Revision as of 17:45, 25 May 2023 editScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,760 edits Reverting edit(s) by 2A02:C7C:9255:8500:18DE:FD4D:2233:B57B (talk) to rev. 1154695495 by Justanotherguy54: WP:SOAP (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:02, 24 October 2023 edit undo142.163.195.205 (talk) →Footnote 8: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topicNext edit → | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
:If your interpretation of ] were correct and the use of the word "claim" were inappropriate for Icke, then it would be better to clearly state "Never use that word". | :If your interpretation of ] were correct and the use of the word "claim" were inappropriate for Icke, then it would be better to clearly state "Never use that word". | ||
:Also, you are saying "npov" when you mean "pov". --] (]) 06:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | :Also, you are saying "npov" when you mean "pov". --] (]) 06:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Footnote 8 == | |||
the article linked at footnote 8 does not say that his publisher dropped him or why. ] (]) 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:02, 24 October 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Icke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about David Icke. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about David Icke at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
David Icke has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
Toolbox |
---|
New article: Brian Rose
An article for an associate of Icke's, Brian Rose (podcaster), has been created. I thought editors here might be interested and help to improve it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Reptilians quotes
User:SlimVirgin added this section in 2016:
- As of 2003 the reptilian bloodline encompassed 43 American presidents, three British and two Canadian prime ministers, several Sumerian kings and Egyptian pharaohs, and a smattering of celebrities, including Bob Hope, Chris Christopherson and Boxcar Willie. Key bloodlines are the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, various European aristocratic families, the establishment families of the Eastern United States, and the British House of Windsor.
The referenced page of Barkun2003 is on archive.org and doesn't include any of those claims, nor could I find them in the rest of the chapter on Icke. Unfortunately, SlimVirgin isn't alive any more so I can't ask her. I don't want to simply delete as unfounded the work of a very experienced editor, but this needs fixing. Mbethke (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The diff you added only shows SV re-arranging the material. It appears to have been added much earlier. Looking back a little farther, say here, there's a much more detailed reference that breaks down the sources. Not clear if that covers every claim, but more ground to cover at least. Kuru (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've never been able to find a single reliable source for the claim that Icke believes in this farcical "Reptilian" theory. I'm 99% sure it's simply a smear tactic used against him to put people off listening to the other (very legitimate) subjects he speaks about. A bunch of links to articles in far left rags claiming that he said this or that (with zero sources) isn't worthy of mentioning in an encyclopedia, nor does it make the claims true. All of these smears and falsified "beliefs" that have been pinned on him should be entirely removed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.204.195 (talk • contribs)
- There seem to be thousands, including his own publications and many interviews where he promotes these claims. This includes many conservative outlets. I'm sorry, but since your claim appears to make zero sense on its face, perhaps you can clarify your position first? Are you saying he's being sarcastic the whole way through? Kuru (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- @82.2.204.195 For some reason I can’t reply to the IP address directly, but in this interviewhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlAjeTunopo he says that at 4:00. Note that Icke essentially replies that “The phrase ‘The world is run by shapeshifting lizards’ is a one line oversimplification without my backstory or context, if you read deeper into it and into my works you will understand it better.” but upon further examination it remains equally as false and baseless with no real or valid evidence. This isn’t a smear, those claims are real.
- I've never been able to find a single reliable source for the claim that Icke believes in this farcical "Reptilian" theory. I'm 99% sure it's simply a smear tactic used against him to put people off listening to the other (very legitimate) subjects he speaks about. A bunch of links to articles in far left rags claiming that he said this or that (with zero sources) isn't worthy of mentioning in an encyclopedia, nor does it make the claims true. All of these smears and falsified "beliefs" that have been pinned on him should be entirely removed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.204.195 (talk • contribs)
- The diff you added only shows SV re-arranging the material. It appears to have been added much earlier. Looking back a little farther, say here, there's a much more detailed reference that breaks down the sources. Not clear if that covers every claim, but more ground to cover at least. Kuru (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also note that the interviewer and others say that some of Icke’s other claims in the video are based on events that have actually happened so at least those theories and claims have got that going for them, that being they are based in part on reality, but the claim “Buckingham palace and the world is run by shapeshifting lizards and reptiles” is one he appears to genuinely agree with and has touted for years Justanotherguy54 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
References
- Cite error: The named reference
Barkun2003p104
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
please update the book section
It is missing 2 books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:14AE:2600:1D61:6C7:A3F5:B46A (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- This may well be true, but could you name the books?--♦IanMacM♦ 06:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Icke's ban from the Netherlands
The letter from the Dutch government is on Icke's website here, but it is in Dutch. It is confirmed to be correct by the Dutch government. ♦IanMacM♦ 13:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Claims
Adding this here to avoid an edit-war. I recently went in and changed multiple references to 'claims' to more neutral language in accordance with WP:CLAIM and, in doing so, helped remedy some WP:NPOV issues. This has since been reverted by @Hob Gadling on the basis of "WP:CLAIM does not say that we should never use the word, but "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question" - which is exactly what we should do for statements which do not deserve any credibility".
For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that the statements lack credibility (Ike is labelled, correctly, as a conspiracy theorist after all), but I do think that belief, in and of itself, is not a neutral point of view. NPOV states "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source." It would appear, rather, that we fix this not with the use of 'claims' throughout, but through making sure that we don't create false balance. As the NPOV article continues "There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.". Ergo we need to make sure each 'claim' is described in its proper context. We can achieve this by either linking to or borrowing from relevant pages - for example the Reptilian conspiracy theory, which manages to cover the subject without frequent use of 'claims' and other npov language. In doing so the following: According to Ike, there is an inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings, the Archons or Anunnaki, which have hijacked the Earth. ...would become: Ike is a proponent of the Reptilian conspiracy theory, believing that there is an inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings, which have hijacked the Earth.
Use of the link to a conspiracy theory page, here, would provide context without comparison to accepted academic scholarship.
I could be entirely wrong here though and would welcome discussion. Itsfini (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- You should read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Icke is so far out that it would be perverse to stay in the middle between him and reality.
- If your interpretation of WP:CLAIM were correct and the use of the word "claim" were inappropriate for Icke, then it would be better to clearly state "Never use that word".
- Also, you are saying "npov" when you mean "pov". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Footnote 8
the article linked at footnote 8 does not say that his publisher dropped him or why. 142.163.195.205 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use Oxford spelling
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (sports and games) articles
- Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
- Sports and games work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- GA-Class football articles
- Low-importance football articles
- GA-Class football in England articles
- Low-importance football in England articles
- Football in England task force articles
- WikiProject Football articles
- GA-Class paranormal articles
- Unknown-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- GA-Class Alternative views articles
- High-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- GA-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles