Talk:Mark Dice/Archive 7

Political Positions Of Mark Dice
Hi, I just wanted to raise an issue Mark Dice seems to be concerned about. A lot of youtubers, pundits, and commentators have their political positions clearly stated in their Wikipedia article, while Mr Dice does not. As he is very political and his youtube channels focus on political and media analysis, it seems reasonable to me that we should state his political views, or at least some of them in the article. Since this is practically the focus of his entire career, it seems like it should be a part of his Wikipedia page. I understand that in his videos, Mr Dice now regularly criticizes certain political groups and is basically a satirist who criticizes certain political groups instead of stating his own political positions much of the time. Because of this it may be difficult to document a lot of his views. However, I believe that he has made clear enough some of his main beliefs and that these should definitely be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightingForRight (talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * He cannot be used as a source for his views, RS can.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources such as Dice's own YouTube channel are not suitable for major expansions of the biography. If it's important to our readers, secondary sources will have covered it. Binksternet (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I apologise for putting in Mr Dice's youtube channel as a source as it was misleading.I am not suggesting that all our information should be sourced from his channel, and I do think that if possible we should try to seek secondary sources too. However, I see no reason why we cannot use his youtube channel as a source. As the words there are coming from his own mouth, it seems that they will be the most accurate source possible of finding his political positions. Besides, I have observed that there are channels such as TYT where on their Wikipedia pages, some of the references are to their own channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightingForRight (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I also wanted to add that I understand the concern with using primary sources as the primary source may make a claim that is incorrect about themselves; for example, a you-tuber may make a claim that they have been mentioned on major media outlets. In this example, it would be inappropriate to use the youtuber's claims as evidence that they have been mentioned on major media outlets, as they may fabricate comments. However, Mr Dice's example is different. All I am asking to include on his page are his political positions. In this example, we would only write what Mr Dice has stated his political positions are, as you find in many other political position sections in various articles. He is the most reliable source for what comes out of his own mouth. Any secondary source could only repeat what he has stated on his youtube channel or in his books, thus using his youtube channel to find that evidence. So in the end, all the evidence for his political positions stems from himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightingForRight (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * are you suggesting that people always tell the truth about their beliefs? Especially when they might be unpalatable to some? As an example, not aimed at Dice, white supremacists are learning to present themselves as white nationalists. Anti-semites have for a long time learned to use language that disguises their real beliefs. "Sugarcoating" is one word for it. Doug Weller  talk 08:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not suggesting that people always tell the truth about their beliefs, as the examples you mentioned prove. However, I do not believe this is relevant to what I am proposing. What I am saying is not that we conduct original research and infer or analyse the information from the source, but that we simply state what he has said in his videos, or his books, or other various types of sources, and let the reader interpret what he is saying for themselves. Stating what he claims his views are, is important to his career, as his career is highly based on politics. All I am saying is that it would be reasonable to place a 'Political Views' section on his page. FightingForRight (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * what you're describing is original research; see my post below from yesterday. The only thing we could possibly use would be the about section of his YouTube channel, which can be considered a self-source for noncontroversial assertions. The only noncontroversial assertion there is that he's conservative, which is already mentioned in the article and is sourced reliably. valereee (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * His YouTube videos can't be a direct source for his views because in order to present his YouTube videos as a source for his views neutrally, multiple editors would have to sit down and watch all his videos and take notes on the various things he says and then argue about what he really meant, etc., and that would be original research, which we don't do, ever. Literally not for any article; you can find our policy on it at WP:Original Research


