Talk:David Icke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Larval human reality tunnels

However strange Icke's views are, they deserve more credit than they get. They are very far outside of regular, especially larval human reality tunnels.

He does require a stretch of the imagination every once in a while, but his historical analysis of the Royal Family of England, the Christian religion, etc. is very well supported. Even many of his 'reptilian' claims have large amounts of evidence to support them.

Did you forget to take your tablets today? FearÉIREANN 00:05, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hahahaha... Wow, you can make immature jokes and be closed-minded... I'm so impressed...

Just pick up one of his books, and read the sections on history and politics, ignoring it whenever he mentions reptilians (since that's the hardest part of his research to accept--furthest out of our normal reality tunnels). You'll find that he makes a lot of accurate references... In fact, historically, his notions that Jesus probably didn't exist and that the World Trade Centre was done by the CIA are very well backed-up. It's the same thing I do when I read literature from religious scholars. Every time they mention some silly mythical being like 'God' (in the Christian sense) I ignore that bit and continue on, gathering what in the text I find intriguing and plausible... If you're religious and you make fun of Icke, it's almost hilariously hypocritical, considering that the fantastic assumptions made to believe in those myths as reality far transcend the 'weirdness' of Icke's claims... How in the name of God can you believe that demons from a place called 'hell' are behind all the world's evil, and deny the possibility that a more tangible creature like a reptiloid extraterrestrial might have had a bit more of an influence than 'the devil'?

Even from a Christian standpoint, if you were to accept the information provided in that enormously 'weird' book, couldn't the 'demons' constantly spoken of be explicable as a race of reptilian beings? Khranus

Khranus. I assume you are not from the UK. In the UK David Icke is widely believed to be a loony, and the number of people who take him seriously can probably be counted on one hand. Mintguy 08:29, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In Canada, where I live, the Queen is 'widely assumed to be a loony'...

If your observations are correct, that just goes to show how many closed-minded people there are in the UK (and presumably the world over besides the UK, for the most part)... I don't 'believe' anything, personally, but I don't deny anything either. Alternative views shouldn't be treated as 'loony' just because they're outside your reality tunnels... In my opinion, for every ounce of 'loony' David Icke has got, Mother Theresa had 900 ounces. Just look at what a deranged fuck she was... Then there's the Pope, the Mormon 'Prophet'... Jesus, about 90 or more per cent of this planet is completely 'loony', moreso than David Icke. The average American believes that an enormous, all-encompassing bearded white guy controls the universe, and sends 'angels' to earth to save us from 'demons' from hell...

In terms of Icke's views, I think that this quote basically sums up all the criticism he's received:

A Tibetan monk replied to a question about extraterrestrials with this:

"Why do you deny the notion of extraterrestrial life? What is it about beings like this that you find so offensive? You believe in demons, spirits, and in Buddha, but you do not believe in something as simple as life? I tell you, this is what makes them so offensive to you--they are so tangible."

It's the plausibility, the tangibility of these entites that so offends people these days. The majority of humans have their head in the clouds about 'gods' and 'saviours', etc., and yet illogically deny that something as worldly as a toolmaking reptilian species exists.

There's quite a lot of evidence to back up his claims as well. I'm not saying that they're necessarily 'true', but the probability that what he says is true is far higher than the probability that Jesus existed. And that's saying something, if not about his claims, than about Jesus.

When someone denies the existence of something despite overwhelming evidence that it is possible, it is called a delusion. Therefore, people who ridicule Icke's ideas are just as deluded, if not more deluded than he is, by definition.

If you're confused by all this probability stuff, I suggest you read some stuff by Robert Anton Wilson: http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml

Particularly this: http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.shtml

(Icke, by the way, is not very popular in the UK, but is apparently quite popular in Japan. The reptilian theory is actually widely discussed in that nation, for whatever reason. The Japanese seem to have a modern knack for open-mindedness. Perhaps its due to the shock they received during WWII, demonstrating to them how dangerous dogma can be.)

- Khranus

He is popular because his book fall into very popular genre of book reading called Tondemo. FWBOarticle 01:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I deleted that text to replace it later with updated text. The original statement made didn't corroborate with historical evidence...

---

Just researched your claim that Icke's supporters in the UK 'could be counted on one hand', and apparently, its unfounded.

He is ridiculed much in the media, but apparently, he regularly sells out theaters in the United States and Britain... In fact, MOST of his talks sell out in Britain weeks before he appears...

- Khranus

Comedy is popular! Archivist 21:29, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

A chunk of material has been moved from the article to reptilian humanoid: Icke is not the only one to propound theories about reptilians. -- The Anome 19:04, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Very true I was impressed with his source who is an ancient Shaman in Africa. His stories date back thousands of years, and his necklase is proof of that. I have a conspiracy wiki for these sorts of topics anyone is welcome to follow the link on my user page Conwiki 05:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

That skeptic's dictionary article is highly inaccurate. Clearly whoever wrote it knows nothing of secret societies, and especially of David Icke. Their general psuedo-biographical material about him is completely fabricated--and is very far from his actual position on the matter. This complete ignorance, shines when they say that he received his ideas about the illuminati from 'lizard-people'...

The Skeptic's Dictionary is nothing but a pathetic attempt to deny anything that those 'sceptical' cowards find too frightening to believe in. I haven't read one article on that site that contained accurate information, nor have I seen any evidence from their ravings that they're anything more than Fundamentalist Materialists. Khranus

For everyone considering 'debate' with Khranus, I refer you to Wikipedia:Problem users and Talk:Reptilian humanoid. DJ Clayworth 21:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

This is one of the more interesting things I've ever seen come out of the Wikipedia. What we have here is a scholarly debate with a nutcase. (Sorry!) How, in a forum where we cannot censor one another or prevent contribution in any way, are we to maintain credibility? I would be afraid to use the site as source material if I was aware that the article I'm reading may have been written by someone who declares themself "open minded" to the possibility that we are secretly ruled by aliens.

Which nutcase? Icke or Khranus? :-) Just so you know, the latter nutter is now banned. Good riddance, too! FearÉIREANN 00:07, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm from the UK and can reassure you that David Icke is not considered a loon by all. Infact it is mostly the media (who may fear that the truth will set you free!) who call David a loon. I was shocked to find that Khranus has been banned for I have read nothing here that warrents it. I find it disturbing that in the information age a single world view would be acceptable to anybody. just look at all the newspapers today talking about yesterday, not just in our own country but accross the globe - it is evident that more than one view can be correct at the same time. Being open minded meens listening to the debate and making up your own mind. It doesn't meen shutting up the people you disagree with and claiming a majority victory. Peace out Daftalien

---

I would challenge people to actually read one of his books (preferrably the biggest secret), and then come back and tell me that he's crazy.

---

So is this Khranus messing around with the article again, or another Ickist? -Sean 06:12, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it Icke who designates the Evil Ones as "reptillian" rather than "reptilian", or is it just our recent spell-challenged contributor? If not the latter, we need a little "sic" after each one.... - Nunh-huh 06:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Sorry bout that. I'll be sure to change it. ^_^ Don't be grumpy.

Page protected

Page protected per request User:Gtrmp on Rfpp:

David Icke - User:68.35.40.141 has made dozens of POV edits over the last two weeks, many of which are factually incorrect and/or wholly irrelevant (his last edit added the minute of Icke's birth). This user may very well be the banned User:Khranus. -Sean 05:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Version: 05:19, 13 Feb 2004 -- Viajero 08:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not the one adding shitty skeptic's journal links that quote things that Icke NEVER SAID. ^_^

And where's the proof that what I added wasn't accurate? I do believe I'm the only person editing this so far that is familiar with Icke and I've added more relevant things than anyone so far. I dare you to prove my facts wrong. Some people are probably just angry that my article isn't making Icke out to be a nut. And no I'm not this Kraunas guy. Wikipedia is full of snobs it seems. Oh well its not like anyone will read this article anyway. After all this site does suck.

READ HIM!!

WHATEVER your degree of faith in what you see, hear and read in mainstream media, this man's contribution is immense, and the mere fact that he provokes such an organised brouhaha in the press ought to make you skeptical of the skeptics. I have found very little to dispute at all, for what it's worth... it's chilling, but a lot better to be aware that SOMETHING organised is going on, than unquestioningly accepting what we are told !!! more power to his pen, and others like him.....sort the wheat from the chaff yourself, don't let anyone else make your mind up for you

The more airtime us people with brains give nutters like Icke, the more people of weaker minds get sucked into the charade. Just ignore the loney.

==

I hear what your saying. After reading this section of wikipedia im slightly consfused as to why this Kraunas user was banned in the first place! :/

his links to Robert Anton Wilson were very relevant here. READ all the Cosmic Triggers and also 'Prometheus Rising' (in fact just read as many of his works as you possibly can)

I have read a lot of Icke's books and yes these skeptics need to read some of his work. I've been to skeptic meetings and had a laugh and a pint! since it was held in a pub.

This problem of social trance that a lot of skeptics on Icke's work seem to be in is causing a great barrier of nothingness and complete sitting on a fence insanity.

Living in London and seeing Icke speak at Brixton Academy with so many other UK and non-UK people was quite an experience. Also visiting the areas in London in question in Icke's 'The Biggest Secret' certainly puts a new light on things.

---

I just wanted to point out that the page on him states that he once claimed to be a "son of god", however it, as well as the newspaper that ridiculed him for it decided not include the rest of the statement, "and so are we all".

---

Icke may have schizophrenia. Particularly the time (early 90’s) when he changed carers suddenly and his claims were most extreme, the Son of God (ok, we all are) or Godhead would indicate psychotic break. He was “normal” before hand. Since then he appears residual, he may have schizotypal personality disorder or he may still have positive symptoms. The later in life schizophrenia strikes, generally the milder and shorter lived are severe symptoms. The first psychotic episode is the time when hospitalisation may occur. Ike was about 39 when he began to profess his unusual beliefs.

To me Icke parallels the mathematician John F Nash. Nash described himself as the Son of God, the left foot of god on Earth and even the Emperor of the Antarctic. Like Icke, he saw patterns in the environment. He thought people wearing red ties were communists. Nash’s first indications of psychosis was the day he strode into the maths department with a newspaper and declared that the article with picture of the Pope meant, “Because the Popes hat is a triple crown, it indicates there are 3 communist in the Maths department” or something to that effect. Contrast this with Icke’s logic, “the car-rental company Avis is a front for the Brotherhood because Avis spelled backwards is Siva”. Thought becomes an associative mess called disordered thinking, distinctive of certain forms of schizophrenia.

Too few realise is that schizophrenia is a spectrum condition, some peoples symptoms are mild enought not to merit hospitalisation. Much of the societies stereotyped ideas of insanity including strange mannerisms, rocking, pacing back and forth, odd facial expressions etc. are the side effects of older types of antipsychotic medication, tardive dyskinesia and are not insanity itself. An untreated schizophrenic can be surprisingly “normal”.

I recall a story about a conspiracy theorist that had sizeable following in the US. He began his lecture reasonably ok. Reiterating familiar paranoid ideas common to his books and radio shows. It all went down hill when he declared that the Mexicans, with help from the UN, had implanted a small dwarf in this lower intestines that spied on him and gave him gas. That was the end of his following.

Is the fine line between insanity and eccentricity this, an insane person does not have a following?

Diamond Dave 17:49, 04 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Green Party, Unconventional views

After leaving the BBC he became an activist for the Green Party rising swiftly to become their media spokesperson. He left the Green party in 1991

Nope. He was forcibly removed from the Green Party when they discovered he was mentally ill. There are multiple sources for this historical fact as well.

and began to express unconventional views

Er, calling Icke's views "unconventional" is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer's culinary and sexual habits, "eccentric". It's not only a distortion, it's a gross understatement. "Unconventional" does not even begin to describe the type of views Icke holds. The correct term is insanity, and I would bet the family farm that's the general consensus of any rational person who sits down and actually spends the time to read Icke's books like I have, which I can tell you is not easy because they are written worse than the "Left Behind" series, and that's B-A-D. At the end of the day, mentally ill people like Icke are as harmless as cute, pink fluffy bunnies. The dangerous part is that naive, gullible people with aboslutely no critical thinking skills, might actually believe what he writes. And that is the terrifying reality that needs to be addressed...on another page. --Viriditas 10:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe I added those lines (quite some time ago now). IIRC Icke claims that he simply did not renew his membership for the party in 1991. If you have more information then please bring it to light. As for and began to express unconventional views - well this is my attempt at NPOV. AFAIK Icke has never been professionally diagnosed as mentally ill. You may think he is and I may think he is, but I don't think Wikipedia can say he is unless we can say for sure that he was professionalyl diagnosed as such. Moreover, this is referring to his turquoise period, and not the more recent reptile/anti-semitic stuff. Mintguy (T) 13:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good. I will attempt to put the sources together and post them for you. IIRC, Icke did have an admitted mental breakdown, although I can't remember if I read that in his book or heard it in an interview he gave, but it stuck with me, because when I heard (or read) that, a little lightbulb went off. Perhaps you know what I am referring to, here. He described hearing voices and I believe he said he felt like he was "losing his mind". So, he himself believed there was something wrong. As for the medical diagnosis, I can't recall if he mentioned or wrote about it, but I had the impression he had a fear of doctors. Of course, I haven't even mentioned the funding he received from neofascist groups. But, thanks for giving me some leads. --Viriditas 13:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What does David Icke have to do with neofacism?

