Talk:David Icke/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Henry Widdas Content

Henry Widdas you may discuss your content here. However, note that since the information has been removed in good faith, you must build WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion again, and that if you persist in edit warring back in the content, it is likely to result in you being blocked. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I added further information about Icke from a second report I did for the Lancashire Post following an interview with him. I didn't realist that would be thought of as self-publicicity or conflict of interest, I did so as I thought it was useful evidence from the other side of the argument about him being antisemitic and a holocaust denier. However, I did not add the first part of the Lancashire Post information in relation to my review of his show and I do not know who put that in. So, is it possible you mistakenly removed that part, thinking I had added it myself? If so, would it be possible to have that part reinstated? Cheers, Henry.

One is a review of Ikes show, and thus is not an interview, the other link does not even work.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, it's Henry again. Yes, the quote from the review of the Icke show is something that has been on the Icke page for several weeks and I did not put it there. It contains information about what his show is about. Could that part be reinstated? The other part I added and apologies the link did not work, I am new a noob when it comes to wikipedia and wasn't sure how to do it and also did not realise it would be seen as a conflict of interest to add the information or be seen as self-publicitiy if I added anything. I look forward to hearing your response. Henry

I see no reason why we need it, why is your opinion of him or his show of note?Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, Henry again. In answer to your question, I think it gives some balance to the Icke page. I am not suggesting my opinion is of particular importance because I wrote it but it is a mainstream newspaper's review of his show with information about what the show is about. It was in there for weeks and was thought to be acceptable so not sure why you now see no reason why it's needed? Cheers again. Henry

Because sometimes edits get missed, especially when you have a huge raft of them as we did on the 15th, you just drew attention to it. And (by the way) this is your opinion of what he thinks, it is not his words.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Slatersteven. I disagree with you on this. The reference to my review is in part my opinion of what he thinks but also reports on what he said in the show. There are many other people on his page offering their opinions of what Icke (spelt Icke by the way) thinks as well and they are not being removed. If you are unmovable on this, is there an appeal process that can be made? Again, excuse my ignorance as I am new to wikipedia. Cheers, Henry.

The material that was removed was giving Henry Widdas two name checks, and was added by, er, Henry Widdas. This is not an ideal situation and conflict of interest guidelines become involved here. The Lancashire Evening Post article here is interesting, because it says "On Wikipedia, 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.Several attempts to remove the line have resulted in it being returned, sometimes within a day, Icke says, citing this article on Icke's website, titled "The disgusting and arrogant way that Wikipedia allows lies and distortion in its 'biographies' and gives a 'final warning' to those removing the lies - a personal example" As one of the involved editors here, I'm disappointed by the lack of good faith. It also shows that Icke has paid close attention to what his Wikipedia article says about him, something that I have suspected for a while. The article also contains criticism of User:יניב הורון. My edits to the article and talk page have never said that Icke is antisemitic or a holocaust denier, but have pointed out that critics of his work have said these things, and given cites where this happened. The article is not going to gloss over the facts to keep Icke happy, and the current wording in the WP:LEAD makes clear that Icke has denied being antisemitic. (PS, my cheque from Mossad must be lost in the post).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Care to give an example of someone having their view of Icke in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Henry again. To focus back on the initial Lancashire Post reference (which I did not add), I feel it adds some balance to the Icke page. From reading the Icke page, most people will come away thinking he is probably an antisemitic holocaust denying hate-preacher type. I see no harm in a considered offering of an alternative view within the Reception section from a mainstream newspaper review of his show. Providing a broader view on the subject would add to the entire page, in my opinion.

As long as it is a notable view, or his own words from an RS. It is hard to see your review (or interview) as passing that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

