Talk:Mark Dice

small edit war

I edited a section under "Mark Dice" which stated, "...and professes conspiratorial beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church.." because there wasn't a citation. Since then a citation was added. But the external link is bad. I don't know of Mark Dice speaking out against Roman Catholicism but his forte' is in mainly other areas. Even if he made 'a' comment about the Catholic Church harboring pedophiles, is that enough to use in a basic description of Mark Dice? IMO I don't think so. InfoFlow 05:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsworthy?

I don't understand why one would say John Conner is not newsworthy, he's been on Fox several times, he's been on the view, he's huge on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb4ser (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

because he is a wacko...idiot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.37.36 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So is Mark Dice. 209.134.115.5 (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

9 11

Changed "9/11 truth movement" to "his theories on 9/11." Dice's theory regarding 9/11 has NOT been established as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.23.114 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudonym

perhapse someone should make a page for Mark Dice or forward the John Conner search to the Mark Dice page now that he isn't using the pseudonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, did he take the name from terminator, or what? It seems so. 71.246.241.195 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

OK, first off, this article has an assertion of notability, so it's not eligible for speedy. That said, I'm skeptical of the notability and/or truthfulness of this article. I can find no reliable sources for this person's existence: only MySpace, YouTube and personal webistes. Can anyone show me that this person has really been on Fox? I found no mention of him in the sources given. Heimstern Läufer 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This article may be subject for speedy as the recreation of a previously deleted article on John Conner. In fact, it's been deleted a couple of times I think. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does he exist? Reliable Sources for John Conner (real name Mark Dice) MARK DICE IN THE NEWS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN2rl2yK_kw O'Reilly Factor [youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9Moy15EBY ABC's The View [youtube]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483865p-407205c.html New York Daily News

http://entertainment.myway.com/celebgossip/pgsix/id/06_30_2005_8.html the NYPOST

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7471582/moby?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single1&rnd=1121372452031&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212 Rollingstone

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0632,halter,74115,20.html The Village Voice

http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=413722 Tehran Times in Iran

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7992114920283511318&q=john+conner+coast+to+coast Coast to Coast AM [googlevideo]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032205.htm Canada Free Press

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/292005f.asp Agape Press

http://www.washtimes.com/entertainment/20050703-101111-4616r_page2.htm Washington Times

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds22222.html Digital Spy in the UK

http://smartmoney.com/life/index.cfm?story=20050729-tech Smart Money

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=213062 Rotten Tomatoes

http://entertainment.iafrica.com/news/457017.htm iAfrica in South Africa

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19466/1.html Telopolis in Germany

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-7-2005_pg9_9 Pakistan Daily Times

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs) 00:14-00:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Existing is not the point. Lots of people exist, are quoted in newspapers or have web sites. That doesn't necessarily make them notable. -- Subsolar (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Name Change from Connor to Dice

Uh. . .I am curious to know why he changed his alias. And who has confirmed that his real name is Mark Dice? I could just ask him on myspace, but he doesn't really talk to people on myspace. I guess i'll just have to call into his show and risk looking like a dumbass. But i'm curious to know who went in the Wiki article and changed all the "John Connor"s to "Mark Dice"s. I think perhaps it was the man himself. ToxicArtichoke 08:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a statement on MarkDice.com which points to TheResistanceManifesto.co explaining that he was sick of being called John and refering to himself as john since it was a pseudonym presumably taken from the terminator character. All his videos on youtube use the name mark dice also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.185.188 (talk • contribs) 05:46-05:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Words cannot express how happy I am that this wacko finally changed his name. My name really is "John Conner", and if all of the Terminator jokes/references/remarks for the past twenty years weren't bad enough, I have recently been identified with this remarkably twisted idividual. Maybe I can do something productive with my life, and the name "John Conner" won't go down in history as belonging to another conspiracy theorist nut case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.165.71 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be worse... there are women named Sarah Connor listed in the L.A. phone book! 70.15.116.59 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly sure Dice is not his real last name. I'm almost sure Mark is. I remember when he announced the change from Connor to Dice. It was on the Alex Jones show, he said, "My real name is Mark Diceshewski (or something along those lines), but you can call me Mark Dice." I do not think "Mark Dice" is as much as a pseudonym as it is a shortening of his real name. --Zimbabweed 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

His real name is **Mark Shouldice**, not Mark Dice, just FYI. He was working before publishing [advanced memory concepts](http://web.archive.org/web/20001022122351/http://www.advancedmemoryconcepts.com/AboutMark.htm), and a dating book. This can all be verified at the [County Clerk's website](http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/fbn/search.aspx), do a search for Shouldice. Evan Carroll (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality issue in video section

I think i fixed the neutrality issue in the video section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicMemory (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous for being famous

This guy is famous, but not notable. Delete it, please! Bearian 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The current form of the article is reasonable, after User:Athaenara and others put some work into it. If the article remained stable for a while I think it's OK to keep it. The guy does have press coverage, and we usually defer to what the press has thought important enough to cover. This is not a comment on Mark Dice's world-historical importance. We do have other articles on other things that are strange, jokey and self-promotional. A short well-referenced article that has been purged of advertising language is easier to put up with a long, boastful one.

