Talk:David Icke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Football (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the English football task force.
 
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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 Wikipedia. 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Toolbox

First sentence[edit]

2001:558, could you say here what your objection is to the current first sentence? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The opening sentence contains an original synthesis. It combines the observation that David Icke is known for his views, with his own description of those views, to imply that people who know about them accept his description. What is Icke "known for"? Here's a sampling from books in which other people have mentioned him:
So, a variety of views, with "conspiracy theorist" apparently in the lead. 'I'm not pushing to include the phrase conspiracy theorist in the opening sentence, but the synthesis needs to go. It's fine with me if the article opens with Icke's self-description, presented as a self-description and nothing more than that. I trust that the body of the article will adequately discuss his reputation. 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
He is best known for what you call his conspiracy allegations. That is correct. But the way you wrote it gave us no information. The way Icke himself puts it is more descriptive: best known for his views on what he calls "who and what is really controlling the world." Given the number of people who buy his books and tickets to his talks, and the people who interview him, all wanting to hear the latest about his views on "who and what is really controlling the world," I can't see why you'd see it as problematic. If you're thinking it's pro-Icke, it really isn't (nor anti, it's just factual). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, neither you nor anyone knows what people think of the subject of this article. Best known for his highly public descent into madness, I would say. You say something different. All of them are points of view. From the use of the word "perhaps" you can see what a vague and meaningless claim is is anyway. NPOV is a core policy so this opinion must be removed. And secondly, using his own promotional blurb to describe what you think he is "best known" for is not neutral either. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

undue section[edit]

I feel like the academic view is giving undue weight to the views of Barkun, Lewis, and Khan. While the length of the section is not undue compared to the length of the article, basing the WP:RS/AC"academic view" on essentially one book (barkun 2003) and one paper (L&K 2005) seems WP:UNDUE. There is a second paper listed repeatedly in the refs (L&K 2010) which mainly appears to be a reworking/expansion of their earlier paper as well. Certainly these viewpoints are reliably sourced, but since they are individual opinions, I suggest a greater degree of summarization of each author's points, giving each one paragraph instead of 2-3 each. This is in no way to defent Icke's viewpoint, I think its pretty obvious he is a whackjob (unless the L&K metaphor model is used) - but still we should not give so much counter weight to a small set of critics. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Undue Haste[edit]

It is actually two Mail articles which say his appearance at a theatre in New York's Times Square in November 2008 met with an ovation at the end. (See my edit summary.) As the Mail is not RS, a source would need to refer to this fact for the Mail references t to be admissible, the material was still legitimately removed. Philip Cross (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Terry Wogan interview[edit]

I was in Glasgow 1989-1990 studying at Strathclyde, and remember seeing David Icke on TV talking to Wogan confirming he was son of God, and Wogan saying "they are not laughing with you, they are laughing at you". As I recall, this was spring 1990. Are you guys sure about the year? Because I was not in Britain in 1991. I watched this in a hotel room in Sauchihall street rented for students who had to wait before moving in to their new buildings.

Bill Schnoebelen??? Comment[edit]

Which came first, Icke or Schnoebelen, founder of One Accord Ministries??? If you care to go through all the videos, http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bill+Schnoebelen, Schnoebelen is onto the same conspiracy stuff as Icke, excepting the star Sirius is the center of all evil as opposed to the constellation Drago.User:JCHeverly 02:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)