Talk:David Icke/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Emphasis

Obviously the attempts to present David Icke as primarily an author & public speaker are being committed by a supporter of his theories. Even a cursory glance of the information contained within the article and the sources cited makes it clear that Mr. Icke is a conspiracy theorist first and a relevant author/public speaker second. While that may offend those of you who support him that does not mean that Wikipedia should degenerate into a cesspool of conspiracy theory supporting rubbish. Furthermore, the contents of the article makes it quite clear that he has published books and spoken publically about his ideas. There is absolutely no need to present these activites of his immediately and as though they were his sole/primary designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.116.30 (talk • contribs)

Reading Icke's writings gives unique insight into the mind of a truly mentally ill person (florid paranoid schizophrenia) -- or a cynical manipulator on the grandest scale. The Article tries too hard to be fair to both his detractors and his supporters.--84.176.60.120 (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews. I have tagged the stub article for rescue, so if anyone here knows of any reliable sources that could help establish notability for this film, please assist. __meco (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The notability is that Icke is considered one of the worlds leading conspiracy theorists and gives and this NPOV film gives a balanced account of his and peoples opinion on his views. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Partially BrE?

If this subject is sufficiently "strongly tied" to the UK for WP:ENGVAR purposes (BrE spelling), wouldn't it follow that it's also enough for WP:STRONGNAT (date style)? Smartiger (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph

Is it just me or does the first paragraph's tone seem to be a bit off? It consists almost entirely of a description of the subject in his own words and terms. Not sure the word "devoted" is appropriate there either. This isn't new; the first sentence has been largely unchanged in over three years, and you have to look back to around 2006 to find a version which significantly differs. I think this warrants a re-think.

Furthermore, the quip in paragraph 4 about "when he said lizards, he actually meant lizards" is humorous enough to be notable, but I'm not sure it belongs in the lede. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure the first paragraph was purely factual in terms of what he sees himself as doing, and it's certainly true that he does have a significant international following. The number of hits this article gets reflects that; it tends to be around 40,000–60,000 a month.

The reason I feel that's important is that the lead, and the article in general, is highly critical in places—unfairly so in the opinion of Icke's admirers. I've therefore tried to keep the article carefully balanced between reflecting the criticism that's found in reliable sources, but making sure Icke's voice is heard too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I'm not sure it works out in the first paragraph. What about the following?

David Vaughan Icke (/aɪk/; born April 29, 1952) is an English writer, public speaker and former media personality, most well-known as the originator of various conspiracy theories regarding what he calls "who and what is really controlling the world". Icke's sixteen books on the subject, dubbed New-Age conspiracism by commentators, have attracted considerable attention and following from across the political spectrum. Icke describes himself as "the most controversial speaker and author in the world".

I think it's important to have a link to conspiracy theory in the first paragraph: he's explicitly a conspiracy theorist so it's not pejorative, and he's one of the most well-known global examples. This also makes explicit which parts are Icke's own words and gets rid of the awkward "devoted". (I also moved the punctuation out of the quotes as this is BrE.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I prefer it the way it is, but if you'd like to see conspiracy theorist in the lead, I did have a sentence about that, which I removed only to tighten things up. With that sentence restored, and with the "devoted" issue gone and replaced by "best known," the lead would be:

David Vaughan Icke (/aɪk/; born April 29, 1952) is an English writer and public speaker best known for his research into what he calls "who and what is really controlling the world." Describing himself as the most controversial speaker and author in the world, he has written 16 books explaining his views, dubbed "New Age conspiracism," and has attracted a substantial following across the political spectrum. His 533-page The Biggest Secret (1999) has been called the conspiracy theorist's Rosetta Stone.

Would that work for you? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. "Research" outside quotes? Aside from that the rest is great, though I'd still prefer "former media personality" in the first paragraph (a key reason for his initial fame was that he'd been a popular broadcaster not long before his Wogan appearance). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

On another topic, might it be better giving the IPA for his full name? "Vaughan" isn't exactly a household name either, and even "David" isn't entirely unambiguous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm not keen on IPA, because most people don't know that the symbols refer to; in fact, more people might know how to pronounce "Icke" than "aɪk". I'm also not keen on putting "research" in scare quotes, partly for BLP reasons, but also because he really does do a lot of research. I've read his books for this article because I'm hoping at some point to get it to FA standard, and while there's obviously a lot of odd, surprising, and fragmented material in them, they also show a breadth of reading that I found impressive.

As for "former media personality," is it not enough that the second paragraph explains that? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing "research," how about this?