And we do already have plenty of material denying he is a Holocaust denier, so it is really hard to see how your interview really adds anything we do not have.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added a cite to this article in the lead section. The previously removed material was too long and had problems with WP:DUE. The cite gives Icke a direct right to reply on the claim that his theories are antisemitic. It is also worth mentioning WP:AUTO, which looks at what the subject of a Wikipedia biographical article should do if they are unhappy with the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Ian and Slatersteven, I thought I had given a response to Slatersteven's question re: any other examples of someone giving their view of Icke on his wikipedia page, but my response doesn't seem to have registered. Here are two examples on the David Icke page of someone giving their opinions of his work: 1.) "Michael Barkun has described Icke's position as New Age conspiracism, writing that Icke is the most fluent of the genre,[163] describing his work as "improvisational millennialism"." 2.) "According to Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, the book contains "all the familiar beliefs and paranoid clichés" of the US conspiracists and militia." The quote from my review of his show that was not put on by myself and then was taken out some weeks later should be replaced in my opinion. A footnote reference to my article (that has since been returned so thank you for that) carries less weight than a direct quote on the page. I am not suggesting my opinion is of greater note than that of Michael Barkun or Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke but I have watched his four-hour show and interviewed him for two hours which, combined with the fact I have written an in-depth feature (both online and in print) about Icke for the Lancashire Post which reaches close to 50,000 unique users a week, enable the quote to pass the test. If the length of the Lancashire Post review reference is another reason for it being taken out, I would point out that Barkun quotes are littered thoughout Icke's wikipedia page with several direct quotes from Barkun himself. By reintroducing the Lancashire Post review paragraph, I feel it will add balance to the entire entry which does come across to me as favouring his critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Widdas (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Henry Widdas Regarding "favoring his critics", per WP:WEIGHT Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. In my analysis, criticism of Icke in reliable sources is much more prominent than those who defend him, therefore it is not only appropriate, but required that we reflect that balance here. You as the author of the defense, are not in a neutral position to judge your own reliability, your own notability, and your own proportionality in relationship to the other sources. I mean this with no disrespect, but you are run a column in a local newspaper,you have no expertise in anti-semitism, in conspiracy theories, in politics. Your claim to knowledge is that "you watched his show". Your opinion is not WP:DUE the same coverage as those who ARE experts in their fields, and who are fairly uniformly critics of Icke. You have a vested conflict of interest in yourself. In any case, it is clear that there is not WP:CONSENSUS to include your quotes at this time. Indeed, I would judge that there is consensus to NOT include your quotes at this time. There are some avenues you could proceed at, an RFC or such, which would potentially draw in wider audience, but I will tell you you will almost surely be wasting your time. Icke is deep into the WP:FRINGE and wikipedia does not give much WP:ROPE to those who push the fringe POV. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi ResultingConstant, it's Henry again. I would argue that there is currently very little balance in the wikipedia entry for David Icke as there are many quotes from Icke's critics and zero quotes from people looking at his work in a positive light. That is not balanced. Anyone without knowledge of David's work would come away thinking David is probably antisemitic and/or a holocaust denier. The wikipedia entry is clearly not a fair representation of his work and, again, I stress this has nothing to do with my judging my own reliability, this is in regard to an entry on the page with a quote from my review of his show that was not put up by me. The key to a wikipedia page on someone controversial should be balance, one that shows both sides of any arguments, but the entry for David Icke on wikipedia is skewed to favour his critics. Again I refer you to Micahel Barkun who is quoted several times directly criticising Icke's work. In the interests of wikipedia's credibility, I would argue that it would be beneficial for the website to return the quote from my review of his show that I did not add. If it is not possible to receive consensus here, could you tell me a bit more about an RFC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Widdas (talk • contribs) 10:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is one difference Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Michael Barkun, they are notable, as such so are their views.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Henry Widdas Wikipedia is not saying Icke is a holocaust denier or antisemite. We are saying that notable critics, who are recognized in that area have said so. And that is a very important difference. You have said he is not. Good for you. You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to publish your opinion in your column. But you are not (equally) notable, you have no expertise in this area, it is merely your personal opinion. It is inappropriate to use your opinion to "balance" the opinions of the experts, just as it would be inappropriate to post personal opinions of random people about global warming, or vaccinations to balance those of the experts. If you wish to add appropriate balance to the article then you would need to find notable commentators who are experts in the fields of antisemitism or the holocaust who defend Icke, and then they might be appropriately quoted here. But you do not meet that standard. Your column is full of articles about antiques and knick-knacks, and amusing anecdotes about Lancashire history. Why does this make you qualified to be quoted in an encyclopedia regarding antisemitism? Please read through Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view from end to end, as it has several points relevant to your argument. A few of the most salient points :

• WP:BALASP An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.
• WP:FALSEBALANCE While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

ResultingConstant (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Protocols

@Slatersteven: i'm not sure I understand your objection [1]. Admittedly the wording is not ideal. Or were you merely objecting to the abbreviation? zzz (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

MY objection to what appear to be a reference to the protocols (I assume you mean the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ) without any cite as to there they say this. Maybe it was just very badly worded (as it also seems to say that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion i are the woirk of the Nazis). Not can I really see what this adds, do we need to know this anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

They were mentioned in the previous paragraph, so I thought it should be unnecessary to repeat the entire name, in context. The cite already in place mentions the importance of the Protocols to Hitler. I think it would be worth mentioning this, in some way. Or perhaps not. zzz (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Why?, It says what, that Icke believes and repeats what they say? Well we ready say this. I fail to see why pointing out that the Nazis (and Icke) believe something else from them increases out understanding of what he thinks. It seems just a random factoid that serves no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Good, I'll leave it out, then. Thanks zzz (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

genuine, autentic // historic

Two issues:

1. When the Protocols are a forgery, they are not "genuine" or "authentic". The forgery itself however is very old, and therefor the document is very old. It is a historic forgery.

