Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Author/Book Information Missing

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2006 and this article is abnormal compared to other articles. The intro lists his notability as follows: "YouTube personality, conspiracy theorist and author." Once that is stated, there is an expectation that the remainder of the article will expand upon those statements, filling in the details. Any other article on Wikipedia currently does this, such as PewDiePie, a YouTube personality, which lists his rise to prominence on YouTube and describes his content accurately. Author pages such as Stephenie Meyer lists the books she has written with brief descriptions/discussions. I don't think Mark Dice's books are notable enough to have full Wikipedia pages, but his page certainly should say something about them given the intro. His YouTube career is woefully short on information, listing some joke videos he published a while back. His current content as of 2019 appears to focus on mainstream media criticism, pro-Trump, anti-Democrat content, and they are getting large numbers of views exceeding ten million views in some cases. This is all notable information for someone who is on Wikipedia primarily as a YouTuber. As it stands, his article only describes one of the three things he is notable for (conspiracy promotion) and is sorely lacking in information on the other two items. JettaMann (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I note that Stephenie Meyer does not seem to list all of her works. But certainly we can expand much of this, but we need third party RS discussing the works.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be very happy to include books that third-party reliable sources cover. If you can find sources from respected publications (i.e. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, academic books, book reviews from regional newspapers, etc.) please let us know so we can include them. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I am a Senior Editor with over 8 years experience and several Good an Featured articles. I think that you are not being fair with this subject by limiting the content, and excluding content that is there for less well known Youtubers. Its not fair to expect a higher level of quality of sources for him than others. You also cannot expect to find much coverage in certain sources named above, when he is known for criticizing those very sources. You have to be allowed to look elsewhere. Here are a couple sources mentioning him and what he has done: [1], [2]. Would these be acceptable, and if not, why not? Bollyjeff | talk 03:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your commitment to factual and notable information. I really do, and it would be a tragedy to let Wikipedia's overall quality drop by becoming too lax about the information it contains. But stepping back a bit, users want to know pertinent information about a person or subject they have come here to visit. Depriving them of information does nobody any favors and runs counter to what this site was set up for. We need to do our best to factually, NPOV describe a person or subject in these pages by covering significant things they have done. If the NYT didn't cover it, did it happen and could it still be noteworthy enough to list on a Wikipedia page? While Mark Dice's books may not be significant enough for mainstream media outlets to cover, they are arguably significant enough that a large number of people purchased them going by his Amazon sales ranks. We don't have to say anything about popularity (very few pages list sales numbers as those are generally not available), but it is a fact that the books exist and they were published. A fact is a fact. His page doesn't have a lot of information as it stands. I've seen other Wikipedia pages where an actor or media personality has written a children's book, for example, that did not sell well or receive publicity, but due to a scarcity of other information OR because it tells us something about that person even though it didn't make much of a dent in popular media. One example is this page for Tristan Bancks that even goes as far as to list all his books, even though none of them is very noteworthy. My preference, which is probably not different from most people, is that if there is not a lot of information on someone's Wikipedia page, I would rather see more than less (what is available and factual). People come here to be informed after all. I have no doubt that if this info is included, you and other editors will ensure it is NPOV. JettaMann (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

JettaMann, I'd argue self-published books have to show notability by significant coverage in reliable sources. If the books had been published by a traditional publisher, that's weak evidence of notability. Self-published books don't even have that. Literally anyone can self-publish anything. Dice could self-publish next week's grocery list. valereee (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If a self published book sells lots of copies and breaks into the top 20 overall on Amazon.com, does that meet the criteria for notability? Or is it top 10? Or if it hit #1, would that make it notable in your eyes? I'm curious how far you would take that argument. Likewise, if a notable person like Bill Clinton self-published a book talking about UFO visits he's had, would that be notable enough even though it was self published? There's some vagueness here that we need to stake out. Also, sometimes things are notable for being unusual. For example, if a professional athlete does the 100m in 10 seconds, it's not that notable but if some regular guy does it, it is more notable (at least enough to garner mention in a Wikipedia page). In this case, a Youtuber having moderate success at publishing is more notable than a professional author achieving moderate success. JettaMann (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If Bill Clinton published self-published a book on UFO encounters and talked about it on YouTube and in tweets in an attempt to sell it: 1) You'd better believe that there would be reliable sources discussing the former president of the United States self-publishing a book on UFO encounters and 2) if there wasn't, we wouldn't cover it as it would make him look like a crazy person even though sources didn't think it was important enough to note.

