Talk:Bill Hicks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discography

Should we include a listed discography at the end, like a summary of his recorded work? -- Sam Francis

How much do you smoke a day?

I'm pretty sure the "How much do you smoke a day?" quote goes:

"How much do you smoke a day, dude? Pack and a half? You little puss...Why don't you just put the fuckin' skirt on, and swish around for us? 'Pack and a half, I smoke a pack and a half..' I go through two lighters a day, dude".

At least, that's how I remember it appearing on the Dangerous album. It could be that the quote in the article is a variation from a different source.

That's exactly what it is. Sometimes he would improvise around his scripted jokes. --Viriditas | Talk 11:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The amount was based on how much the person in theaudience he asked said they smoked, which was different ever show since he asked different people.Elijya 04:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That was the basic idea, but he changed it in different bits. He did that one all the time, and would change the insult depending on the amount smoked by the person. Ario 07:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of content

Removed known for controversial political topics, such as the Gulf War and the LA riots, among other things. This is comedy, not a policial position. It should also be noted that these topics weren't controversial, and Bill Hicks wasn't known for them. Hicks was primarily known for controversial topics involving religion, sex, drugs, and music. So, not only was the comment irrelevant, it was wrong. You will not find any Bill Hicks fan or critic who will tell you that he was known for topics about the Gulf War and the LA riots. Yes, he commented on those topics, as did every other comedian of that era. His views on drugs and religion were and still are extremely controversial. --Viriditas | Talk 06:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and how do you know how Bill Hicks is primarily known? I'm a fan, and I see his comedy as a medium, not the end result, for political and social topics--Gulf War and LA Riots included. So there goes your theory. Since you cite no source for such knowledge, I propose that your perspective is biased and uninformed. The content you removed should be reconsidered. In the future please make educated, not speculative, edits. 24.250.231.21

Bill hicks was not known for ...controversial political topics, such as the Gulf War and the LA riots. His comedy had many facets, including social, psychological, legal, ethical, etc. The content was removed because it is inaccurate and misleading. My original statement still stands. --Viriditas | Talk 07:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1980's

"Hicks started drinking heavily and using drugs, leading to a more disjointed and angry, at times misanthropic, ranting style on stage."

--user Are you sure his angry and disjointed style was caused by drugs and alcohol? Could very well be the anger that caused the drugs, not the other way around. I think the above sentence is speculation, not fact.

--g0sp3L 14:07 21 Nov 2005 Anyone that says that Hicks' use of drugs caused anger or was caused by anger obviously has never heard the message of his comedy. He was angry because he had life figured out. He knew that war, politics, and ignorance are the bane of human existance. When he said "I've had some killer times on drugs", obviously that was meant to be funny, however his use of psychedelic drugs OBVIOUSLY shaped his personal philosophy and caused him to be more enlightened. When he went off on his rants about how "We are one consiousness" and whatnot, you'll notice that the crowd laughs and giggles, but these statements WERE NOT JOKES! It sounds like "druggy jibberish" to anyone who has never had a psychedelic experience, but to ANYONE who has had a spiritual awakening while under the influence of Mushrooms or LSD, it is EXACTLY what they discovered during that experience. Anyone who laughed at those statements has either never taken a psychedelic drug, and if they have they definitely didn't use them correctly. ("I took mushrooms once and went to AstroWorld and had a really bad time.")

And why is it that every time I post that he was an advocate for the use of psychedelic drugs, someone deletes it as if it is my opinion?

part of writing a NPOV-article is describing the debate (if there is one) around this issue without taking sides. if there are two different valid views of this, both should be included.--Johnnyw 03:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

to Johnnyw, there is no debate to describe or take sides on. Bill Hicks not only advocated the use of psycho-active drugs, specifically LSD/Psilocybin, he believed the experience of using them should be mandatory. Any person who considers themselves a Bill Hicks fan would be aware of this fact, as Bill has stated it many times at many different points and places in his career and life. Dirk Diggler Jnr 13:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Bill Hicks never thought Lysergic Acid and Psilocybin Mushrooms should be mandatory. Anyone and everyone who has been on them knows you have to have a clear conscious mind and know that you are doing them. He has said that marijuana should be mandatory though...