What they hell does he have to do with neofascism? The schizophrenia can be justified, however Icke is a critic of the Nazi's. You would be hard pushed to find a month on his headlines in which his dislike of facism isn't displayed. For this reason I am removing the link. --Hierarchypedia 00:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However he may profess his dislike for neofascism, he had (has?) a habit of uncritically citing neo-Nazi and white-supremacist publications as sources. He also made statements about conspiracies of Jewish bankers and such which appealed to such groups. As such, it would be a distortion to not mention this link. Acb 11:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was wildly over and mis-represented in the article. Before I corrected it is suggested that the Rockerfellers are Jewish, which they are not; that all or most of Icke's "secret rulers" are Jewish, which is not true; and it totally misrepresented his opinion of the Rothschilds. The article should primarily be about Icke's lunatic theories, not about misunderstandings and misrepresentations of them, whether wilful or calculated. If the misunderstandings and misrepresentations were on any pretty much any subject but anti-semitism, this would go without saying. All they deserve is a couple of paragraphs. See my further comments on disproportionality and pov below. Oliver Chettle 22:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When his followers discover that there are no reptilians, they will still want to pin the blame on someone. Many will pin the blame on a subset of Jews. The conspiracy theory is their framework for understanding their reality. The problem is, their explanation is not accurate. Not only is there no reptilian conspiracy, there isn't a Jewish conspiracy either. Also, consider that in two separate situations, he deflects the blame from Hitler, then from "blond blue eyed white people" who he considers to be evil (the latter because they abuse power). He says they were puppets for a more powerful group (the Rothschilds and the reptilians). That's just shifting the blame -- and it's obvious why he's popular with both far-right fascists and white people who feel guilt.

Reference request

Does anyone have a source for this quote: "Icke said that he was interested in "the REAL Big Brother, not adding to the diversions that allow him to operate unchallenged"? SlimVirgin 04:16, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know whether Icke called himself the "son of godhead" or "son of Godhead"? I'm finding both on the Web. SlimVirgin 04:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Adding neofascism back

Have a look at his book, "And the Truth Shall Set You Free". It's a 491 page conspiratorial rant in defense of the "veracity" of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Icke has also been associated with neofascist groups and people (Ernst Zundel), and blames the problems of society on an alleged Jewish conspiracy. This is standard, neofascist party line. --Viriditas | Talk 11:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that link being added. SlimVirgin 11:46, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anome's changes

Hi Anome, I reverted your most recent edit because I couldn't see why you'd done it. If a quotation is indented, there shouldn't be quotation marks; see the MoS. Also, writing blockquote is good HTML, where using a colon is not. Did you have a reason for your preferences? SlimVirgin 23:51, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your blockquotes were not nested properly, and the resultant HTML broke the page layout. I'll remove the quote marks, as per your request. -- The Anome 23:55, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "nested properly". Can you explain? I know only that I've been told not to use colons to indent quotes as it's bad HTML, apparently. If they're not nested properly, how do I correct that? SlimVirgin 23:56, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

And you returned the quotation marks. It's standard publishing practice to use either indents or quotation marks; not both. See the Wikipedia MoS. SlimVirgin 23:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know what you're doing, why are you stopping other people from fixing it for you? Using ":" for indent is standard Wikipedia practice, and widely accepted throughout Wikipedia. (Yes, I know what HTML it generates, and the semantic vs. presentational markup arguments). By the way, did you read the bit above, saying that I was about to remove the quote marks?-- The Anome 00:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

How about this as a proposal: my ":" markup, with no quote marks. -- The Anome 00:05, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've had other editors removed colons and replace them with blockquotes, and I believe the MoS favors the latter, so I'd like to stick to the official guideline. But can you please explain what the different schools of thought are, because I'm forever seeing pages changed back and forth like this by different editors. I've just left a note on your talk page asking the same. And definitely no quotation marks as that's bad form. Indentation is a replacement for quotation marks. SlimVirgin 00:10, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with the no quotation marks principle. However, I disagree with the blockquote argument. Blockquote is an HTML dinosaur that is likely to disappear soon. (W3C: "The usage of BLOCKQUOTE to indent text is deprecated in favor of style sheets.") Even Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks uses the ":" notation for indenting. -- The Anome 00:15, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

They mean that you should not use that tag just for "presentational" purposes, i.e. for how it looks like (indenting), but for "structural" purposes, i.e. for what it serves for (quoting). The spirit of HTML 4.0 and CSS is using tags to specify what an element serves for and style sheets to specify how it looks like. In fact <blockquote> is still there in XHTML 1.0 Strict. Bottom line: indent text with <blockquote> to show that it's a citation and with : for any other reason. --Army1987 13:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've just noticed that, but I think it must have been changed by someone, because I know there was consensus on the talk page to use blockquote. Where can I find out more about this, do you know? SlimVirgin 00:23, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate for removal

The volume of his writing and the interconnectedness of his ideas are enough to convince many of his supporters that there is some truth in his theories.

This is the editors opinion, of course. And, such opinions should be removed. --Viriditas | Talk 22:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the whole paragraph below as the first sentence was redundant and the rest, as you say, unreferenced opinon. SlimVirgin 23:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Icke links his ideas together into a set of grand conspiracy theories. The volume of his writing and the interconnectedness of his ideas are enough to convince many of his supporters that there is some truth in his theories. They regard skeptics as either ill-informed or stooges of the reptilian conspiracy.

"Icke links his ideas together into a set of grand conspiracy theories"

To anyone using the phrase "conspiracy theories" and thinking they know what they mean when they use it to back up their argument in disagreement with Icke's work; I suggest you look at Conspiracy Theory

and here Falsifiability

That paragraph was removed a couple of weeks ago, so there's no problem. Also, please sign your posts. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anon deletions

The deletions and changes made by 128.122.89.113 have been reverted. If you feel there are errors in the article, it would be appreciated if you would bring the details to this page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 05:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Green party expulsion

The article now says that Icke was expelled from the Green Party. Formerly it stated that he left the Green Party. On this talk page, higher up it is stated that Icke claims that he simply didn't renew his membership, and user:Viriditas says he will locate info to back up the claim of expulsion. This was in September of 2004. In February of 2005 Slim Virgin changed this to state that he was expelled. Has this claim been verified? Jooler 22:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I remember I got it from a newspaper article that interviewed a Green Party spokesman, and I believe it was in relation to Icke's visit to Toronto in 1999, and the Green Party there was campaigning against him. I don't think I kept a note of it though because I didn't realize it was a controversial point. I can look around for it; sorry, I should have put it in the article as a reference. SlimVirgin 23:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Jooler, I found an Observer article quoting a named Green Party spokesman saying he had been banned from speaking at party public meetings, so I've inserted that instead of expelled from, and have changed the intro to "the Green Party distanced itself from him," again instead of expelled from. I've also supplied a link to the Observer piece, both in the text, and in the references section. SlimVirgin 01:39, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

A sorry example of disproportionality

I read some of Icke's rubbish a couple of days ago after there was a comic reference to his reptile theory in The Times. He's totally mad, but he is not anti-Semitic. This is quite clear if you read what his theories actually are (as opposed to what his enemies would like people to think they are). Icke is a deranged man, but his influence should be reduced from next to nothing down to zero by laughing at him and ignoring him, not by misrepresenting him.

But what do we find here? A complete emphasis on "anti-Semitism" of course. If the people who make these statements have read any of his stuff then they must know that they are deliberately misrepresenting him, or they are too paranoid to think straight. This sort of tiresome distortion afflicts loads of Wikipedia articles. I have removed the worst misrepresentatation about the Rothschilds and the Rockerfellers (who are not even Jewish) and pointed out that few of Icke's "secret rulers of the World" are really Jewish and in his opinion none of them are, but the article is still chronically afflicted with the bias of disproproportionality. In my opnion the anti-Semitism section needs to be cut by at least two thirds or I will come back and mark this as pov for misrepresentation through misplaced emphasis. Oliver Chettle 21:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marked pov

I've decided to go ahead and mark it pov because it plainly is. I wish I didn't feel the need to take the trouble as this lunatic should just be ignored, but protecting Wikipedia is important. There is no reasonable doubt that much of this article was written with the purpose denigrating Icke from a particular angle (and one that doesn't touch on the key reasons why everything he says is total rubbish), rather than neutrally explaining who he is and what he believes. In my opinion this is a clear example of how Wikipedia can be damaged by articulate people with a biased agenda, even if they may not realise how obvious that agenda is to a neutral mind. Oliver Chettle 21:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits, not because I disagree with them, but because you inserted material into the intro with no regard for the writing. For example, you mentioned that the Rothschilds were shape-shifters before any mention was made of the lizard theories; and that they were not Jews before mention was made of the alleged anti-Semitism. I'll work your views back into the intro in a way that retains the flow of information, and I'll also put the POV notice back up for you. Please let us know what else you object to in order that the tag can come down, bearing in mind that we can only refer to material published by reputable third-party sources: see Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think the balance of this article is driven in the wrong direction in the second paragraph. Everything it contains is detrimental and (apart from the specific mention of Combat 18) is also mentioned, in context, later in the article. Fair enough that the lead-in is meant to be somthing of an abstract of the article, but I think it is far too specific. I think striking this para from the article would be a good idea. Jooler 22:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which paragraph, Jooler? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Second Jooler 22:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mean this one?

The Green Party distanced itself from him in 1991 after he announced during a television interview that he was a "son of the Godhead." He began to dress only in turquoise and maintained that the world was ruled by a secret group called "The Elite", or "Illuminati," which he linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic tract. He also alleged that a small group of Jews had financed Hitler. These claims led to his speaking tours attracting the interest of British neo-Nazis, particularly Combat 18.

It's all true and can be sourced with links in the paragraph. Not only is it accurate but the paragraph sums up some of the most pertinent facts about him. The truth is that he has trouble moving between countries now because of the perception that he's anti-Semitic; he does surround himself with people who have allegedly helped set up speaking tours for known anti-Semites; he has quoted approvingly from neo-Nazi material; and he supports Ernst Zundel on the front page of his website. I accept that the issue is more complex than this, but I would say that the paragraph above is an accurate summary, read together with the next paragraph where he talks about lizards. We could perhaps include the claim there that the lizards are not Jews or something, depending on what sources Oliver comes up with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is all true, but it is also all repeated in detail later in the article where the circumstances surrounding these fact are explained. The para gives these facts out of context and it is just a littany of negativity. Unbalancing the article. Jooler 08:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

References required

Oliver, before we can include your information, we need some sources, so could you supply references on this page please for the following:

1. "In his opinion this group is led by the Rothschild family."
2. "However, he believes that the Rothschilds are not Jews, but repitilian shape-shifters who mercilessly exploit Jews (as well as everyone else) for private gain ..."
3. "[H]e argues that Adolf Hitler was an illegitimate member of the Rothschild family who was brought to power as part of a Rothschild plot."
4. "He sees the Jews as the most exploited victims of the repitilian conspiracy."
5. "Icke's statements that the Rothschilds planned the Holocaust and financed Hitler's rise to power ..."

References either to Icke's work or a third-party (reputable) reference would be fine, but we need a full citation. The article you mentioned from The Times would do if it repeats these claims. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oliver's reply

1. "In his opinion this group is led by the Rothschild family." See Rothschild Occupational Government and The Round Table - this is a core Illuminati organisation. It is a secret society created by John Ruskin (not Jewish) and Cecil Rhodes (not Jewish) but soon controlled by the Rothschilds (also not Jewish) and full of surprising (and not Jewish) members like Harold Wilson and Tony Blair
2. "However, he believes that the Rothschilds are not Jews, but repitilian shape-shifters who mercilessly exploit Jews (as well as everyone else) for private gain ..." Icke 2nd para: "The Rothschilds are one of the top Illuminati bloodlines on the planet and they are shape-shifting reptilians" (and really they are called Bauer and are a "notorious black occult bloodline")
3. "[H]e argues that Adolf Hitler was an illegitimate member of the Rothschild family who was brought to power as part of a Rothschild plot." half way down in capitals - HITLER WAS A ROTHSCHILD!!

1. "He sees the Jews as the most exploited victims of the repitilian conspiracy." From the ninth paragraph of the above: "they use and sickeningly abuse the Jewish people for their own horrific ends. The Rothschilds, like the Illuminati in general, treat the mass of the Jewish people with utter contempt. They are, like the rest of the global population, just cattle to be used to advance the agenda of global control and mastery by a network of interbreeding bloodlines, impregnated with a reptilian genetic code, and known to researchers as the Illuminati." There is plenty more in the same vein.
2. "Icke's statements that the Rothschilds planned the Holocaust and financed Hitler's rise to power ..." See the same article [1]throughout.

This is all pretty stupid. Why should I waste my time on this idiot? His opinions and reputation are worth nothing. But Wikipedia needs protection so I will. I didn't mention before that apart from being part reptile, the Rothschilds claim that their human ancestors were Jewish is also a lie according to Icke - they assumed a Jewish background as part of the plot apparently. I've inserted some links above and will look at the article later. I've found what he really said about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion too, which is erm... that it's a forgery (with some complex and confused qualifications related to his overall loony reptile scheme in which Jews are exploited victims not villains (that's all in the Rothschild Occupational Government article linked above)). The more you look into the range of things Icke concerns himself with the less justified the anti-semitism line looks. He is just as hard on the Rockerfellers (Bill Clinton is a Rockerfeller by the way, in fact all world leaders who are believed to be from humble backgrounds are actually members of Illuminati families who were farmed out at birth in order to deceive the world about the extent of Illuminati dominance, and then initiated into the conspiracy as adults. All 42 two US Presidents are from Illuminati bloodlines - U.S. democracy is a sham controlled by the Illuminati); the Bushes (human blood drinking paedophiles to a man, not to mention supporters of Hitler (note that Icke thinks this was a terrible crime)); the Royal Family (satanists); the Jehovah's Witnesses (an Illuminati front; paedophiles and satanists) and Oxford University (The Illuminati breeding ground). But no well organised groups of activists with a sense of humour failure have become hysterical on their behalf: and quite right too because as I've already said he should just be laughed at or ignored. Sometimes anti-anti-Semites seem determined to bring themselves into disrepute, but they are used to getting away with it I suppose, so why stop? Answer: because this sort of hostile and dishonest defensiveness provokes anti-semitism. Oliver Chettle 07:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Overall Icke seems to be a passionate anti-authoritarian and also a wishy washy peace and love spiritualist. But he's also totally bonkers, so nothing he says is of any value, even though there are glimmers of truth in places (not in the reptiles and Hitler stuff obviously, but in some of his articles about current affairs - pretty much anyone could find some things they agree with there). Calling someone with such a paranoid fear of state power a fascist is plain silly. Oliver Chettle 07:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Oliver, thank you for providing the references. First, as you seem to be a newbie, I'd appreciate it if you would read Wikipedia's core policies, as any rewrite will be done in accordance with them. One of the most important is to assume good faith. You're right that Wikipedia needs protecting, but not from anyone who has edited this article. It needs protecting from people who don't edit in accordance with its policies, the most important of which are: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources. If you have limited time, the first outlines the most important points. Also, for future reference, if you insert your replies into someone else's post, please try to preserve the context of the original post and the poster's ID.

This article is problematic in that the reputable secondary sources appear to conflict with the way Icke describes himself. Yet Wikipedia relies largely on secondary sources, because primary sources can't always be relied upon to describe themselves accurately. For example, if I'm writing about David Duke, I might want to run with the secondary sources and call him a white supremacist, notwithstanding that Duke calls himself something else.

Where the reliance on secondary sources gets tricky is when their analyses of primary-source material conflicts with what that material itself states. By the latter, I don't mean Icke's description of his work, but the work itself. It's tricky because it means one or more of us is going to have to track it down and read it. It's also tricky because of our no original research policy. If I read Icke and thinks he means X, but all the secondary sources says he means Y, WP has to say he means Y, even if all the editors on this page disagree.

If you want to get involved in editing this page, please bear all of the above in mind. I haven't read through all the references you supplied, but I did look at the Rothschild Occupied Government document, and I'm wondering whether you yourself have read it. The title is a parody of Zionist Occupied Government, and Icke clearly sets some store by the Protocols: even though they're a forgery, he says, they reveal a deeper truth or something, so it's not hard to see where the allegations of anti-Semitism come from. I'd also say it's important to read his pre-reptilian material, because the Illuminati weren't always lizards: in fact, that's rather a recent development.

I'm also going to contact Political Research Associates to see if they can help me track down good secondary sources, as we refer to a paper of theirs, and possibly also the people at the University of Toronto who looked into this.

Finally, regarding your point that the article is too silly to waste time on, the only thing that matters for our purposes is that, if it's in WP, it needs to be written properly regardless of its subject matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:39, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Illuminati may not always have been lizards but I think it's fair to say they were never Jews. I think you should bear in mind also, Slim, that if the article says "Icke claims..." it is of absolutely no account what "secondary sources" -- in this case the anti-anti-Semites Oliver mentioned in his acute and accurate analysis -- claim he claims. We need to carefully distinguish between the claims Icke makes and the claims others make about him. A particular instance is seen in our false report that he claims a small group of Jews financed Hitler. What he actually claims is that a small group of shapeshifting reptiles, of which Hitler was in fact one, who were posing as Jews, financed Hitler. Okay, I think it's fair to say that Icke, in creating his truly bonkers edifice of belief, has swallowed up many antiSemitic myths and lies and put them to use; but if we do say that, we need to be absolutely clear that others have identified the links, not Icke himself. Grace Note 10:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but it's going to require a lot of work. If we're going to say "X has claimed Icke says Y, but Icke himself has not said Y," then we have to know he's never said it. Who financed Hitler before the lizards arrived? I think it was Jews, though I'm writing from memory, but if you read the Rotschild Occupied Government document, it seems to say that. (I only speed-read it though.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:13, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Having read Icke's book, "And the Truth Shall Set You Free", I'm not entirely convinced that Oliver's links accurately represent Icke's beliefs, as Icke engages in revisionism on his own website. The book is a new age treatise on anti-Semitism, and some of the quotes are posted here. --Viriditas | Talk 11:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, has anyone found the link to the interview where Icke admits he was diagnosed with a mental illness? That should be included in the article. --Viriditas | Talk 11:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Oliver, please don't delete any more material without discussing it here first. Viriditas, I didn't even know that existed. It would be very helpful to find it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I just have before reading this; how are we to know whether reporting of who said what at a meeting is accurate? It certainly wasn't presented in a spirit of neutrality. If Icke really has said or written genuinely anti-Semitic remarks, I don't have the slightest objection to them being covered (I was a member of the Campaign for Soviet Jewry when I was a student) but misleading allegations of anti-Semiticism are no more acceptable in Wikipedia than any other false or unsubstantiated statements. Oliver Chettle 06:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Oliver, please read Wikipedia:No original research. We go by what other published sources say, Icke included of course, not our personal views or interpretations. We don't investigate; we report. Secondly, it would help if you were to read some of the Icke references you included on this page: it's very easy to see where the allegations have come from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've marked this article non-neutral. You are not being fair to Oliver. Reading the material is not "original research" any more than it is original research to read Hamlet before contributing to the article about it. Unless some specific evidence of actual anti-semitism is produced this article's emphasis is way out of line. At the moment it is barely credible guilt by association and no more. The idea that he is right wing at all is dubious. All sorts of people are criticised by others, but if this criticism was unfounded, it deserves no more than a footnote, not to be the main drift of their biography. You are taking a cavalier approach to facts, e.g you restored the statement that the Rockerfellers are Jewish, which is simply wrong. Gillian Tipson 04:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just looked at this article. It is unfortunately pre-occupied with one aspect of this nutter's side - his clear association with anti-semites. But it goes on and on so much about that one side that it makes it look as though that is all he is. I can understand (and fully sympathise) with people's sensitivity over anti-semitism but this article goes overboard on the issue. If it was an article called Anti-semitism allegations against David Icke it would be fine. But it fails the elementary encylopaedic requirement of balance in an article about a person by becoming pre-occupied with one side of the subject's nature, rather than exploring the full detail of all his nutty ideas.

And yes, this guy is nuttier than a fruitcake. I met the guy on a TV programme once and to be honest after talking with him for a couple of minutes I actually felt sorry for him. He is an intelligent guy with ability but IMHO mentally unstable. I felt like leaving the studio and calling a psychiatrist for him. He really should be in a mental institution. He is a very troubled, unstable human being with a warped sense of reality. Unfortunately this article, by being so pre-occupied with one aspect of Icke's theories risks undermining a serious expose of real anti-semitism. Icke is so off the planet mentally his views are worthless. I suspect real hardcore anti-semites would be embarrassed to have him on their side. All his anti-semite ramblings should be in one section, with other sections exploring (if one could call it that) his other 'concepts' and 'ideas'. But having an article where hardly a paragraph can be read without getting the message hammered home 'Icke is an anti-semite' in neither NPOV in construct nor style and is in real danger of backfiring by making neutral readers laugh as much at wikipedia and the authors of the article as they do about the nutcase the article is about. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 05:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jt, if you can produce some credible, third-party references discussing other aspects of Icke's work, I'd be happy to see that material added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:09, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

minor edit

I have changed this bit: who assumed a Jewish identity in advance of rising to prominence around 1800 as part of a long term plot to use the Jewish people and the state of Israel for personal profit (need to go back and find the the other article about this)., removing author's note to self in brackets. Repeated here in case the auther needs it. Mat-C 19:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Hi Gillian, the allegations of anti-Semitism don't have to be substantiated by us, they just have to be made by credible publications, and then we report them, which is what we've done. Now that you've put the tag up, you'll have to say how the article could be made NPOV, with suggestions that are actionable in terms of our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

(copied from above) I've marked this article non-neutral. You are not being fair to Oliver. Reading the material is not "original research" any more than it is original research to read Hamlet before contributing to the article about it. Unless some specific evidence of actual anti-semitism is produced this article's emphasis is way out of line. At the moment it is barely credible guilt by association and no more. The idea that he is right wing at all is dubious. All sorts of people are criticised by others, but if this criticism was unfounded, it deserves no more than a footnote, not to be the main drift of their biography. Gillian Tipson 04:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

And how are you going to judge whether the criticism is unfounded? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

This article's purpose is not to judge whether Icke is or is not an anti-Semite, but to present the facts and arguments. It is intended to be an objective, neutral summary of his life and works and the debate around it. Omitting the anti-Semitism issue (which has been prevalent in this debate) would distort and sanitise the presentation of the issues, which is against Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia's policy is to take a neutral point of view, not a sympathetic point of view, to the subject of its articles. If you want an online Wiki-based encyclopaedia whose articles always take a sympathetic point of view on their subjects, there is one elsewhere. For some reason, though, it is not as popular as Wikipedia.

As such, I say that the POV tag is unwarranted. Acb 15:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the comments by SlimVirgin and Acb. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't be patonising. I understand the policies as well as you and I think you are wrong. It is a joke to call this article neutral. I have been hearing Icke mentioned in the media for the last twenty five years, and this is the first place I have seen the anti-semitism issue. It represents a view not of how the world seeshim, but of how a group of activists see him. It is a side issue not the main issue. The specfic errors and distortions in the article have already been pointed out to no effect, so there is little point in repeating them. Anyone who has never heard of him would leave this article thinking that he is primarily notable as an alleged anti-semite, which is patently untrue, at least in his home country. Falsely calling a person an anti-semite is one of the most appalling things you can do to someone without physically hurting them, and should be done with caution, but the attitute revealed both on the part of the activists treated as objective sources in this article, and by slim virgin is that the proper thing to do is to apply the tag to anyone it might stick to so as to be sure not to miss anyone. There must be real evidence and credibility to the allegations, or they mere partisan propaganda. It is not neutral to give credence to unfounded allegations of groups of activists. Mud sticks and not all criticism is encyclopedic. Devoting a huge amount of space to an issue implies that it is an important aspect of the topic, even if it is not, and the amount of space should be reasonable in proportion to the length of the article. If the anti-semitism allegations are false, as they appear to be, they are a very minor topic in Icke's biography. I don't care about Icke, but I am very disappointed that such a bad interpretation of the neutrality policy is being made by an administrator. The lack of neutrality in the article was obvious to me at a glance, and I can see on this page that there is a complete refusal to engage with the need to provide substance to the allegations. I may look to see if there is a way I can suggest that slim virgin is deprived of this status, as it does not appear s/he is capable of applying Wikipedia's policies appropriately. Based on Jayig's talk page his Wikipedia activities are largely concerned with allegations of anti-semitism, and therefore he is not an independent witness. I am an atheist who used to buy Israeli oranges to oppose the left-wing boycott, and then had second thoughts, so I think I am. I'm trying to protect Wikipedia from your lack of neutrality, not Icke, who is obviously a nutter. Gillian Tipson 21:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Your ad hominem comments are inaccurate and irrelevant, and your comment about buying Israeli oranges is simply irrelevant. There seems to have been a kerfuffle about this for many years; he's been boycotted, even commented on it in major newspapers. As such, the issue is relevant and noteworthy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Gillian, you're not making actionable suggestions, so I'm removing the tag: they're not meant to be used as weapons by passing editors. Another policy you might want to look at is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm struggling to understand what Israeli oranges have to do with this, but no matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it because the article is not neutral. The problem here is that Icke's antagonists are a highly educated and organised group of activists, but he is a loony, so no one of substance is going to defend him in public. And as for my role, "passing editors" taking control out of the hand of people with an agenda is precisely what Wikipedia does need on controversial articles. Gillian Tipson 21:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue here isn't whether or not the accusations are true, but their notability. And given the press coverage etc., it seems clear they are notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That we have to go with what the published sources say has already been explained to Oliver Chettle (talk · contribs), and now Gillian Tipson (talk · contribs) is making the same arguments, using almost the same words (the need to protect Wikipedia from articulate, educated people with agendas etc.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting how they both joined Wikipedia on the same day, have spent almost all their time making dozens and dozens of category changes to British locations and landmarks, often 20-40 changes per hour, and yet never seem to overlap in their editing times. I guess like-minded people just tend to do the same things, and make the same kinds of comments, though not simultaneously of course. That would explain it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Jay, please assume good faith. I agree with Oliver too, and I don't think I joined on the same day. As an example of its bias, this article continues to say that Icke believes that a small group of Jews financed Hitler. This is a misrepresentation of Icke's views, which inclines the reader to agree that he is an antisemite. Oliver explained how this article misrepresents Icke, and how it is slanted to creating an impression, and that has not been fixed. Its neutrality is disputed. Your belief that it is neutral does not in itself justify removing the tag. Grace Note 00:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

My goodness, is that "anyone who uses the phrase Islamic terrorism is an Islamophobe" Grace lecturing me about neutrality? Is that "ballot-stuffing is often done by email and other means" and "You seem to know a lot about the rules for a new editor" Grace lecturing me about "assuming good faith"? Is that "cite it or bite me" Grace lecturing me about policy? Is that "you need to apply principle fairly" Grace who doesn't seem to have a problem with Gillian's "good faith" when he/she said of me "his Wikipedia activities are largely concerned with allegations of anti-semitism, and therefore he is not an independent witness"; where's your little lecture for him/her? As for me, I haven't failed to assume good faith; I merely noted their identical Talk: styles, editing patterns, the fact that they never edit at the same time, etc. Nor did I remove any tags. Gillian's "NPOV" issue is not with the accuracy of the article; rather, he/she insists that Icke isn't an anti-Semite, therefore the article shouldn't discuss persistent allegations that he is. Regarding your objections, if you think part of the article doesn't represent Icke's views accurately then fix it; but until you clean up your own act, please spare me any more sanctimonious lectures. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jay, you can argue that you didn't ballot-stuff that vote all you like, but you spammed several talkpages. I'll assume you did so believing that the editors in question would edit the page and not just vote the way you wanted. You must have been rather hurt that some didn't do that, and just voted the way you wanted! Acting the offended maid at the suggestion that you are in email contact with other editors is ridiculous, Jay, because that is also part of how Wikipedia works, and if you spam talkpages, it is not assuming bad faith on your part to suggest that you might have emailed others. You have forgotten to note that I said that I don't care whether you did, and that I believe that it's perfectly legitimate to try to gain support for your positions by either means. There can be no assumption of bad faith if I consider the action in question to be perfectly fine. I did not say, either, that you had emailed anyone, only that it was quite possible to use that means to gather support. I apologise for demonstrating to you that inserting a POV upfront is unacceptable, which was certainly in breach of WP:POINT. Still, you took the point, so no real harm done. Yes, Gillian should have simply noted that your history consists mainly of editing articles that concern particular subjects, left the reader to draw their own conclusions from that and not cast aspersions. She should have been as careful as you were just to hint at it rather than say it outright. But you know that I cannot fix the article to represent Icke's views accurately because an editor who did so was summarily reverted and arguments to support his view ignored. Grace Note 02:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Gillian: you seem to be missing the fact that the article is not calling Icke an anti-semite, but merely repeating accusations levelled against him, the bases on which they were made, and counter-arguments against them. If you have never heard this issue referred to, that does not diminish their noteworthiness.

Cite: pick up "Them" by Jon Ronson. Published a few years ago, it is a chronicle of various extremist and fringe beliefs. Ronson covers Icke and his giant-lizard conspiracies, as well as accusations of racism, Nazism and anti-Semitism levelled prominently against him by leftist groups. (Incidentally, he points out that he does not believe that Icke is a Nazi or an anti-Semite, but a harmless crank; the fact that he gave these accusations a mention suggests that he, a Guardian journalist, considers them noteworthy in relation to Icke's career.) As such, why should Wikipedia censor them?

And what do Israeli oranges have to do with anything, for that matter?Acb 22:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Goodness, you do have suspicious minds. Oliver Chettle is my brother. I am his lodger. We talk. He told me about the problem he had had with this article, and that he didn't want to look at it again because of the stress it caused, so I did. It is not uncommon for siblings to have overlapping interests and idiolects. We can't both edit at the same time on the same computer. The article remains far from neutral. Allegations which lack credibility would not be treated so softly if they related to a less sensitive subject. Oliver didn't take a "sympathetic" point of view, he added a statement that Icke was widely considered to be a lunatic in the first paragraph. As I understand it, the allegations that he is anti-semitic, a neofascist etc are seriously at variance with his own work, and appear to reflect the misunderstandings of a group of (understandably) very sensitive people. A reader fresh to the subject would assume that the allegations of anti-semitism were very serious and credible, but there is no impartial evidence for them in the article. Slim Virgin has refused to address this issue, and has even implied that attention to the content of Icke's work is not relevant to his article. Try applying that principle to the Karl Marx article and see how credible it seems. Wikipedia should not make other people's misunderstandings central to an article. This is an unusual case in that a report of the public debate is inherently misleading in that since Icke is a lunatic, he does not have credible public supporters - but that doesn't make his antagonists right. The article needs to take this lack of balance in the public debate into account, but it doesn't. Gillian Tipson 04:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Your being related doesn't explain why you make the same arguments, using the same words, and the same grammatical errors. And just like "Oliver," when you leave a post on a talk page, you have to keep coming back to make small corrections to it. "Oliver" didn't simply add a statement to the article, by the way, he made a dog's breakfast of parts of it, which two other editors had to fix. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nor does it explain the common throwing in of various irrelevant arguments (e.g. supported Soviet Jewy, used to buy Israeli oranges). In any event, the argument presented is still of the "but he's not really an anti-Semite, just a loony, so we shouldn't cite the whole controversy in the first place" ilk. Sorry, the controversy is real, and personal beliefs about Icke won't make it go away. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a mischaracterisation, Jay. I don't think Oliver or Gillian does actually suggest not mentioning the controversy. I think they suggest not framing the entire article in terms of it. I think they are suggesting that he is presented as a loony that has been accused of antisemitism (with good reason, I don't for one moment suggest that the witchhunters who have latched on to him don't have reason for their suggestions -- it's at best almost unbelievably stupid to do and say some of the things he's done and said, and very reasonable to impute malice to him) and that he is not misrepresented in the article just because he is misrepresented by some of those witchhunters. The controversy is real. I don't think that's in dispute. But you are ignoring that the controversy is in large part created by the witchhunters, as is their wont. Yes, he provides the material for them, but they spin it how they will. We seem to be spinning it the same way, which gives the appearance of supporting a POV. I firmly believe that this is not being done purposely by SlimVirgin, who I take to be a strong supporter of neutrality and a very fairminded editor.

But Jay, you too can see that it is sometimes difficult in an editor's mind to present a subject as a subject, and not as one side of a controversy sees them. It's particularly hard when claims about a subject seem to us to be more accurate than the subject's own self-description. My view is that this article veers from the neutral path. I don't think it needs much to be steered back on to it -- certainly not for the controversy to be removed or played down, but I don't think anyone has suggested that -- just for it to be characterised a little bit more fairly. Grace Note 03:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Another editor has added a link to a recent Icke interview, which gives details of his latest book and lizard ideas, so when I have time, I'm going to use it to add more information about what he says about his own work; that in itself may serve to balance out the other material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as no one has listed any specific objections. If anyone wants the tag to go back on, please list here specific sentences you object to, so they can each be dealt with. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

82.35.37.118's edits

The recent anonymous edits from 82.35.37.118 have subtly changed the meaning of various passages in the article, revising Icke's statements to make them more palatable and removing various details. Given Icke's mention of things such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his writings (now elided from the article), these edits seem to be agenda-led and to slant the "Allegations of anti-Semitism" part of the article towards only one possible conclusion: that the allegations are based on the delusions of the accusers. This seems to be somewhat a propagandistic rewriting of the article to silence one side of the debate. IMHO, it should be reverted. Acb 14:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Acb, I agree with you. 82.35.37.118 (talk · contribs) is Oliver Chettle (talk · contribs) and Gillian Tipson (talk · contribs), and is also editing under a number of other IP addresses and user names. Rather than reverting, I was thinking of going through the edits and retaining anything useful, but I have flu at the moment, so I was going to leave it for a few days. By all means, edit as you see fit, and if you revert, I certainly won't oppose you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no issue with reverting these highly POV edits byt 82.35.37.118/Chettle/Tipson. I'm rather dismayed he tried to sneak them in in the first place, after the lengthy discussion in Talk:. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I've gone back and reverted it to before that batch of edits, adding back a subsequently-made change by another user.Acb 10:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the ones who are biased. I haven't wavered in this view for a moment, and since as I have said, I don't give a damn about Icke, this is the only reason I am persisting with this unpleasant matter. Some of the recently reinstated points are clear cut misrepresentations. I came here because I read a humorous reference to Icke in a sports article in The Times and wished to remind myself about him, and I found an article which was blatantly biased and inaccurate. The only edit I have made to any other article which could possibly be regarded as connected is to remove some pro-Palestinian article from an article where it was marginally relevant at best. What then is my agenda? My only agenda is to protect Wikipedia from editors who are so wrapped in their own world view that they can't see clear bias when it's under their noses. Slim Virgin seems to agree to some degree as he or she has made some moderating edits to the article.

As for my use of more than one user name this was done firstly to escape a personal stalker (I waited three months for him to desist from abusing me but he didn't) and then to escape the attentions of a user who was banned for three months for his gross misconduct shortly afterwards (pathetically inadequate in my view). Most people would just leave the project in these circumstances, as Wikipedia provides hardly any means of self-protection - I expect hundreds of good contributors have - but I wish to continue to contribute. As for Gillian, she does exist. My niece has also contributed on this computer, but I have never contributed from any other ISP address. Oliver Chettle 23:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the article ought to mention the name of the current head of the Illuminati. Its the head of the French branch of the Rothschilds (Baron Edmund?), who didn't have a Wikipedia article when I looked before. I can't add it myself because it would be "original research" but if you do it I will overlook the matter. There you are, I've given you an "anti-semitic" detail on Icke's work. Can you please now desist from your slurs against my motives and your biased edits? Thank you. Oliver Chettle 23:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oliver, thank you for admitting that you've been using other accounts. Are you saying you're not 82.35.37.118? Tracing his edits leads to other IP addresses and other user accounts that make edits remarkably similar to yours. Perhaps it would help to restore trust if you were to e-mail me details of the user who stalked you and the user who was banned for three months; if you'd like to do that, you can use the link on my user page. Regarding changes to the article, I'm not opposed to adding material, but edits have to be well written, properly referenced, relevant, and encyclopedic, and many of the edits you made weren't, which is why they were reverted. We also can't delete material that meets those criteria. For example, the anon IP deleted the reference to the Political Research Associates (PRA) study of Icke, because they track rightwing extremists, and therefore to include them implies that Icke is a rightwing extremist. But Wikipedia didn't commission PRA to do this research; PRA decided that Icke is someone worthy of their attention, probably because of the news coverage he attracts, and that's what we're responding to as well. You may not like the news coverage, and you may even be right that it's unfair, but it exists, and reference (extensive reference) to it isn't going to be deleted from this article, because we base our articles on what third parties have said about issues/events/people, and not what those closely involved in the issue have said about it, or have said about themselves.

It would be helpful if you could stop saying you're here to protect Wikipedia, as it doesn't need protecting from any of the editors on this page; and please stop accusing people of bias.

I'd be happy to work with you on a compromise if you'd like, so long as I'm only dealing with one account. And I'm a woman, by the way. As for the name of the head of the Illuminati, if it's been published, by all means add that Icke claims X, with a reference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

dualism...

1: * Ordinary people are being massively duped into believing that the ordinary course of world events are the consequence of known political forces and random, uncontrollable events

OR

2: * The ordinary course of world events is the consequence of known political forces and random, uncontrollable events

1 is *obviously* true. I mean, despite the fact 'they' have managed to control the entire world for at least a century, 'they' have gained little apparent benefit, and that 'their' existence is only guessed by theorists who base their ideas ON ideas, (which is somewhat schizotypal behaviour) and not evidence, it explains everything!

and what's your evidence for believing they have no evidence? I suppose you've naturally read all of David Ickes books. "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." ~ Albert Einstein

I question the NPOV character of the following statement. "It's tempting to dismiss David Icke as a confused and ignorant man, manipulated by extremists in order to present their philosophy in a socially acceptable format." Its only a specific non-neutral POV that can find anything tempting. How about, "on the one hand, it would be possible to dismiss...." etc. or some such formulation? --Christofurio July 9, 2005 15:08 (UTC)

Hi Christofurio, the sentence you quote: "It's tempting to dismiss ..." is a quote from a journalist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

David Icke and Dr Who

Any comments on the Slitheen and Icke's lizards?

Why would the lizards want to take over the Earth, at what point do they appropriate the entities of the people in question etc?

Would someone care to create a list of "impersonator shapeshifters" - which would include Icke, the Slitheen, an episode of Blakes Seven, changlings....

You're suggesting a comparative analysis of Dr. Who and David Icke? Hmmm ... it might be hard to make it encyclopedic. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was putting the idea in the air - as it would involve original research etc and is not my area of interest/research.

I can quite see a "page of ideas for other people to research" becoming totally unmanageable more quickly than Pope Benedict XVI's talk page (several archives within a few days of his election).

The encyclopediac entry would be "a list of redirections": others would include Uther Pendragon and (what is the name of the film - pod people or whatever?) and a brief (historical) explanation. Wikipedia covers obscurer things (g).

Probably best to put the details under Changeling and create a new page for the not-quite-changelings when there are enough details. Jackiespeel 18:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You want Dr. Who? Here he is! Ideocentric RoyBot 69.248.43.27

Just one question

Interesting theory. At first, I thought it was a bit unusual, but when I thought about it, it could well be true. There probably are some elements of truth in it. Just one question: If some secret group is ruling the world, how come they let you make websites about them? Uberisaac 12:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously - if we lizards deleted all reference to Icke on the internet it would be a bit of a giveaway. Same thing if we assassinated Icke to prevent him revealing the truth. Much better to let him make an idiot of himself. All those ridiculing Icke here are lizards themselves. Aaagh.... I'm changing..... aaaggh.... (slithers off into the distance)

Exile 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've seen a Lizard. She had skin like a chameleon, it started out as human skin and then it just changed into a scale pattern and back to human again. Just like that.

NPOV and can we start again on this article or revert

This article on David Icke is extremely skewed and distorted. The dominance of the anti-Semitic references and allegations littered carelessly thoughout, which as I understand it have long since been discredited anyway are extraordinary. The focus on difficulties Icke had early on are rather creepy and the entire page is little more than attack on him and his work to paint him in the worst possible light. I would call the page as it stands on 8/9/2005 as almost unreadable.

This article needs to be labeled with a POV warning ASAP and I would question the factual accuracy of many aspects of the page too.

The page as it stands is pure counter-conspiracy, knee-jerk zealot nonsene and requires urgent attention.

Could you please list any specific statements you find POV or inaccurate? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Oliver. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Your opinions

I am dismayed by the display of ingrained ignorance and bias in some of these comments. I have spent nearly 30 years as a scientific, political and economic researcher. Truth cannot be seen at face value. It must be researched from many angles and even then the conclusion is only an opinion. The difference is that it is an educated and fully researched opinion which, under scrutiny, would stand up for itself. What truly dismays me is the obvious bias in the Icke article of "Anti Semitism". Anyone who reads this mans writings MUST conclude that he is NOT an anti semite. Indeed, he stands firmly AGAINST any acts of hatred or violence against anybody. He absolutely CONDEMNS it. Any who deny this simply have not read his work or are choosing to select quotes which were clearly intended to condemn anti semitism but which are subsequently quoted out of context to support a bias agenda or at least to provide a buttress to hide the writers ignorance of history, economics or whatever.

Whereas Ickes sanity is as questionable as anybodys, I would suggest that those who pick on his strange notions to prove his insanity look also toward George Bush and Tony Blair, BOTH of whom have uttered their belief that they are 'guided by God' in their actions. Bush has even said that "God spoke to him and told him to attack Afghanistan and Iraq". (In the news as I write this) This, by the standards of some of the comments in the article, proves that Bush is a paranoid schizophrenic in charge of armageddon!! Is this sanity? I suspect not. the difference is that Icke challenges these dangerous fools (who ARE in fact related and of one bloodline...Research Burkes Peerage and the facts are their for all to see)

One could go on forever pointing out the factual deficiencies in the feature on Icke but no doubt the writer would simply come back and challenge the views stated because clearly the writer has an agenda to ridicule this man. Let me state clearly...I have worked with many scientists and researchers in many of the fields Icke refers to, sometimes with the purpose of DISPROVING Icke. It may disturb some to know that, however crazy this mans notions may seem, and however much any editor may consider themselves to be 'rational' or 'sane', the emerging evidence supports what he has revealed. To quote but one small example...the question of Hitlers link to the Rothschild family...there is much recorded history to suggest that this was the case. Not forged, simply on record. Not least the declaration to that effect made in the Austrian parliament and the fact that Hitlers mother was a cleaner working in the Rothschild home. Rothschild was also noted as having many illegitimate children to workers on his estate and others. In anticipation of the cry "Prove it...Quote your references!!" all I can say is that if one is inclined to pass comments such as those which condemn this Icke character in the way they have, one must surely be equipped with the ability to research the subject for themselves. If so, do it...If not,spare others your bias and don't claim to have an ability to be fair and balanced.The records are their for any to reserach. The only problem is that, when you do, there are others there all too willing to condemn you for even looking at the possibility that Hitler was not what you were taught. They cry "anti-semite". There are many Palaestinian "semites" so what does this stupid word mean anyway.

The ability to write lucidly and intelligently does not give one the right to distort and misquote contextually for the sole purpose of ego stimulation or intellectual falsehood.

So you think Hitler might be a Rothschild, but do you think they were also both lizards? Just wondering. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

To suggest that Icke claims that these people and so many others are or were "Lizards" once again misses the entire point he is claiming. 15 years of research into the possibility that the world is 'lead' by a bloodline of powerbrokers directly descended from pre christian times and with DNA descent from hybrid Reptilian/Human 'persons'has lead me to firm conclusions that do not differ too much from Ickes. I once spoke to a person who is a senior figure in government and security who applauded those who ridicule Icke saying,

"Its far better that the people don't find out the truth of our origins. As far as 'government' (alluding to the real controlling hands, not parliamentary democracy)is concerned the question was answered many years ago. Humanity is a hybrid alien creation. Of this their is no doubt either in the scientific community or among the global 'elite' as you would call them.They don't try to suppress the knowledge though. This is done by the mindless ridicule imposed on any who try to. People who think they know facts and truths about science and history, but whom in fact simply don't have a clue. The job is best left to them. They appeal to the basic human need to destroy anyone who brings the truth. Once the truth becomes established however, and these fools are proven wrong, they are the first to claim they 'knew it all along'. This is how your government truly works...an abject faith in the stupidity, ignorance and cynicism of the people. Its not their fault. They are taught to be this way. As Einstein said,(paraphrasing) 'the only thing that can get in the way of learning is "education".Its simple really. If it wasn't the people would wake up to whats really happening...and to the truth of their origins and the implications it holds for their lives today and in the immediate future." So please continue with your cynicism...ask questions...but make them intelligent ones, not inane, rhetorical, biased and uninformed.

Go read Straw man. Even if Icke's statement that they're lizards is bullshit, that does not make the totality of his works bullshit.--Army1987 12:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

(IMO the article is biased against him in stressing aspects of what he says which are patently absurd, and barely citing at all the most valid parts of his works. Maybe I'm biased as the only book I've read is I am me I am free, which appartently is one of the less debated. --Army1987 12:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC))

Which are the most valid parts of his work that are barely cited? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

For example, the chapter 7 on I am me I am free ("It's a piece a shit, walk away") ir a fierce critic to the way the Western culture worries about physical appearances and other unimportant things. The chapter 1 in the same book points out how people behave according to what they think other people think, and the problems this cause (see Abilene paradox, even if Icke never calls it this way. Some of the New Age stuff sounds ridiculous if taken litterally, but perhaps it is meant to be a metaphor. The whole book is a book suggesting people to behave as they feel rather than how they are conditioned by society (esp. mass-media). Bet you haven't read it, have you?--Army1987 19:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying we should add more about his philosophy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes; but I don't dare to write it myself. I think it should be written by someone who has read many of his book (possibly all of them). A good idea would be to add Template:Expert... should we?--Army1987 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is biased in it's use of the word lizard, when David Icke's usual word is reptilian. This is just an example of how the article is purveying a view intended to make Icke look ridiculous (tactic used by those who cannot win an argument in any other way). The word lizard is obviously an animal (another example would be crocodile) whereas reptilian could be a humanoid reptilian. (anonymous)

We make Icke look ridiculous because we say he thinks the world is ruled by lizards, and not, as he claims, by humanoid reptilians? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I've changed them. --Army1987 18:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Amazing, he looks so much less ridiculous now. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. (I don't think that was the only reason why the NPOV tag is there...)--Army1987 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Pick and Choose

I take some of his writing with an iceberg-sized block of salt but I still find some of it interesting. He is repeating himself quite a bit now. The whole "reptillian" thing really put me off. If anything, some of people he describes might as well be reptiles considering how cold-blooded they are. As in all things, show me some evidence and then we'll talk.

Littlejohn

Hi, I disagree with adding the Littlejohn interview in this section. If you read the paragraph, it now makes no sense. We first talk about the Wogan interview in 1991, when Icke "came out." Then we rush into an interview that happened around 13 years later (as though nothing happened in between): "He also had an infamous clash with the provocative journalist and columnist Richard Littlejohn on his TV debate show,saying that 'If you had a brain cell it would die of loneliness' after Littlejohn had dismissed his views as being 'Soppy as a box of frogs'."

And then we go back to talking about why he said what he said on the 1991 Wogan interview. "His supporters say that he was in fact describing all humans as children of God, or of some sort of deity, and that the confusion resulted from his scrambling to explain his spiritual apotheosis."

By all means add Littlejohn if you think it was more important than all the other interviews he has given over the years, but please add it in an appropriate place, and say why it was important. Also bear in mind that this is for an international audience: they won't know who Littlejohn is, they won't have seen the clips, so the reference to the interview will be meaningless unless you explain the significance, and therefore it must be one that had significance for Icke, or there's no point in "referring to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, this must be old because it looks like it's not on the page anymore Tyciol 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence please or is it just vandalism?

I've removed the following. Please offer some evidence that this is not some made-up vandalism.

• According to Christine Fitzgerald, a confidante of Diana, Princess of Wales, Diana believed that the British royal family was connected to reptiles and that she had seen them shape-shift.

[[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 01:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jtd, it's definitely true that Fitzgerald told the tabloids Diana had said this. I've just tried looking for an online source but the only ones I can see are Icke-style sites that we can't use as a source. I've got three books about her here (I'm embarrassed to admit) but two of them don't have an index so I can't quickly look it up. Best to leave it out for now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It does seem that going to Princess Di herself would be a better source than allegations by a betraying 'confidante' who probably did it to sell papers. Tyciol 20:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

heh, unfortunately, she's been dead for 8 and 1/2 years, so excepting a seance, that probably wouldn't be a viable option.

The article says "Icke has also written that according to Christine Fitzgerald, a confidante of Diana, she believed that the British royal family was connected to reptiles... " So long as it is true that Icke had written that, the statement is true, regardless of whether Ms Fitzgerald ever made such a claim or such claim has any veracity. Kevin McE 11:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Excess focus on anti-semitism, was article written by extremists group?

Did ADL, Greens, or Another Radical Extremist Group Write This? The whole article smells of extreme jewish censorship and tainting character portrayal. Can someone people edit the main page to be more balanced? -User:Druidictus

Yes that statement is definitly true ive heard it many times -User:Ahronzombi

this is very bias and i feel it was portraying david as anti-semetic and it was linked to too many bias articals that made him look that way. he is clearly not anti semetic in any way -User:Ahronzombi

I concurr. While I detest anti-semitism or anti-Jewish hatred of any kind, This article simply isn't accurate. Having read most of David Icke's writings, He never once mentions anything about Jews being part of the Illuminati, or anything else typical of anti-semitic conspiracy theories. In fact I dont think he ever mentions the Jews at all, except as tragicallybeing victims of the Holocaust (which he blames on hitler and the Illuminati). While one may find David Icke extremely eccentic, it is blatantly unfair and disingenuous to portray him as a holocaust denier, or an anti-semite. --WaynaQhapaq 10:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, so calling jews "advanced reptiles" and claiming that the Rothschilds funded Hitler is not anti-semitic is it? Sheeeshhhh... some wikipedia contributors would be better off starting up Rightipedia...MarkThomas 09:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Now who's being bigoted? You some sort of anti-reptilian nut? I mean, jeez, he even called them advanced reptiles, so how could that be anti-semitic? Phiwum 19:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section of the article is somewhat biased against Icke. Is he racist against the whole of the white race because his supposed illuminati/reptilians include several non-jewish whites? The only reason for reactionary responses I can think of is the belief that, according to official doctrine, all jews are basically wonderful saints, but I don't know if that is a good position to stand for, intellectually. --Thomi 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"[A]ccording to official doctrine, all jews are basically wonderful saints, but I don't know if that is a good position to stand for, intellectually." Golly. Sorry, what reactionary responses are you thinking of here? Phiwum 17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the Rothschilds funding Hitler thing? Several authors recognize, erroneously or not, that the nazis had friendly relations with some so-called zionists/jews. I don't want to get too deep into that, but unless you assume that these few jews represent the whole of jewry, that the international jewry has chosen them to represent them, these revelations are not anti-semitic. Facts before values, gentlemen. --Thomi 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"the nazis had friendly relations with some so-called zionists/jews" - only true if you know nothing at all about the 1930s. Under extreme opressive force from the Nazis (the SS for example used to sing songs round the campfire about their knives running with Jewish blood) some Jewish leaders in Germany, Austria and other countries were given choices like "save 100 Jews from the transports" or "pay us 500million and we will save 1000 Jews". Adolf Eichmann was a specialist in this sort of blackmail, which was entirely intended to ease the process of deportation. Some Zionists in Israel attempted to "bargain" with the Nazis in the hope of rescuing more Jews by having the Germans deport them to Palestine. This was blocked by the British, ostensibly because they feared Arab reaction. It is an anti-semitic slur of the worst kind to allege that the Jews "aided" Hitler as if it was some sort of voluntary act. Every Jew in Nazi Germany lived in absolute fear of their lives from 1933 onwards, and it is hardly surprising that desparate people resorted to any measures to try to save themselves or their loved ones. User Thomi, I suggest you question what you understand to be a "fact". MarkThomas 14:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is more or less hostile or rude to non-establishment history or/and historians, at least when it comes to the holocaust. While this was not exactly the reason I said I don't want to discuss this issue in depth here (after all, this is David Icke's article).

That aside, mr.Thomas, the meat of my message was to wonder whether it is anti-semitic to doubt the sincerity or morality of a jewish person, whether that constitutes disapproval of the jewish people as whole. It seems to me that that is what you're leading many to believe. By that logic, you are anti-white for questioning my writings. BTW, I did not claim that certain jews helped Hitler, while that may seem plausible to me, I merely said that certain authors allege this. --Thomi 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And there is no writing in the article that says Icke is anti-semitic. Rather, the article simply mentions that certain people allege this. And this fact is relevant to a discussion about Icke.

If anyone writes explicitly in the article that Icke is in fact an anti-semite, then you have an argument. That would be a terrible bias. Similarly, if only the accusations of anti-semitism are given (without Icke's and others responses), then that would be bias. But the article as it stands seems reasonably balanced. Phiwum 06:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The article says that Icke's charge has led to accusations of anti-semitism. This is true (but perhaps a citation is in order) and relevant. It is part of the controversy surrounding Icke, regardless of whether you think the anti-semitism charges are fair or accurate. The article also gives Icke's response.

What is the issue? Phiwum 11:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article definitely over-emphasizes the allegations of Anti-Semitism to a great extent. At least in Europe outside the UK these charges are unheard of. Although I have heard many, many mentions of Icke in connection to his conspiracy and spiritual theories, I had never even heard of any such "controversy". So from an international perspective they really are not so relevant to a discussion of the man. It is of course worth mentioning that such accusations have been made, and that Icke denies them, but one sentence or at most a paragraph would be well enough for this, surely not an entire section.

Personally, I find the whole thing ridiculous, as never in his writings does he once make a negative remark of the Jews as a people. 193.166.85.144 11:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting my revert

Milo, I'm sorry, I removed your edits yesterday thinking they were something else. My apologies. I've put them back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Simon Jones

Simon Jones, is mentioned a few times in the article, and it gives the impression that Jones is a journalist. However following the link http://www.simon-jones.org.uk/articles/david_icke.htm it seams like Jones is not really a journalist, more your average person who's written half a dozen articles, and the linked article was about David talking at a local school hall. How does this measure up on the verifiability scale? --Salix alba (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Twisting the knife

Yeah, it's so easy to throw rocks at the mentally ill - just like the Nazis. You're all so very, very tedious. Go and do something useful instead of attacking a harmless schizophrene.

Godwin's Law is invoked. DavidFarmbrough 10:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kris Kristofferson

"...Reptilian humanoids, known in ancient times as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent people are descended from them, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, and Kris Kristofferson." (My Italics)

Is this for real, is it vandalism? It would be great if it was but sounds unlikely, even for Icke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.63.25 (talk • contribs) .

Apparently so, a web search for Icke Kristofferson yealds lots of results, guardian is the most orthorative source I can find. --Salix alba (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kris Kristofferson & Boxcar Willie???

David Icke is a great source of amusement, but I was just wondering if someone had added Kris Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie to the "shape-shifting dinosaur alien" list as extremely humorous vandalism. It just seems so bizarre and out-of-left-field, even for Icke. Mucho hilarioso.

Either way, God bless Icke for bringing the crazy. I especially love his followers here and at places like IMDb. I can only imagine what it's like to live your life in a state of perpetual paranoia and fear of extra-terrestrial plots: "The world is run by Jews, Bush is an alien, 9/11 was carried out by the Shriners and don't brush your teeth 'cause the government is using flouride to poison you!"

ChildeRolandofGilead 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I added Kris Kristofferson for the bathos, but it's sadly true. I'm glad it went down well. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, good to see more humour on Wikipedia, it can be a little too "psuedo-academic" and dry for my taste. Icke is clearly a nutjob, but his belief that the Rothschilds financed Hitler is difficult to see as anything but anti-semitic, despite his own denials. I'm not Jewish, but can recognise a repetition of the blood libel when I see one.MarkThomas 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. All mentions of BW and KK that I could find seem to emanate from Jon Ronson, who may have been taking the piss, and then snowballed across the net. Can someone find a citation from one of Icke's books, or speeches etc? Camillus (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (A 12ft lizard, last time I looked in the mirror).

I'm afraid Icke does make all these allegations against these people, including Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie. Here is a link to a list Icke compiled himself, which admittedly is a little out of date (it's from the late 90s and Icke has identified plenty of other 'reptilians' since) which mentions Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie. [2]

Icke apparently identifies his lizards by checking out people's geneology so I assume Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie must be distantly related to the Rockefellers or the Bushes or the Windsors or whoever. But on what evidence Icke is basing his rather more specific allegations that Krisofferson is a "Torturer and mind controller" and the late Boxcar Willie was a "Satanist and pedophile" I have no idea.

Oh dear - Who would have guessed it? Camillus (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, man. Did you guys read the William F. Buckley one?:

William F. Buckley Jr: Head of the elite JANUS mind control operation based at NATO headquarters in Belgium which trains mind-controlled psychic assassins; child killer, Satanist, shape-shifter

To me, that's even funnier than Kristofferson. I can just imagine Bill Buckley lolling back in his chair during a CNN interview and gabbing about the destruction of the English langauage, then rushing off to Belgium to train "psychic assassins." I think I'm going to pick up a few of Icke's books. The one with the nude photo of himself on the cover seems suitably terrifying. ChildeRolandofGilead 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the book where he is naked on the cover has anything about reptilians, that predates his er, important discoveries in these areas. I think The Biggest Secret from 1999 is the one to start with, that's the one in which he reveals the Reptilian agenda for the first time and names most of these people. If your prepared to spend the £25 or whatever that the book costs, I'm sure it's hilarious.

Nice to see Jim Davidson on the list of reptiles, some may agree. Perhaps more surprising is David Aaronovitch - I'm sure not even his most ardent critics in the far left would opt for the description "higher order reptile" to describe the well known Blairite. But on a serious note - should Wikipedia be giving so very much space to this raving anti-semite and general nutter? This page appears to me to be some sort of celebration of his idiocy. What next - a major section on Buster Bloodvessel? Forty pages of detailed analysis of the rights and wrongs of David Bellamy's accent? There was I thinking Wikipedia was a centre of quality discussion and insight....MarkThomas 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I removed the bit about the blood libel. That Icke might be referring to the blood libel when he talks of 'child molestation and Satanism' is expressing an opinion. You can't assert that if someone makes accusations of occult child abuse then they must 'obviously' be referring to the blood libel, since plenty of people make accusations of such things against all sorts of people (and like Icke, such accusations are often made against establishement figures and aristocracy). Besides, most of the people Icke claims engage in these practices are not Jewish and have no known Jewish ancestery. Icke's alleged anti-semetism is discussed at length in the article. While he might hold anti-semetic views such as describing certain Jewish bloodlines as 'reptilian' (claims he makes, to be fair, about plenty of non-Jewish bloodlines as well) and talking about Jewish cliques organising the Holocaust, I don't think the idea that when he says 'reptilians' he means 'Jews' stands up. Most of the people he says are reptilians are not Jewish and it appears his ideas actually originate from Arizona Wilder, alleged witnesses of 'shape-shifting' and the lunatic fringe of the New Age and ufologist movements. Basically Icke believes everything he is told by anyone and most if not all of his ideas originated from others.

With regard to Aaronovitch (who is actually Jewish), it seems that Icke began accusing him of being a 'high-order reptilian' after he wrote articles claiming that ritual child abuse did not exist and perhaps also because he associates with Mandelson and his 'circle', whom Icke accuses of being up to all kinds. As for Jim Davidson, I cannot imagine why he picks on him. He's not Jewish or in any position of power. I assume he must be distantly related to the Windsors or something, which would explain him feeling the need to constantly announce his love for the Queen. Davidson is however a Freemason which is obvious grounds for suspicion in Icke's world and he was also the other guest on Wogan the night Icke appeared on the show claiming to be the Son of God and he probably took the piss.

Obviously in some ways this page is just an entertainment, but as you can't be bothered to sign in or say who you are, I have re-corrected your edits. I agree with some of what you say above, but the overall thrust of his allegations seem aimed at the usual Jews/freemasons/secret cabal of illuminati/satanists/child murderer complex typical of far-right and other anti-Jewish demonology and I feel therefore that the blood libel point is a good one, as this does appear to be a typical modernised case. If you disagree and want to edit, please sign in and sign discussions like other contributors do. Thanks! Mark. MarkThomas 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark, while Icke's claims appear to be examples of blood libel, it's less clear that they're examples of blood libel against Jews, because he seems to be accusing all kinds of people of it. It might be best to find a source that makes the same point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have an agenda Slim; I note the subtle way you've reshaped the Theroux quote to make it look as if he's not saying that Icke is anti-semitic, whereas in fact he does. I will return to this when I have more time.MarkThomas 13:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Mark, it was you who reshaped the quote. You added an earlier part of his quote, but placed it underneath the first quote, as though he had corrected himself, which your use of the word "however" also seemed to suggest. But in fact, the part you added came first in the original, and he was not correcting himself at all. The first part of the quote explains why people think Icke is anti-Semitic, and the second part explains that Theroux thinks it's "silly" to claim that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See 7:17, 26 April 2005 This is the original source of the satanism etc claims. This was a whole page blanking and insertation of a piece apparently by Icke, it in the form of a dialogue, between a Robot Radical and Icke. Royal Satanism IS mention on his home page. --Salix alba (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, Icke can't really be regarded as an anti-Semite for disliking the Rotschilds. His emphasis isn't on Jews, but on blue-eyed people, whom he believes to possess 4th dimensional lizard blood. That having been said, this is the greatest sentence I've ever seen on Wikipedia: "Icke has strongly denied that he is an anti-Semite, stressing that the Rothschilds are reptiles, not Jews." BarrettBrown

I know "anti-semitism" can be over-used, particularly in relation to discussions about Israel, but isn't this last just really confirming my view that Icke is simply re-hashing good old fashioned Jew-hating in a new package? "reptiles, not Jews" is worthy of Dr Goebbels in full flight. There you are, I didn't mention Hitler, thereby avoiding Godwins Law. MarkThomas 12:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jon Ronson describes a scene where Icke tries to enter Canada and is stopped by immigration officers, who've been warned that a suspected anti-Semite is trying to enter the country to make a speech. There's a hilarious description of Icke protesting that his criticism is of giant lizards, not Jews, with the officials trying to work whether that makes it okay:

A man in rubber gloves scattered the contents of his baggage across a table - his clothes and toiletries and reading matter - and began to scrutinise them for some tangible evidence of anti-Semitism.

"Yes" clarified David Icke, "the families in positions of great financial power obsessively interbreed with each other. But I'm not talking about one earth race, Jewish or non-Jewish. I'm talking about a genetic network that operates through all races, this bloodline being a fusion of human and reptilian genes." He threw up his hands. "And now, suddenly, the idea is that I'm saying it is a gigantic Jewish plot. But let me make myself clear - this does not in any way relate to an earth race."

David Icke's line of defence was clear. When he said lizards, he really was referring to lizards ...

The immigration officers glanced at each other, attempting to square this denial with the memo they had received from a coalition of respectable and trustworthy anti-racist groups, accusing David Icke of anti-Semitism. Finally, after four hours of questioning, they concluded that when David Icke said lizards, lizards was what he meant. He was free to enter the country. There was no law against this. How could the lawmakers anticipate that sort of thing? [3]

:-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

British Royal Family

What is the evidence that the British Royal Family persecuted Jews throughout history? I accept they did this sometimes, but there were also periods of acceptance where Royalty led the way in accepting Jews into Britain, for example, under the current Queen in postwar Britain. MarkThomas 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant, refuting anti-Semtitic inferences about the British Royal Family, is the following from another Wikipedia article:

"From the late Victorian era, circumcision became more common in the higher classes in the United Kingdom. Queen Victoria had the notion that her family was descended from King David of Israel, and mandated that her sons, including the future King Edward VII be circumcised. King Edward continued the practice, and among the English royal family, the practice is still widespread: Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, and Prince Edward, were all circumcised. It was reported in the April 2005 newsletter of The Board of Guardians of British Jews, that the Chief Mohel of England, Minister Jacob Levinson had revealed that he has performed circumcisions on males in the Royal Family for over 40 years, that he has know the family (Royal) for many years, "was deeply honoured when invited to perform the bris for William and Harry".[4]" - unsigned comment by 81.156.129.124.

Good grief. Well you learn something every day. Jooler 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Wait a Minute! - I just noticed the date on that article 1 April 2005. Jooler 15:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The article quoted is from an anti-semitic "satire" site, I have edited out the piece from the circumcision page, thanks for locating it for us. MarkThomas 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources for 'Alleged Reptilians'

In response to Slim Virgin, the sources for Icke's claims about the majority of these people (and others besides) can be found here: [5]

That's a list from around 1999 and as I pointed out above, it is out of date because he has accused other people since. Most of them are there though. Of the names not on the list:

Aaronovitch is definately accused by Icke, as I remember reading Icke's allegations about him on his website a few years back. The same goes for Pat Robertson. However, I cannot find the webpages and much of his site actually seems to be closed and has been for some time so searching the archive is difficult. The only other reference to Icke's claims about Aaronovitch I can find is on the Aaronovitch Watch weblog, not sure if a weblog is any use even, as is this case, if the information has been posted in an article by the webmaster rather than just an messageboard poster.

I have never heard of Jm J. Bullock or Talmadge Evans. These sound very dubious to me and are probably vandalism.

I have heard before that he has accused Jim Davidson, Kissinger, Littlejohn, Madelson and Murdoch, but I cannot find sources anywhere on the web, although I havent searched so throughly, I will have a better look when I get a chance. I have never heard of him accusing Andrew Marr, Bill O'Reilly or Frank Sinatra and can't find anything on these.

Most likely many of these claims come from Icke's more recent books and I don't own any of his books so obviously somebody who does could confirm whether or not he has definately accused these people and provide the sources. Otherwise, there does not appear to be many sources on the web for a few of these people. It may be easier to confirm sources after Icke gets his webpage sorted out and unless other sources can be found beforehand, it might be wise to delete some of the names for the time-being.

As I say though, the majority of the names are in the list I have linked to above which is widely distributed in the net and has been for many years, hope it helps.