 * What we do is wait for someone else to watch his videos and comment on his views as stated in them, and then we present that. If you can find comments on his political views in reliable sources, by all means we can insert them into the article. The problem here is that reliable sources aren't commenting. Even shaky-reliability sources aren't commenting very much. If Mr. Dice's political views were considered important, someone would be commenting in reliable sources. valereee (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Typically, you wouldn't use YouTube as a source of research, I agree, but the fact is that someone is a reliable source for their own political positions. For example:  Kyle Kulinski is a YouTuber.  This is his entire media platform, and all of his positions are stated there.  Apart from a couple of appearances on news channels that are seldomly if ever documented in transcript, this is where he is.  Would we delete his entire Wikipedia article because all of his stated political positions are on YouTube and only YouTube?  Of course not.  Someone should obviously be a perfectly reliable source to speak for themselves.  Granitehope (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Granitehope, you're missing the point--WP:FART has something to say on the topic. "Political positions" need not just be reliably sourced, for which one might could accept a YouTube video, but they also need to be proven to be relevant. That's why secondary sources are called for. Otherwise, every single position on any single topic he has ever YouTubed about could/would/should be included, and that's crazy. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should post literally everything that Mark Dice has ever said or every position he has, for example, on modern art or on whether he likes cats or dogs, other useless things. But, this is a page called "Mark Dice."  A section for political positions would obviously be relevant to him as a person if we're going to have this page up at all, and clearly this community has chosen to keep him on here.  Thus, it only makes sense that we be able to list his major political positions that we can clearly define and use him as a source of his own positions.  Granitehope (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , we do include that he's conservative, as that's been commented on in reliable sources. As for the rest of his opinions, as soon as someone comments on his political positions at length in a reliable source, we'll include them. Until then, I'm afraid they aren't relevant for purposes of a Wikipedia article. He's free to post them on FB, Insta, Twitter, YouTube; WP does not care unless someone else is talking about them. valereee (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Kyle Kulinski is a shining example of what a Wikipedia page of a youtuber shouldn't look like. OMG. valereee (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that this is the absurdity this standard creates. PewDiePie, for example, is almost half YouTube sources, and SocialBlade, which is connected directly to YOuTube and what I understand is also not considered reliable.  The point I'm making is that applying this strict of a standard to Mark Dice in that he can't even be used as a reliable source for his own political positions would imply that a gigantic percentage of YouTubers, Twitch streamers would have to be eliminated.  That is quite an absurd standard and is why i think things are being improperly applied here.  Granitehope (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:OTHER; The fact other stuff is done wrong doesn't mean we should write this article the wrong way. It means the other article needs cleanup. Have you read the original research link I sent you yet? If not, please go read it. After you read it, I'm happy to discuss. valereee (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, yes it's true that you don't want to repeat mistakes. I'm well aware of that fact, but there's a difference between a mistake and an absurd standard.  The editors of this Wiki with their logic would eliminate a gigantic amount of information that exists on this platform.  Obviously, that is not nor has it ever been the intent here.  Wikipedia's RS guidelines clearly state that the author of content is a reliable source.  Mark Dice is the author of his own political positions.  As stated, he is his own source.  To state that Mark Dice's positions have to be echoed is not part of this standard of quoting from an original work and clearly is not, could not be what Wikipedia is referring to.  There are thousands of people who do not get echoed by the media who have articles here.  Again, this absurdity would remove all of that information, including prominent figures on these popular platforms like Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, etc... .  I don't think the goal of this community is to create absurd standards.  Mark Dice's editors seem to stand alone in its application of these standards, as few if any other Wikipedia articles use them. Granitehope (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, they say self-sourcing is reliable for noncontroversial assertions, like where he was born, which is something WP thinks is worth including on almost every biography. In order to include his political positions, you first have to show they're considered relevant. You show that by providing references to other people discussing those positions in reliable sources. If you can find someone discussing his political positions in a reliable source, we can add that information. valereee (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia's RS criteria


 * Definition of a source


 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:


 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)


 * Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."