Oh yes thanks, got them mixed up with each other. I did mean to say marijuana being the mandatory one - I must have been high when I typed it up, however he did definitely strongly recommend all adults at least try psilocybin mushrooms [[1]] once.. "Squeegee you're third eye!!!" was the heartfelt recommendation he often expressed regarding his endorsement of psilocybin mushrooms. Dirk Diggler Jnr

Counts Of The Netherworld

I didn't want to change it, as I haven't seen it, and someone who has may be able to clear it up, but should Counts Of The Netherworld be described as a sitcom? From my understanding, shit would have been a show that was broadly comedic, but much more of a discussion and stand-up show than anything resembling a sitcom, even in the broadest use of the term. NickBarlow 07:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can make up your own mind as to what Counts of the Netherworld would have turned out like - there are a few excerpts available on the Sacred Cow website. Difficult to describe what I saw, butI think it would have been more like a late night discussion show with lots of dark satirical tones to it. -Zaphod Beeblebrox 08:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where might I obtain Counts Of The Netherworld? Anyone, please? Dirk Diggler Jnr 00:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The World Is One Consciousness

Interesting thesis, I've heard it before and pretty well wrote it off as hokum. But look here, wikipedia, search anything, everyone can contribute, every sphere of human thought is to be chartered here and now. If he was wrong, he's already almost right.

Image

The old picture doesn't seem to be working, so I moved the album cover from the Arizona Bay article. If anyone has a better image, feel free to use it.

Oh, it works alright. Maybe it just was temporarily unavailable. I reversed your change, if that is allright with you. --Johnnyw 00:36, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Heh, my computer doesn't recognize it. Ah well, glad it works for the rest of you. --Stilgar135 00:49 28 May 2005

It's not working for me. Bill_Hicks_1.jpg :s. I don't what's going on. --Cammoore 01:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Checked it again, still no trouble... Do you get an error message, a broken link signal or s.th. like that? --Johnnyw 01:27, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

I can see the box and the text, but no image. Stilgar135 16:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you see Image:Bill Hicks 1.jpg? How about The full-size image? Or this direct link to the thumbnail? I suppose there might be a caching problem with the thumbnail on the page, but I can see it fine. --rbrwr^± 16:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

All your links work fine. User:Stilgar135

I'm surprised that you can see the direct link to the thumbnail, but it doesn't appear on the article page. I don't know what would be causing that. You could try following the instructions in Wikipedia:Bypass your cache, but beyond that, I'm stumped. --rbrwr^± 19:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's another one. Maybe you have blocked all images that are not from the same server as the website. For example, in Firefox there is an option that reads "[x] Load Images [x]...from the originating site only." If you have the second checkbox checked, than that could be your problem, since some wiki images (i believe) are uploaded to the wikipedia commons, some aren't etc. pp... at least it could be worth a try. --Johnnyw 18:54, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Removed Dennis Leary passage

I removed

"In 1993, after Hicks had heard Denis Leary's album No Cure For Cancer, he had come to the conclusion that Leary was plagiarizing his material. When asked why he quit smoking, Hicks replied, in his incredibly sarcastic humor, "I wanted to see if Denis Leary would do it."

since it is extremely POV. I also believe to remember, that Hicks also has made more sophisticated remarks regarding Denis Leary and the supposed or actual plagiarization.