--195.93.21.103 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, 195. We do need a proper source for each name, and by that I mean either Icke himself (one of his books or websites) or a reliable third-party source who is discussing him. The sites you put up were neither. The article by Icke was not on his own website, and therefore we have no reason to believe it's actually what he wrote. My suggestion is to leave this list out of the article, because it's incredibly silly. If you do add it back using an Icke webpage as a source, it should probably be one with no mention of pedophiles. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Query

(moved from SV's talk page)

Why did you revert my edit:

Last but not least it is important to take note of the fact that David Icke strongly emphasizes extending unconditional love to all people on this planet without giving regard to race, gender, nationality or religious affiliation. In fact, even though Icke fingers a faction of an advanced reptilian species as agents of control and manipulation to the detriment of humanity, Icke advocates extending love and forgiveness even to the reptilian entities thought to be responsible for human plight. A consistent love that completely disregards not only categories such as race but also extends across to a presumed, alien species can only be regarded as completely incompatible with the common perception of a racist, Neonazi or antisemite he is pointed out to be by individuals and interest factions. 84.160.247.104 02:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm expecting you to take up discussion of this matter within a reasonable amount of time. If I don't hear from you in 24 hours from now I'm going to assume your revert is unfounded and I will repost the information to the article. Should you consistently choose not to discuss this matter with me as can be reasonable expected, or consistently hinder me from making this factual addition to the article without good reason, then I will escalate this matter through Wikipedia's arbitration processes. Regards 84.160.247.104 03:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't issue threats. Your edit is inappropriately written and isn't sourced. You must write it in a neutral tone and provide a citation to a reliable third-party source who says this, or to Icke himself. It's also not appropriate for the intro, which is already too long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello SlimVirgin

Describing an appropiate and reasonable course of action is not a threat and I will set correspondents in cases such as the matter at hand reasonable deadlines right from the beginning. Don't mistake this with unfriendliness. In turn I have not understood your failure to provide a reason for your revert as an unfriendly act.

The core thesis of the edit to be added to the article is that David Icke consistently promulgates unconditional love for all beings no matter what their species, race, gender, nationality or religion etc. etc. and therefore diverse interest factions can not possibly designate him as a racist, Neonazi or antisemite etc. Open to debate is merely whether Icke is Anti-Zionist which still is a perfectly legitimate commodity in the so-called "marketplace of ideas".

Please list all your issues with the paragraph in detail so we can work out the appropiate wording.

Regards 84.160.247.104 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your demand for evidence: Aside from massive amounts of literature authored by David Icke, I have video material wherein David Icke both on the screen and in public venues has stressed above sentiments many times. Please suggest how this evidence be presented. 84.160.247.104 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If it has been broadcast, you could quote from it, then write after the sentence (for example): "Name of film/documentary", BBC Television, broadcast in the UK, April 28, 2006. If it has not been broadcast, we can't use it. All our sources must have been published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Although possibly having it on a website would be enough i.e. would constitute publication. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I will go through the published video material / published literature, revise the edit accordingly, present it on this talk page and then notify you on your talk page so we can continue. This will take some time. Thank you for your help so far. 84.160.247.104 04:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Icke's other fave topics

I feel this article spends too much time on the Anti-Semitism aspect of Icke's brand of global conspiracy theory. There's no mention of his other favorite topics such as The Bilderbegrs, Masonic shenanigans within Governement, Skull & Bones etc etc. He's been featured discussing these on a number of Televisions hows covering secret societies, various conspriacies, alien abducition ect. Because he's so well-spoken and often sprinkles his presentations with genuine historical fact, he usually comes off as the most reasonable talking head in these shows. Frightening but true. I'll try and add a small section listing the other conspiracies he ties into his own.Lisapollison 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Anti-Semitism

David Icke's alleged anti-Semitism is clearly overstated in this article and stretches fairness and Neutral Point of View to its limit, as other users have already stated above. Icke's references to such forgeries as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion likely comes not from anti-Semitism but from naivety and lake of intellectual rigor. Icke clearly references any source, which includes any reference to a 'conspiracy' regardless of the integrity of the source, this is obviously a clear weakness in his work, but this makes him a weak researcher not a bigot. Icke's critique of those in power is not limited to people of Jewish decent, in fact there are many if not more individuals of non-Jewish decent directly linked with his theory of reptilian humanoids. Jon Ronson in his documentary on Icke [6] clearly comes to the opinion that when Icke says 'reptilian' he means 'reptilian' and that this is not meant in a metaphorical sense. Icke also goes on to refute any claim of him being anti-Semitic in the documentary. I will be adding a NPOV tag until some of these areas can be clarified. - Solar 11:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

@Solar: when Icke is refering to reptilians he especially ist talking about Chitahuri, please have a look at the section of the lemma Reptilian_humanoids [7]. Giving his speech at Braxton in june 2003 he spoke expressis verbis about this south african legend which he regards not to be a legend. Foreigner 11:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's true of all anti-Semites that if they displayed any intellectual rigor, they wouldn't believe or say the things they do, so I'm not sure that means a lot. The point is that he has said these things and attracted certain followings as a result. We can only report what the sources say about him, and I think we've done that fairly well. I'll be removing any tag you add, because it's not clear what more we can do within our policies, and any objections must be actionable within the policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please list exactly what needs to be changed in your view, making sure it's actionable within the content policies. There are basically two areas that mention his alleged anti-Semitism: the third paragraph in the intro and the section on it. You should concentrate on the section first, because any changes to that will be reflected elsewhere. Please be very specific. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In my point of view there ar 2 posibilities

1. he is an anti-Semite and doesn't dare to say it
2. he isn't

I cant't see any evidence of the first posibility after having read some of his books and seen the matrix-video. In contrary he complaints the death of thousand and thousand of jews. Please allow me to clarify I'm not an adherant of Ickes cosmology espacially as far as reptilians are concernde. Nevertheless David Icke could be wrong, he's not in the slightest a anti-semite. Foreigner 08:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Solar has asked me to step in here, although I think he also needs to specify what changes he would like made. I think the article does indeed dwell on Icke's alleged anti-semitism a little too heavily, particularly since there doesn't seem to be anything sourced that really indicates Icke to be an anti-semite - I've read one of his books, and he seems to be much more obsessed with the Queen of England and Bush Sr. than anything else. Nonetheless, the fact that these issues have arisen regarding the neo-Nazi groups does make a mention of this relevant to the article; it's a controversy, and a documented one, when one is publicly labeled an anti-semite. But it currently takes up a disproportionate amount of prime real estate, mostly towards the front of the article. I would suggest that you combine the neo-Nazi interest/Anti-Defamation League paragraph and the one about the Rothschilds engineering the Holocaust and put it later, perhaps under its own section. The reason I say this is because denying the Holocaust is small potatoes compared to Icke's other claims, which are quite a bit wackier and which deserve more and earlier emphasis. Incidentally, I don't get the impression that Icke is an anti-semite. He just hates evil lizard spirits from the 4th dimension who take over the British monarchy, just like Lyndon LaRouche probably does. BarrettBrown 05:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, its simply an unproofen accusation. Foreigner 09:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barrett, again, your points are not specific enough. The article is 3242 words long. Of these, there are sentences amounting to 933 words where anti-Semitism is mentioned. These are:

(1) two sentences in the intro:

(a) "He began to dress only in turquoise and maintained that the world was ruled by a secret group called "The Elite", or "Illuminati", which he linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic tract." (37 words)

(b) "Icke has further claimed that a small group of Jews, namely the Rothschild family, also a "reptilian bloodline," financed Adolf Hitler and supported the Holocaust. As a result, Icke's speaking tours at one time attracted the interest of British neo-Nazis such as Combat 18, and he continues to face opposition from Jewish and anti-racist groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the B'nai Brith in Canada. Icke has strongly denied that he is an anti-Semite, stressing that the Rothschilds are reptiles, not Jews. (83 words)

(2) one sentence in the section "Conspiracy writings": "At the heart of Icke's ideas is the belief that the world is being controlled by a secret government. In 1996, in his book ... and the truth shall set you free, he claimed this government was financed by bankers and businessmen such as the Rockefellers, and also the Rothschilds, which consequently led to accusations of anti-Semitism." (56 words)

(3) the section "Allegations of anti-Semitism," which reports reliable third-party sources saying his views are indeed worrying; others saying they are not; and Icke's rebuttal. The section ends with a quote indicating that his views should be regarded as silly rather than as examples of anti-Semitism. (757 words)

I suggest you begin by concentrating on the section called Allegations of anti-Semitism. Which parts of it would you like to see removed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for your comments BarrettBrown. My whole reasoning in starting this thread was to discuss and clarify the anti-Semitism issue within the article. 933 words out of 3242 words, is in my view a clear overstatement. As far as SlimVirgin's comments above, I do not want to change the 'Allegations of anti-Semitism' section, as such, just remove or at least downplay the repeated mentions at the beginning of the article for the following reasons: (a) Mentioned above gives the impression that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is of major importance to his work. I feel that this is an over statement, that at the very least must include a citation. Also the period in which he began to dress in turquoise was at the beginning of the 90's, while the references to the protocols he has made were some time later.

Here's a third-party reference supporting my position. [8] Please supply one for yours, so that we're not exchanging our own opinions, but reporting what others say. The book cited by the source is 1995, so that's not late Icke but early Icke, as the sentence implies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin, Firstly, Icke began to dress in turquoise in 1990, the book you mention is 1995, this is a 5 year gap, the sentence gives the impression that the Green Party's decision may have had something to do with his use of Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, this is not true.

How does the sentence give that impression? It doesn't even mention any decision by the Green Party. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do apologise SlimVirgin, I did mean to say 'paragraph' I hope that clarifies things for you. - Solar 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How does the paragraph give that impression? It states clearly why the party distanced itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

By giving this impression it could also lead the reader to believe that accusations of anti-Semitism have been made against him since the 1990-1. As far as references I'm not sure what 'position' I am supposed to illustrate, Icke has in my opinion made many objectionable and unhelpful statements, but out of his approximately ten books he has dealt with a far greater set of subjects than this article includes.

That is the position you have to find a source for. We only report what sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to a source to prove there were no accusations in 1990-1, I'm not sure a source saying this would exist, it would be very strange and a little illogical for someone to say 'Icke has never been called an anti-Semite at this time'. I think the burden would be more on those wishing to show a link to anti-Semitism dating back to this period. - Solar 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say or imply he was accused of that in 1991? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He has also been accused of anti-Semitism by a small group of individuals, so in my view in fairness these individuals should not dominate the article.

I don't know how small the group is. I know it's very reputable, and includes a well-known lawyer and professor of law at the University of Toronto, so this isn't some fly-by-night activist group. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please watch Ronson's documentary on the subject available free here it should illustrate my point, if not well we have different standards on what constitutes 'activism'. - Solar 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In several of the citations including those in the link you included he states quite clearly that he does not believe this to be about Jew's, see this quote in reference to the Protocols of Zion, "Some say they were a forgery made public only to discredit Jews, and I use the term "Illuminati Protocols" to get away from the Jewish emphasis."

And the article makes that very clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added more quotes to make it even clearer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In some parts 'yes' in others it is more ambiguous as I have stated. - Solar 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is it "more ambiguous"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Have too agree again. The articel sounds a little as if Icke really was an anti-Semite. We should make very clear that the accusation is unproofed. Foreigner 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He clearly does make statements that are very much on the borderline and in keeping with far right groups that use conspiratorial arguments to justify 'hate' and sometimes violence. But this is far from Icke, who calls on his readers to be critical of governmental and corporate power, not to hate on the basis of race. - Solar 10:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But you have to produce sources, Solar. We can't insert your opinion into the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is why I am discussing the issue, you will note I have added 'no' opinions into the article, I am simply trying to avoid the overstating of the opinions of others, including I must say yourself. It is of course very easy to cite Icke saying things critical of 'governmental and corporate power' and also his focus on 'Love' for example, just take a book title, 'Infinite Love Is the Only Truth - Everything Else Is Illusion'. - Solar 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean you are stating your own opinion on this talk page. You must give us the opinion of sources, who will back you up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While the sentence can be argued to be technically accurate, the total of this sentence does not help to inform but is closer to a tabloid portrayal.

Which sentence? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should be removed, and replaced with something far more descriptive of his total views (b) Icke repeated this claim originally made by Trevor Ravenscroft in 'The Spear Of Destiny'. I think this is important and should possibly be moved to the 'Allegations of anti-Semitism' section. (2) Is an unnecessary repeated reference. (3) Should stay. (4) "According to Political Research Associates, an American research group that tracks right-wing groups, Icke's ideas are popular in Canada, where the New Age aspect of his philosophy overshadows his more controversial beliefs." I also believe this sentence implying that he is somehow a 'right wing' thinker is problematic. It seems to me that most if not all of the accusations against him originate in the Canadian Anti-Defamation movement, some of whom demonstrated very poor judgment and behaviour in the Jon Ronson documentary on Icke.

Not so. See the two articles about him from Political Research Associates, which have nothing to do with the ADL. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have already read the article, and while it is technically accurate it is biased, even with the Political Research Associates group it is still a very large part of the article. - Solar 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying above. Could you please say very, very clearly which sentences you want to change, and to what? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They made me slightly embarrassed to be an activist; so to place too much emphasis on them is also pushing a very limited view within the article. On a more general note the article needs to expand in other areas he has dealt with, for example a discussion of his reptilian beliefs in more detail may help to clarify many points, a section like this should be a major part of the article at least equal to allegations of anti-Semitism.

Good idea. Go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also his views on 'Holographic reality', his more spiritual beliefs related to 'Love' and 'Oneness' of all people would also help greatly.

Also a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to ask SlimVirgin, with respect please replace the NPOV tag, as I do not believe it was fair or correct of you to remove it.

