Talk:David Icke/Archive 3

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 7, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The writing quality varies significantly throughout the article. It needs a good copyedit and some rewriting.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Overall, this seems to present a fairly accurate picture of Icke as a figure. However, there are chunks of the article that are unreferenced. There is also a sprawling mess of cultural references that are almost all unreferenced, some with citation request tags from months ago. http://www.simon-jones.org.uk/articles/david_icke.htm is a non-functioning link. I question the reliability of rense.com and http://www.ynw62.dial.pipex.com. I also question the heavy reliance on primary material. This is a public figure who had a lot of scrutiny in the public eye. There are better sources available and plenty of them.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: This articles seems to cover the bases.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Without better sourcing, it is difficult to determine the NPOV for such a controversial figure. Quotes in a few places seem to "fluff out" the material, rather than simply compliment, which leads to concerns about potential undue weight. The sprawling cultural references section needs to be severely trimmed down, if not removed. The appropriate way to present cultural impact would be to find reliable sources that discuss his cultural impact and report what they state about the matter. With better sourcing and a rewrite, any potential NPOV problems would become more apparent and easily addressed.
 * 5. Article stability? No ongoing edit wars or other mainspace disputes.
 * 6. Images?: I would be very surprised if no open license images exist of Mr. Icke and/or his theorized lizard people.

The article is in need of improved sourcing and rewriting. The subject has been widely written about in a plethora of reliable sources as a well-known proponent of extreme fringe views. This article has strong potential, but needs significant work to reach GA standards.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Vassyana (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I first heard of him from the History Channel. But it did'nt list any of his appearances or mention the views he expressed on them. Maybe someone can update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.16.247 (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Court case
It needs to bein the article about that american publisher suing him to bankruptcy over copyright that he didn't write the books. Icke won. It was a major thing but nothing in thr article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.24.33 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've searched numerous periodicals databases and this seems to lack coverage in reliable sources. Mr. Icke's website has a PDF that claims to be the court's decision. However, even if that is a valid and accurate document, we require that reliable sources provide coverage of the matter before we will. (See: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR.) --Vassyana (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Icke's theories should be explicitly declared as garbage --- this is a factual matter, not an opinion.
Rather than presenting Icke's views and letting them speak for themselves as insane nonsense, the article should make the point that they *are* insane nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.158.23 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. A lot of readers with little education or brains will lack the skills to evaluate this. What would an eight year old think if they read the article? 78.146.17.231 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, people should be able to inform themselves of a subject before taking a position. By force-feeding readers with a view(even if it is the most [if not only] plausible criticism), we discourage thinking. Icke, with all his "far-out" and "controversial" opinions still has a well-structured train of thought. Without adhering to his movement(which I also think is somewhat worthless), I can see the importance of presenting the caracteritics of his theory. By doing so, it is my opinion that people are better informed of the "insane nonsense". If one was to replace this well structured article and replace it with a biased stub, or add a biased conclusion, he would participate in the decrepitude of the quality we Wikipedians struggle and fight for. Have faith in the readers, they will not adhere lightly to such a theory. --Lordmick 14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That Icke's opinions are absurd nonsense is not an opinion. It is a fact. Informing readers of this is not force-feeding them a point of view. Your claim that his theories are internally consistent is entirely irrelevant. Even if they are, which you haven't established, it doesn't speak to the fact that they are absurd nonsense. This is not bias -- they are absurd nonsense on their face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.158.23 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree too. All it needs is a brief section saying such, and giving as many citations as possible to back this up. 78.146.17.231 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But what would providing an article of lesser quality prove? True, the theory is absurd. Yet other "absurd" theories are also explained in detail on Wikipedia; its goal being informing people. Would you erase the pages informing of the absurd nazi theories? That would be revisionism. People have the right to know, even if it is nonsense. Also, different people have different views on what is nonsense. Wikipedia presents information, does not take sides. For some people in the US, darwinism is absurd, Gallileo was judged for his "absurd theories". How do we judge what is absurd? Now, I'm not defending the theory, I'm just encouraging a constructive dialogue. Yes, it is absurd, but let us remember that some people believe in this. Let us presume you were to have full power on this page; what would you change? Would you add a "section: Garbage" stating that the theory is utter rubbish? I doubt that enters Wikipedia's encyclopedic aims. --Lordmick 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should remain. I don't agree with the reptilian humanoid ideas, but no one can deny all other arguments of icke.Furthermore, all his arguments are well constructed.Echofloripa (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The other anonymous poster is probably a reptilian humanoid trying to hide the truth...98.23.31.10 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, that's funny... No really, this article should definately remain. I agree 100% with Lordmick, the job of wikipedia should be to keep information as unbiased as possible. Freedom and democracy should include letting all people judge for themselves. Uncritical or outright stupid, as some might be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.6.137 (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree no matter how loony the theory (and Ickes are) it should be presented in a totaly neutral and non-jugdgemental way. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Icke is my favorite author because he has no "theories"; he's an investigative reporter who reports on information that already exists; and he isn't filtering his work through an editor or belief system or corporate interest of a network. That way, the reader gets the big picture, unfiltered. I've read most of his books; his work is solid -- he cites his sources, and his sources are solid. He has an amazing mind, and you should apologize for insulting him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.50.64 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think he's nuts. But has anyone else noticed that a series of similar IPs have agreed with a commment made by another IP? In fact, one of the IPs 'agrees' twice. Placifist (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Similar in the fact they contain numbers? Moreover two IP's committ the crime of agreing twice. But if you think soke pupertry has occured then report it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need for sarcasm, and it will be reported. However, the words you are looking for are: commit, agreeing, sock, puppetry and occurred. 217.44.112.162 (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly I was not being sarcastic. I was pointing out that the only similarity is that they are numbers, and that is it. Also I sugest that if you make threats to report poeple at least obey good practice yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

