Talk:Count Dankula

DOB

Currently the Coventry Telegraph source says he was 30 as of March 20, 2018, which is what is currently supported by the template:birth based on age as of date. He tweeted his birthday, but did not specify an age, nor birth-year. Without a reliable source, this doesn't belong, and it is better to be imprecise than to make crap up. If he said his birth-year in a video, cite it. If it was a livestream that's somehow not archived somewhere, than it isn't WP:V and isn't usable. Find an actual source. It really is that simple. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you incapable of maths? If he was X age in a court of law on date Y and his birthday is Z, there is only one way to interpret that. If you think the Coventry Telegraph is unreliable or that Meechan was trolling when he tweeted his birthday, say so. But otherwise, this hardcore resistance seems unorthodox. Your previous argument that it was a privacy issue seems to be out the window. WP:DOB talks about people who do not want to share their birthdate and WP:BLPPRIMARY warns against trying to obtain filings such as vehicle registrations or trial documents, etc, none of which are involved here. It really is simple math. You know as well as I do, Dankula would troll us both and all of Wikipedia if we asked him to state his birthdate in a video. Why do you even suggest this? You seem to not be satisfied unless there is a birth certificate. Well, tell me please. What is the unassailable source for Ryan Reynolds' birthdate? Or Scarlett Johansson? Well, if you couldn't look it up, I'll spoil it for you. For RR, I found none. For SJ it seems to be this. Yes, I know, very compelling. So maybe, just maybe, you should accept the odds of Meechan being born in 1987 to be greater thanm 99%. For example, why do you assume he was born in 87/88? If you trust the sources enough for that much, why not trust the maths. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So if you know he would troll Wikipedia in a heartbeat, why are we assuming his cringy tweets are reliable at all? I left this in as a compromise, but a tweet where he shows himself theatrically doing a line of coke doesn't entirely seem credible, does it? So perhaps you are a right, and this should be removed until a better source comes along.

This is an ongoing problem across many articles. You should remove unsourced birthdays when you see them, which is what I do. Ryan Reynolds' birthday is sourced to FilmReference.com. That link is blacklisted, so you should remove this info if you cannot find a replacement. If your not interested in doing that, this was just WP:OTHERSTUFF at best, and WP:POINT at worst. As for Johansson, if you think the British Film Institute is unreliable, take it up with WP:RSN, I guess. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My point is "reliable sources" accept statements about the early life of subjects and this is the basis of this information for Wikipedia. The person in question said it at some point during an interview. Well, what better interview than a tweet? Straight from the subject with no chance of transcription error. Do you really think BFI has seen Scarlett Johansson's birth certificate or even her driver's license? Why would they know better? It makes no sense. Nor does your crusade. Even if Meechan is later proven to be born in in a different year or date, does it hurt Wikipedia's credibility? The data was based on the best available information. You act like a Wikipedia article is incapable of improving when better sources come to light. --SVTCobra (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: we often don't accept direct primary statements on DOBs etc might be at doubt (traditionally it's an issue with actors lying), and that is even more an issue here. I would advise removing anything from one of the tweets et al - it would be tripping up over numerous of our sourcing requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I totally understand that, but the absurdity is that if an actor/celebrity does an interview with a publication and states their DOB, that publication just accepts it and for some reason this is supposed to add credibility because XYZ123 magazine published it? They don't fact check that stuff via public records or demanding ID from the the person they interview. Anyway, this I forget the details of this particular discussion as it is over a year old. --SVTCobra 01:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

In the info box, under the heading "Nationality", the subject is listed as being Scottish. However, Scotland is part of the UK, and the nationality would therefore be British. Obviously the subject is Scottish, but that extra information should be listed under a separate or different heading. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It's like saying all Welsh citizens are actually English or all Catalans and Basques are Spanish. Emperoringo (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The Welsh would actually be British citizens, too, not English. Catalans and Basques would be Spanish citizens as well.--MacX85 (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Dankula's directed his viewers to vandalize this page

