Wikipedia

Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 2

< Talk:Mark Dice
Latest comment: 6 years ago by TonyBallioni in topic Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2018
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Analyst?

Latest comment: 7 years ago38 comments10 people in discussion

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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": [3], [4], [5] and the liberal Huffington Post: [6]. 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 [7], 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 [8], The Daily Telegraph [9], Fox News [10], The Washington Examiner [11], and The Huffington Post [12]. 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[13] or Twitter[14] 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 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)

Changes to lede

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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 [15] --- and is sourced as well.[16] 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 [17] and is currently asking for donations from his viewers.[18] -- 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)

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

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:

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)
Going nowhere. IP is welcome to make specific suggestions on improving this article's content --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Although one can hypothetically sue another for libel, our information merely summarizes other published sources -- don't shoot the messenger."

This is a bad argument. A Wikipedia editor could cherry pick sources to assemble an inaccurate portrait of a person, which would fall under libel. This is something that Wiki editors do all the time and it's happening with this very article. Even the head editor of Wikipedia/admin/whatever (Doug Weller) is guilty of it if this talk page is any indicator; he suggests here that editors ignore sources that are normally considered reliable because it is possible that these sources were not thorough enough with their investigation into Mark Dice's background--and so we should disregard them when they do things like label Mark Dice an analyst. This line of reasoning is faulty because it could be applied to any source for any article. If this faulty presupposition were consistently followed then Wikipedia would dissolve. Fortunately for Wikipedia, this line of reasoning isn't consistently followed because it's arbitrary horse shit. It's only applied to articles about persons and subjects that the mostly liberal/globalist Wiki editors are interested in misrepresenting. No matter. No sane and normally functioning person takes Wikipedia seriously anyhow. They all know it’s another arm of propaganda. Fake news, if you will.

God sees the truth, but waits.

2601:183:8202:3D81:498A:6554:5A3F:CF9B (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you think that Doug Weller is the head editor of Wikipedia is proof enough that you know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia or how it works. Doug is one of the few editors I'd even consider trusting with such a position but the reality is that there is no such thing. Sorry, there is no conspiracy, no one's in charge, the disconnect between what you see and what you believe is because Reality has a well known liberal bias. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, you don’t understand how to reason either because the fact that a person doesn’t know the exact role and title of Doug Weller isn’t sufficient to prove that the person “knows nothing about Wikipedia”. Granted, Weller isn’t the head editor of Wikipedia; however, you consider him "one of the few editors I'd even consider trusting with such a position". Regardless of Weller’s official title (I guess it's Administrator?), he's an influential editor who sets precedence, has a following here at Wikipedia, and should know Wikipedia policy better than anybody. Despite this, he has suggested here that editors ignore sources that are normally considered reliable because it is possible that these sources were not thorough enough with their investigation into Mark Dice's background--and so we should disregard them when they do things like label Mark Dice an analyst. The main point here that you've dodged is if Doug’s principle were consistently followed for every source and article, then Wikipedia would cease to be. But this principle will not be consistently followed because it's arbitrary horse shit. It's just a way for the mostly liberal/globalist Wiki editors to circumvent their own editing policy, allowing them to negatively impact articles about subjects and persons that they're interested in misrepresenting.

Further, you never touched upon my point about libel. A Wikipedia editor could cherry pick sources to assemble an inaccurate portrait of a person and this is something that is frequently done here at Wikipedia.

Finally, when you write, "reality has a well known liberal bias" and allege there is a disconnect between my beliefs and reality, are you referring to biological men who think they're women? Or are you referring to the idea that all immigrants bring equal value to the countries that they immigrate to and never cause harm? Or do you think Hillary Clinton should have been elected US President because she’s a woman? Or are you referring to the idea of Trump being a Russian spy? Or are you referring to the idea of Islam being a religion of peace? Or are you saying CNN and the New York Times are reliable and nonpartisan sources? Wikileaks is Russia? Please explain what you mean. I’m very interested in what a man in pajamas in an insane asylum somewhere is thinking. It was kind of the nurses to give you some free time on the computer today. I must confess the pajamas and insane asylum bug me, but you seemingly getting your political knowledge and analysis from Stephen Colbert is what bothers me the most.

