Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Dear Followers of Mark Dice

To save myself from having to have the same discussion 42,000 times:

1. We cover what reliable sources say about Dice. The Washington Times and other fringe publications don’t count.
2. The reason Dice’s article doesn’t include his subscriber count while others do is because he has been trying to write his own biography for years, emphasizing things sources don’t emphasize, so this article is watched by a lot of highly experienced editors who have made it follow our policies and guidelines on sourcing better than most articles on YouTubers. That is to say: most of us here would support removing subscriber counts from other youtubers. “But person X has a subscriber count!” isn’t a good argument to include it here. That’s an argument to remove it from the other person’s article.
3. We don’t include every one of his self-published books because there is not substantial coverage in reliable sources about them. Amazon best sellers are notoriously easy to manipulate (any of us could write one in the next hour and it be a best seller relatively quickly using their algorithms) so linking to Amazon is inappropriate both on s “we don’t sell his wares” standpoint and a “it tells us nothing” standpoint.
4. For his various titles which will be the next thing he sends you here for: we’ve discussed this every time he goes on a rant. He’s a conspiracy theorist who styled himself as a media analyst to gain credibility. No main stream source takes his media analysis credibly, so we don’t call him that.

Hopefully that answers the inevitable questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

off-topic discussion better suited to WP:AN

No main stream source takes his media analysis credibly, so we don’t call him that. Everyone, including you and me, know that's completely false. More than a dozen very reliable sources do exactly that, and have been mentioned multiple times above. wumbolo ^^^ 14:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC) No, they don’t take him seriously. They portray him as a conspiracy theorist and person who has crazy views. They cover him, but coverage is not taking him seriously. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Of course, the mainstream media will not take him seriously as he is a threat to them. As a non-American myself I can see the shit the mainstream media is trying to do. I certainly won't take the mainstream media seriously. StandNThrow (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Also, if anyone is curious as to why we have all these new participants in the discussion: [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC) That is unacceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC) If you mean canvassing his entire YouTube channel (that is linked to in this article) to overwhelm this talk page by devoting a 5 minute video to this article, I agree. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Yep that is that I meant, all it has done is led to massive disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC) No main stream source takes his media analysis credibly, so we don’t call him that. As a non-American who followed his Youtube videos, I think he is more credible than the mainstream media. StandNThrow (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Well, of course you do. But people who don't buy his obvious bullshit don't. So... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. Ok, that video is solid indication that MarkDice is operating in bad faith. It is a call to participate in bad faith as well, with no regard whatsoever for our policies. I've blocked MarkDice and will treat any users who show up after the talk page protection expires as meatpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Ian.thomson Ummm I don't understand what you are saying. What policy sustains your argument to treat all editors who come here after the protection expires as meatpuppets? Then why unprotect the page at all if you are threatening all editors in such a way, or in fact, why wouldn't you fully protect it if you feel that way? Be kind enough not to misuse administrative privileges. Thinker78 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC) @Thinker78: I thought that it would be clearer from context, but to spell it out more explicitly: I mean that, over the next week or so (however long this lasts), users who clearly dusted off abandoned accounts or registered new accounts solely to follow Dice's offsite call for bad faith editing will be blocked. The protection is preventing brand new accounts from engaging in such behavior for the moment (and was necessary because just a few hours ago we were flooded with IP editors posting crap that needed to be WP:REVDELed). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC) I'm seeing a lot of bias, bad faith within Wikipedia editors. Planetary ChaosTalk 16:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Please note this is for discussing improvements to the article, not general comments about Wikipedia or editors. Do you have any suggestions?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) And you will also be blocked/desysopped. Until the protection expires, you have enough time to think about why your threat has no basis in policy, violates multiple policies, and indicates that you would be WP:NOTHERE if you issue one-sided blocks of accounts with a favorable view of a living person. wumbolo ^^^ 16:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC) No, he won't. We've been here plenty of times with public figures asking their minions to come here and disrupt the project, and the way that is dealt with is pretty much how Ian states it. Obviously, if they actually try to start a reasonable discussion here, then that's fine, but you do tend to find that followers of such people don't exactly do "reasonable" very well. Or, indeed, at all. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC) That's true in cases of vandalism. Here we have new editors who know nothing about policies/guidelines. wumbolo ^^^ 17:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Yes, so new that the last four to comment here were accounts created in 2006, 2011, 2013 and 2017. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Anyone arguing with Ian right now is actively contributing to the ongoing disruption here and should be blocked until they understand why this sort of bullshit is entirely unhelpful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC) That's total bullshit. The ongoing disruption here consists of an WP:INVOLVED admin indeffing new editors for making 1 edit to a talk page. The rationale isn't even WP:MEAT, it's "WP:NOTHERE". wumbolo ^^^ 16:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Ian isn’t involved. I am, but I’ll go ahead and save you the time and ask for AN to review his blocks so we can have clarity. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC) I am also seeing WP:INTIM Planetary ChaosTalk 17:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

