Talk:Mark Dice

If you are here because of Mark Dice's post on Twitter...

Recently, Mark Dice tweeted a call to his fans to edit this article.

To those fans: Wikipedia is based on professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, according to the weight given by them -- not cherry-picked sources. At any rate, someone who claims the Illuminati is still active is a conspiracy theorist -- end of discussion.

Wikipedia also requires its editors to act with civility and maturity -- for example, not call people scum.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson and Ian.thomson: All Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a Neutral point of view and backed up by reputable facts and sources. Styluses and writing should be factual and unbiased as possible. Mjp1976 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

He claims that the Illuminati survived to the present day, that (as the New World Order) they control the world, and that the US gov't was behind 9/11. That's a conspiracy theorist. If you don't understand that, WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not disputing that. Everyone is entitled to write a book on any subject, how do we define someone that writes a book on multiple topics? I am stating that Neutral point of view rules must be adhered to. Mjp1976 (talk)

I am changing the Title to include facebook and link for reference Mjp1976 (talk)

Anyone editing this because of his request to have this page edited could fall in conflict with wikipedia conflict of interest? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Mjp1976 (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC) In Addition Mark Dice made a facebook post asking his fans to edit this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjp1976 (talk • contribs)

Do not edit other people's talk page posts, it is considered a form of vandalism. And Mark Dice is mostly known for writing books that either advocate either conspiracy theories or else political views rooted in belief in conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Please provide me with a link to that so I can read up on the rules. My Mistake, I am still trying to learn all the rules around here. I usually deal in smaller pages. The section title could/should include twitter and facebook in the title. Please note that your repeating in relation to the conspiracy theorist statement. Mjp1976 (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to tell me he's really known for books on gardening or something instead? What topics does he write about besides conspiracy theories or political beliefs rooted in conspiracy theories? He calls himself a "conspiracy theory expert," making it pretty clear which genre he writes in. Here's how he's referred to in independent academic and journalistic sources: "conspiracy theorists like Mark Dice", "subscriber to the New World Order conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist Mark Dice" (1, [2, 3). This is just a quick glance over. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson I have looked at the links you posted, and checked out the rules for talk pages. I was not wrong about other things he has written. We got his real name and his alternate names. Does he have any other pseudonyms? I have a crappy video here to show he has written more than conspiracy books. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6urSAbf_9m8 that links to this: http://web.archive.org/web/20001022122351/http://www.advancedmemoryconcepts.com/AboutMark.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20020405143339/http://advancedmemoryconcepts.com/index.htm Does this qualify as additional info about him that should be included in his article? This own FB Post about a feud with Alex Jones: https://www.facebook.com/MarkDice/posts/552092324836158 Other Book he's written on dating strategies: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Dating-Strategies-Every-Should/dp/1475104081/ref=oosr He has tried hard to scrub his past, but people are very good at finding it out so this leaves the question: How can this be incorporated into the main article???? Mjp1976 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is confusing to discuss article content in this section which is about providing information to those unfamiliar with standard procedures at Wikipedia. If there is a proposal to add text to the article, the proposal should be in a new section and should include a suggestion for the text and a reliable source that verifies the information. In addition, material needs to be due. The two links I have just given are the same as the links in the "To those fans" paragraph above. I have not examined the links in the post I am replying to, but a vital point is that if article text has to rely on weak sources, the text fails due. A biographical article should cover significant events and should focus on items that the subject is principally known for. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So Buzzfeed is a professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic source for you, but the Washington Post and New York Times is not? Oh… wait! They in fact ARE a reliable sources for you! But just if it supports your political bias. Some of them can be called Fake News (isn't it ironic?). If you really care so much about sources, then look at this Article here Fake news website, it has 22 questionable BuzzFeed articles as sources, all of them have strong political bias. If you try to fix this or point this out in the Discussion page, they will threaten to ban you and just shut you down. Wikipedia has a reliability problem, you have a problem with political bias. I hope that you manage to fix this somehow, because if you don't, you will lose your credibility. Look at CNN, that's what will happen to you. 213.47.44.99 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page has been hacked by those deliberately wishing to disparage & defame Mark Dice. This is how the top of the page should read:

Mark Shouldice (born December 21, 1977), known professionally as Mark Dice,[1] is an author and a conservative media analyst based in San Diego, California. Dice's YouTube channel over 960,000 subscribers as of March 21st, 2017.[3]