The COI noticeboard entry on this article was marked Resolved on 4 September. (The pointer to the noticeboard will open the correct entry if you turn off Javascript). EdJohnston 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous and notable

Who ever flagged this article for lack of "notability" did so for personal reasons. there are countless articles on wikipedia that cover individuals or topics which are extremely less notable than Mark Dice. Dice has gotten more mainstream media coverage than almost all others in the 9/11 truth movement. only Alex Jones and Loose Change creators have topped his news coverage.

Dice is an extremely successfull culture jammer, and his culture jams have been covered around the world. He is rising to the status of other great culture jammers such as Banksy and the Yes Men. Again, those who appose this article likely do so for personal reasons. Likely a difference of political or religious views of Dice. Or maybe they are Mormon who seem to hate Dice for his views on the subject. or right wingers who hate anyone who is in the truth movement. and by the way, Dice is a right winger, so don't call him a liberal because he dissagrees with the war and with Bush. 14 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.187.241 (talk • contribs) 23:39-23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) and 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

To some extent I think you are correct, Dice has become notable as a culture jammer. That should be the focus of this article. He is less notable for his ideas, so we needn't cover those in depth. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it another venue for culture jamming. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow any idiot or whacko can get an entry in wikipedia. This guy should be in an asylum not wikipedia. I never heard of him before today, so my dislike isn't personal. I oppose all whackos.70.91.213.234 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He is certainly noteworthy now: http://www.infowars.com/?p=2683 Forgot to add citation to main article - could someone add it correctly for me because I keep doing it wrong :(Auto98uk (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Infowars is a blog - we don't use blogs as sources, except aboutt hemselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How does a story like this get on here then - it definitely happened because the audio is on youtube, which we can't use, and all the mainstream media is ignoring it, so there aren't any "reliable" sources, despite it provably happening Auto98uk (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Many, many things happen in this world, but we don't expect to read about all of them in an encyclopedia. If I posted a video of me getting on a bus that would be verifiable, but it wouldn't be noteworthy or "encyclopedic". We use reliable sources as the filter to tell us what's notable and verifiable. If the mainstream media and all other reliable sources (like scholars, etc) ignore the incident then it probably isn't important enough for an encyclopedia. While Wikipedia allows for fast updating, it's still an encyclopedia. It shouldn't be the first to report anything. And it certainly shouldn't drive the news by making something more notable than it otherwise would be. So to answer your question: get this reported in a reliable source. That could mean calling up reporters and getting them interested. My guess is that this will end up being reported somewhere in the next day or two, and then its notability will have been established. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but (admittedly IMO) the adopted son of an ex-USA President telling people to kill him is surely the sort of thing that would be in a persons entry in an encyclopaedia? Isn't not allowing it until it is reported by the media a bit risky - in some cases things simply aren't reported on because...actually that isn't a discussion for here i suppose Auto98uk (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

TheResistanceManifesto.com

Why is "TheResistanceManifesto.com = a thoroughly commercial website requiring paypal"? How can the man have an article when we can not reference his own site as a External link? He does use paypal, but it hardly seems to be "required". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpakhrad11 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Regardless, unless it's used as a source, a link isn't a reference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to use the site as a reference. My confusion is this in the editing someone states:

MarkDice.com = TheResistanceManifesto.com = a thoroughly commercial website requiring paypal, etc. See WP:EL.

I don't really understand why it is there. Harpakhrad11 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested deletion

I suggest that the FAIR-sourced statement in the article be deleted per this inasmuch as FAIR should not be used for contentious statements in BLPs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentalist individual?

Hi everyone,

I see that this article is part of Category:Christian fundamentalism. Are there any references that say he is a Christian fundamentalist?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... No reply to my question.

I'll assume he is not a Christian fundamentalist.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Education?

There are a few things I think would improve this Mark Dice page. First, where is he from and what is his educational background? Those are basic things we need to know about this author on this page. Second, a new section needs to be added about Mark Dice's instability in dealing with radio commentator Alex Jones' recently removing his book for sale on his website. In early October, 2012 Dice has gone on a raving attack of Jones with a multi part video series without disclosing the motivation for his sudden change of heart. Dice relied heavily on exposure provided to him in Jones documentary films and affiliated Jones network members including We Are Change without whom he would literally be unknown.