Persistent vandalism may occur for a while, I'd leave this semi-protected for a while. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_qirRxZnU FAISSALOO_(talk) 21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

no he didn't, he gave his life story therefore can be used as a source 2A02:C7F:C3F:7700:D18A:27CD:1A0:109A (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Incredibly biased article

Meechan is a youtuber who does a lot of stuff from his Mad Lads vids, to current affairs to general comedy. Yet all we read here is that he was arrested for making a pug vid which the world overreated to...oh, and he used to support Ukip. Come on, wiki is supposed to be politically non-biased, yet why does it feel I am reading the views of the radical-left? This is like reading an article on Winston Churchil, and the only points of his entire life mentioned are Gallipoli and his Tory Party ties. Ammend this. (13thcenturyschizoid man.2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:18C9:C500:AD7D:7F21:9D0:4F35 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:18C9:C500:AD7D:7F21:9D0:4F35:, firstly, new posts go at bottom - they struggle to be seen otherwise. You also need to sign posts with ~~~~ if you actually want any reply.

Wikipedia goes off what generally reliable secondary sources cover. Most commonly non-tabloid newspapers, books and so on. So for it to be included at all it needs to be covered by that. Within that, it gets covered by due coverage, which very roughly means if an event got more coverage, it will receive a greater part of the article's coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

last name pronounciation

Add this next to his last name (Me - kun) because many people keep pronouncing his last name incorrectly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwood2007 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Schant19 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Markus and Sue had their first child on March 19, 2021 named Sadie.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the date in your next request contradicts this request. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021 (2)

~~

Markus' wife Sue gave birth to their daughter Sadie on March 17, 2021.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the date in your previous request contradicts this request. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

previous emplyment

i dont know the standard procedures for editing wiki pages about stuff like this so i will leave it to anyone who knows how, in this debate video markus states he used to work in foster care, and it is probably something that can be researched more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chokwits yum (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

An Update to the subscriber count is needed. It's been 7 months and he is nearing 1 million now. 94.15.70.79 (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Khrincan (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Move article

The article should be moved to Count Dankula; he is much better known under that pseudonym. Sinistrality2023 (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of "right wing" in opening sentence

The source given for this makes no reference to him being right-wing, nor do any of the sources on the page. Surely this should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs) 13:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is perfectly well sourced that he was a UKIP candidate. "right-wing" is as soft as we can pedal this. If anything, it is too soft, bordering on euphemism. DanielRigal (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Especially considering his frequent association with white nationalists 86.9.5.164 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Mark Meechan → Count Dankula – Virtually all references to Meechan using his real name say that he is known as Count Dankula, including every single source regarding his conviction with many of them using his alias in favour of his birth name. Looking at Google Trends, the term "Count Dankula" received a massive spike in March 2018 while "Mark Meechan" only received a small bump. In my eyes, this is a clear cut case of WP:COMMONNAME. Sock (tock talk) 19:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Never even heard of his real name. Metallurgist (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Many people know of "Count Dankula" but "Markus Meechan" is a lot more obscure. I don't think he mentions his real name often, even many of his fans probably don't know it.

RustyOldShip (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Exactly my thought. I have heard of his handle. We have plenty of articles with the title being their public name (eg. Ice Cube, which surpasses the solid water as a topic; Mo Chara, a rapper we just RMed from his legal name) and the lede mentioning the legal name. Metallurgist (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Yue🌙 01:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

support per above ToeSchmoker (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Mark Meechan

Under the “Politics” tab of Mark Meechan’s article, there is a typo. It reads “Meehcan supports Scottish independence.” Please change this to “Meechan supports Scottish independence.” Please fix… Please… I beg you. My well-being depends upon this fix. ~2025-34639-07 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

done. May your wellbeing be well ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Restructure around trial?