2. Icke is not claiming they are authentic, he is claiming they are 100-150 years old whether or not they be forged. And at the same time are (in his opinion) accurately decribing the current status quo in the 21st Century. This has nothing to do with Jews according to Icke, it has to do with ages-old conspiracies, which Icke allegedly believes are happening around the planet. The source you are giving is just confused and angry, but I have not found any quotation of Icke in it or a claim attributed to him which would be a source for (1)authentic/genuine. Have I overlooked it? Please help me/provide one, Slatersteven in the meantime I will undo. --Mick2 (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We have RS saying he claimed they were authentic (and genuine and Authentic are synonymous). We repeat what RS say. Do not undo it is sourced to an RS. You do not get to say an RS is not correct, only that Ike says they are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Can we move the Jewish stuff to a subsection of the Reception section? This makes it seem that people are mainly criticizing Icke because he's antisemitic. This is not true - the reason he's being criticized is that all of his confabulations are complete barney. 78.0.203.173 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On another hand, never mind. Maybe pointing out Icke contradicting himself on this first will be better at deprogramming his followers than rattling off his critics (as in "show, don't tell"). 78.0.203.173 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

More needed on V?

I mention here some sources linking his ruling lizards idea to the TV series V, tho probably currently at most one counts as Reliable. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There are obvious similarities between the plot of V (franchise) and Icke's reptilian hypothesis, but whether Icke was influenced by the TV series is less clear. The sourcing given isn't ideal, and would need to be more blue chip to establish the link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful feedback, ♦IanMacM♦. I may or may not give some thought to adding it as "It has been suggested that ..." using that source, here and/or in a related article, though as already mentioned here, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, quite likely I won't actually do it (and definitely not just yet anyway), but of course this (or something similar) can also be attempted by any other editor who wants to have a go. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've now added a sentence along the above lines.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Not impressed, these are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a risk of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I'm not convinced that Icke's reptilian theories were directly influenced by V, and there needs to be better sourcing than someone suggesting it in passing in a DVD review.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ironically I think they may (subconsciously) have been influenced. But I agree we need a better sources then Den of the Geek. This should be removed until a decent source is found.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Icke's middle name

It's probably correct that it is Vaughan, but isn't obvious where the cite is. Help, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Alleged antisemitism

So how many more sources are going to be needed to print what is plain as the nose on a human face?

https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/alice-walker-and-david-icke-the-new-york-times-by-the-book-feature-controversy.html

"Icke believes that a race of man-sized lizards wearing human disguises rules the world, but less entertainingly, he’s also an anti-Semite...."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/18/new-york-times-criticized-alice-walker-interview-touting-book-that-blames-jews-holocaust/

"He claims to have had a psychic revelation nearly 20 years ago that led him to rebrand as “Son of the Godhead” and to promote the idea that a race of reptilian humanoids, widely viewed as a stand-in for Jews, is secretly running the world. “And the Truth Shall Set You Free,” which draws on the infamous anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” includes this judgment: “I strongly believe that a small Jewish clique which has contempt for the mass of Jewish people worked with non-Jews to create the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War.” The Nazi extermination, he wrote, was “coldly calculated by the ‘Jewish’ elite.”"

https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/277273/the-new-york-times-just-published-an-unqualified-recommendation-for-an-insanely-anti-semitic-book

"This passed without comment from the New York Times interviewer, and the publication passed it on to readers without qualification. This is rather remarkable because the book is an unhinged anti-Semitic conspiracy tract written by one of Britain’s most notorious anti-Semites.

A former soccer player turned professional hate peddler, Icke is one of the most influential conspiracy theorists in Europe, and certainly in Britain. Today, he has over 777,000 followers on Facebook, and speaks to audiences around the world. Like many conspiracy theorists, Icke claims that a secret conspiracy controls the world. And like many conspiracy theorists, Icke claims that this secret conspiracy happens to be Jewish. In And the Truth Shall Set You Free, the word “Jewish” appears 241 times, and the name “Rothschild” is mentioned 374 times. These references are not compliments. Indeed, the book was so obviously anti-Semitic that Icke’s publisher refused to publish it, and he had to print it himself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/11/why-conspiracy-theories-are-not-just-harmless-joke

"Just as many European Christians, from the Middle Ages onwards, conceived of Jews as a cabal of vampiric sorcerers led by Satan, modern anti-Semites believe in the existence of a “Zionist” bureaucracy that exerts its malign influence through the secular magics of finance, political corruption and control of the press.