 * Mark Dice is authoritative in relation to the subject (Mark Dice, or Mark Dice's political opinions). You and other editors here are improperly applying this standard to only reliable publication processes, which is not the letter of the rule here.  Again, if we're talking about things that Mark Dice is not an expert at, such as for example if he made a rocket science video, of course he is not an authoritative figure.  But for the positions of Mark Dice, of course he's an authoritative source for his own positions.  How could it be otherwise? EDIT:  Someone stylize this if you have a chanceGranitehope (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you believe I and other editors here are improperly applying this standard, you can ask for help at WP:RSN, where there are multiple experts on reliable sources, or at WP:NORN where there are multiple experts on original research. Don't ask at both; that'll just piss them off. valereee (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are plain and these guidelines are followed by every other set of Wikipedia articles except for this one. At no point have I seen the standard applied this way and I'm welcome to be shown otherwise. I'm not complaining about Wikipedia as a whole. I have an issue specifically with this article and how standards are applied here, which is a complete outlier from how they are applied everywhere else on the website. The standard that someone cannot be used as a reliable source for their own political positions is an absurd standard you'll find nowhere else. That is what I'm getting at is that these standards claimed on this talk page are not universal site-wide standards and the interpretation of reliable source is not represented anywhere else. It is either that this article is the god of standards that nobody else is abiding by because no other editors are as good at interpreting the rules as those here, or it is the black sheep that needs to align its standards with the rest of the website, particularly with the literal wording of the standards which are continually cited here.Granitehope (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you believe I and other editors here are improperly applying this standard, you can ask for help at WP:RSN, where there are multiple experts on reliable sources, or at WP:NORN where there are multiple experts on original research. Don't ask at both; that'll just piss them off. valereee (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No need for help. A simple reading of the rules of reliable sources is enough. You're not reading half of what the rule says. The rule clearly states that an authoritative source is all that is required, and someone is an authoritative source on their own political opinions.Granitehope (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as some helpful additional information, please read WP:SELFSOURCE Granitehope (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, Thankyou for participating and engaging in a civil discussion and offering your point of view. I understand your concerns about using Mark Dice's Youtube page, however I think that has a good point. Granitehope has shown clear evidence from Wikipedia's own guidelines that Mr Dice's youtube channel is an authoritative source and that we can use it. Additionally, you criticized my point, stating that we would have to use Original Research if we were to use his Youtube Channel as a source. I disagree, because what Wikipedia defines as Original Research is facts, allegations, ideas, interpretations and so on that are not supported by reliable, published sources. I have stated that we could simply state in his article what he has said in his youtube videos about his political positions or in his books as these seem highly relevant to his career. Please take no offence at this as I am not criticizing your credibility as an editor, or your intentions. FightingForRight (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The root of the problem is that Mark Dice chose to engage in bad-faith off-site canvassing (also known as meatpuppetry), bringing a lot of users who are not here to build an encyclopedia but fight for and advocate on behalf of Shouldice. Users like you two.  Don't bother telling us to assume good faith when it's obvious why you're here.  Because your interpretations of the rules are to serve your hero (and not the best interest of the site), we will ignore them.
 * If you want to prove me wrong, you should find different topics to muck about in. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand the issue with protected editing which is why I'm not contesting that. Mark Dice is here for self promotion and I agree that we need to take extra care to ensure that material isn't made as promotional material, but to be informative. I am 100% with you and understand your concerns and the concerns of the community here. I don't, however, think that this excuses the standards that are being applied. I think we can list information about Mark Dice, his political positions and even some about his books without being promotional. This is something we can talk about and edit here. What I worry about is that we're applying an absurd standard that is ignoring both the spirit of this website and even half of the rules out of the paranoia that this will be used to promote him. We can talk about how things are worded and there's vibrant discussion here from honest individuals, likely even those who are fans of his, on how we can inform people without pushing things like book sales or YouTube views. It's understandable that YouTube stats are questionable given how easily they are manipulated, particularly with the T Series vs PewDiePie fiasco where both are likely inflating view and subscriber numbers with bots, and where other users are doing that on their behalf. As far as motivations go, again I have clearly stated the rules of self publishing and how the standards here are not in line with the standards on the rest of the site. I both posted WP:RS and WP:SELFSOURCE as evidence of improper standards. This is not up for debate. We can have a discussion about how we include things, but what we can't do is apply an absurd standard just to deny others the right to information they genuinely seek. Granitehope (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because your interpretations of the rules are to serve your hero (and not the best interest of the site), we will ignore them.
 * Again, if you're here to build an encyclopedia, you need to find a different topic.  Now.  Otherwise, we will have to conclude that you're yet another meatpuppet of Shouldice's.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, You are using an Ad Hominem attack on Granitehope, accusing Granitehope of being Mark Dice's meat puppet, while he is just trying to make the point similar to the one I was making. Using these attacks is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and I would encourage you to put more objectivity in your statements. That being said, I mean no offence to you, and am simply asking for you to consider another point of view without resulting to personal insults. FightingForRight (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Meatpuppet" is the term we use to describe persons recruited to act as proxies for other users -- which you and Granitehope won't stop acting like. Now, I'm giving you one final warning as I've given him one final warning: find a different topic.  You are quite welcome to learn how the site works in some other topic.  You are not welcome to re-interpret the "rules" on behalf of a blocked user who explicitly told his fans to make the very same arguments that you and Granitehope were making.  It's frankly hypocritical that you call me pointing this obvious fact an attack as expecting anyone to not see what you're up to would require them to be drooling, knuckle-dragging, inbred, mercury-poisoned lobotomites.  We are under no obligation to pretend that Stevie Wonder couldn't see what you're doing.
 * Again, last chance, find a different topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

