please tell me which references are reviews. That source was downplaying his credibility then we should address it in the article, or do YOU not like it? several more articles that devote significant coverage to Dice Yes, I agree that Dice is notable for organizing one protest, making four YouTube videos, and sending papers to Iraq. articles specifically about Dice I'm sorry but please be more specific which articles you are referring to here. You cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT; however, I have been checking WP:RSN regularly while reading through the references. For now, I will give you that a "media criticism organization" can be used as a reliable source. Finally, this article is the only reason why I will not nominate this article for deletion, and I forgot to mention it before because I completely skipped over it. wumbolo ^^^ 15:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to test community consensus here, you are free to open an AfD. If you need help filing, let me know, and I can start it procedurally. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I see zero books at all in the references, except Dice's and one that only supports two words: conspiracy theorist. See this book, published by Springer Publishing, which is reference #4, and is most certainly not written by Dice. As for the rest which you claim you can't find: they're all in the references section of this article. If you can't be bothered to go through it, then I'm not willing to help further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I understand that. I am only saying that it does not demonstrate the subject's notability in the slightest. You say that the references contain noteworthy reviews of Dice's books. I have gone through the references again, and if you think this is a book review, you're very wrong about what a book review is. wumbolo ^^^ 17:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And a books notability is not only created by reviews, wider coverage can also crate notability (which means people have noticed it, it is not a measure of popularity or critical acclaim).Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Exactly, I can only find one interview discussing a book by him. wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability guidelines apply to articles, not content. We only need on source for this book. We only need more then one source discussing Dice to establish his notabilty.19:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate the article for deletion, if you must. The result of that will be a wasting of the community's time with no practical change. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Currently I don't have any idea of how this article is supposed to look like when it is improved, so I cannot really say it is lacking. Wasting of the community's time is my big concern, as there were big discussions regarding this article before, and I want to properly present my points. wumbolo ^^^ 15:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If he is not notable AFD it, if he is notable then this is not the right question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: notability is based on reliable sources, I am trying to get input on which sources are reliable at all, and then try to formulate whether the article is notable based on those sources. wumbolo ^^^ 16:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Then yes your question was both wrong (this is an RS, not notability question) and in the wrong place. You would have to raise this on the RS board.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, this is not the right place for RS discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 17:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, feel free to take this to AfD for community review. The consensus on this talk page is pretty clear, but raising it to the broader community is always an option. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I was not anticipating this volume of opposition, I wanted to possibly WP:PROD the article. The previous notability discussions were ten years ago, and Wikipedia and available sources have changed since. I think we would normally A7 YouTube channels with less than a handful of their videos appearing in RS. I also hoped to easily demonstrate the lack of sources for the self-published books. wumbolo ^^^ 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There's opposition because this article has been subject to frequent attempts at whitewashing, sometimes driven by the subject himself. He's been covered in reliable sourcing, both mainstream books and mainstream press, for some rather negative things: he and his followers don't like that, and wants to impact how the world view him on Wikipedia. Deletion is an easy way to whitewash if the article can't be made positive. This article will not be PRODded (I will remove it if someone else here doesn't first). Again, you are more than free to take it to AfD if you want to test community consensus: that is okay, and it would be a good faith nomination, but this article unquestionably does not qualify from PROD at this time, as it would not be uncontroversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:Did you really think that this was an "uncontroversial deletion" and really expected "no opposition to the deletion"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Also notability is not temporary, if he was notable 10 years ago he still is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Large removals

I object to these removals. Some of the material are primary sources, yes, but those are sufficient for verification purposes, especially if it is for things such as the books he has self-published and what he claims about himself. I think we should restore the material that has been removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no valid rational for these removals. No real objection was raised baring a few vague assertions (and now wikilawyering using an essay of all things)Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This looks like WP:POINTy editing to me: This editor encountered a lot of pushback upon suggesting they might PROD this article, and now seems to be lashing out. Those edits don't even make any sense to me in that there's apparent direction to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As he has now walked away we can stop discussing this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Perhaps I am not the most impartial person to ask, but the description of Mark Dice in the lead as a conspiracy theorist seems debatable. A quick internet search for mark dice shows various sources describing him as a "right wing commentator" or a "conservative pundit" as opposed to someone like Alex Jones who is called a "conspiracy theorist" which he doesn't deny. Here are some examples from a quick search I did:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/twitter-suspends-conservative/ https://thinkprogress.org/trolls-fake-starbucks-coupons-racial-slurs-f456ebe52b05/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/twitter-suspends-right-wing-commentator-mark-dice-for-saying-transsexualism

The secret societies stuff could perhaps be moved to a new sentence, paragraph or the career section.

Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• It is cited to a reliable secondary source. We cover what reliable secondary sources say. This has been discussed many times before. I don't mean to sound flippant, but is he tweeting about us again?
  Also, as for the sourcing, Lifesitenews.com is the exact opposite of a reliable source. Western Journal upon a quick review seems to be a partisan online website. I'm unfamiliar with that reporter at Thinkprogress, but I'm generally not a fan of using them as an RS, so, it seems if those are your best sources you are coming up blank. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's see: The New York Times, in an article about fake news, said, "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'." The assertion is backed by an excellent reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, would you mind adding that citation to the lead (in addition to the GBooks)? I used the Google Books source the last time it was challenged, because I tend to run out of my NYT views early in the month. I'd agree that NYT is a strong source. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I did so, TonyBallioni. More importantly, there is zero evidence that this person is not a conspiracy theorist, and when reliable sources discuss him, it is pretty much always in the context of his support for some conspiracy theory or another. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I would agree, and given how much Dice wants this article “corrected” (ctrl+f Jimbo Wales in the history and look at the sources in those diffs...) I’m somewhat skeptical at attempts to white wash it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist should be removed from the lede. Sovietmessiah (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You have no leverage if you have no reasoning behind your preference. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The leverage given could be considered fake news considering he has beef with the NYT. Should we include that in NYT's lead because others have called them that and gave it leverage? Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the status of the New York Times as a reliable source, I encourage you to raise the issue at WP:RSN. I doubt you will get the answer you want. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been gone over plenty of times. High quality reliable sources reference him as such. It’s what he’s known for. It’s what he does. It stays in the lead. NPOV requires we call a spade a spade sometimes. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

He got 1,000,000 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)

The True Story of Fake News (Dice 2017), is a big hit amongst readers. This book is well sourced, and dissents mainstream sources. There is a real discussion about censorship of conservative voices, and there needs to be free speech regarding this issue.

Rules appear to be applied legalistically to Conservatives and casually and loosely to liberal political personalities

I've read several comments from Wiki people that they "don't tolerate" x or y, yet it appears that they do tolerate x and y on Wiki sites about liberals. Or that they make up rules that apply to Mark Dice (i.e. "we don't tolerate threats of legal action on Wiki" that don't apply to liberal persons or subjects because those liberal persons never say such things.) In other words, they choose to censor Mark Dice for specific comments or concepts that don't appear on liberal sites or apply to other Wiki sites about liberals. For example, if Mark Dice was quoted as saying "I will be voting for Trump" Wiki authorities would say, "We don't permit endorsements of political candidates on Wiki." Wiki authorities seem to figure out ways to ban comments or concepts only used by Mark Dice and Conservatives. It just seems that they are legalistically applying rules to Mark Dice and his Wiki page that are loosely applied, or not applicable, to pages about liberal persons and entities.

Intentionally Omitted Facts

OP recruited by bad-faith off-site canvassing, isn't really here to suggest improvements but to whine
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don’t mean to upset anyone by promoting, unintentionally of course, the Nuclear Family. But… my Dad had a favorite saying: “If you have to LIE to make your point do you really have a point to be made?’ This Wikipedia description of Mr. Dice is so incredibly misleading and void of truth it is the reason why 5th Graders are told NOT to rely on Wikipedia as an accurate source of information. Mark Dice has written more best sellers than most who attempt to do so. His YouTube channel does incredibly well and he has not written one book, but many (all very successful). My last point… he has done more for the betterment and education of the masses from his Kitchen Table than Wikipedia has done to mislead the naïve. You can’t live the life of a Liberal without living the life of a Hypocrite – that’s my saying :-) - James T. Ryder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythology8 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC) He has written books not one but a few of them. They are top sellers on Amazon in fact. StandNThrow (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC) We are already disusing this above, stop starting new sections.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 14 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 [2] 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 [3], [4] and [5], but [6] 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)

Various topics started by followers of Dice's YouTube feed

None of these sections are useful

== Bias!!! == What is up with Wikipedia? This in nonsense. Do you have a suggested edit?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Yes, how about add the current Youtube subscriber count for Mark Dice's popular Youtube channel? Every other Youtuber has this info on their page including the Young Turks and The Kyle Kulinski Show. He has written several recent books such as "The True Story of Fake News" and "Liberalism: Find a Cure" that have appeared on the best selling list on Amazon. Where is all this info? The problem with his YouTube subscriber numbers is it is always going to change (by the way we do have a subscriber number mentioned, it just may be out of date right now, but accurate is a weeks time). As to his books, we need a source saying they have appeared on the best selling list on Amazon.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC) == Currently active with 1.4 million subscribers on you tube == Why does this Wikipedia page not allow you to edit? This man is very much active with 1.4 million subscribers. He presents conservative views on you tube, is still an author and is far More than just “conspiracy theorist “. Thought Wikipedia was at least safe from censorship. Last time I donate Modiculous (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC) You can edit if you have a long tern account. The page protection is to prevent drive by vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) == Enable Edits to Anyone == Seriously you all need to allow anyone to update Mark Dice's wikipedia page, it's incredibly inaccurate currently and not up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.47 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Nothing stops you suggesting an edit here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC) == Mark Dice == I notice the Mark Dice page is out of date by nearly a decade, why is that ? Do you have any more up to date information to add? We can only add what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC) As a non-partisan Wikipedia editor, the gymnastics editors here are performing to try and justify why significant portions of information should not be included on his page shows clear bias, which is something Wikipedia, as any encyclopedia, should strive to avoid. The purpose of this encyclopedia should be the dissemination of relevant information, not the withholding of it. And this individuals television appearances, books authored and YouTube counts are relevant to his career. TridentMan123 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC) As was discussed above, appearing in TV interviews would not normally be considered noteworthy in most peoples careers (look at David Attenborough page). We do mention many of his books, and we do mention his youtube subscribers (which I personally do not think is relevant, its an audience share of under 0.1%).Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC) @TridentMan123:, what was non-partisan about creating Very fake news as a redirect to CNN? In any cases, we need to follow our policies and guidelines, not our own opinions of what is relevant and should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC) I agree, he has written at least ten books (according to Amazon) so there should be a proper bibliography section. Darmot and gilad (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Not sure as most of them are Self published. If they have achieved some status (such as wide spread controversy or exceptional sales yes). But not just being written.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven, his book "True Story of Fake News" was one of the best selling books on Amazon when it came out (think I heard it peaked at 15). TridentMan123 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Please read wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC) What you are endeavoring to do is find every single loophole you can to justify avoiding any sort of edit or update to his page. This issue should go to Wikipedia administration. TridentMan123 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Its not a loop hole, its the rules. You cannot say something in an article that is not sourced to an RS. Again if I were to look for (say) the book sales of J R R Tolkien I could find them in 30 seconds, that is called notability. People other then him give a damn about his work and write about it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC) ==Soapbox== See wp:soapbox Any comments that are not directly related to improving the article can just be deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification

Editors may want to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 14#Template:Infobox YouTube personality. wumbolo ^^^ 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Further disruption

prompted by recruitment from the subject's YouTube prompting may result in a prompt block from editing. Mark Dice related blocks Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

metacritic ReviewMeta

The 'Amazon reviews' controversy -- it's just a link to metacritic ReviewMeta? Who is saying it's a "controversy?" This feels like original research to me. valereee (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No issue with a rename, care to suggest one?Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm not sure it even belongs in the article unless someone is talking about it...not sure. What's the argument for including? valereee (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC) ETA: sorry, I know I don't need to ping you, it's this new 'reply' gadget I'm using that I need to get used to valereee (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Different matter then what we call it. The problem I think is we are trying to find more up to date material to add, and that means people talking about him. But I can see this might be undue, can someone make a case for inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to add a "Youtube Personality" infobox to Mark Dices page

Mark Dice is one of the most popular news commentator channels on YouTube who is best known for his youtube channel. He has millions of subscribers and over 350 million views which amounts to more views than the HuffPost youtube channel. Mark is clearly a very notable Youtube personality. today he is mainly known in the media and online because of his youtube channels vast activity and social reach. The youtube personality "info box" is the gold standard on Wikipedia for information on youtubers, especially those with a large social reach online of views and subscriber base. The info box continues to be used on every single youtubers Wikipedia (Pewdiepies page) except Mark Dice, therefore it is past due on this page. Pewdiepies page on Wikipedia is the current standard for Youtubers as it is rated WP:GA and has tons of controversial attention to it similarly to Mark Dices page. If the info box exists on a controversial youtuber like PewdiePie and it makes it part of a "Good Article" on Wikipedia, bring the info box to Mark Dice (the most popular conservative commentator of news on Youtube by far. If not #1, he's top 3. Notable youtuber). Megat503 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Megat503 I'm pretty flexible about infoboxes so I don't care much one way or the other. However, other than the views and subscriber pieces of information what were you hoping to include in the infobox that the current one doesn't have? As discussed elsewhere on this page, including with you, views and subscribers currently don't have consensus for inclusion. Truly open to the idea, just want to understand what advantages you see. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the info box will be great for a quick reference of information on Mark. I'd like to see ALL the parameters and information that Pewdiepie has, such as Genre, network, associated acts, nationality, birth date, play button, subscribers, views, and his signature. The discussion on this talk (in regards of views and subscribers) was clearly not related to inclusion in an info box but was an argument of whether it should be an inclusion as a statement in the article. An info box changes the argument. Do you have an example of a Youtuber with the personality infobox but NO subscriber count parameter? I've certainly never seen it because "Subscriber count" information and Youtuber Wikipedia pages go hand-in-hand. People online researching certain Youtubers on Wikipedia definitely want an idea of how popular a certain youtuber is. This article doesn't accurately portray Marks social reach on youtube (his main online platform), and that is an issue of accuracy. Megat503 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Megat503, whether or not PewdiePie or any other youtuber has something included in their article is irrelevant for arguing whether it should be included here. valereee (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really care which infobox template you use, but the consensus on this talk page is to not include a subscriber count or views, and that isn't going to be relitigated after we just spent the better part of a week come to a consensus on it just because Dice wants it there. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Youtube subscriber counts don't impress me. They are not audited or reflective of popularity. Google "buying youtube subscribers" for some reasons. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

where in the Wikipedia guidelines for a good article does "impressing Legacypac" show up? We should be following guidelines, not going off personal bias and impressions. "Subscriber count" is a main parameter of the info box for youtubers. If you have a problem with the youtuber info box parameter for subscribers, I respectfully suggest you should go to the infobox talk page and add how unimpressed you are there. It seems off topic to add here on the talk page for Mark Dices page. Megat503 (talk) 00:24, 15 –February 2019 (UTC)

The louder someone talks about their subscriber counts the less credible the number becomes. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines are based on repeated practice. Practice is not based on guidelines. We don’t have any firm rules, and this experience is showing us that the community is skeptical of subscriber numbers, as it’s probably the single most high profile discussion we’ve had on them. We don’t overrule this consensus because other articles are different. We reevaluate if the other articles should have them if the consensus here is firm. If enough articles go against having them, then we write a guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

According to this he is not even in the top 5000 [[7]] youtubers, hard to see how that really makes him all that significant as a youtuber.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been waiting for someone to point that out... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yay fame at last