The step from medieval to modern anti-Semitism is a short one. In the lurid fantasies of Icke, for example, the “Rothschild Zionist” elite is both a corrupting bureaucratic manipulator and a cabal of vampiric Satanists. Just as conspiracy theories are not simply allegations of conspiracy, anti-Semitism is not simply racism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I reverted here because of WP:BLP. Icke has never been arrested, charged or convicted over an offence related to antisemitism, but his theories have run into criticism that they are antisemitic. I've tried to introduce a nuance on this issue rather than saying "Icke is antisemitic". As you have pointed out, Icke's books have had to be self-published because of the controversy, but he does not fit the profile of a typical far right extremist. Jane Birdwood, Baroness Birdwood was prosecuted in Britain for similar theories, but they did not involve lizards and made clear that the real problem was Jewish people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The coverage is clear that the "lizards" stuff is baloney. He specifically references Jews over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is a case from Britain in 2018 where a woman was convicted for posting antisemitic songs on YouTube. Icke does not have First Amendment protection in Britain and would probably have been prosecuted by now if he had said something overtly antisemitic. He has also never been deported from a country because of his views, unlike Ernst Zündel. Looking at the David Icke quotes on Wikiquote, it's easy to see why he has run into criticism that his theories are antisemitic. As to whether he is antisemitic, Icke denies this and the alternative explanation are that his theories are a hotchpotch of wackiness. Overall, I don't believe that Icke fits the pattern of a full blown antisemite.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

article reads like the script for a Discovery Channel show

"The show turned him from a respected household name into someone who was laughed at whenever he appeared in public." Even if I watched the 46 min video, what would I get to prove that he was laughed at whenever he appeared in public? Police stats? his own description? A serious voice-over?

"Always a loner, he spent hours playing with toy trains, preferring to cross the street rather than speak to anyone."

"Icke met his first wife, Linda Atherton, in May 1971 at a dance at the Chesford Grange Hotel near Leamington Spa; she was working as a van driver for a garage. Shortly after they met, Icke had another of the huge rows he had started having with his father—always a domineering man, his father was upset that Icke's arthritis was interfering with his football career—so he left home."

Etc. Needs someone with a good exacto knife to cut stuff out.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "The show turned him from a respected household name into someone who was laughed at whenever he appeared in public" should undoubtedly go. I'm British and can still recall watching Icke's famous appearance on Terry Wogan's show. It's true that it set off enormous media coverage that changed the British public's perception of him in a way that persists to this day, but the wording here is unverifiable and fails WP:NPOV. I also agree that the other phrases read like journalese rather than encyclopedic writing style. I'm not sure when this stuff crept into the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I've attempted to make the "early life" section more encyclopaedic in tone, as that seems to be the section where there were issues. Screamliner (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Icke and climate change

Re this edit: the Guardian source here says "Icke thinks the moon might be some sort of spaceship, that the world is controlled by a globalist illuminati and, yes, that climate change is a hoax." Is this an accurate summary of Icke's position? Yes, because right at the start of this YouTube video, Icke says that man made global warming is a scam. My main concern is the Guardian source being a paraphrase of Icke's position, but it isn't misrepresenting him to say that he does not believe in man made climate change. "YouTube is not a reliable source" is a silly overgeneralisation if it involves a copyright free quote of something that comes from Icke himself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Caption in infobox

This edit isn't an improvement, and the use of brackets is both unnecessary and silly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

ianmacm, I agree with you. Screamliner (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy ? From the last paragraph of the section titled 'Reception'.

Labor's immigration spokesman, Shayne Neumann, said,"Labor welcomes the fact that the Government did what we called on them to do and refused David Icke's visa application."[193]

It says above, in the same paragraph, that the visa was 'revoked' which surely means it must have been granted so how could it be refused ? In fact, if I recall the story accurately, it was revoked very shortly (hours ?) before he was due to fly there from America and so to say it was 'refused' is surely bending the truth ?

I do hope this goes thru a vetting process as I'm not suggesting this as an edit, that I will leave to someone better qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.104.121 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Icke's visa for his February 2019 trip to Australia was revoked "just hours before boarding a flight to Australia for his March speaking tour."[3] According to the same Guardian article, the visa was "issued in September" (presumably September 2018) but the Australian government changed its mind at the last minute. The article also says that "Icke said he had been to Australia 10 times since 1997." It's clear that the Australian government initially gave the OK for Icke's 2019 tour, but changed its mind after pressure over the Jews/lizards/Holocaust controversy. In this news article, there is a direct quote from Shayne Neumann which says ""Labor welcomes the fact that the Government did what we called on them to do and refused David Icke's visa application." This is sort of correct but not 100% accurate, as Icke was initially granted a visa, only for the Australian government to change its mind afterwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

yes, but article doesn't say if the world was "devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes."

The article says that Icke predicted that the world would soon be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes but doesn't say if that happened.