How could someone commenting on another's political views be a credible source of information? You bring up that people can lie about their own opinions but you don't think a person would lie about another person's opinions? Or perhaps they just get it wrong? Take something out of context? Mfc127 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , in general that's why we want to see reliable sources for such information. If the NYT, WSJ, and Forbes all are saying "person X's stance on issue Y is Z," we report on it. If reliable sources disagree -- for instance, if a report in the NYT said the report in the WSJ had taken something out of context -- we report on the areas of disagreement. --valereee (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation_overkill?
25 citations for 350 words, can some citations be merged/removed? Swil999 (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is a case of responding to POV pushing accusations "well here are all the people who say this. Yes we can remove some.Slatersteven (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference Cleanup
Please remove the following references:
 * 1. It's his own facebook page, so it would count as a primary source.
 * 2. (LifeSiteNews) remove at least one instance from the first sentence since it's needlessly double-citing, presumably only for the pseudonym since that sentence has nothing to do with transgenderism.
 * 11. (BBC) It does not say he is a youtube personality (which he indisputably is), only mentions him once as an activist.
 * 20. (Toronto Star) The LA Times article focuses only on the Katy Pery conspiracy, whereas The Star mentions a couple others so I think only the LA Times one should be there, since the Star isn't adding anything new.


 * 12. (NYT) Here's what the page says about him: "Mr. Dice has promoted conspiracy theories that the Jade Helm military training exercise last year was preparation for martial law and that the Sept. 11 attacks were an “inside job.” But Mr. Laughlin likes him for what he said was his humorous political commentary and his sarcastic man-on-the-street interviews."


 * 13. (Guardian) The only mention is quoting a tweet of his "On Twitter, #SpiritCooking was the top trend on Friday morning. Republican author Mark Dice tweeted: “I am now accepting apologies from everyone who said I was crazy for writing books about how the Establishment are Satanists”.
 * While another tweet, shared over 1,000 times compared her to the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer" so would this be any different than citing the tweet directly (which would be a primary source). Might be a better source, like the LATimes source which mentions that he called her a satanist, or just keep it out of the lead since it's already mentioned in the Career section (unless he's had a pattern of repeatedly calling people Satanists where it's not use satircally). The Salon article mentions him and the Illuminati so you can keep that one, the ABC also mentions his Christian resistance group and the illuminati/secret societies so you could either keep both or one of those.

Modifications Possibly remove the following sentence, as it does not have anything to do with Dice himself but rather about what someone said about him, so should it go in the article?

On June 10, syndicated talk show host Michael Reagan advocated on-air that Dice should be assassinated. Six days later, Reagan hosted Dice on his show and apologized for his comments.[18]

His infobox says name as Mark Dice, but the article says his name is Shouldice, so maybe change the infobox name to Shouldice and add Mark Dice as an alias to the infobox. Perhaps also add the US as country, and author/youtube personality (both mentioned in RS) as occupation.