How is this POV? Its what Hicks believed. It isn't asserting that Leary was plagiarizing him (though I personally do think that to be the case) -- simply that Hicks believed Leary was plagiarizing his material. Hicks wasn't alone in this belief. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm giving benefit of the doubt -- but I am pretty dubious about this. Also, if there are more sophisticated remarks re: Leary & No Cure For Cancer, why not point us at one or two so we can reconstruct, rather than simply pruning in toto? --70.17.141.232 20:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought "he had come to the conclusion that Leary was plagiarizing" might be misleading, since it does not clearly say that this is a matter of opinion. Also "his incredibly sarcastic humor" is POV, simply because of "incredibly" which of course depends on the perspective. Therefore, the passage is POV. If we clarify this, we could easily re-add that passage, imho. Thanks for pointing this out, I already forgot about that removal, since I was waiting in vain for some feedback. And btw: welcome to wikipedia! Why not register a user account? Makes things a bit easier. As a suggestion, how about "In 1993, after Hicks had heard Denis Leary's album No Cure For Cancer, he believed that Leary was plagiarizing his material. When asked why he quit smoking, Hicks replied "I wanted to see if Denis Leary would do it." ? --Johnnyw 13:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

You only have to look at Wikiquotes to see what Hicks said on Leary : "I have a scoop for you. I stole his act. I camouflaged it with punchlines, and to really throw people off, I did it before he did.". If you're going to put words into Hicks' mouth, it might as well be words he spoke... --Zaphod Beeblebrox 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, Leary stole most of his act from Hicks. One only has to listen to Leary's recorded act back-to-back with Hicks. It's almost word-for-word. Let's not ignor the fact that when Hicks died, Leary suddenly stopped doing stand-up. Make no doubt about it, Leary is a good actor. However, his entire act was stolen from Hicks.- James.

Leary got his breakthrough with No Cure For Cancer, and there are certainly bits in there that came from Hicks, especially the "Jim Fixx" references. The book American Scream by Cynthia True, goes in to more detail, and describes Bill's reaction when he heard No Cure For Cancer for the first time:

"Bill was furious. All these years, aside from the occasional jibe, he'd pretty much shrugged off Leary's lifting. Comedians borrowed, stole stuff and even bought bits from one another. Milton Berle and Robin Williams were fanous for it. This was different. Leary had, practically line for line, taken huge chunks of Bill's material and recorded it."

So while I'm not disputing what happened, it's going too far to say Leary's entire act was stolen from Hicks. Get a copy of No Cure For Cancer and you'll hear it is mostly different, but letting the stolen bits end up on the recording was not ethical. --Stereoroid 02:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Does this section really need to be included? I'd prefer to have the quotes from Bill about Catholicism included, so that people can make up their own mind whether it is controversial or not. The quote that springs to mind related to Waco when he says "if child molestation is an issue then why don't we have Bradly(?) tanks knocking down Catholic churches". My point isn't just me defending Bill Hicks, because if you look at the Rush Limbaugh article it simply lists his views and lets the readers decide whether they agree. I'd rather we outlined any of Bill's criticisms of Catholicism. --Paul Tew 05:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem with the "criticism" section is, that there are no sources at all given, therefore it's hear-say at best. Considering that Hicks has made #13 in the "The Comedian's Comedian" list, I also doubt the statement that he is disputed among fellow comedians. If noone will include sources stating one or the other - for example - a Christian magazine criticising Hicks, I am strongly in favor of removing the paragraph. Because if there are nor sources to cite, it's just the opinion of an anonymous contributor to WP. --Johnnyw 13:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section has been removed again and to my mind that is not good for the article. Yes it needs to be well written and sources noted, but you don't need to be a genius to work out that Bill got a few backs up. It was part of his personna and it should be noted in the article. We don't need to resort to hear say, there are enough interviews about him in the public domain and enough written about him. --LiamE 03:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

then feel free to find one and link to it. You could post a "criticism" section on EVERY comedian's entry because 99% of them are "controversial", that's kind of the point of their entire profession. Elijya 06:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The point of a comedian is to make people laugh. Not every comedian is controversial but yes for the ones that are it should be noted why they were or are controversial. I don't own any books about Bill and my non-existant shorthand wouldn't lend itself well to trying to take notes from the interviews on my DVD's. His work was always for too controversial for many in his home country which always limited the type of work he could do. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Bill's but this is an encolopedia not a fan site. He got peoples backs up. It should be noted here. --LiamE 17:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are right, all that I think we should keep in mind is to use sources, rather than make up things (or leave anonynmous contributions in the article that don't use sources). --Johnnyw 17:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To the people who wish to have a critical section to Bill's wiki entry, either source and link to your 'facts' or expect them to be removed on every occasion. Thank you. Dirk Diggler Jnr