Obviously it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:C002:FD40:3028:58C0:A49C:299D (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Psychosis? Medical Opinion?

Has anyone studied him from a medical point of view? He seems to be an extremely unusual person, and given that even people like trump prompted plenty of analysis, is there not similar remote analysis of his behaviour to suggest what psychological condition may cause this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.43.130 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but we need RS to say it, he could just as easily be a charlatan.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS and the Goldwater rule both spring to mind here. Unless a doctor had actually met Icke and Icke had agreed for his medical condition to be discussed in public, none of it would be reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Icke is back in the news today after his views about 5G and coronavirus led to one of his YouTube videos being removed.[4] This should be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That might explain this rush of unsourced BLP violations.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Added it, but it needs expansion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Icke is not pleased about the removal of the video. It was also removed from Vimeo, but is still available on BitChute. I'm not going to give a link, you'll have to find it for yourself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What can it mean to say that Icke is a “professional” conspiracy theorist?

Are there amateur and professional conspiracy theorists now? Have they unionized too? 2600:1017:B415:9909:8145:1C62:A45D:BBAC (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Icke is one of the few people in the world who earns his living from books, lectures etc related to conspiracy theories. To use the football analogy, he is not a weekend amateur, he is a full time professional. I don't think that calling him a professional conspiracy theorist is outright wrong, but let's hear some other views.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ian that if his primary income is derived from his books and lectures, and those books and lectures are largely built around conspiracy theories, then it is correct to say he is a "professional" conspiracy theorist. --Krelnik (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

professional implies the existence of a profession, not simply that one earns one’s living at some task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:9909:8145:1C62:A45D:BBAC (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

In the UK, it is possible to study 'psychical phenomena' at university level, and earn degrees (even doctorates) in the subject even though there is not a single demonstrable proof of any paranormal phenomenon. They are in the same situation as theologians, who prattle about gods ... which also cannot be proved to exist. Astoundingly, they are all deemed to be following a profession. Is Icke any more loony than a 'ghost-botherer' or a 'god-botherer'? They all deserve censure for misleading gullible members of society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.156.175 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware that many of the students of theology are not religiously inclined themselves? I’ve recently been reading several books about the history of technology. None of the scholarly works have been either for or against the specific technologies that they have studied. They ask questions about how social factors shaped the development of private automobile ownership in the UK. SmallMossie (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh... It's just more concise way of saying "professional author of and on conspiracy theories."

How is he described in the sources? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the description is incorrect but if a proportion of readers will think "Huh? What's one of those?" then maybe a slightly more detailed description which everybody can understand correctly is better. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Professional has more than one meaning. It can mean a formal 'profession' (e.g. lawyer, doctor etc.) or, as has already been stated, it can simply mean that someone does something for a living. Footballer is not a profession in the formal sense but a professional footballer clearly means someone who is paid for playing football. The same could be applied to more or less anything, including this. But I suppose it's a valid point that while it appears to be obvious that he earns his living from it, technically (i.e. as per WP rules) it needs to be supported by a reliable source stating that this is the case. Dubmill (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

As others have said it is because it is what he does for a living. I am not sure how we could explain that in an encyclopedic way. As to RS [[5]], [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Only Wikipedia would call someone a "professional conspiracy theorist." Utter nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7095:8C00:99E0:CE96:6696:218 (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, not nonsense at all. The only reason WP refers to Icke as a ""professional conspiracy theorist" is because it was reported in a reliable secondary source, and it is cited accordingly.[7] Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so, because some bloke Michael Barkun published a book titled "Chasing Phantoms: Reality, Imagination, and Homeland Security Since 9/11, in which he qualifies David Icke as a "professional conspiracy theorist", we the sheeple are supposed to repeat it after him ? —Jerome Potts (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Not really RS say it, and it is how he makes his living.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist is not a profession. To occupy a profession implies extensive training that results in some type of formal qualification/credential. A profession does not simply entail how one makes a living. If I make a living by washing car windshields, that does not make me a professional windshield washer. You can be a professional of some sort, and you can be a conspiracy theorist. But, there is no such thing as a professional conspiracy theorist. An encyclopedic source of information should not include made-up terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1b0:ae90:7cf2:248e:86a5:f95 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Professional" in this context simply means making money from an activity, rather than doing it as an amateur enthusiast. Nothing do do with formal training. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