your reasoning for not updating Mark Dices subscriber count doesn't align with Wikipedias current standards. PewDiePie has his subscriber count updated DAILY on wikipedia. The youtuber info box is subscriber count is standard, regardless of your fantasy of a "subscriber count"-less Wikipedia. What does it matter if Mark edited his own article? It seems to me there is at least some bitter pettiness involved here as justification for not getting an up to date subscriber count on the wiki page. Megat503 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand me: this article is watched closely because its subject has actively tried to rewrite it to fit his view of himself, and so you basically have an article with a ton of respected and highly active community members scrutinizing every edit. This means that the standards for this article are going to be substantially higher than most other YouTubers, because those articles tend to be written by fans instead of neutral individuals such as myself (and yes, I had no clue who Mark Dice was until one of his Twitter rants about Wikipedia caused me to come here when people were being disruptive.) If there is a local consensus amongst established editors that the subscriber data is bad, can easily be manipulated, and isn't really covered, we don't include it. Enough local consensuses like this is what leads to change. Wikipedia is a bottom up organization, and ironically, Dice's complaining about not having his subscriber counts is pretty likely to be the event that causes us to remove them from most articles because it has caused so much disruption/attractd so much attention. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Tony. It seems that you have taken possession of this page in an extreme totalitarian way. You allege in point 4 "He’s a conspiracy theorist who styled himself as a media analyst to gain credibility. No main stream source takes his media analysis credibly, so we don’t call him that." But the fact is that many news sources quote his analysis and his twits. So what you are saying is just not correct. What I have observed is that Mark Dice mostly makes fun of liberals on his videos. The bulk of his videos in Youtube are satirical media coverage. I put Mark Dice in the same category as Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert that just make fun of current events. The guy have 1.4 million followers in Youtube and they are not following him because of conspiracy theories. They follow him because he is damn funny. The guy is a celebrity! Any person with over 1 million of followers is a celebrity. I understand that you don´t want to legitimatize him but calling a simple conspiracy theorist is extremely limited. Maybe he was a conspiracy theorist in the past but he moved from that long ago. Can you tell which one is Mark´s latest conspiracy theory? I wasn't even aware of any "conspiracy theories" until I read this Wiki page. Mark Dice is not know for being a conspiracy theorist, he is know for being a media commentator. Do google search for Mark Dice. I bet you that 99% of the hits will be about his media comments not past conspiracy theories. And your section "Dear Followers of Mark Dice" is simply derogatory. Is this how you treat your fellow editors? I don´t know what is your beef with Mark Dice but there is something fishy going on here. I was reading through the talk page and debate and what I observed is that consensus was never reached among peers. You points in this section are debatable. 05:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Bravehartbear (talk)

You want an example of him still being a conspiracy theorist? I mentioned one here last week: anyone who regularly resorts to the "fake news" accusation is almost by definition such a theorist. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

He thinks the Super Bowl halftime show is an Illuminati ritual and that Katy Perry is a Satanic Witch. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