This is how the page was changed to disparage Mark Dice by referring to him as "conspiracy theorist": Mark Shouldice (born December 21, 1977), known professionally as Mark Dice,[1] is an American activist and author known for his conspiracy theories about Satanic cults and Illuminati control of the world. Based in San Diego, California, Dice is also a popular YouTuber who has over 900,000 subscribers as of February 15, 2017.[3]

Mark Dice has openly requested help to have his information changed back to what I displayed above. He can be reached immediately via his Twitter Feed @ https://twitter.com/MarkDice if you need confirmation for the requested edit change Otherwise, litigation will ensue and attorney fees will quickly add up! Sincerely, S. Rex Spartacus Rex (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See above section. An author who claims that the Illuminati is still active is a conspiracy theorist -- end of discussion. Withdraw your threat of litigation or be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Are we using the official Merriam-webster meaning of Conspiracy Theory? or are we using the urban dictionary meaning? (1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory (2) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conspiracy%20Theory I would like to get us on the same page before we start going off on one another over nonsense. Mjp1976 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mjp1976 Your talkpage is locked.

I dont know how to fix that Mjp1976 (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm here to help Mr. Dice also, and correct the record. meatclerk (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you are a meatpuppet and not someone who is here to contribute to the encyclopedia for its own sake? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr Thomson, I am a confirmed wikipedia editor. I do not appreciate your tone. meatclerk (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That really doesn't mean as much as you think it does. If your primary purpose is something besides helping the site, you're not as welcome here as you imagine. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Trying to disparage somebody you don't like is a personal agenda. It is not helpful to wikipedia to push your personal political views here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.160.22 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: You should step back here as you are the one repeating the statements he is a conspiracy theorist to attempt to maintain the status quo of the page. Pages on Wikipedia are fluid. This is one aspect of topics he covers, he also covers politics which is ignored in the opening of the article, as well as other topics. Labeling as just one thing tends to break the Neutral Point of View and Best Sources Policy. The Article should maintain a Balanced Tone as well as an Impartial Tone. This is like saying William Shatner is just a star trek actor. People are more than one thing. What we need to do is Move to make a new section to rebuild the article based on all the facts. Mjp1976 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you should step back because you're a meatpuppet whose primary concern is not the website but in hopes of earning praise from your favorite conspiracy theorist. NPOV does not mean giving unwarrented validity to create artificial balance, it means summarizing reliable sources without commentary. Your William Shatner comparison is ludicrous considering our article does say he's an actor best known for Star Trek. It only mentions other things because they are well documented in mainstream sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The area of the post that should be adjusted is "Mark Shouldice (born December 21, 1977), known professionally as Mark Dice,[1] is an American activist and author known for his conspiracy theories about Satanic cults and Illuminati control of the world."

Everything after the reference point is personal opinion and not a fact. What is factual is that Mark Dice is known for many reasons. Many people who follow Mr. Dice do not do so because they believe him to be a conspiracy theorist.

I advise that if you are going to allow said description you need to also allow other descriptions that do not have a biased agenda, but offer a fair non-judgemental viewing of Mr. Dice or leave it out such as:

Mark Shouldice (born December 21, 1977), known professionally as Mark Dice,[1] is an American activist and author. Davec01 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done His activism and writing all relate to conspiracy theories or political views derived from conspiracy theories. Or are you going to argue that he's coming out with a feng shui book or something? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

USERS User:Jytdog User:NeilN Ian.thomson I am calling for arbitration. I am not a socketpuppet. meatclerk (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You said here and here you are editing on behalf of someone else -- that is WP:MEAT. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, see the WP:MEAT section on the sockpuppetry policy page. You are editing at the behest of another party. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jessemonroy650, read WP:BOOMARANG. I would tread lightly here if I were you. This page is under active arbitration discretionary sanctions, and you seem to be editing under a call to arms. If you want to be active again on Wikipedia, I would suggest taking a step back and getting involved in an area where you haven't been summoned by a media personality. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction of the record is not Socketpuppet. I am done tonight. meatclerk (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Why I am being called a meatpuppet? Why are you stating that I am here in "hopes of earning praise from your favorite conspiracy theorist"? This statement does not have a basis in fact. All I care about is the facts that are properly sourced. Respect is one of the 5 Pillers of wikipedia. If I have disrespected you, I apologize for my remark stating you should step back as I was unaware you were an Administrator. I came to the talk page before making any edits. Mjp1976 (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea of Wikipedia is to focus on content and ensure that articles are correct. There is no benefit from talking about a comment regarding another editor. If another comment is necessary, please write about the text in the article without mentioning other editors. It is also necessary to respond to points that have already been addressed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors in favor of correcting the record are formulating a civil response. We thank Johnuniq for his moderate tone and words. meatclerk (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Discussion for Addition and Minor Changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Okay guys. I'm looking for minor updates. I assume you guys are willing to update the record given that I have evidence to support the addition.