18:10, 26 January 2006 Jmperryuk (This is clearly NPOV as it neither condones or condemns Hicks' work. It merely presents what certain groups have thought, so is of interest. What Hick's 'humanity' was is open to question clearly.)

19:14, 26 January 2006 Dirk Diggler Jnr (Removed unsourced opinion/criticism for 3rd time. (to 'Jmperryuk' if you have to question Bill Hicks' humanity, you are ill-educated re this subject))

19:31, 26 January 2006 Jmperryuk (rv.edit from vandalism. Sorry, 'Dirk', are calling me 'ill-educated'? I've been given an offer to study History at Oxford, so please, keep this impersonal.)

Dear 'Jmperryuk', I am not remotely interested where you have been offered to study. However if you are so highly educated then it should be within your intellect to read and understand a simple two sentence statement. The easily understandable point I made was ; if you have to question Bill Hicks' humanity and the compassion behind his entire life's work, then you are ill-educated regarding this particular subject.. and therefore in a poor position to make edits regarding that same subject. As to your claim regarding my alleged vandalism, unsourced opinions are not tolerated at wikipedia. The criticism section you added is completely unsourced, therefore others wiki-users who work on this page will not tolerate it's presence. Nor will I. If you wish it to remain, I suggest you spend time in locating sources for this criticism that you can provide links to for others to verify. Thank you. Dirk Diggler Jnr

Dirk - I think you need to step away from the keyboard. Please bear in mind the 3 revert rule. The removal of sections is rarely the best way forward. Tagging a section as being possible POV or needing sources would be more productive. Mostly everything in the critism section offered by Jumperryuk is so self evident that it doesn't need sourcing in my opinion but here goes - I'll give a source for everything I can in that paragraph that could be contended. Firstly, does he rant? He released a works entitled "Rant in E minor" and "Relentless" and frequently stopped mid rant on stage with lines like "Sorry, wrong meeting" or "I am available for children's parties" - So yes he ranted and he considered himself to be ranting. Vitiriolic? Absolutely, he wouldnt have wanted to be anything less when speaking on a subject held dear to him. Discriminatory? Certainly so against certain religious types and the ill-educated -"Ever notice how those people that beieve in creationism look really un-evolved?" - "Good, we lost another idiot, I'll be another car length up in traffic tomorrow." Was he criticised in the media? Well the "Totally Bill Hicks" DVD/Video has interviews with such notable people as Jay Leno. Hicks had to be pulled because of network pressure, so yes there were media criticisms. I have no sources for social, religious and ethic groups criticising him but it should be noted that even his parents didn't know why "he had to say such things."- Again sourced from interview on Totally Bill Hicks. Condoned smoking and drug use? Erm too many sources for those to even be considered POV. "Every cigarette looks like it was rolled by Jesus and moistened shut on Claudia Shiffer's pussy" and "I had some killer fucking times on drugs" spring to mind. Anti-religeous and anti catholicism - To my mind he never singled out catholicism but he was obviously vehemently anti-christianity - "As long as we are talking shelf life here, don't bring up Jesus to me" "Got one word for ya, dinosaurs" and "God is fucking with you" spring to mind. And did he make jest of sensitive issues such as health conditions and death? Too right he did. "I'm Jim Fixx and I'm dead now, and I don't know what the fuck killed me" and "Put em in the movies" come to mind. These topics disgust certain people and many see it as cruel. If you don't think so show a video of it to someone who has just lost someone close and see how they react to it. Of course, many people do not realise that while performing these routines towards the end of his career Hick's himself knew he had incurable cancer and continued with these parts in his act. I'm going to put the section back in - less the social religious and ethic groups till that can be sourced. Tag it if you want so it can be improved but removal really wont help. Incidentally I see no questioning of Bill's humanity here - merely a statement that he wasn't everyone's cup of tea. --LiamE 20:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, have fun with this page and rest of wiki. I doubt I'll contribute again. Dirk Diggler Jnr