But as has been said above, we need more then trivial silliness. We need coverage in RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fox News and CNN also talk about "fake news" and what Mark mostly does is calling "fake news" when they actually mess up and bring up contradictory information. It is no secret that there is bias in the news from both the right and left. I don´t see this as a conspiracy theory when he is actually pointing it out when it happens. About "Katy Perry is a Satanic Witch" it is funny, he has said worst about Lady Gaga. It is common in comedy to exaggerate and make fun of current events. If you watch late night they are constantly exaggerating and bringing up conspiracy theories. But the tone of these videos is satirical and not serious. The purpose is mostly to entertain than actually bringing accurate information. This is not Alex Jones trowing a angry rant and getting red faced. This Mark Dice putting on his nerd glasses, changing his voice and mocking current events. Call him a troll but his is more than just a conspiracy theorist. 16:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Bravehartbear (talk)

Maybe it is satirical, but we need sources saying it (to illustrate I do not believe Jones is any less a performance artist, but I am not an RS). Oddly the tone of his rant about Wikipedia was no different, so was that also satirical?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

nextshark and metro.co.uk?

reliable sources? I don't think so valereee (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, umm...... Metro is a freesheet and whilst not being equivalent with DM (despite being published by the same publisher); it's not prudential to use it in BLP. Thanks.

As to the other, passes NEWSORG. ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nextshark does? I couldn't even find an article on it. I searched NextShark and Next Shark valereee (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, judging an RS from whether they have an en-wiki article? ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

well, not judging necessarily, but if they're notable enough to be a reliable source, they probably should at least have an article. valereee (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, I've asked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NextShark valereee (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that posting at RSN is a good move. The first thing I do when I encounter a novel or suspect source is check their WP article. Without one, I become a little leery. It certainly can't hurt to get a discussion going. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants at work, Exactly. I looked in the RSN archives and perennials, not finding it mentioned in either place unless I'm stupidly searching for it the wrong way valereee (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Valereee If you were stupidly searching for it the wrong way, then so was I, because I did the same thing and found bupkiss. This isn't to say it's not reliable, just that it's not obviously reliable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Known for...?

If OJ Simpson is first known as "former running back, broadcaster, actor, advertising spokesman, and convicted robber.", than Mark Dice should first be known as a YouTuber and then a conspiracy theorist. His notoriety only comes out of him being a YouTuber. This would be the same with any celebrity. There is no situation where Madonna would be known for anything else than a singer first and then everything else. Sthubbar (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

To be fair most News hits do seem to say YouTuber first.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not the ones I have seen. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I can only access two of the inline references and the first says "Republican author Mark Dice", the second is "conspiracy theorist and YouTube documentarian Mark Dice". So of these 3 why are we highlighting only one? Sthubbar (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Got access to the NY Times and they say "conservative commentator and author Mark Dice", and the ABC refernce says "Mark dice is founder of "the resistance" a Christian group". So we have 1) Republican author 2) Conspiracy theorist 3) YouTube documentatrian 4) Conservative commentaor 5) Author and 6) Founder." Only highlighting one of those at a minimums seems undue bias. Sthubbar (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Of the first 10 I have found a few call him conservative first then a you tuber [[2]] a few call him a youtuber first [[3]], a couple call him a right wing commentator [[4]]. But most seem to put youtuber first.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don’t think it matters that much. We’ve worked really hard over the years to come to a stable article, and while it can be improved always, trying to figure out what title to use first is a bit of a time waste IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is a negative characterization and we should be careful about over emphasizing this. As Sltersteve has mentioned, the majority of references refer to him as something other than this prejorative. It is undue weight. Sthubbar (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No I did not say that, I said that most of them call him a you tuber first, not that they do not also call him a "Conspiracy theorist (MOST DO).Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, of the 3 references you provided, only 1 of them says conspiracy theorist. So we have a total of 9 characterizations of him and 2 of the 9 say conspiracy theorist and 7 of 9 say something else, yet Wikipedia is only highlighting the conspiracy theory characterization. Undue weight? Sthubbar (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What you are missing is that if I do this [[5]] I get 1200 hits. He is widely know as (and for, that is what all of his books are) promoting conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And if you replace "conspiracy theorist" with "you tube" you get 264,000 hits. He is clearly more widely known due to YouTube than due to conspiracy. Sthubbar (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we put it first.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Each of the following RSes uses the exact phrase "Conspiracy theorist Mark Dice": [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

