Talk:Mark Dice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2022[edit]

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2022[edit]

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2022[edit]

This article declares Mark Dice as a "conspiracy theorist" and utilizes these sources to back that claim.

Trump’s social media summit was a circus. Its aftermath was even worse. - Vox

Wikipedia doesn't give VIPs the special treatment they expect - The Washington Post

Google It: Total Information Awareness [PDF] [k7kt30ic4ek0] (vdoc.pub) (pg 526)

Trump gif maker apologises for racist posts - BBC News


None of these articles provide any evidence for the claim. The authors of these articles are not the arbiters of the internet and they do not get to declare people "conspiracy theorists".


Get an actual source with actual evidence or remove the bogus claim. Oretsej (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. We don't require reliable sources to disclose their own sources or otherwise show their work. - MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was just going to say that. Oretsej, if you dont like what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By what measurement are the sources considered reliable or not? 2600:8800:8800:76:0:0:0:B6 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS. Some discussion is often involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see reliable sources for more information, but in short, a reliable source has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control; they don't just print something without processes to check accuracy. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I told the other user, if you don't like how sources describe Mr. Dice, you will need to take that up with them and ask them the basis of their reporting. That's why sources are provided, so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources", Vox for example is considered reliable but is also considered to be partisan. In reality it is obviously partisan and therefore is ineligible to be used in this context. 2600:8800:8800:76:0:0:0:B6 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A source being partisan is not a barrier to its use on Wikipedia, unless they are so partisan that they make things up out of whole cloth with no basis or otherwise lack fact checking and editors checking for accuracy. If you want to challenge the reliability of a particular outlet, WP:RSN is the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we're talking about a guy who has publicly said the Katy Perry is a Satanist and Super Bowl halftime shows are actually Illuminati rituals. He said these things. That his fans are now embarrassed about it and keep coming here trying to remove this doesn't change anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theorist Allegations[edit]

The references listed under "conspiracy theorist" provides an article that references Mark Dice as a "conspiracy theorist" but the upon inspection, the writer of the article source [4] does not provide any evidence to their claim. Evidence of a conspiracy theory would need to be required prior to authoring such a bold statement with respect to the accuracy of this article. 50.89.133.107 (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the section immediately preceding this one. We don't require reliable sources to show their work. MrOllie (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he's a conspiracy theorist... that's the reason he is known at all. He wouldn't be on Wikipedia otherwise. It's his whole schtick. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources used in this article are in error, you need to take that up with them, not us. As MrOllie quite accurately states, we don't require sources to show their work. If you read this article text and examine the sources and do not believe them, that is your right, as Wikipedia doesn't claim to be the truth(see WP:TRUTH). 331dot (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of you have shown any reason other than "because someone said so!" That's not indicative of a site that claims to be informative. You guys should reconsider your approach with your sources. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No its policy, also if we do not have some criteria for inclusion n we could also write "Mark Dice sexually abuses cucumbers". We do need to have some standards of inclusion, else we can say what we like as well. Trust me, that would not be a good thing in the case of Mr Dice. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"because someone said so!" is an accurate summary of our core policies as expressed in WP:V and WP:RS. We're not going to disregard them here. MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not claim to be informative nor does it claim to be the truth, please see WP:TRUTH and the general disclaimer. Wikipedia only claims to summarize independent reliable sources- so yes, you are correct. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2024[edit]

I was looking to add "American Christians" to his profile. Dilljl248 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added Category:Christians from California. Binksternet (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Dice&oldid=1212452250"