However, before we go down the road of adding ANYTHING. Let's discuss, beyond the article, what you have evidence to show what you think Mr Dice. I'm not here to argue (at this point), I just want to hear what you have to say. Including stuff that will NOT be place on the wikipage. Let me know, so we can agree on additions, changes, updates - and work with civility and harmony.

Up to you guys now. TIA meatclerk (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place to discuss matters "beyond the article". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well lets see what you want to add, and the sources for it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Really? You want the rest of us to defend the current state of the article, and present you with the sources which are already right there in the article if you'd just freaking read it?

As someone who absolutely loves debates and logic, both formal and informal, and has practiced this love countless times over the years, including being asked to participate in public debates often enough that others have seriously suggested I include "professional speaker" on my resume, I like to think I might know a thing or two about debate tactics. And this right here? This is a ham-handed attempt to try to force a group with a powerful argument into the defensive, likely in preparation for an attempt at a Gish gallop rebuttal. It's the sort of tactic which is a hallmark of debate positions that rely almost exclusively on rhetorical tricks and emotional appeals. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation for the articles claim that he has continued to write books

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We say: "has continued writing books on secret societies, conspiracies, and government surveillance issues" and as far as I am aware that's true. It's been tagged as "citation needed" and so I've restore a citation to Amazon, which seems to me adequate to prove the point. I'm of course open to reasonable alternative views, if there are any.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. this cite refers to one book and the book was publisegd 6 years ago in 2011. So all it can be used for is for the claim he was still writing in 2011. We would need a source that says he is still writing books (as of 2017).Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

My only concern is that Amazon as a reference is a bit spammy. NYT calls him an author and points out that he has promoted conspiracy theories [1]. That might be a better source that doesn't also click through to a page where people can buy his books. NYT isn't as blunt as our phrasing, but I also think it makes the point. It doesn't deal with the continuity issue, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

George Orwell is still writing books [2], this is why using the amazon page is dodgey.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a citation is even needed for that sentence as the body of the Blp supports the sentence. Otoh, if anyone is demanding a citation, then Jimbo's suffices, in this instance, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need the sentence at all? Whenever Dice publishes a book worth commenting about, we can tell the reader about it. Otherwise, leave it out. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that I agree with Nocturnalnow that a citation isn't really needed because the rest of the BLP supports it. And then that also leads me to say that I agree with Binksternet that we don't really need the sentence at all. It isn't as if this is a fact that is actually in dispute (which is part of why I find Slatersteven's argument against Amazon as a source here unpersuasive) As it looks like the sentence has been removed, I'm just going to leave it for now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with removing it, I cannot think of why this is there, and seems to be just a bit of puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think the sentence is informative, so I put it back. Binksternet appears to have thought the book was referenced by a comment in the Blp which is a good faith error, perhaps. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at. The supposedly "informative" sentence is puffery – the reader doesn't need to know that Dice is still writing books, and we don't need a link to the Amazon sales page for his book Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True from 2011, which has not been reviewed by any reliable sources. If reliable sources don't comment on it, then the reader doesn't need a link to it. And we already list that book under "Books"! Furthermore, you messed up the exact quote of the Oklahoman source, which I fixed yesterday. It has been quoted wrong since December 2010, giving the wrong impression that what Dice said to the reporter was fact instead of his opinion. Please don't restore the longstanding wrong quote. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet is correct, and this is just another example of the co-founder of Wikipedia not understanding (or choosing not to adhere to) the community's guidelines on proper construction of Wikipedia articles. Using an Amazon product page about a 2011 product to draw a conclusion about the current personal activity of a person falls under WP:OR. We're guided by the policy: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Wales would better serve this community by not trampling through areas he not only doesn't fully understand, but doesn't even basically understand. - 2601:42:C102:57B0:9536:1C5A:5808:12B7 (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet, if the quote correction was so important, maybe it should have been mentioned in your edit summary. All I did was undo your edit, so, I'd say you "messed up" by not mentioning the quote correction in the edit summary. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

2601:42:C102:57B0:9536:1C5A:5808:12B7, why don't you co-found something as useful as Wikipedia before throwing stones? We're supposed to be encouraging all Editors to edit. good grief !Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As useful as Wikipedia? How about what I just left in my commode? - 2601:42:C100:81D8:3947:3F31:3206:EA9A (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Analyst?