Comment Is indefinite extended protection necessary? Can it be lowered so the protection has a renewable expiry, or is it possible to have a allow semi-confirmed to edit pages, but only publish those changes by approval of an extended-confirmed user. Swil999 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've responded at your talk page, as as I see you're working on a copy of the article in your user space. --valereee (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Reopen when you have completed the edits in your userspace RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 21:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2019
Change conspiracy theorist to be removed Change right wing to conservative 97.105.226.183 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * both statements seem to be backed by proper reliable sources, and you have presented nothing that supports your proposed changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This case is outright non-sense. The evidence is weak and hearsay. Just because a journalist says he is a "conspiracy theorist" does not make it so. ALL THE CITATIONS provide NO EVIDENCE. This phrase should be thrown out. Opinions from journalists IS NOT A WIKIPEDIA STANDARD. meatclerk (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but we have what are called polices, and they say if RS say it so do we unless other RS contest it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2019 (actually a question not a request)
Why the removal of his education credentials and last two best-selling books? 69.113.39.53 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please only use edit requests to ask for an edit to be made as opposed to asking why an edit already was made. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven reversion of 19:36, 15 July 2019
I added sourced prose discussing Dice's invitation to the White House, which reverted two minutes later saying, "too many things wrong to list, for a start we do not wikilink in quotes." (a) Can anyone else, on Slatersteven's behalf, list exactly what in the 411 bytes of prose I added was "wrong"? (b) I only quoted the words "social media summit" in my addition, and though there were no links therein, if I had, WP:LWQ only says, "Be conservative when linking within quotations". —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Dice's presence at the social media summit could be included in this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a reasonable inclusion to mention this, nothing obviously wrong with the source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is undue, I am not sure we need to have everything Dice does. Nor do I see why we need information about his shouting anyone down. I just do not see this as in any way important.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He got invited the White House, that's pretty cool for a youtuber. But more/better sources wouldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean on the one hand fair enough point that the only two places that seem to have covered it are Vox and the New York Post, on the otherhand it feels at least as weighty as the coverage of Jeong and Roseanne and Vox was, at last discussion (2017) considered reliable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * CT News Junkie? It... exists. Dice is not exactly the center of this coverage, is he :/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think receiving an invitation from the president to the executive mansion, by itself, warrants mention as its a sort of legitimization of the conspiracy theorist being discussed. That he spent any of his time there mocking a senior journalist of the WHPC seems salient as well.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 16:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was a solo invitation possibly, but this just seems to have been a round robin with a number of invitees.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Explicitly inviting a conspiracy theorist to one of the three seats of US power gives Dice legitimacy, regardless of in whose eyes. That legitimacy is both significant and lacking any other examples in the article.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think this belongs based on this source. The Vox article doesn't support this perspective. His presence at a media event doesn't inherently give him legitimacy. It is a perfunctory half-paragraph mention which offers no indication of lasting encyclopedic significance, and is borderline WP:GOSSIP. Vox also directly cites a tweet by a NY Post reporter for this tid-bit. There's nothing wrong with that, but it suggests that this detail was included to provide context for the event, not the other way around. I will also note that the summary in the article was longer than the summary provided by the source, which isn't a good sign. Not everything which is verifiable belongs, and not everything which is personally significant to Dice or his fans is also encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Inherent bias toward Dice
I came here to read Dice's page and found a twisted biased posting about it. Once I went to the talk page, I see why. The man has over 1 .5 million subscribers on YouTube and hundreds of thousands of views per day. His daily views rival half of many CNN television opinion programs and yet only seemingly negative and fringe topics are allowed on his page per some of the moderators. Is there a bias here? Be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.165.199 (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the above discussions. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We can only include that which has been written in reliable sources, and Dice's YouTube activities have consistently been merely mentioned in passing. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also not mentioning the fact he has 1.5 million views is not bias, At best that is trivia and at worst irrelevant (what is his ranking as a youtuber?).Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not Dice's page, this is Dice's page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to ask an apparent frequent moderator on this site Slatersteven, do you dislike Trump and anyone that may seem to lean in his direction in this regard? It sure seems so from my observations of your comments and edits on Mark Dice's Wiki page...Frankly, things like this obvious bias are going to continue to put pressure on these sites as to their objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.165.199 (talk)
 * This is not "Mark Dice's Wiki page", this is a Wikipedia article about Mark Dice, that summarizes what is written about him in independent reliable sources. Those sources are available for you or anyone to examine to evaluate them for yourself. Wikipedia has no control over what independent sources write about Mark Dice. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the archives of this talk page. You might find your assumptions are not as valid as you suppose. We repeat RS, if RS say X so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read our policy on no personal attacks which says, among other things, "Comment on content, not on the contributor ." —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bias towards Mark Dice
Judging by the way the article is, and how there's SO MANY lack of information regarding Dice, like his amount YouTube subscribers, content, books, etc. Like OTHER YouTubers. The people in charge of his page are unprofessional and shouldn't be able to touch his page. Especially since there's allegations of those individuals deleting these information everytime someone makes an edit it include those informations. Kalope (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kalope: Diffs? I don't see where this has happened, at least not in the last three months. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kalope: Whereas I do see you adding an unsourced date of birth to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is 25 kB of prose about Dice with 31 citations to 24 reliable sources.   (a) Be bold and add that information with citations to reliable sources.  Keep in mind the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, though.  (b) WP:OSE may be relevant to your interests.    Nobody is in charge of any given article.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bias towards Dice would mean this article favors him; I think the OP means bias against Dice. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That was the assumption I made as well. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought we had some agreement here Talk:Mark_Dice/Archive_6 that his FB is an ok source for birthdate? Especially since it doesn't conflict with the current "born in 1977 or 1978" source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFPUB allows such to be used if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", but we're discussing an article that explicitly discusses the subject's unreliability. Weighing gains versus reliability, I would lean towards keeping the current reliably-sourced years.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an aspect, sure. I say, for this particular point of data, screw that, let's go with it until an RS disputes it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the discussion to which you pointed has a rough consensus to using that source, and I'm not so opposed as to dispute that, so I agree. I've edited the article duly.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its hard to see how this article is biased towards Dice, but then that does not actually seem to be the objection. As such I think this has not be thought out enough and needs no action.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems very clear this is a serious example of media bias as Mark Dice has over 1,000,000 people subscribers and you tube media posts daily since 2016. Liberal bias seems at play here and this is unfair to Mark. I watch his videos and am happy to report fake news is exposed along with facts people in DC do not want me to know. Face Book has done this to me 3 times in a month because im a independent and I love Donald Trump. CENSORSHIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Guthrey (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether Dan Guthrey believes it's doesn't matter here unless Dan Guthrey is a reliable source.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you don't know how many real subscribers he has and neither do we. There are quite a few websites and YouTube videos like this one telling you how to buy or selling YouTube subscribers. Doug Weller  talk 14:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, raw number do not matter, position does. As well as this there is the fact this is too open to change to be encyclopedic, we will have to update it (at least) every few months (at least). Its trivia, that really tells us nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources
If the oft quoted "reliable source" are the New York Times, WP, and Chicago Tribune, etc, then you are getting built-in liberal bias via these sources. Once again, Mark Dice VERIFIABLY has over 1.5 million subscribers and gets hundreds of thousands of views for every daily video he posts. This is more than some CNN shows that have millions of dollars of production. Dice produces his show in his kitchen on a laptop. I think this type of new media can be supressed, but it cannot eventually be ignored....And won't be. His YouTube page alone has his post count and his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.160.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 5 August 2019
 * Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and links to those sources so readers can see and evaluate them for themselves. A person's own YouTube page is not an independent source.  It is not difficult for people to register multiple accounts and like the same page to game subscriber numbers. Do you have any information with appropriate sources to suggest for this article, or are you just here to complain about the "liberal media" and what they say about him?  If you or Mr. Dice want reliable sources to say different things about him, you will have to speak with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While individual articles have some leeway in sourcing, the qualification of the NYT has been codified at WP:RSP and would need to be taken up there. If you want to object to the use of "WP" (could you clarify) and the Tribune in this particular article, then you need to discuss how the specific sources used in this article do not meet the reliable sources guideline.  Is that reliable and notable?  Please provide the reliable source that discusses Dice's quantity of subscribers and its significance.    That word there, "alone", is key.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 19:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which does not even put him in the top 100 channels by subscribers (and given that 100 has 21,690,017 I doubt he is even close to the top 200). Simply put it is trivial that tells us noting about his popularity or importance (well maybe it does, he massively less popular then baby shark).Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Past "careers"
There's some good info on RationalWiki on his past careers as a get-rich-quickly salesman, and a selling "improve your memory" books which supposedly train you to memorize customer credit cards at gas stations.