2601:183:8202:3D81:498A:6554:5A3F:CF9B (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mr or Ms IP6. Please click on the link about 'reality having a liberal bias' rather than trying to turn this into a forum. This is not a forum. If you think there has been misconduct please take it up at WP:ANI. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree, this talk page is about improving the article, To address your one point about the article. Yes, if a wiki edd was to cherry pick sources to give an inaccurate picture of the subject that...would breach our rules. Then you (or any edd) could come here and explain why you think the edit is wrong. What you cannot do however is make threats of legal action.
Now would you like to discus what you think is misrepresented or cherry picked about Mr Dice?Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The highly inaccurate diatribe above about what the IP editor thinks liberals believe, coupled with the personal attack with which they opened their last comment paints a picture of an editor unwilling to engage in good faith editing on this article. I suggest we stop feeding the trolls and move on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You can call me Dr. IP6 or Daddy. I clicked the link and it brings me to an article with a picture of a bad comedian who liberals think is a political analyst. The evidence for mostly liberal/globalist Wiki editors cherry picking sources in order to paint a bad portrait of a person that they do not like is all over this talk page. Have you not been reading my writing or the suggestions on this talk page? Doug Weller, an admin or whatever here at Wikipedia, came in here and suggested that editors ignore reliable sources that label Mark Dice an analyst because it is possible that they were not thorough with their investigation into Mark Dice. That's precisely what I've been talking about. That's cherry picking. This is an Admin, or at the very least an highly experienced and respected Wiki editor making this suggestion. If this isn't a good example of why Wikipedia is a joke then I don't know what is. Fortunately, nobody with a normally functioning brain and the ability to critically think believes that Wikipedia is reliable for anything that remotely touches religion, politics, or social issues. It's complete crap.

2601:183:8202:3D81:498A:6554:5A3F:CF9B (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

None of which is relevant to legal threats or free speech or whatever. This talk page is about improving the Dice page, not for general discussion about Wikipedia polices or users. I am asking for this to be closed now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
And the last is an attack and I would suggest removing it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep on bringing me bad arguments and I'll continue to knock them down. I can assure you. By "improving the Dice page" you mean portraying him as negatively as possible while staying in bounds of editing policies that are loosely followed, sometimes even completely circumvented. See: Doug Wellers reasoning. Wiki's editors are mostly of the same ideology which creates unreliable articles. You have a bunch of Wiki editors who have the same opinions cherry picking from sources that they have deemed "reliable". Following that model, of course you're going to end up with crap.

2601:183:8202:3D81:498A:6554:5A3F:CF9B (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Can an admin now step in and close this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

to edit the inaccuracies in this article Pimpcbunb (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The Resistance Manifesto

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I disagree with this addition to the Career section. "The Resistance Manifesto" is not a notable work, as evidenced by the only citation being to a primary source, its Amazon listing. I cannot find a reliable secondary source that reviews the book, only listings on Amazon, Goodreads, and the like.

If there is agreement, can this be removed? TheValeyard (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with removal. No reliable source has shown an interest in the book. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Dice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

On Mark Dice's channel, he has a million subscribers! That is very important to his career. Please let me list it on his page. Lucajeter (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for lead section