How does one make a living off of simply theorizing about conspiracies? Doesn't he make money from books or a podcast, or some other medium for communicating his theories? There are plenty of people who base a career around theorizing, but they often make money from books or teaching at universities. Someone who has a career based around theorizing about biology or physics wouldn't be called a professional biological/physics theorist. Icke is certainly a conspiracy theorist, but "professional conspiracy theorist" is a term that means nothing (even by your definition that it refers to how one makes a living). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.215.231.107 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually it does professional /prəˈfɛʃ(ə)n(ə)l/ adjective engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It would surely be more neutral to describe him as a "writer and public speaker whose output concerns conspiracy theories...". No overriding need to use the term "professional conspiracy theorist." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be neutral, but it would also be more accurate and less ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:75D3:1A15:E4E6:1C1A (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree this should be changed. He's a writer and lecturer who focuses on conspiracy theories. I think we should change the lede to something along the lines of "David Vaughan Icke is an English professional writer and lecturer who promotes conspiracy theories and pseudoscience." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

If he was paid to lecture on any other subject maybe. The simple fact it he is not paid to lecture he holds lectures on conspiracy theories which people pay to attend.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

How about "writer and public speaker who promotes conspiracy theories..." ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

He makes his money because of his conspiracy theory pedaling. That is what he is known for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but "professional" implies, at least, some level of competence that has been tested. Why is it necessary to include that word? See "profession" - "A profession is an occupation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply disinterested objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain....." Icke does not have " specialized educational training", and his purpose is not "to supply disinterested objective counsel and service". (And you mean "peddling", btw.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Professional also typically indicates you're being paid for something. The fact is he is NOT being paid for thinking up/believing in conspiracy theories. He is being paid for writing books about his conspiracy theories and giving lectures on them. Gloria Steinem is known for being a feminist, but she is not a professional feminist. James Randi is an activist for scientific skepticism; but, that doesn't make him a "professional skeptic." I don't think we're being pedantic here - the man is not a "professional conspiracy theorist" because that just isn't a real thing. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, as has been stated many times before, 'professional' has an accepted secondary meaning of 'paid to do something', as in 'professional musician' or 'professional footballer' etc. That's what 'professional' means here. It does not refer to accreditation. Also, to say that he is paid money from the sales of his books and tickets for his lectures, but not for the content, I think is pedantic. He is paid for the content he creates, which is conspiracy theories. But in any case, why is there any need to include the word 'professional' in the first place? Dubmill (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This may be the simplest solution. Just take out the word "professional". I don't think anyone is arguing he's not a conspiracy theorist. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the reason is its more or less all he does. Most of the others do in fact have other "careers" separate form their "activism". All Icke is is a conspiracy theorist. But maybe just remove it, but we should not pretend he is anything more.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I just removed this. I couldn't find any support for "professional" in the cited sources either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Article needs to be re-written and sources corrected or noted as self-serving

Football player of note?!? I cannot see this whole section as being even a half-truth, the dates do not line up with the history of the now-defunct club he purports to have played for at the level he says, the whole section (and 95% of the whole article) is self-sourced and reads a bit like puffery.

Personal life Infidelity, can be implied but his personal life needs to be concatenated into one section.

Sourcing Sourcing needs to be explicit to say "He says..." He claims..." etc to definitively note that it could all be rubbish.

Re above psychosis etc there may be some truth in this, however it also could just be a ruse to gain notoriety and gain a following and make sales, as some of the rubbish he publishes cannot be what he believes and is just re-hashing old dis-proven illuminati, anti-Semitic etc. articles always found in the lowest recesses of the web and society, in an attempt to connect to the under-educated or easily influenced that look to find someone to blame. 121.99.108.78 (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean the dates of his football career do not line up with the history of his club (and its not defunct, this does not bode well for your argument)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hereford United page and its promotion and relegations to various diversions do not line up and they are defunct, if you view the article herein, the dates of his participation and where they were do not line up, your lack of research and blithe dismal does not bode well for any of your additions to the wiki in general.121.99.108.78 (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-david-ickes-lunatic-conspiracy-theory-interview-investigated-by-ofcom-11971203 "The media watchdog say it was assessing the former footballer's comments on coronavirus "as a priority"." https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/20/conspiracy-theorist-david-icke-hits-back-after-australia-revokes-visa "former British footballer and sports broadcaster just hours away from boarding flight for speaking tour". So yes he was a footballer. https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-david-icke-the-conspiracy-theorist-who-claims-he-is-the-son-of-god-11982406 "Following stints for Oxford United's reserve team and Northampton Town, arthritis forced Icke to quit the sport at the age of 21 in 1973 while at Hereford United" https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1277899/Coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-Liverpool-FC-Dejan-Lovren-Bill-Gates "Icke, a former Hereford United player and sports broadcaster, is a major driver behind the conspiracy theory that 5G and the coronavirus are linked." who played for Hereford. So again, how does this not tie up with the clubs history?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would claim that Icke had a career as a top flight footballer, but he did play for various clubs, of which Hereford United F.C. is the most notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Nor do we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lectures vs public events