'Sorry, you’re all just expressing opinions''!. Put up the logical reasoning and accepted base paradigms of both sides and show the errors and non-matching bases. And stop freakin act like children who think there is only one global truth! (Yours)''' I hate it that the average guy is such a freakin' moron! Always taking sides, even when there are none. Never understanding relativity of reality, be being 100% egocentric. And lacking even basic competences in logic and reasoning. I wish you'd all die, like it should be, when natural selection would not be reversed, as it is today. — 88.77.140.123 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The detail in the article speaks for itself. You're not going to change anyone's mind by declaring it [whatever]. Robertwharvey (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Although Wikpedia should strive for a NPOV, I agree it verges on the irresponsible to have an article like this without at least a very lengthy section on "criticism and refutation". Thus, Wikipedia's role to inform is preserved and sanity is served by calling this nutcase out. Do not forget that serial cranks like this thrive on the ability to hurl nonsense without rebuttal... If his very modus operandi is based on preying on the ignorance and gullibility of his audience, what respectibility does Wikipedia deserve if it fails to mention the overwhelming consensus that these views are at least insane, and at worst, insanely dangerous. And if that brands me as a reptilian overlord, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baliset (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a "criticism" section would be welcome. I myself lack time and sources to redact an ébauche of an acceptable quality. My previous interventions sought only to prevent a possible inadequate addition to the page. I doubt any encyclopedia would "discredit insane nonsense as utter rubbish" in such words. Let us bring light and not pollute; I see many an intervener, but few actual positive propositions. This is not a judgement, but an invitation to apt additions. --Lordmick 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordmick (talk • contribs)

A sence of perspective.
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. To post comments criticising it for including an article on David Icke is wrong. Anyone who has heard David Icke on Talkradio knows the public are fascinated with his theories. The criticism on this page of Icke is from people using the Western Discipline of 'Reality' 'Taste in Learning' 'Accepted Orthodoxy'. Mormons believe a man with unique spectacles could read an invisible book, catholics believe the Virgin Mary appeared in a cave in France, some Pentecostalists can at times be seen jumping up and down throwing themselves on the floor and bursting into tears praising Jesus, how is Icke to be considered alongside these (and many other) perfectly acceptable (by Society) Churches. Is Wikipedia to erase all pages on religion because some folks think the followers are stark raving mad?. Personally I don't know or care if David Icke is right. But it is wrong to slam Wikipedia for giving a page to the subject. Incidentally, what David Icke thinks of you guys who are criticising him. He said on Radio; 'I am past caring what people say when they make fun of me. I leave them to it'.Johnwrd (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
It has been years since the introduction has been modified significantly. If you compare past versions of this article, there have been very, very few changes and the introduction (as well as most of the rest of the article) have remained the same.

