Talk:Mark Dice

This article declares Mark Dice as a "conspiracy theorist" and utilizes these sources to back that claim.

[https://www.vox.com/2019/7/12/20691529/trump-social-media-summit-gorka-karem Trump’s social media summit was a circus. Its aftermath was even worse. - Vox]

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-john-eastman-editing/2021/10/28/f2d61bea-35fd-11ec-9bc4-86107e7b0ab1_story.html Wikipedia doesn't give VIPs the special treatment they expect - The Washington Post]

[https://vdoc.pub/documents/google-it-total-information-awareness-k7kt30ic4ek0 Google It: Total Information Awareness [PDF] [k7kt30ic4ek0] (vdoc.pub)] (pg 526)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40504203 Trump gif maker apologises for racist posts - BBC News]

None of these articles provide any evidence for the claim. The authors of these articles are not the arbiters of the internet and they do not get to declare people "conspiracy theorists".

Get an actual source with actual evidence or remove the bogus claim. Oretsej (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

:{{not done}}. We don't require reliable sources to disclose their own sources or otherwise show their work. - MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

::Indeed, I was just going to say that. Oretsej, if you dont like what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

::By what measurement are the sources considered reliable or not? 2600:8800:8800:76:0:0:0:B6 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

:::WP:RS. Some discussion is often involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

:::Please see reliable sources for more information, but in short, a reliable source has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control; they don't just print something without processes to check accuracy. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

:::As I told the other user, if you don't like how sources describe Mr. Dice, you will need to take that up with them and ask them the basis of their reporting. That's why sources are provided, so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

::Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources", Vox for example is considered reliable but is also considered to be partisan. In reality it is obviously partisan and therefore is ineligible to be used in this context. 2600:8800:8800:76:0:0:0:B6 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

:::A source being partisan is not a barrier to its use on Wikipedia, unless they are so partisan that they make things up out of whole cloth with no basis or otherwise lack fact checking and editors checking for accuracy. If you want to challenge the reliability of a particular outlet, WP:RSN is the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

::::I mean, we're talking about a guy who has publicly said the Katy Perry is a Satanist and Super Bowl halftime shows are actually Illuminati rituals. He said these things. That his fans are now embarrassed about it and keep coming here trying to remove this doesn't change anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The references listed under "conspiracy theorist" provides an article that references Mark Dice as a "conspiracy theorist" but the upon inspection, the writer of the article source [4] does not provide any evidence to their claim. Evidence of a conspiracy theory would need to be required prior to authoring such a bold statement with respect to the accuracy of this article. 50.89.133.107 (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

:See the section immediately preceding this one. We don't require reliable sources to show their work. MrOllie (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

:Of course he's a conspiracy theorist... that's the reason he is known at all. He wouldn't be on Wikipedia otherwise. It's his whole schtick. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

::If the sources used in this article are in error, you need to take that up with them, not us. As {{u|MrOllie}} quite accurately states, we don't require sources to show their work. If you read this article text and examine the sources and do not believe them, that is your right, as Wikipedia doesn't claim to be the truth(see WP:TRUTH). 331dot (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

::None of you have shown any reason other than "because someone said so!" That's not indicative of a site that claims to be informative. You guys should reconsider your approach with your sources. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

:::No its policy, also if we do not have some criteria for inclusion n we could also write "Mark Dice sexually abuses cucumbers". We do need to have some standards of inclusion, else we can say what we like as well. Trust me, that would not be a good thing in the case of Mr Dice. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

:::{{Tq|"because someone said so!"}} is an accurate summary of our core policies as expressed in WP:V and WP:RS. We're not going to disregard them here. MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia does not claim to be informative nor does it claim to be the truth, please see WP:TRUTH and the general disclaimer. Wikipedia only claims to summarize independent reliable sources- so yes, you are correct. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

::::The whole issue of "reliable sources" is mired in classic question-begging and logical circularity. The assumptions of objectivity in media that perceive themselves as under threat from upstarts like Dice is in itself highly suspect. And when that same media labels somebody as a "conspiracy theorist" and Wikipedia quotes that person as "reliable" who then re-cites Wiki as his source, the fix is in. A professional approach to subjects that are not objectifiably factual demands that any contentious attributions be followed with such qualifiers as "according to" or "so-and-so has stated" etc. Anything short of this inescapably draws the justifiable charge of editorial bias and self-discreditation. You're only harming yourselves. 70.69.20.216 (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Contorted thinking is the place where conspiracy theories thrive. We can't help you if you have no confidence in the sources that most other people consider reliable. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::If you have actual evidence that a source permits its authors/writers to use Wikipedia as a source which is then cited in Wikipedia and that's the only basis for a claim, which would probably violate basic journalistic standards, that's something to bring up at WP:RSN. I don't think you actually do, mind you- you're looking for some reason to justify your beliefs.

:::::You are free to read any Wikipedia article and review its sources, and disagree with all of it. That doesn't change what sources say about, in this case, Mr. Dice. We don't put qualifiers in articles- you're free to review sources and think what you want of them and their claims. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Mark Dice|answered=yes}}

I was looking to add "American Christians" to his profile. Dilljl248 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

:I added :Category:Christians from California. Binksternet (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between a false claim and an unproved claim. Claims of wrongdoing that are unsupported by evidence or witnesses may nonetheless still be true. Giuliani described claims about the rigging and falsifying of the 2020 election results as "unprovable" - because of the unretrievable status of electronic votes - which is correct. Only God and the fraudsters (if any) know the truth. Dice's claims can be labeled unsubstantiated or even baseless but to call them false is just as baseless. Last I looked, Wiki editors are not God. 70.69.20.216 (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:The Seattle Times source is perfectly useful. It says [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/militant-preppers-boogaloo-members-and-qanon-adherents-can-push-products-on-amazon/ "California conspiracy theorist Mark Dice’s false claims of election fraud led YouTube and Facebook to hide his pages behind content warnings..."] and more. The reporter and the newspaper are the reliable source here. We don't require a witness or evidence; this is not a court case. The mainstream media are inherently reliable because of their methodology and editorial oversight. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:Please read WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not claim what is presented is true. You are absolutely free to disbelieve any and all sources presented. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)