Also, for the record the kind of people who find Bill Hicks' philosophies and comedy as "disgusting.." or "interpret it as cruel or intolerant" are the same kind of people who found U.K.'s Chris Morris also disgusting, cruel and intolerant and the same kind of people who would believe in Creationism. I.E. Imbeciles. Dirk Diggler Jnr

You would do better contributing to fansite rather than an encyclopedia by the sound of it. I'm quite sure Bill didnt care one hoot for the people that didn't like him - but he knew they existed and to a large extent he built his career on offending them - and so they should be mentioned. To quote Bill himself - "this is the material that has kept me on the club circuit for the last 20 years." --LiamE 21:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what our opinion on any on these subjects are or if we like people condemning Hicks or his acts, the only thing that matters here is to show a quite representative view on Hick's work. Of course there are critics and that should be noted. That part of Hicks act lived because of these confrontations is a fact too. To make it neutral of point of view, we should give the criticism about as much space on this page as criticism was part of Hicks life. To blow it out of proportions would be wrong as would leaving it out entirely. That reminds me of that bit about red necks where Hicks asks "+ Are you christian? - Yeah. + Then forgive me." which definitely plays with his controversity. Maybe we could this some space in the section and name one or the other incident (for example, the censoring of Bill Hicks on the Tonight Show etc.) --Johnnyw 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad a compromise has finally been found on this issue. I thank LiamE for his continual help in resolving this part of the article. All Dirk Diggler Jnr I recently discovered has done is arrogantly removed the material and personally attacked me on the 'Talk' section. Just to set the record straight, I am not a redneck, Dirk, far from it. Neither do I find myself to be a target of his humour in any case (apart, perhaps, from moderate Christianity). Neither am I a believer of Creationism/intelligent design etc. My interest in a Criticism section in the first place was purely academic. As a constructive point, I do suggest that you try in future to not let your POV cloud your judgement, and participate with us in the re-editing rather than critcise people personally (by the way, I had never before encountered 're' being used as assumedly 'regarding'). I think you should reassess your maturity in cooperating with others on Wikipedia. Thank you to all who helped in positively contributing to this article. --Jmperryuk 16:35, 27 January 2006 (GMT)

Excuse me? "All JohnnyW I recently discovered has done is arrognatly removed the material and personally attacked me on the 'Talk' section." It seems you mistake me for someone else or misunderstood me. NEVER did I attack anyone personally nor did I arrogantly removed the material. I removed it once in it's VERY FIRST incarnation, stating that we need to keep it NPOV and sourced, then I added the "verify"-tag to the sub section when it was re-added w/o any change. I seriously hope that you mistake me for somebody else (maybe Dirk Diggler Jnr?) because I cannot verify any of your points regarding me and my behaviour. To be honest, I am quite suprised and shocked to see that anyone would judge me like that, since I never refused to include that bit in the article and always tried to find a finde compromise to improve the article... If there is reason to criticise my behaviour, I strongly ask you to point out where or to re-verify your opinion about my person. --Johnnyw 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Johnny-- I used the wrong name. I was referring to Dirk Diggler Jnr. I have re-edited my comments now. That was my mistake, and it was no reflection on you, as I remember you removing it in its initial, messier form. -- Jmperryuk