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

The Washington Times describes Mark Dice as a political commentator here. Could someone with editing rights please add this into the first sentence of the lead section? Thank you. 77.189.217.65 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think one single source is enough to make a change like that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  Not done the The Washington Times sourcing has been discussed before on this page for a similar matter (describing him as an analyst). It was not considered enough to change the language then, and I wouldn't consider it for this as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The wiki-link you provided leads to a discussion on this talk page. It was not an official result from a wiki ivote, as it was the case with the Daily Mail in January 2017. A few editors cannot just determine which newspaper is considered reliable or unreliable in Wikipedia. If you feel that The Washington Times is inaccurate in describing the subject of this BLP article as a political commentator, then you need to take it to the appropriate board here. Refusal to do so while at the same time rejecting The Washington Times as a reliable source to add the words "political commentator" into the lead section of the Mark Dice article, will create the impression as if you are trying to own this article.
In addition to this, the description "political commentator" is not an exceptional claim and therefore does not require multiple high-quality sources. Please reconsider and endorse the addition of the requested change into the article. Thank you. 77.189.217.65 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail issue required larger consensus because that concerned whether every instance of a source could be used anywhere on the entire site. The question as to whether or not a single instance of a source is appropriate for one small part of a single article requires a lower amount of consensus. Your comparison is as flawed as demanding a nation wide vote at a HOA meeting. Dice's political commentary is generally conspiracy theorism, so going with "political commentator" would be making things less specific for the purpose of blurring lines. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
If only a very few describe Dice as a political commentator while the majority describe dice as a fringe conspiracy theorist, then the Wikipedia goes wit the latter. The WTimes is a single source attempting to confer legitimacy on a person who thinks the Illuminati control the world. TheValeyard (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It was not an official result from a wiki ivote There's no such thing as an "official result" and it's an !vote, not an ivote. The exclamation mark generally represents the word "not" in computer-savvy circles, which most Wikipedians fall into. So the term literally means "not vote". The reason for this is because we don't do official votes on contentious questions. An "unofficial" discussion on this talk page carries every bit as much weight as an "official" RfC with a formal close. Please see WP:CONSENSUS for more information on how decisions are made here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • RSN considers the WT borderline. That is a generous reading in my opinion. Its clearly a biased source that has a low reputation for fact-checking and journalistic integrity. I'd no more cite it here than I would cite CounterPunch. The issue is that Dice has engaged in a campaign to shape his image using Wikipedia. That he gets sympathetic non-RS to do so does not impact that he is generally viewed as a conspiracy theorist by reliable sources and that all of his political commentary tends to derive from his conspiracy theories. WT and other sympathetic media with low reputations for integrity don't change that. We need coverage in multiple reliable sources before we consider the change, and we should be careful not to do it beforehand so as to avoid citogenesis. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Very generous. I'd never consider the Unification Church owned WT as a reliable source for almost anything. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, I'm with Doug and others on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Dice's faith

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Dice explicitly says on this YouTube video (2:10) that he's a nondenominational Christian. Can I legitimately use it as a source? SLIGHTLYmad 16:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It's YouTube so no.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Well WP:SELFPUB says I could. SLIGHTLYmad 16:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'm okay with a primary source for a BLP's religious views, but we still need it to be WP:DUE before including it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support a brief mention if he has commented on it himself in his videos, which are the thing he is notable for. Let's avoid anything beyond Dice has identified himself as X religious group in his videos. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
His videos are notable if and because they are noted by reliable sources – they aren't notable for simply existing. If observers have not seen fit to comment on his religion then it's undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph notes him for being the leader of a Christian activist group that took issues with a Starbucks cup design, and the Miami New Times also ran a piece about a similar thing he did with the Super Bowl [19]. The Daily Beast also notes his religion [20], and a quick Google search reveals that your typical conspiracy fringe sites include Christianity as part of his brand if you will. You also have some sources like The Christian Post that can be reliable in some circumstances noting his religion as well. I think there is enough out there that religion is warranted as a mention, because it actually seems to be part of how he started his career. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
According to The Daily Telegraph article linked above: "The Resistance, a Christian activist group based in San Diego... Its founder Mark Dice..." | I would be fine adding this material but I'd like to see an additional supporting source. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be better than the section you removed upon reflection. Unsure why the other source above links to an Irma article now (I thought I linked to one on Dice). I'll try to find it when I'm at a laptop. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Should the lede say "self-published author" or just "author"?