Is Dice really a media analyst? I don't see any reliable sources calling him that, and they certainly don't describe him getting hired to analyze media. It looks like Dice calls himself that on his book jackets, but to me it seems like puffery. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think "media analyst" itself is a puffed-up word for a talking head who makes the rounds of CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc...but the Daily Caller and Washington Times citations for that sentence do describe Shouldice as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheValeyard (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not a reliable source on the edge between being a reliable source and not. Unsure of the Daily Caller's status there personally, but this discussion at RSN might be helpful [3]. as it deals with both. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is an awful source, full of Dice's target audience of conspiracy types. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That is my general impression on the WT as well. So I discount two of the sources Jimbo used. The Fox News one is borderline IMO as well. Its from their insider division, which tends to be a meta-discussion of things affecting Fox News. I won't go so far as to discount it completely, but a meta-report on Fox and Friends doesn't give me confidence. That's the program that allowed someone to make the claim that Her Majesty's Government ordered the wiretapping of Trump tower for Obama [4]. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well in light of the above, I for one would support removal of the characterization. TheValeyard (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well apart form Amazon I am having difficulty finding anyone who calls him this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the word analyst from the first sentence. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The word "analyst" was removed based on the assumption that there are no reliable sources that describe Mr. Dice in that manner. However, a Google News search quickly shows several reliable sources that claim Dice is indeed a "media analyst": [5], [6], [7] and the liberal Huffington Post: [8]. Additionally, a discussion at RSN was used by TonyBallioni to try to undermine the reliability of The Washington Times. However, as the editor Rms125a@hotmail.com (Quis separabit?) pointed out in that discussion, the assertion that The Washington Times is borderline reliable is just an opinion.

Since multiple reliable sources (including a liberal one) agree that Mark Dice is a "media analyst", who are we to disagree? I therefore politely request that Binksternet reinsert the word "analyst" in light of the discovery of several reliable sources that state Mr. Dice is a "media analyst". Please include pertinent sources after the comma, not before it (someone made that tiny but visible mistake while editing the article). Cordially, Lord Valfar (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I see the woozle effect at work in those sources, which appear to have used Wikipedia or Dice's own book jacket text as their source. None of them actually describe Dice's activities as analyzing the media. Instead, they describe his activist stunts. Until there is a source describing Dice's activities as analyzing the media, I think we can keep it out. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet, with all due respect, reliable sources have been provided to support the claim that Mark Dice is a media analyst, so now you are resorting to speculation. You would have to prove (not speculate) that all of these reliable sources have succumbed to the Woozle effect. Furthermore, you are making up your own rules by claiming that even though reliable sources state that Mr. Dice is indeed a media analyst, he cannot be considered a media analyst unless the reliable sources actually describe Dice's activities as analyzing the media. That's not the way Wikipedia works. All that matters is that reliable sources support the claim that Dice is a media analyst. In fact, you have overruled Jimbo Wales himself [9], so I urge you in the politest manner to reconsider your position. Lord Valfar (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As thinking beings, we can certainly inspect our sources to see if they parrot a term of if they define it. I will always put far more value in a source that describes activities or characteristics which back up a descriptive term, as compared to a source that simply uses the descriptive term, with the rest of the text lacking support for it. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect, I believe you are perhaps attempting to obfuscate the discussion. Here are the facts: 1. You failed to find reliable sources calling Mr. Dice a "media analyst", so I found several reliable sources for you. 2. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and this includes a reality that you don't seem to want to deal with, which is that claims can be inserted into articles if reliable sources support them. 3. There are several reliable sources listed above that state that Mr. Dice is a "media analyst". 4. Jimbo Wales included the description "media analyst" precisely because he follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, regardless of his own political biases.

As thinking beings, we certainly are not expected to inspect reliable sources "to see if they parrot a term or if they define it." Rather, we certainly expect reliable sources to be reliable instead of easily deceived or erroneous. That's why reliable sources are demanded for backing claims instead of unreliable ones. Besides, the term "media analyst" is not an exceptional claim, so I don't understand your strong desire to keep out what Jimbo Wales added with fewer reliable sources than the ones I later found. It's not as if the assertion is that Dice climbed Mount Everest in one day carrying an unnamed Sherpa on his back.

Dear Binksternet, this is very simple: Mr. Dice is called a media analyst because, among other reasons, if you watch his YouTube videos, it becomes instantly obvious to anyone that he analyzes the media. For example, he exposes lies in the liberal media. He exposes dishonesty in the liberal media. He exposes what he sees as lunacy in the liberal media. I could go on and on. Don't take my word for it. Just watch some of his videos. In other words, he analyzes the media. Therefore, he is a media analyst, and that's why reliable sources call him a media analyst. We must abide by Wikipedia's rules, as Jimbo Wales did, not your personal approach to dealing with sources. Please, I am not interested in pinging administrators or other veteran editors to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I believe we can reach consensus without outside intervention. Best wishes, Lord Valfar (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at what Dice does and using our analysis to call him a media analyst is original research and not allowed. I'm sure that Jimbo Wales would acknowledge that he isn't always right and that other editors can revert him (nothing to do with "overruling", he has no special authority over content). We don't expect even the most reliable of sources to be correct at all times. Those aren't arguments that hold water. And the 'woozle effect' is a real issue. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Doug Weller, it is a great pleasure to see you here because you are a veritable legendary Administrator on Wikipedia, and - most fittingly - a member of the Arbitration Committee. Please let me know if you are watching this page (if so, I won't ping you again). Regarding the original research, the point I was trying to make is that saying that Mr. Dice is a media analyst is, in my opinion, stating the obvious. When I see rain drops falling from the cloudy sky, it's obvious to me that it's raining, and having watched many of Mr. Dice's videos in which he analyzes the media, it's obvious to me that he's a media analyst. But I'll stick to policies and guidelines. Indeed, although you know this by heart, I will provide the following link for editors with very limited Wikipedia experience who are frequently visiting this article and its talk page: Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. Quoting from that Wikipedia policy page, "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." As we both know, "third-party" sources are also called "independent" sources. So, again, I provided reliable, independent sources, and we are supposed to believe in them because reliable sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Therefore, I don't understand why you apparently believe that all of the reliable sources I mentioned have succumbed to the Woozle effect. The burden would be on you to prove that Mr. Dice duped them all, that their fact-checking failed. Also, you wrote, "We don't expect even the most reliable of sources to be correct at all times." That's true, of course, but I don't think we should also expect every reliable source to be wrong when they make the same claim. And could you please explain why Jimbo Wales is wrong (based on guidelines and/or policies)? I hope he will help us reach consensus. The consensus that was reached in less than one day to take out "analyst" was a flawed consensus primarily based on the false premise that there were no reliable sources. Here are the reliable sources again for the claim that Mark Dice is a "media analyst" (not an exceptional claim, by the way, as I said before): The Washington Times [10], The Daily Telegraph [11], Fox News [12], The Washington Examiner [13], and The Huffington Post [14]. Therefore, in light of my arguments, and taking into account that although Jimbo Wales is not infallible, neither are you, I humbly ask you to please explain why the claim that Mr. Dice is a media analyst must be kept out of the article. If reliable sources cannot be trusted, and instead we should assume that their fact-checking process is always a failure, I don't see how anything can get done on Wikipedia. Thank you very much in advance for your generosity... Lord Valfar (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is time to just drop it and move on, as no one has been swayed by your arguments thus far. No one is claiming that Dice "duped them all", just that the sources that say "media analyst" do so in an almost casual, throwaway manner. At best, the few sources that mention it have simply been doing him a courtesy by indulging his self-promotion. TheValeyard (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• WP policy makes a distinction between a sources that covers a claim and a source that mentions it in passing, in several different places. This is exactly the sort of situation that these clarifications are intended to address. Furthermore, I begin to have deep suspicious about the competence or identity of an editor with less than five edits and less than a week's experience when they feel the need to lecture an editor with over 200,000 edits and over a decade of experience on what WP policy means and says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  These are Dice's twitter followers, coming to this article at his behest. The edit request further down by user named Ibhightech for example is a direct copy and paste of a Dice tweet. TheValeyard (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