Other information that would be helpful about Mark Dice is whether or not he's married with or without children. We need more information on people who come out of no where writing books on secret societies. I personally see no reason to entrust Mark Dice with being any relevant source of information. He seems very punkish and immature to be handling the Jones' issue the way he is. Brainchannels (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

married? i had just ASSUMED he was gay.

was paul lynde married? charles nelson riley? vincent price?

yeah, yeah, "reliable sources", but.... 67.150.80.243 (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Looking at this article it is clear that there are no reliable sources and there is no need for this article to exist. The picture looks like it was taken on a webcam and I suspect that Mark Dice was the one that wrote this article in the first place. I would like to begin the deletion process as this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia under the general notability guidlines. (KingHiggins (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

"literally", literally

should something be mentioned about his speech habit of using "literally" literally 3 times in every sentence?! literally.

for someone who blames ke$ha for the fall of western civilization, he sure does TALK like her! 67.150.80.243 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Allen Shouldice

His name according to his published works is Mark Dice. Leave it alone or find a reliable source that says otherwise. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We do not use primary source documents such as county assessor filings for such facts in a biography of a living person. WP:Secondary sources are required. Note that I, personally, have no doubt of the truth of the connection, but Wikipedia's policies are tougher. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While one might not doubt it, I have spent some time researching and all I can find are primary sources or hearsay. Thus it cannot, yet, form a part of this article. It seems an unusual family name. It most definitely needs reliable sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Last November Dougweller and I discussed the primary sources on my talk page, and among all the various sources we found nothing that qualifies as secondary and reliable. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. It would be nice to find sources that meet our criteria as this does seem to be correct, but until we find these we can't make the change. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this, a war of attrition? Fictitious Business Names are not a proper reference. I smell socks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have the perfect solution.

Wikipedia Biography Subject 3275921, controversially known as either Mark Dice or Mark Allen Shouldice, is an American author, conspiracy theorist, and Wikipedia editor. Jsharpminor (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"right wing"?

"right wing" is the primary adjective phrase used to describe this subject without a cite. I've read the article and did not see supporting information for this claim - perhaps the opposite because he had an issue with Glen Beck. I do not think that being anti-"Illuminati" automatically makes someone support a reduction of tariffs or oppose an increase to the capital gains tax. Unless someone can produce a reference to his voting record in congress or a scan of his Republican membership card that phrase should be removed. Silly. --Hutcher (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

His book "The Resistance Manifesto" is clearly right wing in that its themes are mostly biblical, warning to resist the rise of the Antichrist. He also apparently sometimes pretends to be a ludicrously extreme liberal in order to prove a right wing point of view about liberal gullibility. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHOaW99ST4 for evidence. It's clear that he's really right wing, but we ought to find some citable source that says so directly. Rod (A. Smith) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

regular...what does that mean?

dice is characterized in this article as regularly appearing on coast to coast. what frequency translates into "regular"? or how would this be substantiated? i ask because i think it overstates the case. he may have appeared several times on coast to coast, but to say regular conveys something else, which i suspect would not bear scrutiny. similarly, coast to coast does have conspiracy theorists as guests, but unless you lump ufos and ghosts and supernatural and a host of other topics together under that heading, i'd suggest that it's misleading to call it a conspiracy theory show. so better language probably could be found that acknowledges not only the fact that coast to coast does host conspiracy theorists, but also the fact that this is one of a variety of topics. in other words, this is not an exclusive or primary focus as is implied by the present language. -- chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.132.246 (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The editors of wikipedia are full of shit

i added three relevant pieces of information to this page, with a reference, the fact that: 1. this guy was born with a different last name 2. is a christian 3. is a conservative

and these reverted back. i'm not giving any more money to wikipedia if i can't even enhance articles with useful, reference cited information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.94.3 (talk • contribs)

You based your additions on Rational Wiki which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

deletion

Can I nominate this for deletion? I don't think having 400k subscribers, to a conspiracy theory youtube site, warrants being on Wikipedia.

Also when you take into account he generally just posts inflammatory videos to click-bait - usually racism and anti-semitism.

I just don't see why wikipedia is devoting pages to a guy whose not remotely famous, notable, or well known - and the only reason he is known, is for racism and anti-semitism.

108.171.128.173 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

An Internet Troll

Seems to me that Mark Dice uses trolling as his technique to get hits on videos. This should be considered a style of the youtube marketing which is especially popular among conspiracy theorists and attention seekers. To call what he creates content-driven videos just doesn't fit the story here. He definitely trolls to get views in his youtube videos. 125.25.26.89 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)