David Vaughan Icke (/aɪk/; born April 29, 1952) is an English writer and public speaker best known for his views on what he calls "who and what is really controlling the world." Describing himself as the most controversial speaker and author in the world, he has written 16 books explaining his position, dubbed "New Age conspiracism," and has attracted a substantial following across the political spectrum. His 533-page The Biggest Secret (1999) has been called the conspiracy theorist's Rosetta Stone.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, a big improvement ove the current lede. I wasn't so much talking about putting "research" in scare quotes (which wouldn't be good at all) but simply that I didn't think it was quite the right word. Okay, so just the one last point: adding "former media personality". Outwith circles who still follow him (most of the British public, for instance), he's still well-known for having been a TV presenter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"David Vaughan Icke (pronounced /aɪk/; born April 29, 1952) is an English writer, public speaker, and former media personality best known for his views ..." ? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. You're right, it's better than it was. Thanks. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whole article is suspect for NPOV and reads such that it has clearly been written by a believer in Ickes own delusion, and in the detail gone into in the early life section reads as though written by Icke himself. I have added the description conspiracy theoris in the opening of the article as it is demonstrable that this is precisely what he has become.

It surpasses belief that this article has reached the length that it has and likewise surpasses belief that this article acheived "good article status" in any way at all. If wikipedia wants to attain credibility as an encyclopedia then articles such as this one have no place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.206.104 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

David in Portugal (Lisbon) 30th October 2010

On 30th of October, Icke will stay in Lisbon for a conference that will be for 8 hours... should this be add in the article?! Regards. Light Warrior^{Conspiracy?!?} 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones still misrepresented.

The article seriously misrepresents the relationship between Alex Jones and David Icke. To begin with, Alex Jones holds basic Christian beliefs about the nature of universe and such, and does not believe in lizard people or whatever and difference is quite obviously significant. To extent that Prof. Michael Barkun does not seem to recognized it, he is quite obviously has some serious credibility of problems of his own. Next, Alex has bone fide regular guests who appear weekly or monthly, but David Icke is not one of them. So again, the article misrepresents Alex Jones here, who has been critical of David Icke more lizard people or such. On the other hand, to deny the fact that a very small group of elites are actually running the planet is ridiculous and absurd. It amounts to calling the G20 a "conspiracy theory". 24.11.186.64 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: AJ might not have Icke on his programme on a weekly basis, but he does appear on his programme at least once or twice a year. I also question how being a weekly guest on AJ's show makes one a "bone fide" regular guest versus someone who might only appear on his show every once in a while. And while there is a video circulating on the web from 10+ years ago where AJ lambasted Icke and his reptilian theories and even said that the man was discrediting the truth movement with such theories, AJ does not disagree with Icke's many other messages about a small group of elites who are trying to rule the world nor the fact that they are trying to implement a one-world government and a police-state in much of the world. Their disagreement might be who these elite people "really" are, but they do not disagree on what they are seemingly trying to implement. Any time I have heard Icke on AJ's show AJ has been nothing but complimentary towards Icke and notably Icke rarely if ever mentions reptilians while on AJ's show. If AJ strongly disagreed with or still felt animosity towards Icke he surely would not hold back from stating it on his programme. AJ is not once to mince words. Marchije•^speak/_peek 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

...And ironically, to add to my previous comment, Icke is on AJ's show today! Marchije•^speak/_peek 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Source request

Do we have a clear source, preferably a secondary source, for Alex Jones having changed his mind? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an agenda to skew to the relationship with both David Icke and Alex Jones. Reason? Not sure. The interview on Jones' Infowars YouTube channel CLEARLY states the shared views of the two men.

"...and so much of what David Icke predicted, more than 15 years ago, unfortunately, has unfolded." "I agree with him that we are on the verge of a world transformation. An awakening" David Icke: Humanity's Last Chance - Alex Jones TV. July 08, 2010

"I agree with about 98% of what David Icke says." David Icke: Human Race, Get Off Your Knees! - Alex Jones TV. October 05, 2010

The second statement was made very recently and both quotes were taken from Jones own outlet. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't contradict what Jones told the journalist. You're engaging in OR by using a primary source to try to contradict what the source said elsewhere. You can only say Jones has changed his mind if Jones says: "I have changed my mind" or something equally clear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What it demonstrates is the current regards of Icke from Jones. The previous edit led the novice reader to understand that the quote regarding the "punch bowl" was a feeling still held whilst the David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews was actually first aired on 6 May 2001 (according to IMdb) whilst my edit showed Alex's current view, as per a few weeks ago. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does this nonsense merit so lengthy an article?

For crying out loud!--Jrm2007 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And where is Icke's hard and irrefutable evidence supporting his lizards theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would not hold my breath for that. It would contradict so many well-understood aspects of both history and science. Anyway, what are the chances that this article be cut down to an appropriate size? I may try it myself soon: a single paragraph seems about right.--Jrm2007 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Loads of people listen to David Icke, it's important to document his beliefs and claims. I also think it is very significant to document his path to reaching these beliefs, in particular that they started during a period of great stress for him, and that he felt a presence and heard a voice in his head. Instead of going to get care for this, he went to some new-age person who essentially told him he was a sort of prophet. It's also important to document that even other conspiracists doesn't take him seriously, and in fact even accuse him of being a part of the conspiracy he himself fights.

That leaves only the intro left to cut down. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Icke may be a complete madman, but he's a noteworthy madman. Keep the info in the article as it is.174.126.77.173 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

People who hear voices in their head would be clinically diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's obviously of ludicrously disproportionate length compared to Icke's importance (essentially a kook, although a popular one). Does Wikipedia have any policy on how long articles should be, based on the notability of their subjects? 80.69.30.244 (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

When narrow minded people such as you decide who the "kooks" are humanity will indeed be at a dead end. Psychics understand where Icke gets his information. Channeled information is always of questionable reliability and spritual sources are always suspect as delusion and deception are not limited to human entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.11.22 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We know where you live. Signed, the lizard people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.241.146 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can make any claim they like. What's relevant is whether they have any hard factual evidence to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But IM the Son of God! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.237.66 (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see there are some sane voices around on this issue. By any reasonable assessment David Icke is a sad delusional individual with nothing to say of any great interest. The length of this article imputes to his "ideas" a significance that they quite patently do not warrant. He's obviously noteworthy enough to warrant his own article, but he's waaaay down on the noteworthy scale, and the article merits one or two paragraphs at most HieronymousCrowley (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite - a recently arrived Martian would read this article and conclude Icke is a mainstream figure of considerable importance. The sentence in the introduction: "Icke has been criticized for arguing that the reptilians were the original authors of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is beyond parody. LeContexte (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

This article over-emphasises Icke's weirdness. In at least one case, inaccurately. Icke wouldn't have travelled 60km from Leicester to Nottingham as a young man in order to watch Peter Shilton play football. Shilton played for Leicester City from joining the club as a teenager in the mid-60s until leaving for Stoke City in the mid-70s. He didn't join Nottingham Forest until after they won promotion to the top division in 1977.109.144.219.74 (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty sure that came from his bio, but the citation must have been moved, so I'll check it again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the cites are there: It's a tough game, son!, and Tales from the Time Loop, pp. 2–4. Will try to find them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

quote by alex jones noted in article irrelevant?

the quote attributed to Alex Jones, "So what does David Icke do? He talks about the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, these Global Elitists, these power structures—all real, all true, all demonstrated by bills and executive orders and prime ministers, and premiers, and presidents. All real, meat and potatoes, something you can bite into. Something that is easily demonstrable. And then you've got David Icke and at the end of all this, he says, "By the way, they're blood-drinking lizards." Al Gore needs blood to drink, so does Prince Philip, I mean it's asinine. It's being picked up by people, and it discredits all the reality we're talking about, and that's the problem with David Icke. He's got a good line to a point, and then he discredits it all. It's like a turd in the punchbowl.[78]" is ridiculously old and from an extremely dated Guardian article (circa 199?) and inconsequential considering that Alex has consistently had David on his show (4 times in 2010 alone) and has invariably agreed with Icke on almost all points (minus the reptile conspiracy) since that time.

this entry uses available means to discredit Icke without equally using available to means to credit him. Whether or not he is "correct" is irrelevant. Using one of his supporters (Alex Jones) former statements to support a slanted case is very much unethical and has no place in a supposed unbiased reference, such as Wikipedia strives to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.115.242.136 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to represent a mainstream point of view. The mainstream point of view on Icke is that he is a crazy man who believes in shape-shifting lizards. The quote from Jones is just about the only part of the article that reflects that viewpoint. Ridiculous that Alex Jones is the closest we get to a mainstream view, but that is illustrative of the problem this article and Wikipedia as a whole have with putting fringe viewpoints in context. LeContexte (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to represent an UNBIASED view, which in many cases is the complete opposite of the mainstream. In fact many mainstream views are very politically, racially, religiously or culturally biased, and you will find that what is mainstream in one place is minority in another. Please leave your opinions on what you think Wikipedia should be for your own personal blog, and instead read the Wikipedia guidelines for what it is SUPPOSED to be.Jsday187 (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That is quite wrong - Wikipedia is supposed reflect the scientific consensus and not give unwarranted prominence to fringe ideas - see WP:FRINGE. LeContexte (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Source?

Is there a source, such as an video or text interview/statement, or citation from one of his books that verifies David Icke questions the actual occurrence of the holocaust. He may question who was really behind it (Reptilians/Illuminati), but I have been able to find zero evidence of him claiming that it didn't happen, which is what most people take would take holocaust questioning/denial to mean. Unless a source for this claim can be found then I suggest that it be removed or clarified in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Holocaust section. Jsday187 (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are secondary sources cited in that section who say he has written revisionist material. This is the chapter they're referring to. Holocaust denial rarely, if ever, involves claiming the Holocaust did not take place at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Football Player

I know David Icke is known primarily for his work after his football career, but normally anyone that's played the sport has a box under their name detailing their career. Should this be added? He played 37 games for Hereford United, as far as I can tell. Blankfrackis (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

38, actually -- he left school to play goalkeeper for Coventry City, for whom he signed a professional contract in September 1969, aged 17. He failed to break into the first team and, after loan spells at Oxford United and Northampton Town, he joined Hereford United in August 1971 and played 38 games for them in the 1972–73 season. Arthritis forced his retirement. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP

I've removed the discussion again about state of mind. The BLP policy applies to every page on Wikipedia, including talk pages. If you have reliable secondary sources you want to discuss, by all means post them here and we can talk about adding them to the article. But exchanging personal views about the subject isn't what the page is for, so please take it offwiki if you want to continue doing that. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Barkun text

There needs to reworking on the Michael Barkun text to maintain a NPOV of the overall page. Whenever the subject of NPOV is broached on the talk page, there never seems to be a contribution from those that are anti-Icke. The original text was both balanced and factual, not the thought of a single person, in this case Barkun. If no reasoning for the addition of the Michael Barkun text, other than to add an unbalanced flavour, this text will be removed. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, Anthony, or what you mean by the original text. Barkun's views are included because he's one of two academics known to have written about Icke, each with a somewhat different view, so both have been included. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Remains Ridiculously Too Long

I'm sorry to repeat myself on this, but in the same way that subjects of articles must meet notability requirements, perhaps there must be an extension of this notability concept to include a limitation on length of articles based upon notablity.

In fact, I am going to suggest this in a more general forum.

Anyhow, as others have suggested, a paragraph on Icke would be enough. It's not like someone could not search for more info if necessary.--Jrm2007 (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true of everything. The fact remains that—for good or ill—he is popular, and this page gets a lot of hits. It's only just over 6,000 words, which is normal for a developed BLP. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs

The opening paragraphs, in at least one point, are inaccurate. Namely, Icke does not state that Boxcar Willy is a reptile hybrid. He does not state that Kris Kristopherson is a hybrid, either. These two are discussed by him in 'The David Icke Guide' (2007, 412) as having been 'mind-controlled' and as major drug dealers. While the status of the younger Bush as a hybrid could be affirmed, the intention behind the whole sentence seems to be to cast his work in a humorous light. For example, if one were to point to important reptile hybrids discussed in his work, the elder Bush rather than the younger would be more appropriate. Since the opening paragraphs of an entry are so obviously important, it should be necessary to make sure that they do not express a bias toward ridiculing the subject, or toward false statements in order to make the subject seem more ridiculous than it is. Please change the opening paragraphs. Further, giving space to his enemies in these same paragraphs, enemies with whom he has acquited himself in a convincing manner, is not good for the subject, either. Less emphasis on this would be appropriate. The whole article is often a report of the views of two men, at the expense, sometimes, of actual reference to his work. JPowell22 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it POSSIBLE to for anything dealing with this nutter to "seem more ridiculous than it is"?

Icke is crazy as a carload of loons. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is common for an article which is factually incorrect to be corrected on this website. It is possible to make him appear madder than he is. His 'madness' is a badge of honour, also awarded to Nietzsche. Other 'madmen' were Kierkegaard, Lucretius, Socrates, and other freaks of nature. Jesus was also dubbed mad, and persecution has traditionally followed men whose power is partly in their nack for telling the truth to people who do not listen, or read the books of these men. Let the text be ammended, because with lies, it is possible to apportion more ridicule than is due. JPowell22 (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Engaging in modes of thought"

Lung, your addition—"engaging in modes of thought and subject matters that are commonly dismissed by mainstream academic scholars"—is problematic because these ideas are not dismissed; they're simply not entertained at all. I've never seen a scholarly paper arguing that the world isn't ruled by giant lizards. :)

To add it to the lead is original research, misleading, and also unnecessary, because it adds no meaning. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is not "original research" because this is simply what was repeated on the documentary "Who Really Rules The World" where Icke was confronted by Chris French Lung salad (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

An uploaded copy of the documentary "Who Really Rules The World" can be found online.Lung salad (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Agree with Powell, spurious comment and inaccurate material should be deleted. Have done a couple of edits to that effect. They were however re-inserted by said main two people. I don't want to get into edit war on this davdevalle (talk 17:20 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit war appears to be developing here. SlimVirgin says keep to secondary source. But the Ronson article he refers to he edited out what Ronson reported when I included this and re-inserted Boxcar Willie! Clearly his POV is bearing used here to select what HE wants and not the whole of the secondary source. Also Powell cites the primary source which shows Ronson wrong on his interpretation in the secondary source. If changed again I will have to report edit war.

davdevalle (talk 10:30 4 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin keeps changing the edit to his POV on what is a reptile using one source. He does not select all that Ronson sources but just four he deems representative but they add to the ridicule of Icke rather than accurately reflect what Icke actually has said. This is not appropriate. I will report edit war if this happens again. From what I can see Slimvirgin does not use the undo edit so his changes are not automatically detected.

davdevalle (talk 9:45 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain your objection, rather than repeatedly removing material? These names have been there for years. They are in a reliable, secondary source. And the point of their inclusion is to show that he has included political and non-political—rather surprising—figures in the reptilian situation. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Read above- the selection is disputed by reference to David Icke's book by JPowell22. As the Wikipedia Verifiability rules state the onus is on the editor who restores the material. The POV of the selection is not political and non-political figure as firstly Queen Elizabeth is not a political figure although she is a head of state; secondly I suggest the selection reflects more a POV to make Icke ridiculous when it should be a neutral POV. Bush and QEII are undisputed.davdevalle (talk 9:50 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First, the Icke book that's referred to above is from 2007, but our secondary sources (and we must rely on secondary sources where there's a dispute like this) are from 2000 and 2001, [1] [2] so the primary source would have to predate that. And indeed, here is Icke himself from March 1, 2000, [3] including Kris Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie in a list of satanists and mind controllers (by "satanist," he says he means involved in human sacrifice). He writes of the list: "I would suggest that all of these are reptilian bloodline, but I only mention shapeshifting where it has been witnessed."

As for what it makes him look like, are you saying he looks ridiculous for saying Boxcar Willie is a reptilian, but not for saying the Queen is one? Finally, the point I made is a valid one, that the sentence is intended to show that a surprisingly wide range of people have been called reptilian, not just the usual conspiracy-theory targets. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is disputed and your comment shows the ontology is confused. So as Powell says this kind of stuff shouldn't be in the opening paragraphs. If you want to make a comment about his beliefs and theories then you should have all that in a different section completely. I have edited accordingly. I will leave you to develop his views about kinds of 'thing'. If someone lets say from Plato to Dennett is sourced inaccurately, you do not keep the secondary source to clarify what Plato Dennett or Icke thinks. Whether the veracity of what any of them think is not to be reported in opening paragraphs. IF it is wrong, nonsense this is POV, and can be in criticisms. Whatever you report as being what they say should say it as accurately as possible from NPOV. Of course if all you want to do is ridicule then your motive for writing the page is inappropriate, it just becomes bad journalism. Personally I don't think Icke makes any sense but I don't need nor desire to report it to show this.davdevalle (talk 16:55 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not keep removing this material, please. There are two secondary sources that list those names, [4] [5] and here Icke himself lists them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on from just about sources now. All of that detail is better placed in key ideas, and not to be placed in the opening paragraph as Powell said. It is sufficient as it is now. To emphasise that particular idea the way it is has no explanatory value it is to ridicule and not for broad categorisation as you say. There are many key ideas. Please don't keep just asserting your view. There are two editors who have raised it NPOVdavdevalle (talk 16:55 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You're the only editor who is doing this, and it's no longer clear what you're trying to achieve. Could you list here, please, what the issues are precisely, and stop reverting? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear. Powell began it and I agree. The opening paragraphs should be broad based. You are maintaining a narrow view and using POV for ridicule by not keeping the development of Icke' stuff in the key ideas section. It doesn't work as you want it. It comes across as deliberately ridiculing rather than neutral. To To imply in user talk I am biased is nonsense. YOU should be less personally attached to your POV. Pages change and evolve.davdevalle (talk 16:55 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You've made 45 article edits, 105 overall, since 2007, and you now seem to be focused exclusively on David Icke, which raises concerns about personal involvement or strong POV. Have you edited with another account?

As for the issues, please be specific, because it's not clear what your point is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your attempt at saying I am pro David Icke is ridiculous. I am focused on your persistence at reverting and resisting a sensible edit. You are not reading the discussion. You should send it to an RFC. The sourcing issue is not at stake anymore. I am happy for the material to be in key ideas. I believe you lack a NPOV. My history of editing is irrelevant to this matter. You have not argued about what Powell saiddavdevalle (talk 17:05 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have raised an RFC here davdevalle (talk 18:45 21 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Dispute resolution concerning a couple of paragraphs of material that I suggest should be moved from the opening paragraphs of the article to the key ideas section. The aim being to present as NPOV for opening paragraphs and not to highlight the contested Reptiles are Jewish matter at the outset. It gives it undue weight. The current POV selects in such a way to implicitly ridicule in an unnecessary manner. It is better to put the confused theories of Icke and their reception and any explication in the key ideas section. I have left the general idea in my edit and then the development is later in the key ideas. SlimVirgin persistently reverts to his earlier version although Powell raised how it distorts which I agree with. SlimVirgin accuses me of an edit war yet doesn't explain in talk sufficiently for the evolution of the page. He often reverts without explanation. I have accepted how he wants to keep Boxcar Willie as a reptile and have not edited out any material but just advocate a better initial representation and organisation so as to not needlessly denigrate the person by implication. To add insult to injury SlimVirgin has also accused me of being pro-David Icke!(The point of the other editor concerning sense of one edit [User:John Nevard]] no longer applies as that change was reverted.) What do other editors think?davdevalle (talk 18:25 21 May 2011 (UTC)Davdevalle (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose removing material. It's difficult to know how to respond because it's not clear what's being said.

• First, that Icke calls several political and non-political figures reptilian—including some very surprising ones—is not in dispute. We have two independent secondary sources in the article for the names we include (George Bush, the Queen, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie). The sources are Jon Ronson in The Guardian, [6] and Will Offley of Political Research Associates. [7] Icke himself lists the same people. [8] Those names are included to show that he casts the net far beyond the usual conspiracy-theory targets.

• Davdevalle is also removing from the lead that Icke has had problems because he's perceived as publishing anti-Semitic material. Regardless of whether anyone agrees with this, it has generated a lot of comment from secondary sources, and Icke had issues entering Canada at one point because of it, so it's not something we can ignore or bury. That issue, plus the strange list of people Icke claims are reptilian, plus that he once said he was the son of God, are the reasons Icke is notable. And that's why those issues are in the lead, per WP:LEAD.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear what is being said. Moreover no material is not being removed it is being organised more effectively. Nor is the material about anti-Semitic issues in Canada being buried. These issues are better developed where I suggest for a better development and account. It seems that you have not read the development of the talk nor read the RFC carefully. You seem to be pursuing this with a strong attachment to your POV. Please do not misrepresent the dispute. There is a genuine disagreement about the style of the leading opening paragraphs. I do think you created a needless ridicule and you are not editing with a NPOV. Why say remove when it isn't being removed? Why say buried when the matter is better developed later in context? If you want to make Icke a joke then why not do it in a blog rather than use Wikipedia. Whether he is a joke is POV. I don't want to do anything either way. It is of no interest to me what he thinks. But I do wish scrutiny of POV to be rigourous so Wikipedia is what it can be- reliable. Davdevalle (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Opinion - both the primary editors in this conflict are wrong For reasons I will go into in a moment, I think these - or at least some - names should be left in the lead contrary to davdevalle's proposal. However, the claim by SlimVirgin that the lead complies with WP:LEAD is wrong in my view: The lead should summarise the article, and these names are not mentioned in the article; Bush is implied by mention of "43 presidents", but the only other person mentioned is the Queen Mother (who should probably be linked to, by the way) not her daughter. Basically, at least some mention of any of the people mentioned in the lead should also be in the article.

Now, the reason why I think these names are important in the lead: to ensure neutrality against the accusations of anti-semitism which are (correctly in my view) also featured in the lead. At least some of the Canadian accusations of anti-semitism were based on the fact that Icke has made the common antisemitic claim that some Jews are secretly manipulating the world. However, it becomes apparent when you look at some of the names he mentions that there are also plenty of non-Jews involved in this conspiracy which, to my mind at least, deflates the anti-semitism argument. I'd be interested to know if this observation has been noted by a reliable source - if so it should be mentioned in the article. If not, I think it is responsible editing of a BLP to give enough information (both in the lead and the article) for readers to make up their own mind whether Icke's claims are anti-semitic or not rather than promoting the opinion of a Jewish campaign group who are unlikely to be neutral on the topic. Given the possible legal penalties and strong public distaste against antisemitism, it is vital to provide the full story.

My proposal is to edit the article body to read something like "people accused of being reptiles include 43 US presidents, including Bush, the ultra-reptilian Queen Mother, her daugther Queen Elizabeth II, and entertainers including Kris Kristoffersen and Boxcar Willie" (please don't quote me verbatim, this is just an outline!). In the lead, I think the mention of 43 US presidents is significant, but no need to mention Bush specifically, QEII is a good, and I think just one of KrisK or Boxcar would be enough - I suggest Kris as he's better known internationally. The lead then summarises the broad span of people: political leaders going into antiquity, heads of state and entertainers. GDallimore (Talk) 23:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body, GD; see WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If that's all you've got to say, then I'm not surprised you often find yourself on the end of edit wars. GDallimore (Talk) 23:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. siafu (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Please end this RfC in its current form and reboot it with a brief, neutrally-worded description of the dispute. The current opening statement does not meet the recommended guidelines and fails to briefly describe the problem in a neutral manner. Please also remove all references to editors in the description. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - OK, will try soon to do this Davdevalle (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Davdevalle, this might sound strange, but sometimes (not always) we can achieve a neutral RfC statement by allowing the opposite side to write it. Would you allow SlimVirgin to attempt to compose a new RfC statement? It should, of course, be approved by you with any changes before it goes live. Care to give this a try? Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure Davdevalle (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know about "implicitly ridicule", but it appears that this person is crazy, and such notability as he has hinges on this, and this should be made clear at the outset in the lead, to answer the basic question that leads are supposed to answer "who is this person and why should we care". If this makes him appear ridiculous, well, maybe he is ridiculous. The current lead ("is an English writer and public speaker...") is grossly misleading to the point of being outright false. Christopher Hitchens (for example) is an English writer and public speaker. Icke is a lunatic. There's a difference. "is an insane English writer and public speaker..." or "is an English writer, public speaker, and lunatic..." or something would be much better, if this can be worked in. Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment on comment: He is a living lunatic so we could decide not to call him one. Adornix (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think lunacy is better saved for other people. Icke's says his influence is inter-galatic, wiser to leave the moon for wolves and others who prefer a medieval/early modern timescape for madness! Davdevalle (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agreement with Davdevalle, but with an added suggestion for compromise: Pardon my ignorance, but even in reading the comments thus far I still fail to understand why those who think that the last paragraph currently in the lead contains such important information. In effect, a particular group of people worried that Icke's reptilians might be underhanded references to Jews and the Canadian government almost, but did not, bar him from entering the country. In the age of terror watch lists there are many people who are almost let alone actually barred from entering our country all the time (yes I am Canadian) -- this was simply an allegation that was made and those in charge of investigating said allegation obviously concluded there was no or not enough evidence to support it. How is something so tenuous considered important enough to mention in the lead? I do believe by simply placing this information in the lead does give it undue weight and somehow insinuates that simply because an organization makes an allegation and a governmental body almost acts upon it that there is somehow some basis to the claims. Sure, some people might find this tidbit interesting, but the information seems to be trivial at best and sensational at worst.

However, in view of the fact that it is unlikely that the proponents of this paragraph will allow it to be removed, I propose a compromise which would be to significantly pare it down to something like: "Some of Icke's theories have attracted the attention of the far right and the suspicion of Jewish groups. Icke strongly denies there is anything antisemitic about his claims," and if anyone wants more read-up on the details they can do so in the body of the article. Marchije•^speak/_peek 04:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this was before 9/11. If you were a writer, Marchije, I suspect you'd regard it as a fairly major event in your life if you were stopped at the border of an otherwise friendly country on suspicion of promoting hate speech, and had all your books removed from a major chain of book stores across the country because of it.

You say readers can read the material in the body of the article. But did you do that yourself? Because if you do, you'll see that this is a major reason Icke is written about by reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: To your points that "It's worth noting that this was before 9/11" and "if you were stopped at the border of an otherwise friendly country..." >>> Fair play; I concede to you that this event occurred prior to 9/11, so my point about terror watchlists doesn't apply, however there are several public figures who have actually been barred from entering Canada since 9/11 for reasons unrelated to terrorism—for ex: George Galloway, Zakir Naik, Martha Stewart and Malik Zulu Shabazz—and in all 4 cases their restriction from Canada isn't mentioned in the lead of their articles, in fact, in the case of the last 2 people this event wasn't even mentioned their Wiki articles at all. So although you may personally think that being almost barred from and/or having ones books banned from an "otherwise friendly country" such as Canada is notable, I would argue that the idea that Canada is a "friendly country" is subjective and stems from a stereotype of Canada often perpetrated by people who do not live here. To assume that Canada also rarely bans publications is also subjective: We may ban less publications than most of the world (and I can't even tell you if that is true, but let's say that it is since that is part of the Canadian stereotype) but when one considers that most of the world lives under a less-than-democratic type of governance which does not necessarily include laws or constitutional type documents lauding the right to unrestricted speech of its populace, that isn't saying a whole lot.