The intro is definitely biased and not NPOV at all and from the looks of things, like the Scientology articles, it has been impossible for anyone to bring any sense of balance to this article. I suggest that after all these years of stagnation, that it is time to make some serious changes to bring less bias, and more NPOV, beginning with the introduction, which seems to reference Icke in the year 1999 and nothing else, nor does it reference any of Icke's responses to such criticisms. Laval (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you like to see added or removed, Laval? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone think about what 'hate speech' really means?
There is a term to describe what 75.111.158.23 and 78.146.17.231 have contributed here, and that is 'hate speech.' I am a very down to earth and realistic person and I agree wholly with David Ickes core ideas. Sorry. His 'reptilian agenda' theory is a small part of what he has to say, which everyone has jumped on. His ideas are certainly no more 'insane' than any religious ideology; not to knock religion, but we are supposed to have equal rights to free speech.

The third paragraph of this article states that "At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax." Ickes theories IN NO WAY center around this source. Mentioning that he has cited this does not belong in the third paragraph and this shows clear bias. I strongly feel that this whole article needs to be scrutinized.

I think the IP addresses of those who have denounced this as 'insane nonsense' should be barred from editing, if there is to be any censorship here.

Truthsry (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Acualy it does not say it centres around the Protocols, but they are linked to the theory that is the at the heart of his claims (a link he made). But you may have a point in that it may give undue influence to that one part of his claims.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hard to see how we can change it. That his meetings have been met with protests is clearly notable per WP:LEAD; the issue attracted quite a bit of news coverage, including a documentary. Yet if we don't explain about the Protocols, the protests make no sense. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhasp it should say something like "his theorys have been accused of anti-semitism". This leaves in the explanation but does not sound like an accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we would need to say why, and his linkage to an antisemitic hoax is the reason, so it would seem odd not to mention it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As the demos were about his alleged anti-semitism that is all that needs to be said not the reason that people belive this of him (that is for the body of the article). Besides this is not the only reason that he has been accused of anti-semitsm.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

the eternal problem
most of the people who could dismiss people like Icke normally dont speak out, as its too risky to be accused of libel, or face other retribution. so we have fewer references than we would like for rebuttals of his ideas. there is of course no basis for assuming that alien dna could mix with human dna. if an alien race could breed with us and take over our leaders, we would have ZERO chance of fighting them. thats recombinant dna technology millenia beyond ours. like space battles, the side with demonstrably superior technology WINS. star wars is pure BS militarily speaking, as is independence day. but no military or scientific expert is going to bother to waste time on Icke, as its below their concern. Im of course totally ok with an npov article on icke being here. and we wont change the tide either way on believers, but if we can keep sourcing all sides, people (hopefully) will be able to read between the lines, and figure out that he is probably schizophrenic. of course, he could be right...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the tendency 'as a whole' of 'the leadership' to have relationships with equals and inferiors, any (and it is a big if that 'aliens' and 'humans' could produce viable and fertile offspring) we probably all have some alien ancestry (if the theory is valid) - to go with the remnants of retroviral and other inclusions on our DNA. Again, if the theory were valid, there would be occasional accidental sightings.

How Reptilian is David Icke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unclear pronoun reference?
The article currently says (with slight alteration): "Icke was [...] when at the age of 38, he had an encounter with a psychic who told him he was a healer and had been placed on Earth for a purpose." Is it just me, or is it unclear whether the "he" I've bolded refers to Icke or the psychic? Reading the rest of the article it becomes clear, but the lede is ambiguous to me. Gabbe (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear it's him. Hard to know how else to phrase it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Parking
Parking this here until I find sources.

He worked for a travel agency, becoming familiar with railway timetables and fascinated by steam trains. He planned to write a history of the steam line on the Isle of Wight. He moved there in 1984 and championed the cause of the Isle of Wight Steam Railway. He organized a Special Olympics for children in 1987, which he persuaded the BBC to film. He became the first president of the Isle of Wight Special Olympics Committee for the disabled.

