Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::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.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
:::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.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
::::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? ] ] 01:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
::::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? ] ] 01:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
== please update the book section ==
It is missing 2 books
Revision as of 00:15, 30 March 2022
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.
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 sourcedmust 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
It's "who". The sentence is unnecessarily convoluted. If you want to keep the structure, think about "he said" as a subordinate clause. It then reads, "he visited a psychic who told him..." and all is well. My advice would be to rephrase to avoid two pronouns in succession.
Lanashire Post puff piece
This interview is used as a source in our article, albeit for Icke's own views. I'm a bit concerned, though, about its reliability. It describes Icke as "an investigative journalist", calls the way this Misplaced Pages page has been edited "censorship" and generally seems like a promotional piece . It is published in a local paper by a reporter who appears to have no particular qualification to write about this sensitive topic. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Re-reading, maybe not although it kind of implies it. Here's the relevant bits: Icke has battled with countless naysayers over the years, but one prominent challenger today is online global encyclopaedia Misplaced Pages – the go-to-source of information for many with 18 billion visits per month. Icke says the website is notoriously anti-“conspiracy theories”. On Misplaced Pages, there is a line reading "critics have accused Icke of being a Holocaust denier" in the intro section of his page, despite repeated protestations from his son, Gareth, who claims to have been threatened with a ban from moderating on the website if he manually removed the line anymore himself... The “Holocaust denier” slur was repeated in the first paragraph of one newspaper article last month... Despite Icke’s growing popularity across the world, he continues to be condemned. He says the main difference from the 1990s is the condemnation has evolved into censorship-by-stealth in some quarters. He says: “The mainstream media has completely shut me out. It’s an interesting change as they used to delight in ridiculing me.” Icke says the censorship also manifests itself in the form of venues where he is due to speak cancelling at the 11th hour.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It is common in BLPs for a personal life section to be placed near the end of the article with marriages etc. I won't monitor this page but am putting forward the suggestion. Jontel (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
please update the book section
It is missing 2 books
Cite error: The named reference Barkun2003p104 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
.svg){kind=small}