The thing all of the examples you note (and Dice) are lacking is sourcing to high quality reliable sources. If those exist, we can include the information. They don't appear to exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

JettaMann, the bar for meeting the criteria for notability is 'significant coverage in reliable sources,' not Amazon's sales figures. If Clinton self-published such a book, it would no doubt receive comment in reliable sources, probably at some length and would therefore meet the bar. I agree with you that we probably need to work out guidelines for the inclusion of otherwise non-notable self-published books in lists of works. And, no, a regular guy doing the 100 in 10 seconds is not notable until and unless someone comments on it in a reliable source. A Youtuber having moderate success at publishing becomes notable when someone comments on it at some length in a reliable source. That's how WP works. valereee (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

My gosh, even User:Jimbo Wales is saying above that it isn't fair; what's going on here?!? Bollyjeff | talk 03:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff I think the books should be included - they clearly exist. Given the lack of RS we can't really say much more than that. I know some others feel we need something from a RS about them before we should include them at all. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My view on the books is simple: I would love to include them, and I am not joking when I say that. The problem is, every single one of his books is self-published and not one single reliable source has commented on the recent ones. It is not unfair to expect notice of them before we discuss them for several reasons: first, the books need to be contextualized: this man peddles conspiracy theories and presenting the books simply as books without comment puts them on a better playing field than books by established authors, liberal and conservative, where we include the books but also negative commentary. That needs to be here if we include them, and that doesn't exist.

Second, we typically don't include self-published books in biographies. We can make exceptions if sources think the book are significant, but in this case, they don't. I've spent an hour tonight trying to find one quality source that even mentions these. They simply don't exist. Presenting him as some widely published author of a dozen or so books isn't accurate and would in fact be an WP:NPOV violation.

If we can find the coverage of his books, yes, let's include them. But we don't make an exception for him because he's mad that we don't include books that no publishing house other than his own will publish. If any other individual came here demanding we include a list of their books, we'd chase them off with WP:NOTSPAM and tell them that we aren't here to sell books for them. Dice is no different than any other person in this regard. Find the reliable sources that comment on these books to show that they are a significant part of what he is known for. If they exist let's include them. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That is the issue, we do not generally cover SPS, anyone can get a book published if they pay for it. So we go back to do RS cover it. Again to those who argue for inclusion, find RS that treat the books as noteworthy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, the book mentioned on Bill O'Reilly -- not reliable for anything there's contention over -- is mentioned in the article. The other source is something called coasttocoastam which doesn't appear to be reliable. valereee (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. He criticizes the "reliable sources", which to many us not affiliated with a political ideology are no longer reliable. You can certainly list how many youtube subscribers he has. You can list his books on Amazon. They exist and have many copies sold. These are facts. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about facts. Waiting to have my account banned for not agreeing with you.... Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on, anyone who is interested in Mark Dice has some ideas about politics. Maybe not official affiliated, but most people have some ideas about moral ideals, principles, doctrines, etc about how society should work. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, we repeat what RS say. It is a fact I have written stuff (I am now), no one gives a damn. It is stuff people give a damn about we repeat.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You failed to comment on the two sources that I listed above. Each of these has their own articles on wikipedia and are well known. There are thousands of sources considered reliable on other WP pages; you cannot insist that we only use the three or four called out by you on this article. BTW, he may have dealt in conspiracy theories at some point, but what he does now certainly qualifies as media analysis. Just because you do not like it, you cannot censor valid information about him. Bollyjeff | talk 17:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, the first source states In the first half, author Mark Dice, who has made a career out of speaking truth to power....... and who specializes in exposing secret societies and the New World Order...... It's not a RS by the most lax of all standards. Also, you probably missed this section in our article.

As to the second; O'Reilly........Yeah, I get you.

Most importantly, why the fuck do you think that having articles on Wikipedia and/or being well known equates being a RS; crazy? Have you read WP:RS, anytime?

Also, any further forum-like comments like the last line and I will be asking for AC/DS sanctions. ∯WBG^converse 18:07, 15 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)

The haters are trying to hide the breadth of my career Don't flatter yourself. Nobody here cares enough about you to hate you. The only thing any of us care about is this article, and that means protecting it from people trying to whitewash it as much as from people trying to smear you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr Dice, let me put it like this. We do not need to list every chat show that Barack Obama has appeared on (or even one) to demonstrate the breadth of his work. People who have a wide and respect body of work do not normally have even an appearance on Parkinson listed as a "carrewr high" (which is what these entries usually are).Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Or even a wide body of work that is not respected. Our guideline is one of notability, not fame or infamy. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The term Conspiracy theory/theorist is in and of itself problematic in so far as the subjective meaning or use of the term is concerned. The term has been weaponized, and in fact if someone beleives what is considered a conspiracy theory, he only remains a conspiracy theorist if the theory is never proven. And if a certain conspiracy theory turns out to be a bona fide conspiracy, then the title Conspiricy theorist has, by it's very subjective nature, proven to be inaccurate. This is an interesting word that was originally designed to be a term to discredit or invalidate someone due to suspicions they may or may not have concerning a given subject. This term Conspiracy Theorist has no place in the encyclopedic annals of WP. If a person is well known or a public figure because of his interest in what are considered conspiracy theories, then by all means mention THAT. And again stating that his fame is due to the interest in CTs is fair, but the term conspiracy theorist is a term that is unfair because of it's subjective nature, and we should be careful when using it, or better yet, avoid the term altogether. It just isn't encyclopedic, and other than referring to any history with conspiracy theories that a person does or doesn't have at any given time, which would be fair, the term conspiracy theorist in and of itself implies too much bias. Wikimikey423 22:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

People misusing a term is not our problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

After this I'll shut-up. My point is, after reading paragraph after paragraph dealing with the term Conspiracy Theorist it seems clear that it's a biased, divisive and weaponized term that would best be left out of any WP article. And any good writer doesn't even need the word to make their point.Wikimikey423 22:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a safe space, that we will listen to your arguments does not mean that making that argument gives it any inherent legitimacy in any way that would imply that all issues have two sides which are equally valid. Some issues only have valid arguments on one side, and those are the ones that tend to rely on a pretense of false balance in order to pretend to be legitimate. On the edges, some people may be mischaracterized as conspiracy theorists, and some conspiracy theories may in fact be true. That doesn't mean that there aren't crackpots out there who traffic in them, and Wikipedia can't call a spade a spade. If Dice is concerned that Wikipedia calls him a conspiracy theorist, then he should stop acting in such as way that reliable sources characterize him as such. When reliable sources do so, then we will follow suit.

There is no term so POV or any word so taboo that we ban it project wide, because "terrorist" is a loaded term but some people are actually terrorists, and we describe them as such when the preponderance of reliable sources do so as well. GMG^talk 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikimikey423 To me neutral point of view we should reflect what WP:RS call him. If RS are calling him a conspiracy theorist so should we. If RS were to call him a media analyst, which as has been discussed on this talk page they do not, then so should we. It is very unusual to have in-line citations for the MOS:FIRST like we do here but has been written that way due to the attention that Dice has sent this way, which has, as Tony notes below, caused numerous experienced editors to be active in watching this article and this talk page. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikimikey423 Please read WP:FIXBIAS, specifically the section Understanding bias and the Wikipedia neutral point-of-view policy. "Biased" does not mean what you think it means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAIS, a vast number of sources mention him as a conspiracy theorist (and I can provide more). Accordingly; I have restructured the lead-sentence. ∯WBG^converse 16:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It is clear most sources call him a youtuber first. This sort of thing plays into his supporters hands by making us look bad.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Yeah, I provided a list of such sources lower on the page.

@Slatersteven: I fail to see how us accurately describing him could possibly make us look bad to anyone except the drinkers of the kool-aid. It would make us look far worse if we kowtowed to his little hissy fit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A list, please. ∯WBG^converse 16:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Because we are not, the vast bulk of sources call him a youtuber first. Its not as if I am exactly in his camp and I can see this. It makes us look needy and petty and that we must make sure he knows what we think of him. Really can you not see that? This is not about his hissy fit, it is about us being better then him and those who fetched up here to support him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If Shouldice were doing Let's play videos or unboxing videos or pranks videos or the like, I'd buy that argument. But he doesn't do those. He uses youtube to promote conspiracy theories. Youtuber is thus not his primary pastime: spreading conspiracy theories is. Youtube is just the platform. There are no RSes disagreeing with this. As to why there are so many RSes calling him a youtuber: because "youtuber" is a popular buzzword that garners clicks and likes, and because it lets the reader know where to find Shouldice and his conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Err, he does. we even mention the fact in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Washington Times-18 hours ago Conservative YouTube star Mark Dice

Snopes.com-11 Feb 2019 The image was created by YouTube conspiracy theorist Mark Dice,

Second Nexus-8 Feb 2019 Mark Dice, a right-wing commentator

Hill Reporter-4 Feb 2019 Conservative Youtube personally, Mark Dice also

Searchlight Newspaper-25 Jan 2019 The book began gaining increased international attention when YouTuber and media analyst, Mark Dice,

Want any more?, those were the first hitsSlatersteven (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be told that Second Nexus ain't any of a RS?

Hill-Reporter and Searchlight--> RS-es but are hardly comparable to the likes of sources supporting the conspiracy-theorist label.

Snopes-->You are supporting me; weird? Or do you think being an Youtuber and a conspiracy theorist are mutually exclusionary; which is more weird.

Washington Times--> Not an RS in these areas, even remotely. A fringe publication. ∯WBG^converse 17:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I agree with WBG, those sources aren't the best we can find. None except Snopes are ones I'd generally consider using for sourcing controversial assertions if there were anything better to use, and if there's nothing better to use, I'd conclude truly reliable sources weren't supporting the assertion. valereee (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said these were just the first few hits. [[3]][[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven,

The Salon source mentions his first attribute as a conspiracy theorist. Did you miss that?

BBC's usage is pretty understandable from the locus of their reporting. Anything otherwise would have been weird, frankly. And, another BBC piece has mentioned him as a conspiracy-theorist.

Khou is nowhere comparable to the likes of sources supporting the conspiracy-theorist label.

As to the Elle one; do you believe that we shall describe him as an Youtube creep because that's the exact word they use.

Drop the stick and move on. You are wasting time and in a blatantly IDHT manner. ∯WBG^converse 11:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did miss that. Did you miss that [[8]] does not first call him a conspiracy theorist (in fact it calls him an online activist), [[9]] calls him first a right wing pundit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is like a fake or zombie article

Dice has been judged notable but you can’t post anything about what makes him notable from the past 2 years! Qwerty786 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Qwerty786, regrettably nothing makes him notable from the past 2 years. Bring reliable sources, that say otherwise. ∯WBG^converse 07:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Qwerty786, we'd be happy to post such things; no one here so far has been able to find any such sources. If you have some, by all means provide links. Many of us working here are using time we'd rather spend on our own editing interests to do research that little interests us to try to gain consensus on this article. Fly-by criticism isn't really constructive to this process. valereee (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that his book made it to number 20 or whatever on all of Amazon is noteworthy. We should not have to cite the New York Times to tell us that for it to be included here; of course they will not. Amazon itself should be a valid primary source for there own sales figures, right? When we say that a song has made it to number 20 on the the billboard charts, we cite billboard, we are not forced to find an article in the NYT telling us so. It should work the same way here. Bollyjeff | talk 16:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the top 20 of what, and whether or not we use this as an inclusion criteria elsewhere. So can we have a link to say what it was the top 20 of (and for how long)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I could not find it on their top twenty charts, so it must have been a daily rather than weekly ranking. The fake news book is currently ranked in the top twenty in three sub categories, but not overall, so I guess that's not good enough [10]. Bollyjeff | talk 17:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: bestseller lists can be manipulated, unfortunately. I have no objection to citing them when a book has already been proved notable, but I object to using them to prove notability. Here's an article. valereee (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that, no, that is not good enough.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, bestseller ranks are quite easily manipulable and aren't any reliable.

Read 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and a lot more on the same locus...... ∯WBG^converse 19:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

education

search on this source didn't bring up a hit for "california state university" -- also, what is BCJ? I don't see a campus that has those initials? valereee (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

One reason why we should not use primary sources for this sport of thing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think BCJ must be bachelor's of communication and journalism valereee (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I distinctly remember coming across a reliable source (which ought be in the article) that asserted of Dice having a degree in communication. Can anybody kindly locate that? ∯WBG^converse 04:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

History TV show appearance

I would not take Dice's appearance over a channel that is near-entirely devoted to broadcasting pseudo-scientific crap as a notable deed of his. To me, it's a crackpot in a venue designed for crackpots. What do you think? ∯WBG^converse 08:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed; pending a discussion. ∯WBG^converse 10:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What matters is are they noteworthy and do they tell us anything about his career, not are they sensible. So you reason for exclusion is invalid.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is a noteworthy achievement. That's it, let's see:-) ∯WBG^converse 11:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, sorry, what am I looking at here in these references? Some of them are certainly reliable sources, but when I clicked to check the first one, I didn't find a mention of Dice, so before I go through them all I wanted to make sure I knew what I was looking for lol. Sorry if I've lost track of discussion; were these supposed to be references supporting inclusion of something within in the article? valereee (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, none mentions Dice in part. The first 10 points to the typical pseudo-scientific bullshit; that History Channel delivers. The last 4 criticizes the program wherein Dice was featured (not that episode in part.) for it's pathetic pseudoscience.

Slaterseven claims that since Dice has featured for a few minutes in the Decoded program; we ought to mention it.

I claim that since no RS had noticed his appearance (we were sourcing to the primary video) and it's very clear that HistoryChannel is a venue for all sort of crackpots; it's not any notable deed for Dice. If some RS had mentioned it; I am fine with the mention but otherwise; not. ∯WBG^converse 12:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, got it, so you were making an argument that History Channel is bullshit (and providing these references to back that up) and arguing that therefore any mentions of him participating in HC programs wasn't worth mentioning? Hm...I agree that sourcing to the video is iffy. What about IMDB? here

Winged Blades of Godric, Hm, no, looks like IMDb is considered user-generated, so that won't work. valereee (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, and a quick look at the Brad Meltzer's Decoded article shows exactly ONE reliable source and that one doesn't mention Dice. What a mess. My feeling is that a television show appearance on a major channel is reasonable to include, but for this article I'd really like to see sourcing for pretty much everything; it's too contentious a topic thanks to Dice himself. valereee (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got my point and yeah, IMDB ain't a suitable ref for any BLP, for the reasons you mention:-) ∯WBG^converse 13:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• History is noteworthy even if it’s not the most accurate of channels. It’s a relatively major US cable channel. Unfortunately, accuracy != significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, it's beamed as HistoryTV18 in India (with some content-variation) and is usually never accurate, barring a few programs. Agree about it being a major channel, though.

  But, I disagree about the fact that a bare appearance in one of their programs (which is meant for the lunatic fringe) is encyclopedic stuff.

  At any case; feel free to re-add:-) ∯WBG^converse 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Agree if no sources comment, we shouldn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's the way we roll (presumably meaning sources that meet WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  For the benefit of outside observers I would suggest that we don't normally cover appearances in media solely by effectively primary sources anyway, no matter if the primary sources are RS. In other words, if the only source mentioning Mark Dice/Barack Obama/Michael Reagan/Pete Brewton/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared in Fox News/CNN/BBC News/MSNBC or for that matter wrote something for the New York Times is Fox News/CNN/BBC News/MSNBC/NYT themselves, it's not something we would normally cover. But significant appearances in significant RSes are normally mentioned in other RSes. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)