If you like, I can expand my search to include phrase like "Mark Dice, the conspiracy theorist...", "...the conspiracy theories of Mark Dice...", "conspiricist Mark Dice" and other, similar phrases. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Instead of expanding the search to support one theory, how about expanding the search to include other characterizations such as "YouTube" "author" "right-wing" "commentator" or "author"? Sthubbar (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Because that doesn't say shit about whether or not he's a conspiracy theorist. If you want the phrase removed, you need to show that it's contentious, meaning that there are sources who explicitly reject it. Whether you or Shouldice himself likes the term is utterly irrelevant. If lots of RSes call him one, and none can be bothered to defend him, then he's a conspiracy theorist, full stop. Whether or not he's also a youtuber is completely irrelevant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hold on, we do call him a YouTuber first, what am I missing>Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The issue is with the second paragraph. The first paragraph says he is know as a YouTuber, conspiracy theorist and author. It is only fair if we are going to expand on this by saying he is "Known for...", then it would only be fair to say something like "His is know for a popular conservative YouTube channel." "He is known for conspiracy theories about ..." "He is know for authoring 8 books ...". To just have an expanded section about his conspiracy theories is undue weight and the evidence can simply be by the fact that an experienced Wikipedia editor such as yourself missed the fact that it was mentioned in the first paragraph. Seems like undue weight. Sthubbar (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider removing the wording "known for" and just change it to something like "he has promoted..." Sthubbar (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep I think that works better, its not as if he origianted any of it.,Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sthubbar, Show us sources saying something 'he is known for authoring 8 books' or that his youtube channel is a 'popular conservative' one, or whatever. Which of these sources used in the article say those things? Or other sources. The argument you're making is fine, but we need to know which sources support that. valereee (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, I quoted out the characterization from the existing 4 references above and Slatersteve has done the same and of the vast majority we find there is only 1 that says "conspiracy theorist". Sthubbar (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And many more that discuss him in the context of the conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorist isn’t first, but it should be in the lead. I’m not sure what you’re asking for since the lead is already like you want it, and we’re not exactly going to remove sourced coverage of his promoting these conspiracies. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The change to "promoted" reads much better and is reasonable for now. Sthubbar (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sthubbar, what I meant was 'it would be helpful if you'd give us links to the sources you're discussing' like MPants did to show usage of conspiracy theorist -- so other editors don't have to go look at the list of references, find one from NYT, go read it to see if that's the one you're referring to and if not go back to the list of references and find another from NYT wash rinse repeat. Give us the links you're referring to. valereee (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Before we remove any well-sourced descriptive title that a BLP finds insulting, the clear onus should be upon those objecting to the title to provide sources explicitly rejecting the title. Arguing over whether "youtuber" or "conspiracy theorist" gets more google hits is phenomenally beside the point, which is that we want to build an accurate article. Even WP:BLP doesn't trump the Five pillars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We call him a youtuber first, and we now do not say he is known for his conspiracy theories, can we close this now?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the change by Valereee to "promoted" reads much better. Sthubbar (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

GreenIn2010 This has been the subject of significant discussion, please provide sources to support the assertion you just made valereee (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

green deal

I think this is a bit more notable then a spat with some boy band. In fact its moderately significant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven reliable sources documenting Dice (and the deal), please. A tangent mention in one RS does not maketh the cut, for me. ∯WBG^converse 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Both sources (not one) were about specifically this accusations, they were not A tangent mention. Also lets add [[20]], [[21]]. How is this not worthy of inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I dunno...he's a parodist and satirist. I think the accusations are a little silly. Is there evidence he actually expected anyone to take him seriously? valereee (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Where does he claims that what he's doing is parody or satire? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue is whether he did it and if it is encyclopedic to mention it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

here valereee (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Calling something "satire" after the fact doesn't make him a satirist. Just -frankly- an idiot for not calling it that from the get-go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No argument on that lol valereee (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Second Nexus ain't any minimally respectable RS which is sufficient enough to impart notability for a mention based on their coverage. A one-liner in the Washington Examiner piece; that I too discovered.