TheValeyard, this simply looks to me like an example of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Quoting from that essay: "Editing disputes are expected to be settled by reasoned civil discourse, and editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified—without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our innate prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise." Although that's an essay, my arguments for reinserting what Binksternet removed are based on policies and guidelines. No one here has cited policies or guidelines to justify the removal of the term "media analyst", which Jimbo Wales included based on the rules. Only mere opinions. You and Binksternet cited "puffery" even though puffery allegations should be thrown out the window when reliable sources are found to support the claim. As you saw, I found multiple reliable sources, whose absence was another reason used by some of you for removing the term. In fact, you wrote, "Well in light of the above, I for one would support removal of the characterization." Yet your arguments have since been taken away. Even so, you now say that no one has been swayed by my arguments thus far. That's why I brought up the essay. Besides, why was Binksternet in such a hurry to close a discussion that he opened for removing the characterization? How long did it last? 20 hours? Is that a sincere way to try to reach consensus to remove material from a contentious article? I found all of those reliable sources in just a few minutes with a simple Google News search. That's another reason why I brought up the essay. You are supposed to leave your innate prejudices at the door. Also, The Woozle effect is not dealt with in policies or guidelines, or is it? Notice that the rest of your reply is nothing more than your own personal hypotheses, opinions and conclusions. When it comes to citing policies or guidelines for defending your position, you have none. They don't exist, as far as I can tell. We have reliable independent sources to support the claim. Period. P.S. MjolnirPants, you mentioned "WP policy" but you failed to cite a specific policy to defend the removal of the term. Please cite policies or guidelines. Your suspicions are not helpful. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you. Lord Valfar (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What we have here are people from Dice's twitter feed suggesting bad edits on his behalf, requests that have rightly been turned away. Dice is not a "media analyst", despite the passing mention in a few sources. That's all there is to it. You have not "taken away" my or anyone's argument. TheValeyard (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What I see is a brand-spanking new editor already casting aspersions on others because they won't listen to what the others are telling them. I predict a trip to ANI or AE in your very near future... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I've never been a reporter, but I did work as a PA for the City Editor of the Miami Herald. Reporters are very busy people and although good ones always try to get their facts right, they do take shortcuts sometimes. I can easily see them thinking "Who's this guy Mark Dice?" and checking his Facebook[15] or Twitter[16] pages and seeing that he calls himself a "media analyst" on his social media pages, they just go ahead and call him that himself. WP:VERIFY doesn't suggest that we have to include information just because it can be verified. I don't see any policy that says because a few news sources call him what he calls himself we have to use it. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug, I believe that the scenario you described is very plausible, and you provided a pertinent policy that I really cannot argue against. That's really all I was asking for: a policy or guideline to justify the removal of the term, so I'm glad and grateful that you found time despite your administrative and arbitration committee duties to explain the matter clearly and citing a policy, unlike others here, who couldn't show a specific rule and therefore decided instead to try to intimidate me, threaten me, and assume bad faith on my part. The reality is that I have done nothing wrong, and it reflects very poorly on others to attack me, and to claim without any proof that I was sent here by Mark Dice. It creates a toxic atmosphere that would give me the right to stoop down to their level and claim that they have an anti-Dice agenda. I'm here to be constructive, not destructive. When I saw that others claimed that there were no reliable sources to support the characterization, I found sources to be fair to Mr. Dice. That's being constructive. Likewise, since more recently someone apparently posted on this talk page a tweet from Mr. Dice in which he said his "man on the street" videos had been featured all over the world, again I decided to be fair to the man, so I did some research to see if the assertion was true, and indeed, after hours of searching, I found international coverage of his videos, which I posted below. That's being constructive, but my sources were deemed "terrible", which is not constructive at all, and the editor then bashed me and threatened me on my talk page. You solved the problem concerning my first objection, and now I just want to address that other issue before I move on to other articles. Thanks, Doug, once again, for your very valuable help... Lord Valfar (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion this article, not users actions. Please do not do so, if you have an issue with a user take it to their talk page or report hem.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I just noticed something: For the record, anyone who wants to see where the distinction between a passing mention and an asserted claim in an RS is drawn can check out this on-wiki search and pretty much see what the community thinks in any one of those results. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I had never heard of this person until I read the conversation in Jimmy's Twitter feed. There are enough sources; cited above, referring to him as a media analyst to justify us describing him as such.

I just watched a random four of his YouTube clips and (assuming a representative sample) just about all this man does is scour media and analyse through the prism of popular conspiracy theories. Stupid, delusional and dangerous analysis, but analysis it is. That makes him a media analyst. Sorry. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And this is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

My second comment is. Yes. I mentioned that so you'd know that I've got some appreciation now for what he does. But I'm here because of my first comment. There are enough reliable sources describing him as this to not only justify us describing him thus but to ring very loud WTF bells when you reject it for no apparent reason. And unsourced "woozle" assertions, now that's WP:OR. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Indent your posts and pay attention to the points that have already been raised in the conversation. You haven't addressed any of the reasons that other people have raised regarding those sources, so you are the one rejecting what others say for no apparent reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The only "reason" I can see above - and I've read it carefully, twice - is: Reliable sources that describe him as a media analyst may have gotten it from his twitter or FB self-descriptions.