Can it be used in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsugekumene (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No its a wiki, and this not an RS>Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As said, the RationalWiki itself cannot be used as a reliable source for verification because it's user-generated content. If such pages use reliable sources, we can harvest those, but I visited the Mark Dice page previously and didn't find any we could use.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Who owns this page?
Who owns and has access to this page for editing? Because Mark Dice is a published author and has a degree in journalism. Also he is most famous for being a conservative YouTube star. Dmmeds56 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Dmmeds56: Because of the extensive amount of disruption to the article, new accounts do not have access to the article for editing. (The article has been protected.) They may request edits here on the talk page and must cite reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dmmeds56, if you have reliable sources we can use to expand and/or enhance the article, please link or list them here so they can be mined for info. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 12:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No one, including the subject, "owns" the article(not just "page"). See WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can make an edit request though. But be aware they can take weeks to implement.--Thinker78 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * just noticed this. My experience, and I have thousands of articles on my watchlist, is that would be very unusual They're usually dealt within within a da, at the most a week. Please don't discourage people from making edit requests. I see this editor hasn't edited since the day they made this request. Doug Weller  talk 05:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Experience can be anecdotical. Please refer to evidence, which says that edit requests can take weeks to resolve.--Thinker78 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Each article is protected for some specific reason. That list is specifically for unanswered requests, which makes it a biased sample. It would be unusual, but not impossible, for a request to take that long. If there is some specific change to this article which is being proposed, spell it out. Otherwise, this isn't the place to complain about backlog. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice
Why is Wikipedia far left and why must you be so biased against conservitives??????