This might sound a radical proposal but hear me out:

• Most citations are about the trial. News searches are almost exclusively about the trial and dating 2018 to 2019. See Twitter joke trial for an analogous page.
• Biographical details are taken from tweets and videos. While WP:ABOUTSELF exists, it shouldn't be used to justify whole sections, and a lack of third-party coverage of his life points to it not being of public importance.
• There is zero third-party coverage of his day job, his YouTube channel, where he covers odd history. Even his second channel, where he discusses politics, doesn't seem to be of public importance - not even to publications that would oppose or want to raise concerns about his views.
• There are a handful of sources from 2021 about his election candidacy, but they all refer to him via the controversy, showing that is his main claim to fame. Standing for a minor party in a democracy is not an achievement anyway.

Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

How do you see the article changing? Would it still be a BLP or would it become an article about the case? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was proposing making it an article about the case, as there is precisely zero third-party coverage of his continuing YouTube career, or his property management (see Companies House) - and anything from his personal life was from tweets and own videos. However the size of this discussion compared to the one beneath shows that nobody else is interested in this. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

as someone who has clocked a couple edits on this page over the years trimming pointless guff out of the YouTube/personal life sections, I am in support of your proposal. I agree with all of your points. I'm not overly familiar with YouTuber specific notability guidelines (if they even exist) but all of his notability stems from the "Nazi pug" event. I wouldn't be too dismayed by the extent of the discussion below, I think that's largely the work of a bad faith editor quite successfully causing a huge, pointless back and forth! ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Far right in opening paragraph

There was consensus to include the fact that the subject of this article (a far right white supremacist) was indeed, far right. For some extremely strange reason, a recent push has been made to change this article (I'm sure that it was completely organic and not at all manufactured by the alt-right) from factual to a softer tone. Could the last remaining editors on this project who still believe in democracy and who oppose fascism consider weighing in on this? MasterScholar260 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you point to the consensus that indicates this label should be in the lead? As right now I see it as contradicting Wiki policy. Also your last sentence is not helpful - it indicates that wanting to omit this label is sympathising with fascism. — Czello ^(music) 06:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

See above. MasterScholar260 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you link to it directly, please? I cannot see such a consensus. (And, even if there were, it might be invalid given the policies I raised.) — Czello ^(music) 20:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Try scrolling up and reading. MasterScholar260 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are incapable of linking to the supposed consensus, then there's not much more to be done here. There is no consensus. — Czello ^(music) 20:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You claim the subject of the article is "a far right white supremacist". Setting aside personal opinions which are meaningless, please provide a reliable source that makes this claim. Otherwise, it's just POV pushing, and won't survive.

Furthermore, the lede of an article is a summary of the content of the article. The article nowhere provides any content or sources that state that the subject of the article is far-right; only the implication that he might be far right for speaking at a free speech rally that included far-right figures. You can't add "far-right" to the lede if it is not established in the body.

There's no consensus "above" on use of the term, only three comments expressing personal opinions. That's not the threshold required. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It is perfectly well sourced that he was a UKIP candidate. "right-wing" is as soft as we can pedal this. If anything, it is too soft, bordering on euphemism. MasterScholar260 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you claiming those are your words? There's no content in the article that state's the subject of the article is "far right". The lede is a summary of the article. Absent the article body clearly detailing the characterization, it won't stand. You still have not identified any sources that claim he is "a far right white supremacist". Considering he's a former member of UKIP, his failed candidacy isn't adequate evidence of anything. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see above as to why you're incorrect. MasterScholar260 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not incorrect, and I'm disinterested in engaging in this form of trolling. Zero sourcing, zero good-faith discussion. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith. If you're unwilling to address the above-mentioned sources, then you should not be responding. MasterScholar260 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There are no "above-mentioned sources". Three people briefly commenting in talk in 2024 is not a "source", nor is it a consensus. You have yet to provide a source that verifies your claim that the subject of the article is a "far right white supremacist". I have, in fact, responded in detail to your claims; your replies are empty of anything resembling an counter argument - "you're incorrect" is not an argument.