But what is the actual reasoning here? Are you asserting that none of those journalists have looked at what this fellow does and all were duped into calling him something he's not? Is that the argument for ignoring the sources? The journalists are all wrong because woozle? Is there a specific piece of policy you could point to to back up this stance? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) through the prism of popular conspiracy theories -- that makes him a conspiracy theorist. Replacing that with the less specific "media analyst" is whitewashing and providing artificial legitimacy. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Who mentioned replacing anything. He's a media analyst and a conspiracy theorist. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doug Weller's analysis shows why we have rejected using the title in the article. The sources that use it are either fringe sources or use it in passing in a way that would not be considered by us to be reliable sources under the verifiability policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you're confusing our notability guideline with WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the consensus on this is pretty clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthonycole presents a reasonable argument that "media analyst" (as "conspiracy theorist") is both true, and verifiable in reliable sources. In response I see foot-stamping and references to consensus but no policy-based arguments. I'm concerned some resistance may be in response to his twitter "call to action." We must strive to be dispassionate and ignore it. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy and the root of any arguments regarding "passing mentions." Arguments regarding the woozle effect are ultimately rooted in WP:RSCONTEXT, part of a universally accepted guideline. Just because the WP:OMGWTFBBQ was replaced with prose explanations for the benefit of a new user does not mean that there were no policy based arguments to start with. Re-asserting that there are multiple sources does not address the consensus those sources are not specifically about him, have not demonstrated that the author has done any serious investigation into Dice is, and do not echo the sources that are specifically about him. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: If you believe that preferring the more specific description (which comes from more authoritative sources) to a more vague description (which comes from less authoritative sources) is desirable, or that including the more vague description (an act which undermines the more specific description in a number of ways) is desirable, then I question if you understand what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. You can call it "foot stamping" to your heart's content, but if all you've got is an argument that rests upon the implication that anyone who disagrees with you is immature, you're going to be disappointed in the result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

Change about Satanic Cults to about Secret Societies. Geekythoughts (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

References

I don't see anything in the 3 sources listed (NY Times, Salon and the TV station) that mention "Satanic rituals". Done —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 20:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the Slate piece he calls entertainers Satanic skanks and this clearly show he has broader satanism theories than just a joke about music. Also, I couldn't find the groups changed to from satanism in the sources currently in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I am going to reinstate the satanism conspiracy theory statements removed per this edit request because of the sources above since I haven't heard any responses here. Just leaving a note here before to see if anyone does have objections. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No objection here; in fact, the opposite. Dice has frequently written about Satanism in his books, and he calls various people Satanists, including Jay-Z, Katy Perry, Christina Aguilera, Rihanna and Nicky Minaj. In his book, The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction, he presents the New World Order as a form of Satanism bent on introducing the Antichrist, and he discusses the difference between Anton LaVey-style Satanism (which he considers powerless atheism) and actual theists who worship Satan. So the request for removal of Satanism from the article has no merit. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Its back in and more clearly cited now. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

Sorry @Wikipedia but my videos have made headlines around the world. Not just on Fox & Friends and the Washington Times. ~Mark Dice from his Twitter account...

Please change this to "news outlets around the world" and leave the two current citations and add this third: From Mark Dice on Twitter account. Ibhightech (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WP depends on reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well we could change it to "feature on Fringe news outlets around the world", pretty sure we can source that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, please check these sources which either mention or discuss Dice's "man on the street" videos. Although the Daily Mail is unreliable, I'm including it as well because it's a notable foreign news outlet that discusses his videos, and it proves that a British news outlet has featured his videos. None of my sources are "fringe news outlets". Thanks in advance for your help. The Hollywood Reporter [17], RT (Russian news outlet) [18], The Washington Times [19], The Huffington Post [20], Nine News [21], Daily Mail [22], [23], [24], Digital Journal (Canadian news outlet) [25], Toronto Star [26], Sputnik (another Russian news outlet) [27], [28], [29], Sputnik again but for Spanish-speaking audience [30], Sabah (Turkish daily newspaper) [31], Vozpópuli (news outlet from Spain) [32], Le Figaro (French newspaper) [33], International Business Times (Italian edition) [34]. Therefore, to be fair to Mr. Dice, he has a point when he says that his videos have not only been covered by Fox & Friends and by The Washington Times, and that instead there is international coverage. Lord Valfar (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't even begin to respond to the terrible sourcing here - also please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair this does show that Mr Dice is quoted in some right tat. So some seem to be fairly good quality, though oddly not English language or print edition. As I said, I think we can say he has received some limited media coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

America's Book of Secrets.[citation needed] "The Billionaire Agenda". American's Book of Secrets. Season 3. Episode 7. May 10, 2014. The History Channel.