Why would Wikipedia lie about a conservitive and build up socialist????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.183.110 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To quote Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No one forces you to read Wikipedia. You are free to find your own echo chamber that will tell you what you want to hear and better fits with your political views. Wikipedia will continue to summarize what independent reliable sources state and let readers decide for themselves what is true. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please ignore the undue comments of some people. You are more than welcome to read and edit Wikipedia, and I encourage you to become a regular editor. In Wikipedia there is a rule that says that edits must be of a neutral point of view, reflecting what reliable sources state. If you believe this article is not neutral, you can start discussions to point out the issues. You can also edit this article after you have made 500 edits in Wikipedia and your registered account is older than 30 days. This is not for every article, but due to attempts to vandalize or make edits without respecting Wikipedia's policies, this article has special exceptions to the ability of anyone to make edits. Cheers!--Thinker78 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not, we go with what RS say, if RS are leftist and biased take it up with them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice writes about Wikipedia censoring and distorting his Wikipedia entry on pages 168 to 173 of his book, "The Liberal Media Industrial Complex"
The editors who guard Mark Dice's Wikipedia entry would do well to read pages 168 through 173 in the chapter entitled, 'Wikipedia" in Dice's book, "The Liberal Media Industrial Complex". No one who has read those pages has any illusion that Mark Dice's Wikipedia entry will ever be fair or balanced.  None-the-less it would be an excellent use of the Wikipedia editor's time to at least read this passage in the book so they can understand why those of us who have read that passage will never, ever donate one single penny to Wikipedia, ever,  because of Wikipedia's hopelessly unfair and and mean spirited liberal bias.  RobertGloverJr (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects what is said in independent reliable sources. If those sources are biased, that will indeed be reflected in Wikipedia. This is not a secret. Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased; we present the sources so readers can judge them for themselves. If Mr. Dice does not like what independent sources say about him, he should take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see your comment being inconsistent with my point. I simply wrote that Mark Dice has an entire chapter in his 2019 book on the subject of Wikipedia and within that chapter is a meticulously footnoted section on the bias he perceives and documented in the book concerning his own Wikipedia entry.  I did not ask the editors to correct Mark Dice's Wikipedia page because as you have demonstrated that will never happen.  I merely suggested that those editors entrusted with being the gatekeepers of Mark Dice's Wikipedia entry would be wise as part of their due diligence to read the chapter in Mark Dice's book on that subject.
 * If you or anyone wants to just be told what fits with their worldview and what they want to hear, there are projects more compatible with your views. Mr. Dice is certainly free to write what he wishes, but it is nothing that we don't already know. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am still hopeful we are not entirely at odds here. On page 171 Mark Dice twice quotes Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia (who is no longer with the organization). Dice documents on that same page (as footnotes number 498 and 499) the sources of the two quotes so they can be verified by anyone to be accurate.  I cannot imagine why the gatekeepers of Mark Dice's Wikipedia entry as part of becoming more informed, cultured, and sophisticated editors  would not want to read not only that page but the entire chapter in Mark Dice's book devoted to Wikipedia.
 * If you are proposing a change to this article, I'm not clear on what it is. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable proposal is that the listing that shows only 5 of the 13 books by Mark Dice be enlarged to show all 3 of his books published since 2017. Currently the list shows his book published Nov 8, 2019 but omits his book published Nov 1, 2017 and his book published Nov 8, 2018.
 * I know of no problem with adding other books to the list, especially if they can be cited just as the ones on the current list are. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I find your response(s) reasonable. This dialogue has been, for me, informative and productive. Thanks for hearing me out.  RobertGloverJr (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)