Barring those; two fact checking websites.

I am ambivalent about inclusion; to me, this looks like an effort to dredge up every source that has the string Mark Dice and feature them in every possible manner. I will look about re-including in a different framing, though:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And the Washington examiner?Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned that in my above-reply. Re-read, please. ∯WBG^converse 15:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I took it form your wording it was not the one I had found, my mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Second nexus is owned by Sulu? It must be gospel truth, then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice on Snopes

A parody tweet by Dice has been debunked by Snopes.

Is this enough to either mention directly, to support that he is a "Twitter personality" as well as a Youtuber, or to support that he disseminates fake/parody news? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, see three sections above. ∯WBG^converse 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I just noticed (and moved the thread). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually came across this last night but I wasn't sure whether to mention it. I did a search to find out who "Mark Dice" was and one of the top results was a Snopes about his urine claims. Enigma^msg 17:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is the Mark Dice page allowed to be so outdated?

Much of the information about Mark Dice's wiki page is out-dated. There are people willing to update the page. When can it be updated? Thanks.

Please join in one of the threads above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dice has received a fair amount of coverage in recent years, especially since the 2016 election. Sorry for the patchwork comment that follows, but it was pieced together as I found sources covering him. --

His book, "True Story of Fake News" was featured in a Medium.com article from 2018 [22]. If we don't want to call him a "media analyst," perhaps we can meet in the middle with something like "one who analyzes [or commentates on] the media" as that is, technically, what he is doing. It should be noted his IMDB page lists him as a "media analyst" [23]. I would suggest his television appearances are noteworthy, as he was featured in some length on major television channels and programs; likewise, it might be worth noting his affiliation with Coast to Coast AM[24] which independently lists him as a "media analyst" as well. I understand much of the pushback against calling Dice a media analyst exists because some do not wish to grant him, in that position, legitimacy, but I do think what he does, whether we agree or disagree with what he says or how he does it, is technically media analysis.He was covered by Hollywood Reporter[25] and referenced by The New York Times[26]. He also earned an article from the Daily Mail[27] and Mic.com[28]. So he still has some relevance. If for nothing more than the sake of responsible encyclopedic curation and factual accuracy, something should be added to his page regarding his recent activities. Heck, if you just go to Google News and type in his name, you get nearly 29,000 returns. TridentMan123 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We do not need 15 threads on the same subject, it just causes confusion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative effort, however you have single-handedly tried to be the arbiter of what is an is not allowed on his article as well as his talk page. That flies in the face of what Wikipedia is about. TridentMan123 (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No I am asking that we discus this in a way that is easy to follow, it is not helpful to have to read 15 different threads discussing the same issue. Also read wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, he has not "single handedly" done anything. I've been reverting stupid, off-topic comments as well. And me and Slater are generally at each other's throats, so the fact that we're in lockstep agreement on this should tell you something.

Also, your Medium article describes Dice as a conspiracy theorist. It's usually helpful if you read articles before citing them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The assumption here is that I support Mark Dice or enjoy his work, and that biases my views or my efforts to achieve some level of factual accuracy through these many layers of bureaucratic gridlock. Whether I dislike or like Dice is irrelevant. I know full well what his Medium article says, in fact, it ravages Dice. But it also establishes his relevance over the past few years, which is the crux of the recent arguments. TridentMan123 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

But it also establishes his relevance over the past few years, which is the crux of the recent arguments. And that's why we have an article about him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

But little to no information on his doings over the past decade, which is the crux of the argument. TridentMan123 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And a look at those news hits tells me naff all. Silly trivial stuff about Gillette adverts and spats over katty Perrys shoes. What I am not seeing is anything substantial or meaningful.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