No hard feelings, apologies are of course accepted. In an attempt to return back to topic, I would like to propose that we include more details on the "hot issues". Let me return to the example I tried to point out earlier about the red neck bit. Hicks included a story in his act where "red necks" came up to him after the show, "confronting" him because of his anti-christian motifs. He then replied "Are you christian?", which they confirmed, with his conclusive request "Then forgive me" closing the joke. Secondly I pointed out the censhorship Hicks was confronted because of his messages, some of which is documented in the TV movie "The Censorship of Bill Hicks". Maybe it would be wise to put the criticism into context and make it more interesting at the same time. --Johnnyw 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, there is a great deal of room for improvement on the section and putting in context would be an excellent idea, as would exploring how censorship affected Bill and how he responded to it. By the way is "The Censorship of Bill Hicks" available to buy anywhere or did you catch it on tv? --LiamE 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For reference this may be useful - Quoted from the bio on Bill's site - October 1st 1993 saw Hicks' 12th and final Letterman show, from which his routine was axed as it was felt the material might not go down well with the show's sponsors. His act had attacked pro-lifers: "If you're so pro-life, do me a favour: don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries." He became the first comedy act to be censored at CBS's Ed Sullivan Theatre. Hick(sic) was so incensed he wrote a 39 page letter to The New Yorker's John Lahr. It all became clear that the corporation was behind the censorship when a pro-life commercial appeared during the Letterman Show. --LiamE 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to include some more info in that section. The censorship documentary I wrote about earlier can be found at the imdb.. I am trying to find my copy and will have a look if there's any more useful info.. --Johnnyw 01:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Whole Critism section is completely Point Of View and an attempt to run Bill Hicks into the ground, I would hardly call Bill Hicks Anti-Religious, many times has Bill talked about being one with God, a collective unconciousness, being free children of "God" and such. Poking fun at religion, no comedian has ever done that? You could say he was against traditional religions, I doubt he was Atheist, with free thinking children of God ideas. Poking fun at religion, no comedian has ever done that? Lots have yet they have not got a biast Critism section leveled against them, Do you realise that not even the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism has a critism section, so you would condemn a comedian and not two of the biggest groups likely to offend odd? Also why doesn't it explain that the reason he was censored on the Letterman Show was due to it being sponsored by a Pro Life organisation? Discriminatory? Against who? Rednecks are made fun of in lots of comedy programmes and the only Christians that could get offended by Hicks are those who are far right conservatives, who get offended by the theory of evolution! Finally he does make fun of himself for smoking, and also condemns Jesse Helms for being the biggest drug pusher as he was 'America Big Tobacco's chief defenders in Congress. Bill shows both sides of the situation. Free Choice, Free Speech! Why not just listen to him with an open mind? --RobNutt 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) RobNutt

Jmperry seeing as the only thing you know about Bill Hicks is the one CD I played you, I would suggest stop being a bigot, and leave my changes or if you do know something start answering my questions on this Discussion page!--RobNutt 21:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do I know you? Bill was anti-Christian, thats pretty obvious. I'm sure a "fan" like you would remember his myriad of references (e.g. knocking down Catholic churches with a tank, but also many snide comments on other Christian denominations), as well as purposely misinterpreting Christian doctrine. Neither do I believe Bill to seriously condemn smoking. He preached explicitly about his drug-fuelled, debauched lifestyle and how he would much rather have that lifestyle and die young (I'm referring to the 'tofu' man ditty here), than as he perceives, to live a less raucous lifestyle and suddenly 'die of nothing'; making light of clearly something most comedians wouldn't. He is also bitterly scornful about innocent people dying who he didn't even know: plucking news stories and cruelly saying he can now 'gain a couple of spaces' in a traffic jam. That facet of his humour I found sick and irresponsible. I'm not saying the man was completely unfunny, but I believe he stepped over the line of not 'neo-con' or 'narrow right-wingers' etc. etc. but of meaningful, humanist society. I often find him bitterly, jealously cyncial and misanthropic: a man with a chip on his shoulder- a little man with a big voice. All in all, a pathetic wannable with nothing to lose, trying to take down as many figures (private or public) down with him.

