Talk:David Icke

Reptilians quotes

User:SlimVirgin added this section in 2016:

As of 2003 the reptilian bloodline encompassed 43 American presidents, three British and two Canadian prime ministers, several Sumerian kings and Egyptian pharaohs, and a smattering of celebrities, including Bob Hope, Chris Christopherson and Boxcar Willie. Key bloodlines are the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, various European aristocratic families, the establishment families of the Eastern United States, and the British House of Windsor. [...]

The referenced page of Barkun2003 is on archive.org and doesn't include any of those claims, nor could I find them in the rest of the chapter on Icke. Unfortunately, SlimVirgin isn't alive any more so I can't ask her. I don't want to simply delete as unfounded the work of a very experienced editor, but this needs fixing. Mbethke (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The diff you added only shows SV re-arranging the material. It appears to have been added much earlier. Looking back a little farther, say here, there's a much more detailed reference that breaks down the sources. Not clear if that covers every claim, but more ground to cover at least. Kuru (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never been able to find a single reliable source for the claim that Icke believes in this farcical "Reptilian" theory. I'm 99% sure it's simply a smear tactic used against him to put people off listening to the other (very legitimate) subjects he speaks about. A bunch of links to articles in far left rags claiming that he said this or that (with zero sources) isn't worthy of mentioning in an encyclopedia, nor does it make the claims true. All of these smears and falsified "beliefs" that have been pinned on him should be entirely removed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.204.195 (talk • contribs)

There seem to be thousands, including his own publications and many interviews where he promotes these claims. This includes many conservative outlets. I'm sorry, but since your claim appears to make zero sense on its face, perhaps you can clarify your position first? Are you saying he's being sarcastic the whole way through? Kuru (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@82.2.204.195 For some reason I can’t reply to the IP address directly, but in this interviewhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlAjeTunopo he says that at 4:00. Note that Icke essentially replies that “The phrase ‘The world is run by shapeshifting lizards’ is a one line oversimplification without my backstory or context, if you read deeper into it and into my works you will understand it better.” but upon further examination it remains equally as false and baseless with no real or valid evidence. This isn’t a smear, those claims are real.

Also note that the interviewer and others say that some of Icke’s other claims in the video are based on events that have actually happened so at least those theories and claims have got that going for them, that being they are based in part on reality, but the claim “Buckingham palace and the world is run by shapeshifting lizards and reptiles” is one he appears to genuinely agree with and has touted for years Justanotherguy54 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Claims

Adding this here to avoid an edit-war. I recently went in and changed multiple references to 'claims' to more neutral language in accordance with WP:CLAIM and, in doing so, helped remedy some WP:NPOV issues. This has since been reverted by @Hob Gadling on the basis of "WP:CLAIM does not say that we should never use the word, but "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question" - which is exactly what we should do for statements which do not deserve any credibility".

For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that the statements lack credibility (Ike is labelled, correctly, as a conspiracy theorist after all), but I do think that belief, in and of itself, is not a neutral point of view. NPOV states "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source." It would appear, rather, that we fix this not with the use of 'claims' throughout, but through making sure that we don't create false balance. As the NPOV article continues "There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.". Ergo we need to make sure each 'claim' is described in its proper context. We can achieve this by either linking to or borrowing from relevant pages - for example the Reptilian conspiracy theory, which manages to cover the subject without frequent use of 'claims' and other npov language. In doing so the following: According to Ike, there is an inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings, the Archons or Anunnaki, which have hijacked the Earth. ...would become: Ike is a proponent of the Reptilian conspiracy theory, believing that there is an inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings, which have hijacked the Earth.

Use of the link to a conspiracy theory page, here, would provide context without comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

I could be entirely wrong here though and would welcome discussion. Itsfini (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You should read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Icke is so far out that it would be perverse to stay in the middle between him and reality.

If your interpretation of WP:CLAIM were correct and the use of the word "claim" were inappropriate for Icke, then it would be better to clearly state "Never use that word".

Also, you are saying "npov" when you mean "pov". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Footnote 8

the article linked at footnote 8 does not say that his publisher dropped him or why. 142.163.195.205 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Reptilian shapeshifters

reptilian shapeshifters is linked to the wiki article on reptiles and there is no reference there to reptilian shapeshifters. 142.163.195.205 (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I broke it into two wikilinks. One to Reptile and the other to Shapeshifting. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

his new book not in the selected works

the dream was released this year

can someone update the "selected works" 2A00:23C5:14B9:C601:E084:5224:E0F5:4E83 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)