But you're just one guy. TridentMan123 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, an editor.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two guys, actually. Who (again) frequently disagree with each other. But you know what we have in common? We're both far more experienced editing WP than you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Bruh, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005. Old accounts get forgotten. New ones get created. TridentMan123 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL Cool story, bro. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Medium is self-published. It’s not a reliable source. The recent arguments are over the fact that no credible source takes Dice seriously, which makes him mad. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We are getting off topic, lets stop talking about each other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggest an edit time

Actually write here a suggested edit with sources for us to discus the inclusion of.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's significant coverage in 2017 in Teen Vogue: BTS Fans Respond to YouTuber Who Insulted Their AMAs Performance I think we could probably insert a short mention. valereee (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of thing I mean by trivial nonsense. He has such a great career that this is noteworthy?Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I'm in agreement with you. It's trivial nonsense. But to be fair, it is significant coverage in a reliable source. valereee (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's significant coverage in 2015 in LATimes: NFL's latest conspiracy? It's Katy Perry I guess we could write: In 2015 he called Superbowl halftime shows "Illuminati rituals."' but it seems like a pretty trivial addition. valereee (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Its better, as it fits in with what he has already said, and is not just some random spat.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think sources think he’s still relevant, but like MPants below, not in the way Dice thinks he is. I’d support mention of the LA Times super bowl bit. Agree the Teen Vogue one is just a spat. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to suspect that Shouldice's call for more details to his article here might not go the way he planned. In looking at recent coverage, I'm not seeing anything positive. If we write about his recent coverage then, it's only going to make him look worse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he cares about looking "bad" or "good." He cares about remaining relevant. So far as I can tell, only Teen Vogue thinks he's relevant, and I'm not sure that is the kind of relevancy he aches for. valereee (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No issue with that, we are not here to make him look good.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I am just not finding anything else. Like those are literally the only reliable sources with significant coverage in the first three pages of google news results. That's it. valereee (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I had the seam thing, hence my comment about shoes. He does seem to have largely sunk into oblivion (or has he says in his YouTube video his career is over).Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm responding to both Valeree and Slater, here.

My point is that adding too much modern coverage could quite easily result in a WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, bust as there does not seem to be that much to add its not an issue. Maybe we need to add some stuff from the last few years.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is plenty of RS quoting one of his tweets or something he said in a YouTube video in 2018. However if we were to summarize it in anyway (as it seems he's quote on a number of topics) it would be synthesis. I am sympathetic to his complaint that we haven't found anything more recent when he's definitely be active since then. But we need a RS to summarize it for us so we can then include it. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not that he is not active, I am active. The issue is no one really seems to care.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven he's active and is being noticed by RS, but not in a way let's us use it. I can understand why that would be frustrating. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL, so in fact we do mention his career up to 2015 (so in fact we are only 4 years out of date) already. So what exactly is there left?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm calling it a comprehensive update, myself valereee (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I am just joining this discussion. I would be more than willing to help edit this page and bring it up to date if anyone wants that. GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I just the whole talk page, I also saw a video of M.D. complaining about this page that is already covered above. My observations is that his books should be listed in chronological order, probably in a book section. I understand that the Amazon metrics could be manipulated but just listing the books should not hurt. About the YouTube channel I don´t have a problem with not mentioning the viewer count. The biggest issue is finding reliable sources. If I have time I will try to find reliable 3rd party source to enrich the page. But what we should be concerned is that M.D. is pointing out to a double standard compared to other Youtubers bios in Wikipedia. I understood the explanation that this page is being monitored at a higher standard but this perception of a double standard is not good for Wikipedia´s reputation. Well, I will look for reliable sources before doing any recommendations.Bravehartbear (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Consistency is a problem on Wikipedia because of the sheer number of articles and the fact that (although Mark Dice won't agree) most people can indeed edit the thing. However, standards do evolve and are certainly applied on high profile articles as a consequence of that evolution. Unfortunately for him, Dice has made this a high profile article with all of his rants etc. He has been the creator of his own misfortunes here. I for one had never heard of him until a week or two ago. - Sitush (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I literally first heard of him today thanks to this page repeatedly popping up at WP:RFPP. I've heard of Alex Jones, but never Mark Dice. But now Dice has made himself famous by apparently declaring war on Wikipedia. I don't see him as a victim here. Enigma^msg 04:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, indeed, I don't see him as a victim. One problem that demagogues face is that even when they can convince ill-educated people etc, they struggle to get the better-educated on their side. I'm not suggesting that all of Dice's followers are ill-educated nor that all of Wikipedia's more regular editors are better educated but there is a pattern to be found in history. This is also not a free-for-all website: it does have policies and guidelines, including WP:CONSENSUS, and can't just be tilted to suit the opinions of a relatively small group of shouty people. There are ways to change consensus but launching attacks is not usually one of them. - Sitush (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, you are right about "can't just be tilted to suit the opinions of a relatively small group of shouty people." Mark Dice is a satirical right wing commentator that mostly makes fun liberals in his Youtube videos. The guy has over 1.4 million followers. His videos have been featured in Fox News and his twits have been featured on most news media outlets including the BBC. The problem with this page is that is so outdated. Maybe Mark used to be a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones but that was long ago. Today he is better known for satirical media coverage and public interviews. I put Mark Dice in the same category as Stephen Colbert that is just making fun of current events. If you go to his Youtube you won´t find any conspiracy theories, all what you will find is satire. The guys has over million followers because he is just funny. Just check this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKC0aTyk9lo