The Criticism section was neutral and unbiased. It did not say 'his views are vitriolic', but that they can be INTERPRETED as so, as any professional Criticism section would. Also, it was put into context by some conscientious Wikipedians, but of course has been attacked by a savage and wholly brainwashed fanboy membership. I myself will not be editing the section any further: I just hope someone puts the section to rights and restores it. --Jmperryuk

I often find him bitterly, jealously cyncial and misanthropic: a man with a chip on his shoulder- a little man with a big voice. All in all, a pathetic wannable with nothing to lose, trying to take down as many figures (private or public) down with him. [Anon]

What an admirably unbiased POV you hold, mr 'brave anonymous contributer'.. and your pathologically biased views against Bill personally and his philosphies put you in a such a wonderfully neutral position to edit Bill's wiki-entry and advance your clearly antiquated religious agenda(s). Please continue to make more anonymous statements of that ilk, so that your insightful thoughts and deeds of kindness may spread to others. Praise The Lord !! Dirk Diggler Jnr 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did that come from, Dirk? Elijya 17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RobNutt, don't call people a bigot. Personnal attacks are not tolerated on WP. I would point out though that you are utterly missing the point of an encyclopedia - it is not to give one side of a story but the whole picture. For the record I am a big Bill fan but that does not detract from the fact that articles have to be npov overall. Without any form of critisim or noting of the fact that he got up some peoples noses the article is 100% from the fans point of view with nothing from the standpoint of those he lampooned and is therefore POV. Despite that POV being my own it does not make the article any the less POV. A section mentioning who got upset by him and why, why he was cencored etc is needed to balance the article. Either we have some mention from the other side or the article gets a POV tag. --LiamE 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although we might not have to create an entire section regarding the criticism, but include the info in the biography. Since censorship and clash with US mainstream tv had quite an impact in his career. E.g. in the UK, he could play in front of a sell out crowd at theatres, whereas he was almost entirely condemned to play at small Comedy locations. This would serve the purpose of NPOV and at the same time reducing the prominent position of the criticism part, which it should not have imho, regarding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight --Johnnyw 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good call RobNutt, I am with you brother 100%. Christians and especially Catholics have about as much right to attack or criticize Bill Hicks for being intolerant, bitter, cynical, inhumane, disgusting, cruel and/or misanthropic to a degree that approximates what rights Nazi's have for complaining that the film "Schindler's List" paints them in an unflattering light. Dirk Diggler Jnr

Not biased, then, Dirk? Dirk, you really are laughable. According to your argument, you are just as invalid a contributor to those you criticised. Oh, the irony.Jmperryuk

I would like to ask everyone NOT to start a flame war at this talk page. If cannot agree on the policy by discussing the issue, we should have a vote. Agreed or is there still the possibility of reaching a compromise? --Johnnyw 00:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable Quote, worth adding to article I believe

"That this house notes with sadness the 10th anniversary of the death of Bill Hicks, on February 26th 1994, at the age of 33; recalls his assertion that his words would be a bullet in the heart of consumerism, capitalism and the American Dream; and mourns the passing of one of the few people who may be mentioned as being worthy of inclusion with Lenny Bruce in any list of unflinching and painfully honest political philosophers." - Stephen Pound MP; Parliamentary House of Commons, U.K.

sources for quote ;

http://www.marcusshelton.com/links.html

http://www.billhicks.com/

http://armour.inspiracy.com/2004_02_22_armoury.html

http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0504165/cg165_Hicks.shtml

[dirk diggler jnr]

I've added it to the Legacy section. --CapitalLetterBeginning 15:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bill Hicks/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article looks, in my opinion, to be good. It has not yet gone through good article nomination process.Tom 13:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I think this page is really solid. Deserves some kind of kudo. --217.40.26.169 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 08:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)