All the RS say lectures, lectures in not a word that is exclusively reserved for educational institutions. Public events is vague and could mean anything. Being involved in public speaking events suggets he was just part of a 'speaking event' not that they were his lectures. Screamliner (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. "Public event" clearly fails to indicate the type of event - which was one presented as a lecture. I reverted the last edit (before reading the comment above). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don't Talk archive links appear on this talk page?

e.g. Talk:David Icke/Archive 5 does not seem to be linked. Compare Talk:Britney Spears, which has a long numbered list of talk archives. 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:4C91:6F0B:E00B:ED62 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There are five numbered archives and a search box at the top of the page. The link to Archive 5 seems to be OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it now; for some reason they are in a separate box with a picture of a filing cabinet. 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:4C91:6F0B:E00B:ED62 (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The page should probably be adjusted so that the archives are integrated with the rest of the templates, it's a bit messy to have them in a standalone box.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Icke quote re: COVID 19 & 5G

My edit giving the full context to the quote keeps been reverted:

From WP:RS

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

From WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

Screamliner (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The addition still overquotes. Maybe summarize using original prose and quote sparingly...? El_C 12:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need to have this much?Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You also misattributed the Icke quotations. The material you added is not in the Nick Cohen article. It is unwise to quote from a broadcast which Ofcom, the British media regulator, said should not have been aired and then expect it to be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Philip Cross (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks El_C I will attempt a more consice edit.

Slatersteven I think in the context of this preceding text: "Multiple mobile phone masts were subject to arson attacks at this time, as well as telecom engineers being abused. Nick Cohen in The Observer thought Icke was ambiguous as to whether the phone masts should be left alone. Icke said: "If 5G continues and reaches where they want to take it, human life as we know it is over... so people have to make a decision."" The full context of his response when asked about the situation is relvent, the quote by BBC and Observer is remvoing full context for whatever reason. Also would the 1st sentence referenced to the Telegraph be bordering on original research, as it is stating facts from the article which were not directly related to their mention of the Icke interview?

Philip Cross Sorry I don't understand how your point counters the WP policy I quoted here. It is a primary source for the quote, how is it not reliable if it is the words coming out of his mouth as his lips move?

Screamliner (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how this give context, the claim is Ike has not come out and condemned the attack on masts. Nothing in your added text contradicts that claim. Does he say the attacks on the masts is wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I second Slatersteven's query. In his mind, these attacks on masts may not constitute "violence." El_C 12:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"...against people".Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, "against people." El_C 12:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"as well as telecom engineers being abused." from the previous sentance why is this in the WP article then? it has nothing to do with what Icke was asked about and in the Telegraph article it is cited from it doesn't link that to what Icke said or what he was questiond about in the LR interview. Icke was clear in his statment of non violence agianst people and the full context of the quote should be expressesed especially if the material is framed in this way. Screamliner (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is in the preceding line, and again does Abuse constitute violence? Ike could have said "and abuse towards people" he did not. Now there may be an argument for putting something like "but ike condemned any violence towards people" after that line.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The direct quote from the Nick Cohen article which I summarized was: "Asked about attacks on phone masts by his confederates in duncery, Icke didn’t fall over himself to condemn them." Part of of the Icke material you cited backs up Cohen in suggesting Icke is at best ambiguous about the illegal arson attacks ("It's not for me to tell anyone what to do because that is their right to choose") which suggests its use is redundant over what is included. By the way, for those interested, the transcript of the London Live interview with Icke is available online (https://medium.com/@good_scribe/readable-transcript-london-real-david-icke-the-coronavirus-conspiracy-how-covid-19-will-73a7eb992b79 here), although I do not suppose the Medium website counts as a reliable source as it is a website with self-published content. Philip Cross (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(cross posting) Screamliner, I think WP:PRIMARY (in the No Original Research article) takes precedence on what you quoted. It states: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Icke does not make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Philip Cross (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems irrelevent. It is a quote. Directly stating words which came out of his mouth.Screamliner (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