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

B'nai Brith paragraph in the lede
The entire fourth paragraph of the intro is dedicated to B'nai Brith's POV that when Icke says "reptilian" he really means "Jews". I have only ever seen this view put forward by B'nai Brith affiliated organisations, most others report on Icke do not mention this and seem to take "repilitans" or "shape shifting aliens" on face value, for instance Blair, the Queen, Bush, Boxcar Willie aren't Jewish. Is this undue weight to an obscure POV? - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's actually a large part of what the media has reported about him, and if you read the sources in the relevant section, it doesn't come only from B'nai Brith, but also from a number of academics and journalists, and from his own Green Party. That's why it has its own paragraph in the lead, per WP:LEAD. It's not so much that people claim he means Jews when he says lizards (although some have indeed expressed that concern), but more that he relies on classic anti-Semitic texts and imagery, whether he intends it as anti-Semitic or not.  SlimVirgin  01:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis or original research
"His ontology amounts to a neo-Hegelian idealism with an extraterrestrial twist." I think this sentence should go. Even if it may be an accurate analysis it seems to originate with a Wikipedia editor and that's no appropriate source for such a statement. Also, I know what the term ontology means, I think, and I believe it is being applied inappropriately here. It used to read worldview, which may equally not be the best term for this sentence, but that hardly matters if we can agree that the sentence should be removed altogether. I also don't know what neo-Hegelian idealism is about, and I suspect very few readers do, so again, even if that were accurate, it's not all that helpful without any elaboration. But let's not. Let us remove this from the article. __meco (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Meco, it originally said "ontology," and someone changed it to worldview, which I changed back to ontology, because that's what I meant. The sentence you don't like seems to be an accurate summary of his views; bare summaries don't need sources unless they're contentious, but I didn't see this as contentious, though I could be completely wrong there, obviously. Can you say more about why you disagree with it, and why you think "ontology" is not being used correctly?


 * That said, I wouldn't worry too much about any particular part of this article, as it's currently being rewritten, and after that will be copy-edited and tightened a lot, so a fair bit of it is likely to change. SlimVirgin  12:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With due respect, calling Icke's theories "neo-Hegelian ontology" does not sound like "bare summary" to me. Rather like calling Obama a "neo-liberal intellectual", say.  Phiwum (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, if people really don't like it, I'll rewrite that bit when I next edit it. It seemed pretty harmless to me. :) SlimVirgin  16:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be content to re-evaluate the article when the ongoing work is done. It's no biggie for now. __meco (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Calling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion a "hoax" is not appropriate, as it makes them appear to be some kind of joke, instead of serious misinformation. "Unlike a fraud or a confidence trick, which are usually made for illicit financial or material gain, a hoax is often perpetrated as a practical joke, to cause embarrassment, or to provoke social change by making people aware of something." (From the article Hoax) I suggest to use a description such as "fraud", "fabrication" or a similar term. (The word "hoax" is also being used in the article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.) Cs32en  19:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it to forgery. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception, Kahn & Lewis section
I don't know enough about the subject to edit it myself, but I found the 3rd section of the Reception paragraph very, very long. Compared to the opinions of Barkun and Jones, mr Kahn's views take up a lot of space and appear to add very little. 94.143.177.172 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It may get longer still, as that section's in the process of being written, but once finished, the whole thing will be copy edited and tightened considerably. Hopefully then the flow will make more sense. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Place within the genre
I appreciate the effort that has been made to include this information, but I'm concerned that the new section is both a bit long for the topic and also includes much WP:OR. The last paragraph, in particular, with its attempt to tie Roswell and alien movies to Icke's conspiracies, seems to be a purely original essay. The other paragraphs at least present someone else's well-cited opinions, but I think probably take a bit too long to do so. In the end, this article should be about Icke and not so much about how he's received by conspiracy theorists and their observers. Phiwum (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Phiwum, I've cut it down. It was never intended to be as long as that&mdash;I added that paragraph ages ago, and never got round to editing it down, so thanks for pointing it out. I'm going to go in again later and tighten it a bit more. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 13:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)