If you had actually read this page, as you claim to have done, you would know that I do not look at YouTube videos and that I have already seen your remarks about him allegedly being a satirist. Perhaps there is some different meaning of the word satire in your world but in mine, in the UK, it is publications such as Private Eye and the early work of people like David Frost. What I've read of Dice's stuff doesn't seem like satire to me. If anything, it seems like rather whacko hate. He's entitled to his opinions, of course, but it is obvious from those who comment on his rants that he is appreciated more for hate than satire, hence the numerous anti-semitic commentators and suchlike. Which is not to say he is anti-semitic himself (I have no idea on that). I was amused to see the comments to the Washington Times piece he linked on his twitter feed in the last few hours: right-wing commentators invoking George Orwell with approval - the irony! How many decent sources do you have that describe Dice as a satirist? - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean hate like when Stephen Colbert called Trump "cock holster". Why is it that when the left does it, it is called comedy but when the right does it, it is called hate speech? Mark Dice is no more hateful that any of the late night host currently in main stream TV or celebrities receiving their awards. Bravehartbear (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As has been said more then once, if you have an RS discussion his new work write a short piece and post it here for us to discuss inclusion. We have tried to look for substantial, meaningful and encyclopedic material to include and have largely failed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bravehartbear, this is not a forum for your original research. Provide sources and arguments backed by policies or else shut up. ∯WBG^converse 17:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, this talk page is getting ridiculous long. Lets archive everything and start anew. Bravehartbear (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's not and not even say we did. I looked at that youtube video: it's not even remotely funny.

• Calling someone a "cuck" is pretty much a red flag that the speaker is a moron, and morons are particularly incompetent at comedy. A cuck is at least getting off; the vitriolic bile Shouldice imbues the word with strongly suggests he's not.
• Shouldice's voice is irritating as hell. He sounds like a coked-up teenager. I kept waiting for him to scream "MOOOOOOM! Where's my acne medication??"
• Shouldice never actually even tries to make a joke that I can tell. If he did, he was so bad at it that it doesn't even come across as an attempt at humor.

• I don't see any sources calling Dice a "satirist".
• Calling someone a cock holster may or may not be funny, depending on the context. Calling Trump "Putin's cock-holster" for example, is just creative enough to warrant a chuckle.