[[8]], might be able to use this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC) And this is a good example of why some do not truth the WP, it does not say why he was blocked, and implies it was because of his views.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You do realise that article was likely canvassed, don't you? He was asking for coverage in his twitter feed and the WT is a tame outfit for this type of thing. I referred to it here earlier today - it's the one that starts the bizarre approving remarks about Orwell, a socialist well to the left of any US political party. This is the big problem now: Dice's rants have muddied the waters to such an extent that it will be difficult to determine what originated with him and what did not. He's shot himself in the foot. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course, I was in fact about to post that this shows the problem we have with keeping this page "up to date" about his career. Only this one sources gave a damn about this. No one else has even mentioned this terribly important event. At the end of the day this goes back to what has been said above more then once, he is no longer in fact notable or relevant. A few self published no one cares about and spats with teeny bopper pop groups and the odd appearance on TV shows.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that the only reason the Washington Times covered this was because they saw someone on a website somewhere talking crap about their reliability and they used this as an excuse to defend themselves. Also, "control what millions see about Mr. Dice" is a little too generous. This article gets a few hundred views on a good day. But then again, this entire ordeal is really about inflated sense of self importance anyway, so I guess it fits thematically. GMG^talk 12:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dice is notable for his past rhetoric and conspiracy mongering that made him a big enough name on the fringes that he could use the rise of Trump to his advantage, so he’s notable in the Wikipedia sense, but in the real life sense he’s not been relevant for years according to sources (or lack thereof). The great irony here is that this dispute is likely the most significant part of his career since the Katy Perry halftime show comments. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed "Amazon reviews" section

I've removed the "Amazon reviews" section from the article because the content was undue. ReviewMeta's "fail" designation isn't a controversy, because the designation didn't receive any coverage in reliable sources. From what I can see, ReviewMeta indiscriminately evaluates every single Amazon link that gets submitted into the website. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we could probably use that ref in the bibliography? valereee (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is that I don't think ReviewMeta and similar sites, such as Fakespot, are reliable sources. Let me ask this at the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 12:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree it's probably not reliable for anything but non-controversial information, and this could definitely be considered controversial valereee (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Since these e-commerce review checkers are starting to become popular, I think it's useful to establish some sort of consensus on whether these sites are reliable. The noticeboard discussion is at WP:RSN § ReviewMeta, Fakespot, and other e-commerce review checkers. — Newslinger talk 12:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, going to my post above somewhere, the issue with the bibliography/books is that they’re self-published and no one other than Dice mentions them (literally zero sources). No one doubts they exist, but it’s a UNDUE question and a NOTSPAM question. Also, no coverage in RS means no commentary to contextualize the books, which in this case isn’t great. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

At least one has been mentioned, and one other (the two we currently have) might have been. But yes in essence the books may not be that noticed. So again I ask those who want a bibliography, provide the RS showing anyone gives a damn about his work.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was referencing the recent books. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, I think you added the selected bibliography back, but I object to it per aboce: literally no one has covered the new books. I think our coverage of the old books are the books themselves, but IIRC some RS have commented on the older ones. My POV on this is we should only be listing books that have received critical commentary in RS if they are self-published. Right now, the only person who thinks the recent self-published books are important is Dice. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That is my understanding we only include notable works.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I didn't add it -- it was there, I just added the reviewmeta as a ref (which also isn't anything I feel strongly about, fwiw) valereee (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry. Crazy page history. Maybe you or MPants at work could remove it since the consensus appears to be against inclusion unless sources cover them? I would, but I’ve already removed it twice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done See my edit summary. I don't think that reviewmeta can be used to establish notability, or even WP:DUEWEIGHT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Am

I the only one who believes that JW is near-singly responsible for the mess that is unfurling over here? ∯WBG^converse 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware this was about him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Every time I've seen Jimbo leave his own talk page, chaos has ensued. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

+1. See the last sentence of this comment elsewhere. But the damage is done now, unless Jimbo wants to double down on it. Hold on to your seats ... - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)