On the reputed abuse suffered by telephone engineers, a reference to Icke is directly juxtaposed with the obvious implication, though not directly stated, but that is true of the arson attacks mentioned here also. The Icke reference in the Telegraph source removes the claim of synthesis policy wise. Icke is not blamed for anything illegal in the article I quote, nor in this article. Because the Telegraph website is becoming more restrictive to non-subscribers, I quote the full passage I drew on for the telephone engineers reference, the only time Icke is mentioned in the source: "On Facebook, a group called Stop 5G UK grew to more than 58,000 members (the group was removed by Facebook late on Monday). Last Wednesday, London Live, a TV channel owned by Evening Standard owner Evgeny Lebvedev, broadcast a 100 minute long interview with conspiracist David Icke on his views on 5G. In some cases, public harassment of telecoms engineers is being broadcast on YouTube or shared on WhatsApp." Of course, the use of "abuse" for "harassment" may not be universally assumed to be an appropriate substitute. Philip Cross (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"is directly juxtaposed with the obvious implication, though not directly stated" Exactly! This is propaganda he was never asked about it, and never commented on it, so why is it in the WP article just before a quote which was cut to a specific length by the BCC and Observer which frames his overall view on some random individuals allegedly setting fire to 5g towers in a certian light? To your other point, at least he was actually asked about and made comment on the arson attaks though. Screamliner (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Where does (in your edit) he make any statement about the masts?Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The initial line "It’s not for me to tell anyone what to do because that is their right to choose." gives a more nuanced context on, and frames his posititon more clearly. As for the second part of the added text in my edit. It is relevent that he specifically expanded his point in relation to this by stating what he did about his position on "violence to people" this is especially relvent in the article if we have the line in the previous sentence from the telegraph I have been commenting on (also I think your previous suggestion that this could possibly be reslolved with a comment at the end of that sentence is a fair point) Screamliner (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It is best to give direct quotes where possible. However, the source at LondonReal seems to be a video, so you would have to watch it and then do a WP:TRANSCRIPTION. This isn't ideal, although it is within Wikipedia guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your comment ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} I did watch it and the text I added was directly transcribed from the video. Are you saying that there is an additonal procces that would need to be done? Thanks Screamliner (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There isn't an outright ban on transcribing a person's words from video or audio, but it may be better to find a secondary reliable source with the quote in it. The LondonReal cite also says "Subscribe Free Or Login To Watch The Full Episode" (ie you can't watch it without a login). I haven't watched the video but accept that Icke uses these words in it. It might be helpful to give a timing for the point in the video where he says this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I did give a timing point in my original citation "event occurs at 1:18:05". Anyway I will leave this for a short while, and see if any other wikipedians want to comment before making an attempt at a new edit Screamliner (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In what way is that "more nuanced"? Icke is accused of (in essence) not coming out and straight up condemning the attacks and the quote shows him doing just that, not condemning them. It is hard to see how this gives us a more nuanced view.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There is not condemning something, which he cleaerly didn't do. But it is legitimate and relevant to preface that with Ickes claimed reasoning for why a condemnation was not given, ie he didn't feel in that situation it was his place to tell peoeple how they should respond to what he percives as a major threat. The non-violence point is a justified clarification of his personal views on the issue for reasons I have already outlined. Screamliner (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I am bowing out now, we are going round in circles arguing the same point over and over again, we do not need (nor do I see what value there is) in what Icke has said to try and justify why he is not in fact trying to stop acts of violence, when he (is in fact) a driving force behind the lies that are leading to it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So is the overall consensus from wikipedians here to make Icke's actual response and position less clear and reflective of his true views, when he was questioned about this issue? Screamliner (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Read peoples objections.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a consensus of common editors but it will be the overriding decision. Because this is a High-importance Skepticism article, aka high importance propaganda article. 2A00:23C6:B891:4401:6872:95B3:D9D1:2701 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, or its a "if you say stuipid shit we will not cover it up for you" article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

And as if the prove the point, Icke is still talking bollocks about Covid-19.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Profession

Mr Icke refers to himself as a Conspiracy researcher and denies he is a theorist. As such his profession on Wikipedia should be changed to reflect this. Djando09 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. What matters is how Icke is described in reliable secondary sources, eg here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

He can call himself what he likes, I can call myself owner of your house, that does not make it true. We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I can paint myself yellow, buy feathers and a beak and call myself a Canary bird, does that make me a Canary bird? MightyArms (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Not today.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Need correction

Hello,

The following information is incorrect.

He was awarded a British Empire Medal for gallantry in May 1943 after helping to save the crew of an aircraft that had crashed into the Chipping Warden air base in Oxfordshire. Along with a Squadron Leader, he ran into the burning aircraft, without protective clothing, and saved the life of a crew member who was trapped inside.[4]

How can someone born in 1952 be awarded in 1943?

Apologies. I assumed the information on was on David Icke.

Regards

Not surprised you were confused tbh. The level of detail here for this quack is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8708:B500:442C:D6A8:E620:26B7 (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't say this that I can see.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

In the introductory paragraph, the line "he visited a psychic who he said told him" should use "whom" not "who" Marscaleb (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm 50-50 on this. The sentence reads clearly as it is, and whom is rather formal.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

"calls the way this Wikipedia page has been edited "censorship"", it does?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 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 Wikipedia – the go-to-source of information for many with 18 billion visits per month. Icke says the website is notoriously anti-“conspiracy theories”. On Wikipedia, 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)

"Ike says", so it's not them, it's him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for a personal life section

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)

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)

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♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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)