America Declassified on the Travel Channel.[citation needed] "The Atomic Conquerer". America Declassified. Season 1. Episode 4. November 24, 2013. The Travel Channel. WBVT 21:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It's not at all clear what edit you're requesting here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@WBVT:  Done I got your email and responded, and I understand what you're asking. The first source is acceptable and I will add it. However, the second source does not mention Dice and so it cannot be used. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are here because of more Tweets from Mark Dice...

If you are here because of this Tweet from Mark Dice where he claims that if he "wasn't so busy," he'd sue, some things to keep in mind:

• Wikipedia does not tolerate legal threats, even implied ones. If you are acting as an agent of his implied threat (i.e, acting because of this threat), we can block you at any time. You don't have to be his lawyer or something, you could just be a fan who wants to remind us that you think he could sue or something.
• The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says that the American government cannot force us to call him a media analyst -- Wikipedia has a right to free speech. Although one can hypothetically sue another for libel, our information merely summarizes other published sources -- don't shoot the messenger. We're not oppressing Dice's right to say what he wants to on his social media by refusing to give in to his attempts to censor this site (which he does not own).
• Conversely, Wikipedia is a private site, and not a government institution, which means that no individual user has a right to free speech on it. Wikipedia is free to host or remove whatever content the site wants, just as you are free to not visit the site. You have as much of a right to free speech here as I have a right to stand over your bed at three in the morning and yell my beliefs at you -- none at all.
• Wikipedia favors in-depth coverage specifically about a subject more than passing mentions in sources not specifically about a subject. Sources that are not specifically about Dice do not have as much weight as sources that are specifically about Dice. Sources that do not analyze what Dice says do not have as much weight as sources that do analyze what Dice says.
• Wikipedia only summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, which even on a cold day in hell would not include Mark Dice, Alex Jones, or anyone else like that. If you try to cite conspiracy theorist sites ("alternate facts"), you will only look stupid and waste everyone's time and patience.
• Wikipedia does not accept original research. If you think you have a clever argument, here is an article on the mathematical concept required to understand how much we care.
• If the Illuminati is somehow still around and in charge, they control Wikipedia. By editing here, the Illuminati knows where your computer is and where you live. If the Illuminati is supposedly able to do all of the horrible things that Dice writes about without being caught, then it's no problem for them to fill your house with Tumorsyphilisitisosis spores and steal an odd number of socks from your washing machine. And yet, Dice is still active, because he clearly is one of our agents working to trick the public into underestimating our power. Every time you buy one of his books, you fill the coffers of the lizard people.

Ian Thomson, 23° Knight of the Golden Apple of Eris (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It is also not a soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Damnit, Ian! What have I told you about explicitly discussing our Illuminati overlords (may they rule over the world for many centuries)?!?! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes to lede

Since this has been in contention before, I thought it best to post here. To see if people had thoughts on the three different versions of the lede we have had over the past week. Aprl 28 Dice was an activist and author, and this had been the consensus version. May 2 he was vlogger and author. Now on May 5 he is commentator and author.

I personally have no preference between the first and the third, but I am not a huge fan of vlogger, even if there were sources using it, there would be better words in my opinion. Pinging Dsprc and Somedifferentstuff since they made the most recent changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I hate the word "vlogger" as well. I'm meh on the other two, I don't care which one. Just don't call him an analyst and I'm happy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Rationale for "commentator" is NYT's usage–generally regarded as a reliable source–and as a compromise, with "commentator" terminology being inclusive and encompassing of previously contentious descriptors "analyst", "critic", "V-logger", and so forth. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Video blogger is more precise [35] --- and is sourced as well.[36] When I think of commentator I think of some type of professional (E.g. sports commentator, news commentator), which he is not as far as I'm aware. He started a YouTube channel roughly 10 years ago [37] and is currently asking for donations from his viewers.[38] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd support something similar to the first sentence of Philip DeFranco who is much more well known. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah. That's a version I could really get behind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

+1 support to the Philip DeFranco model. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• How does it look, now? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm good with it. More precise. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Works for me. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)