Latest comment: 7 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

See this diff [21] from DrFleischman | As far as I know he is self-published but I can't find sourcing for it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

If no RS say it neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
You immediately tagged it after I added it. Would you mind helping out to see who his publisher is? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
And you added something that you had no sources for. That is against etiquette, you do not add stuff then ask others to look for sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no; maybe some other editors will help out. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
You do understand that even if someone does this, we still need as RS saying he is self published?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Its in the preface to his own book: [22]. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a source for this book being self published, is it the only book he has ever written?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
True. There is also the question of whether it should be in the lead, and whether if it is there it should be self-published author or author of self-published books. The former describes him as a person so we would need strong sourcing for. The latter is a descriptor of his works rather than him, so it would be easier to source. This isn't one I have a strong opinion on, just something I quickly Google since someone asked for sourcing help. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The latter reads a bit forky, we cannot source he has only published self published books, so we will imply it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Resistance Manifesto

Here are links to 4 of his books [23] [24] [25] [26] and under product details the publisher is listed as The Resistance Manifesto, which also happens to be the name of one of his books [27] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, as we have to have every one one of his published works listed as self published (including any magazine articles) for us to try and claim (on this kind of evidence) he is only a self published author. By the way, does he own the Resistance Manifesto publishers?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest checking WorldCat rather than Amazon on this. Don't do what Jimbo did on this article. Like I said above, I'm not particularly invested one way or another on this question, but WorldCat is much better than Amazon. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

is

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is a trump supporter just saying you should add that k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeleinelover444 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Article should be edited to add information on Dice's new book published Nov 1, 2017 entitled, "The True Story of Fake News"

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Mark Dice's book "The Story of Fake News" was published on November 1, 2017 and by November 23 had 732 customer reviews on Amazon, 98% of them 5 star. On that date it was rated number 53 in the category "Politics & Government". Significantly, the book includes a 19 page chapter discussing the liberal bias inherent in Wikipedia and Wikipedia's willful suppression of conservative personalities and perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGloverJr (talk • contribs) 15:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Might be relevant to put in his views on Wikipedia, care to suggest some text?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yea, not much of a chance we're going to cover a self-published book with zero legitimate reviews. Customer reviews count for squat. TheValeyard (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

3 November 2017 (UTC) A reference to the chapter about Wikipedia in Mark Dice's book "Fake News" could include his discussion on page 258 of the deletion by Wikipedia editors of the article about radio talk show host Wayne Dupree, who was named one of the To 50 Influential Black Republicans for 2017. Dice writes, "the gatekeepers don't want to let people know about black conservatives because liberals are trying to control the narrative by continuing to perpetuate the myth that all black people are Democrats". Another possibility is to reference the detailed discussion Dice makes on pages 250 through 252 of how his own page on Wikipedia was censored. He writes on page 250, "Before we look at the examples of censorship and liberal bias on Wikipedia as a whole, let's use my own page as an example..." RobertGloverJr (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice is not a notable or reputable critic of the Wikipedia if his opinions are only appearing in his own self-published book. This material will not be added to this or any article until reputable reliable sources cover Dice's opinions and/or novel. TheValeyard (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your point that Mark Dice is self-published seems reasonable. But in reading the short Wikipedia article about him it says he is an "Internet Personality" and links to a page listing Internet Personalities. Mark Dice is not listed on that list. Meanwhile, as I type this the Mark Dice YouTube channel has 1,161,329 subscribers. A video he uploaded five hours ago (Nov 23, 2017) currently has 131,950 views. Do you think perhaps this merits a clarification on Mark Dice's page in the interest of enhancing the understanding of readers on this point about him being on YouTube? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGloverJr (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We do say he is a youtube personalty, what do you mean?Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Mark Dice being a "YouTube Personality", the article does as you stated say that, but those two words in the article link to an article named "List of YouTubers" that contains a long list of names of YouTube channels and their creators, none of which is "Mark Dice". Furthermore, at the end of the "List of YouTubers " article is a link entitled, "List of the most subscribed users on YouTube". That links to an article that contains two lists of the world's most popular YouTube channels that purports to be current as of November 23, 2017. The first entry is PewDiePie with 57 million subscribers. At the tail end is the list of channels that have 1 million subscribers. Mark Dice is not listed at all, and specifically is not listed in the portion of the list for those who have 1 million subscribers despite YouTube showing he has 1,161,329. So it appears there is censorship occurring unless a better explanation for this glaring omission is simply incompetence of the responsible Wikipedia editors. On an orthogonal side topic, I want to point out that I have no dog in this fight. I was initially very supportive of Mark Dice based solely on his brilliant new book about Fake News. I have subsequently spent a couple of hours reading his 2014 book, "Inside the Iluminati" and concluded a different person must have written the Fake News book than wrote the book about Ilumnati. The new book is rational and professional and well written while the Iluminati book is not only boring beyond belief but also rambling to the point of indicating an author whose mind is not sound. Just an observation. RobertGloverJr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of either censorship or incompetence is quite jerkish, so allow me to throw a little jerkishness back in your direction; brush up on your reading comprehension. The List of the most subscribed users on YouTube lists the top 50 subscribed channels, ranging from 57 million at #1 to 14 million at #50. Dice's 1.1 million is not even in the ballpark of making a top 50. TheValeyard (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I see the problem. Robert, you are confusing list by country with the list of top 50. Feel free to add him to the list of YouTube personalities. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I thank all the more experienced editors who have taken the time to respond to my comments about Mark Dice. This has been a learning experience, most especially realizing Mark Dice self-publishes but does so in a way that makes the books appear to those who are not on guard seem created by a professional publishing house. At this point, I think the best use of my time is to go into the proverbial woodshed and spend considerable effort studying the Wikipedia rules of editing via the tutorials Wikipedia makes available. Best regards until then.... RobertGloverJr (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