There have to be objections that are actionable within our policies. So far as I can see, you want to insert your own opinions, which would be a violation of policy. Please produce reliable sources to support your view, and there will be no problem inserting what they say. Even material from Icke himself would be acceptable, as long as it's quoted, or very closely attributed to him, and not just someone's opinion of what he's saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It was placed there for the benefit of those who feel that there is a NPOV issue within the article, which it is clear from the statements in the discussion above I am not alone in feeling. I think that it is a very problematic action to take and personally I believe the removal of another persons tag without discussion or consensus should be against policy, as it stands the procedure is not clear, but in the interests of fairness I think it should be replaced. Thank you. - Solar 09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll replace the tag, but it can't stay there forever, and we need sources for what you're saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you seem to feel I am trying to put an opinion, this is not the case, I am trying introduce greater fairness and to 'discuss' the issue, I have no desire to add my opinion of Icke to the article, I generally feel he is very misguided and his criticisms of humanitarian and activist groups just encourage apathy in my view. But I think calling someone an anti-Semite should be taken very seriously and approached with great care. - Solar 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not supplying any sources, which is what we need above all. Neither the article nor this talk page are here for people to describe their own opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

@Solar: Couldn't haver said it any better myself. Foreigner 10:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Add, rather than remove

In order for this dispute to be most easily solved, Solar should add more to the article on Icke. As it stands, one-third of the article deals with alleged anti-semitism, and that's just too much for a guy who's not known primarily as an anti-semite. The best way to fix this is to dilute the current over-emphasis on Jews (or reptiles who play Jews on TV or whatever) by adding more about Icke's grand unified theory, as it were - describe his account of human history in a particular section, describe his views concerning who comprises the current world leadership in another, etc. Just be sure to source it all; I think he has a couple of websites, so that shouldn't be a problem. BarrettBrown 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BarrettBrown that the best way to decrease the emphasis on the alleged anti-semitic aspects of Icke's theories would be to increase the amount of information about other aspects of his global conspiracy theory. I'll attempt to do that when I can. please don't wait for me to make edits, however, I have a few articles ahead of this one that need attention. Darn if Icke wasn't all over US Cable TV this past weekend looking all learned and reasonable on Freemasonry, Illuminati, UFOs, Templars and more! I'll try and put up a list of his TV appearances soon.Lisapollison 06:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out that the accusation of the anti-defamation-league in fact are unproofed defamation of Mr Icke. You will hardly find a quote of Icke which is antisemitic in general. In contrary, he often emphasizes that we are all victims of the reptilians and illuminati, be it white, black, jewish, chritian or whatsoever. Foreigner 09:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lisa. I spent some time tonight looking through the third-party sources on Icke, and this article actually represents them very well. Most of them do talk about the anti-Semitism allegations; some agree with them, and some dismiss them, but it seems to be the main topic of discussion among reliable sources, and it's the view of third-party sources that we have to prioritize, so I've removed the tag. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Some academics have written about him, and I've been able to read a few pages of their work on Google Books, but access is restricted so I can't get a coherent enough picture to post anything. However, the view seems to be that there's a new and interesting alliance between New Age ideas and what some are calling the New Right, which is blurring the left-right divide and causing confusing, and Icke is mentioned in relation to that. For example, his books were apparently featured or promoted at Glastonbury because he was seen as New Age, but were removed from shelves in local bookstores because he was seen as associating with the far-right. I'll try to pursue this angle as and when I have time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If "most of them do talk about the anti-Semitism" of Icke it doesnt proof anything if they can't come up with a provable antisemitic quote Icke is alleged to have done. Foreigner

They have. Read the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for your wise advice to read the article, I have. Foreigner 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you'll have seen the material for yourself.

I've removed the reference to anti-Semitism from the Conspiracy writings section, so it's now only in the intro and in the section devoted to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Awfully sorry to disagree; all I have seen are unproofed accusations and opinions. Not a single quote worth the name material, it's really subjective point of view what the critics of Mr Icke are delivering. Foreigner 10:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. Neither the article nor the talk page are here for us to insert our personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, has nothing to do with my personal opinion. Ickes oponents just haven't deliverd an clear antisemitic statement becaus of the fact that Icke never did one. Suggest we make an end of discussion at this point. Foreigner 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that his "opponents" haven't "delivered an [sic] clear antisemitic statement." We do not report the opinions of Wikipedia editors, and this page is to discuss the contents of the article only. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

EOD as far as I'm concerned. Foreigner 10:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for any edits you make. See WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - thanks for taking the time to search out the 3rd party sources. I don't doubt your findings. My feeling is simply that Icke's larger global conspiracy theory/theories isn't as well-represented as it should be. He is often cited by non-rightwing conspiracists and is consulted to be a "talking head" on a variety of shows about conspiracies simply because he does pay a lot of attention to these alleged conspiracies in the formulation of his own. If someone unfamiliar with Icke were to use this article as their only source of info, I feel they would take away a mistaken impression that Icke is merely a tool of the Right. His importance as a conspiracist is that he can and does frequently speak convincingly on a whole host of secret brotherhoods, conspiracies etc. He is often the most reasonable sounding fellow on a given program! The average viewer in the USA who might tune into such shows but never read an Icke book would get the impression he is merely a conspiracy historian. I'd like to document some of the other aspects of his global conspiracy to give a better overall impression of who he is and what he purports to believe. However, I can see that I could spend more time discussing this than it would take to simply do it. I'll put this on the front burner. Thanks for your encouragement.Lisapollison 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfriendly revert

Can't understand why Slim is doing an revert that quick and without even declaring why. Ayahuasca is quite a relevant thing in Ickes work. Foreigner 11:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And yes: the source is Davic Ickes speech at Brixton Academy; it can be found in the third Part of the speech. Foreigner 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Provide a citation, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Benvolentieri:

http://www.1984videos.com/et/David_Icke__Secrets_Of_The_Matrix_P3.mpg It should be aproximately about 30 Minutes of Speech when he's talking abour ayahuasca and brazil. Don't know the exact position by heart. Foreigner 11:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreigner 11:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try if I can find it right now. Foreigner

Not that easy. Meanwhile you could have a look hier: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/david_icke_interview.html where Icke says: " I took ayahuasca twice in Brazil in 2003 and magic mushrooms once a few weeks later. Apart from that I have taken nothing before or since. It was an experience that gave me a great deal, but I have felt no desire or intuition to continue. (and so on) " Foreigner 11:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of including it if he says they were isolated experiences? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He doesnt sy "isolated experiance" but he says it was a great deal for his personal spirtual development. I suggest you listen into the 3rd part of his speech. If you start at 25:00 Minutes and listen until 40:00 you will hear what he says an why ayahuasca was that important to him. Think, this should be the most effective way; much better as if I report step by step what he says in detail about ayahuasca. (well, has to do with shamanism and out-of-body experiance, strange stuff, have a try) Foreigner 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

and well: Ickes basic statement is, that with the help of hallucinogens like ayahuasca you can realize that our life is a matrix of illusion. (not my opinion, Icke says so) Foreigner 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreigner, the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add the material. Please supply a quote with a full citation (date and place of meeting), so that we can judge whether it's accurate, what he said exactly, how to write it up, and where to include it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Burden of Evicence - how nice.

This one should do it:

... I finished that book, to go to the Amazon Rain Forest in January of 2003 and take something called Ayahuasca which is a plant – a rain forest plant – which they turn in to what they call a turn and Shaman in South America have been using it for centuries at least to take people into other realms of reality. ... I could have taken it (Ayahuasca) about four times but I took it twice and it was an experience – particularly on the 2nd night – that completely transformed my view of life. What it did was take my intellectual understanding o that the world is an illusion into the realms of knowing it’s an illusion and there’s a difference between intellectually understanding it’s an illusion and this level of knowing it because you’ve experienced it. I got to the age of 50 without taking a single magic mushroom and I never even had one smoke of pot or anything. I’ve never taken any of this stuff but I just felt that the synchronicity of this whole situation - I was going to go with it. So I took it and on the first night I took this tea that tasted a bit like licorice and for about 2 hours or so, I went into other realms and some amazing things happened. ... First of all, I felt this enormous energy coming out of the heart chakra area, or into the heart chakra area and then out again in an arch to my head and it was so clear feeling that arch of energy from my heart chakra to my head and other energy coming into the heart chakra. I was in this dark room – just me and a guy who was observing me and who is an expert in this whole Ayahuasca stuff --- and suddenly out of no where, this strip light came on, and then a 2nd one and then a 3rd one. The energy in the room was extraordinary!

source: http://www.newsforthesoul.com/icke-transcript-2004.htm

Hope this is regarded sufficient. Foreigner 12:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! Foreigner 15:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Written from a neutral point of view.

The following passage is not written from a neutral point of view:

• However, the course of humanity is being manipulated at every level ... 'Now you may be wondering just what nefarious activities these people could possibly get up to. Icke, of course, has the answer'. These individuals arrange for incidents to occur around the world, which then elicit a response from the public ('something must be done'), and in turn allows those in power to do whatever they had planned to do in the first place." [13]

This needs to be re-worded or taken out completly.

It's a quote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote isn't to be critizised. It's the passage "Now you may be wondering just what nefarious activities these people could possibly get up to. Icke, of course, has the answer" which ist sheer polemic and has to be written from scratch to be adequate for a cyclopaedia. Foreigner 07:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone serious who has written about Icke has used that tone, I'm afraid, or worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that's part of the quote? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. But you've choosen a very special qoute (quoting again) which is pure polemic. I would tend to avoid that. Foreigner 08:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means find some non-polemic quotes from serious commentators. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the IP that the quoted passage is not written from a neutral point of view. The consequence should be to delete the polemic passage right now. Beyond that: If you choose to search some non-polemic quotes from serious commentators you are more than welcome to do. Foreigner 08:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But it's a quote! It's useful to get the tone of the owrk and those that comment on it. As it is a quote, do your comments really have any baasis for removing it? Aren't you just being nick-picky?

We would like to invite you to sign your contributions. Did you mean nit-picky? If so: Don't think the IP has been. A subjective point of view can very easily been achieved by picking out the most hostile statements and quoting them systematically. Foreigner 11:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem-reaction-solution

Another auther mentiond the problem-reaction-solution thing and I take the burden of evidence. Please wait a moment ;-) Foreigner 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

1. have a look to the lemma Problem-reaction-solution
2. first sample concerning the use of the buzzword by Icke http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/1264/32/

B'nai B'rith should be mentioned in the caption

Please see the caption describing what happens on the photo. SlimVirgin has repeatedly done away with B'nai B'rith nevertheless protesters were organized by B'nai B'rith and are obviously presenting a writing with the logo of B'nai B'rith. Foreigner 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mental Illness

I appreciate that Wikipedia has to deal in facts for which there is source evidence, rather than opinion. However, I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that David was someone who went from mid-life crisis into mental breakdown only for his ostracisation by society to tip in into freefall delusion. It's difficult not to feel sympathy, and I don't mean to be patronising saying that.

He's certainly intelligent - intelligent enough to have managed to pull together every piece of new age claptrap and conspiracy theory into an almost coherent world view. The fact that he has a ready audience for his writing has only encouraged him to go deeper into his fantasy world - the people who buy his books are fuelling his fantasty. He clearly is not anti-semitic - when he says 'reptiles', he really means 'reptiles'.81.19.57.146 07:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been gone over ad-nauseum in the archived discussions. Icke is an anti-semite and a thinly disguised one at that. He appears on neo-Nazi platforms in many countries and simply re-packages the ancient blood libel against the Jews, with a few non-Jews thrown in for good measure. His slur that Jews aided Hitler and planned the Holocaust is a typical example. I don't subscribe to the view expressed elsewhere that he is mentally ill or deluded, he just has this powerful anti-semitic theory he's picked up and has restructured it to his own satisfaction and is going around hawking it to anyone who will listen. He also is not the Son of God of course. MarkThomas 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

MarkThomas - why delete cited facts, relating to Icke's claim about the Abkhazian origin of Ashkenaz Jews? Despite citing your comment above in the deletion record, this comment doesn't relate to the deletion you performed. If you're going to delete, at least make it clear why. Punanimal 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph with information about the Bush family removed

In this edit SlimVirgin removes the following paragraph, being the last part of the Reptilian humanoids section:

Icke has since published additional books on the same theme. His latest work sees George W. Bush, also a reptilian, playing a key role in what Icke alleges is a 9/11 conspiracy. In a 2008 interview on BBC Radio 2 with talk show host Russell Brand, Icke accused George H. W. Bush of being a "“notorious paedophile”.<ref>{{cite news |first= Linge |last= Nadine |title= Bush Whack Brand! |url= http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/25865/Bush-whack-Brand-/ |work= [[Daily Star|Daily Star Sunday]] |publisher= Northern and Shell Media Publications |date= January 7, 2008 |accessdate=2008-01-20 }}</ref>

Is this a part of Icke's œuvre which for some reason is unfit to be mentioned in his Wikipedia article? If so, why? __meco (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's libellous, and the published source is very poor, so I removed it. Calling someone a giant lizard is just silly, but the above is more serious. I'm going to archive this soon, Meco, because per BLP we're not supposed to move this kind of contentious claim to the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been expressed on the BBC and repeated in mainstream (albeit tabloid) media. It's out there. I cannot see that your point is at all relevant. Please elaborate! __meco (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't presented by the BBC, but blurted out by Icke during an interview, and the article is about how the presenter is worried about it. Also, I'm not sure I'd call that newspaper mainstream. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Following your line of reasoning, I suppose it could be seen as a moot point. It is not one that I will pursue to any lengths. __meco (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll be archiving this shortly, per BLP, if there are no objections. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have this on Google alert now, so if the story breaks unequivocally (i.e. with an expanded perspective), it will probably resurface here. __meco (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)