I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography rules

I checked the BLP rules and couldn't seem to find where it says what books an author has written can or can't be included. What are the rules? Sthubbar (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no firm rules, but there is an MOS entry: WP:MOS-BIBLIO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the issue with including his complete list of books? Sthubbar (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack of coverage in reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants at work, would you be opposed to a list-type publications section at the end of an article? I see no reason not to include that he wrote the books, which is not questioned. Vermont (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, As long as each entry can be reliable sourced, I'd be perfectly fine with it. If we can't find any mention of his professionally published works in the RSes, then by definition; they're not worth mentioning. As for the self-published stuff, I'd like to see at least 2-3 sources on each, just to show that they actually made some sort of impact, rather than simply being churned out while the world remained oblivious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

FTR, I am under the impression that all of his work is self-publishes. MPants, by RS you mean in the sense of actual journalism/book reviews, etc. right? Not just fringe sources that meet WP:V, correct? Clarifying, because that’s basically my position as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

For traditionally published books, you could probably give the full list; not every book would have to be notable itself as long as the author is notable. Self-publishing muddies the waters. I'd want to see a self-published book get significant coverage in order to include in a bibliography. Maybe this is something we need to develop guidelines on, as it's only going to become more of an issue. valereee (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so it is agreed that he is classified as an "author' as in the first sentence of the article. That should qualify that he is a notable author. What determines the notability of a book? There are other authors that have their complete bibliography no matter the obscurity of any particular work. Sthubbar (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As the MOS says ", appropriately sourced to reliable scholarshhip". In other words people have bothered to notice the books and comment on them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The big issue here is that no reputable publishing house will publish his works. We traditionally don’t include self-published workd unless there is significant coverage. It is in fact an NPOV issue to include them as it makes him seem more successful than sources actually think he is. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I disagree. Even traditionally published books should require sourcing for inclusion in a bibliography, unless the author is unimpeachably notable, such as Stephen King or J. K. Rowling. Shouldice might meet WP:GNG, but would probably not if we excluded sources which are part of the recent boom in political "news" and fake-news hunting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants at work, it seems that removing the complete bibliography is too drastic as one of his books is already referenced in the body of the article, so it seems like a contradiction if the book mention is from a reliable enough source to be in the body of the article, then it seems like it must also be notable enough to be in the bibliography. Right? What am I missing? Sthubbar (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A list of one book would just look silly and needy, two was bad enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Kind of like this? [[29]] Sthubbar (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure it is quote the same, for a start its after the sources. It does not appear to be part of his career. But yes it is very silly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Or this [[30]] or [[31]]? Sthubbar (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That settles it, its not the same thing, really Alfred Lord Tennyson only published one book?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Dice plugs one of his books in just about every third tweet doesn't mean that we have to plug the stuff also. As others have said, anyone can self-publish anything. And as you say, one is already mentioned because the source does so. No need for us to become another sales channel for him. Unless consensus changes, it isn't going in.- Sitush (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants, I'd certainly agree to sourcing every book in a bibliography if anyone questioned those inclusions, but for the average traditionally-published notable author a full bibliography isn't going to cause any contention. Not everything in every article has to have significant coverage. For that average traditionally-published author, I'd accept a self-source for a bibliography. valereee (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@MPants at work: would you please add back the Bibliography section, or may I add it back as the arguement that it would be "silly and needy" because of only one entry seems refuted by the multiple other Wikipedia articles that have single entry bibliographies? Sthubbar (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It does not mean what you think it means [[32]], bibliography in the sense you have found it is not a list of their works.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sthubbar, it doesn't matter what other wikipedia articles do. Please see WP:OTHER valereee (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sthubbar (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, I will not add it back in until I see a list of RSes discussing Shouldice's books. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Aren't we back to the beginning where the fact that if it is mentioned in the body of the article than it must be reliably sourced and if it is not RS enough for the bibliography then it should be removed from the body of the article? Sthubbar (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, nothing in policy says that. In fact prose is better then a list.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Sthubbar (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sthubbar, if you only have a single book that's at all notable, and that book is mentioned in the body, then a bibliography is unnecessary. valereee (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No need for Michael Reagan section

I'm not sure why there is a section on Michael Reagan, whom Dice has apparently never addressed or referred to. All of that stuff on Reagan belongs on the wiki article on him, not this article. Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Trimmed. ∯WBG^converse 08:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)