@Slatersteven: Elaborate please. Isn't it your job to explain yourself? --Երևանցի talk 17:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, it is questionable whether or not the source calls Dice far right. In fact it does explicitly name some as far right (Dice is not one of them).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

My edit consisted of two components:

  • 1) adding a Newsweek article as a reference of him being far right and a conspiracy theorist
  • 2) that he considers himself the "Conservative King of YouTube"

Why would you revert if you only question one part of the edit?

Regarding the "far right" characterization. The article's headline strongly implies that he is far right? Does it not? --Երևանցի talk 18:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it was added in one chunk so I undid it as one chunk. It does not matter if the headline implies he is far right, we do not infer from sources. We quote only what they say (explicitly). The fact they do (in the article) label some as far Right implies that they have reasons for not calling Dice far right (such as libel).Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The Twitter source is insufficient for "Conservative King of Youtube". A WP:SECONDARY source is needed to show that Dice's claim is taken seriously by anybody. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Completely concur. If nothing else other than Dice even bothers to mention it, we shouldn't either. And honestly, if it's just a copule of mentions, we still shouldn't. It's bombastic self-promotion, nearly Trumpesque. As currently sourced, it should not remain in the article in any way. Ravensfire (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this controversy?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mark Dice is currently involved in heated Twitter arguments regarding the Korean pop group BTS; does this count as a subject that should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.147.32 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Just usual stuff on twitter. Ravensfire (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
2600:1014:B00F:EE6C:E4DF:6E25:7687:F7FF (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


In the page mark dice is called a “conspiracy theorist” that is extremely bias and should be taken out immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B00F:EE6C:E4DF:6E25:7687:F7FF (talk) 2600:1014:B00F:EE6C:E4DF:6E25:7687:F7FF

  Not done Please obtain consensus before requesting article changes. Your change is unlikely to be made because our verifiability and WP:neutrality policies require us to follow the reliable sources, which say that Dice is a conspiracy theorist. If you know of reliable sources that say Dice is not a conspiracy theorist, then please post them here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please add this material to the Career section:

"In November 2017, Dice released The True Story of Fake News: How Mainstream Media Manipulates Millions, which discusses the American mainstream media and its alleged bias against US President Donald Trump. The book reached fifteenth place on Amazon's bestseller list.[1]" Every875 Talk to me 02:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Amazon.com (1 November 2017). "Amazon.com: The True Story of Fake news". Amazon.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
  Additional information needed Please provide a link to an independent, reliable secondary source that mentions the book, as well as a link to a reliable source that verifies that the book reached #15 on Amazon's bestseller list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  Not done we don't link to Amazon pages as references. Please provide a reliable secondary source commenting on this aspect of his career and demonstrating that the world at large thinks it is important to note. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Dice/Archive_2&oldid=1136991523"