Failure to provide sources, after repeated requests, the word "assume" in AGF rapidly fades in character. If you wish to have a good-faith discussion, reveal your source for the claim that the subject of this article is a "far right white supremacist". By "source", I mean a reliable source as defined in wikipedia policy. No source, nothing more to discuss. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If you read above, you'll find what you're looking for. Hope this helps. MasterScholar260 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No mention of a consensus for far-right above, and you're still unable to present evidence of such a consensus, so I guess the label isn't being added.

I suppose that concludes that — Czello ^(music) 15:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the previous discussion on this topic, you'd understand that you are incorrect. Give it a try and I'm sure you'll figure it out. Happy to help. MasterScholar260 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

You've been asked, multiple times, to link to such a discussion. You have been unable to. You then quoted a discussion that was not about the "far-right" label. So, evidently, there has been no evidence presented of a consensus for "far-right"; and even so, it's clear there would no longer be one.

I don't think there's much more to be done here. — Czello ^(music) 15:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Its sourced. You just have to scroll up to see it. Give it a try. Hope that helps. MasterScholar260 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you still refuse then it won't be added. Simple as that. Hope that helps. — Czello ^(music) 17:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Just scroll up and you'll see, it's really that easy. Hope that helps. MasterScholar260 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I should also add that, seeing as there is no consensus for far-right, the burden is on you to work to establish that consensus. But deliberately being difficult obviously doesn't help you in that endeavour. Which is fine with me, by the way. — Czello ^(music) 17:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your... Opinion. MasterScholar260 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If you continue attempting to restore a contentious label after failing to either point to an existing consensus (which would no longer exist anyway) or establishing a new consensus, then this will have to go to WP:ANI or WP:EWN. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It actually has consensus. Sinoly scroll up and read the above sections. Happy to help. MasterScholar260 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Trolling, single purpose account, bad faith "discussion", and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I'll be happy to assist editor Czello if this continues with even a single further edit to the article (or any other article where OP insists on slapping their pet label onto BLPs without any sourcing), or further trolling comments on the talk page. Probably add a sock investigation to the pile, just to be thorough. Those who volunteer their time here are justified in working to rid WP of this sort of time-wasting nonsense. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. MasterScholar260 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Stop! Playtime is over! I am willing to listen to a case to describe him as "far-right" but none of the repetitive nonsense above gets us any closer to that. First up, it can't go in the opening unless it is in the body per WP:LEAD and WP:LFB. Secondly, it can't go in at all without Reliable Sources. If anybody wants to try making that case then please feel free. Provide the sources and we can look at them. Any more of this incomprehensibly vague "scroll up" nonsense is going to be treated as intentionally disruptive time wasting and reported accordingly. If anybody wants to reference a previous discussion then please make sure that it is actually relevant and then provide a direct link to it so that everybody can tell exactly what is being referenced. No more vague gesturing to avoid making a case or answering basic questions about it. If you have something to say then actually say it. If not, don't. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

With the subject's links to UKIP, how can we not identify him as far-right? It had consensus in the past. My expert opinion is that we should restore the descriptor. MasterScholar260 (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. He's stood for elected office twice. Once was with UKIP, the other with Scottish Libertarian. Calling him far-right based on one of those, but not the other, is WP:UNDUE and smacks of POV. Add on top of that is the fact that UKIP, particularly in 2019, was not unambiguously far-right; indeed we listed them as "right-wing to far-right" on Wikipedia at that time, so again by drawing attention to only one of those labels, over the other label and over the other party he stood for, is even more undue. Also, it never had consensus, as you've been unable to demonstrate it. — Czello ^(music) 06:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Now you're engaging with the idea. I believe it's more than enough to include far-right in the article and the lead. MasterScholar260 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Always been happy to engage with the idea, as I encouraged you a few times to seek a new consensus. Anyway, onto your second sentence - you need to actually explain and elaborate on that point. "I believe" doesn't undo the case I made above. — Czello ^(music) 08:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)