As for "you'll see that this is a major reason Icke is written about by reliable sources" >>> I may be misunderstanding what you are asserting here, but if you are saying that a major reason why Icke is reported on in the worldwide news media is the fact that he was almost barred from Canada and had his books banned here I would again assert that this is not supported by the references in the David Icke article: Out of the publications listed in the Notes and References sections which I am able to access via the web and which were published since the events in 1999, I found no mention of the Canadian affair, including "A Culture of Conspiracy" by Michael Barkun, "The 10 worst decisions in the history of sport" from The Guardian, David Icke's biography on his own personal website, the BBC presentation "David Icke - Was he Right?", "The Reptoid Hypothesis" by Richard Khan, the article titled "Problem - Reaction - Solution" which was written by Icke, and "Stranger than fiction: Are 12ft lizards running the world?" from The Guardian, the interview of David Icke in the New Statesman, "Understanding human motivation" by Donald Laming, "This much I know" from The Guardian, "David Icke And The Politics Of Madness: Where The New Age Meets The Third Reich" on PublicEye.org. The only exceptions I found were Ronson's documentary (since Ronson was himself present during the affair while filming his documentary) and articles dealing specifically with Richard Warman, not Icke.

So again, although I question whether or not that information should be in the lead at all, I am suggesting that as a compromise we pare it down to something like ""Some of Icke's theories have attracted the attention of the far right and the suspicion of Jewish groups. Icke strongly denies there is anything antisemitic about his claims." I still believe that being almost barred from Canada and once having his books pulled from shelves is not notable enough to be in the lead and by having it in the lead gives this information undue weight. Marchije•^speak/_peek 05:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant that the perception (grounded or otherwise) of dabbling with anti-Semitism is one of the main reasons reliable sources have written about him. See the article here. Regarding Canada, he was interviewed when entering the country; there was a discussion with the president of the University of Toronto regarding whether to let him speak; a radio station cancelled an interview; several venues cancelled his talks; and according to Icke the head of the Canadian Hate Crimes Unit attended one of them. So this was not a minor matter.

Jon Ronson made a documentary about it. So, per WP:LEAD, it's appropriate to mention it.

By the way, there was no publication ban, as you mentioned. His books were just removed from Indigo book stores. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Marchije, I've been copy editing and updating the article over the last couple of days, and having re-read the sources and the lead I came to agree with your position. I've replaced the Canada paragraph with a brief summary of the two differing academic views of him (standard conspiracy stuff versus Swiftian allegory). It means the lead is more up to date and less contentious. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Revised opening

I have revised the opening, which had some errors and expanded it to encompass the broader meaning of Icke's works. I changed:

"At the heart of his theories lies the idea that the world is becoming a global fascist state, that a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie. "

to:

"At the heart of his theories lies the idea that a race of reptilian humanoids require negative human energies to sustain their existence on an inter-space plane, which he calls the lower fourth dimension. As a result of the requirement of this energy, the reptilians have manipulated humans away from an intuitive and spiritual state to a state of hate and fear, with the goal of creating a global fascist state. This manipulation is achieved by humans who are reptilian beyond the boundaries of visible light or possessed by reptilian entities from the inter-space plane. Icke names a number of prominent figures as reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie. "

The reason being is the initial statement was a bit vague as to Icke's real meaning. Fruther, Icke purports the "Babylonian Brotherhood" is not exclusivity reptilian. Nor does it accurately describe what Icke means by Reptillian. Further, Icke purports that the Babylonian group is not the ultimate group responsible for manipulating earth. I expanded to detail the dimensional aspect which Icke refers to as the ultimate controls and their "assets" on earth.

--Squirelewis (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Are citations needed in this section?

I think citations are needed for the first and totally unreferenced section "Key ideas" (first para). However, Slim seems to think that my request is an attack against her and reverted my request for citations. I have no desire to fight with her, and while I think she misinterpreted my good-faith attempt to help out here and her revert hurt the article, in the spirit of "live and let live" I'll leave it to others to consider the merit of our edits, rather than start a childish revert war (even if WP:V-supported). I'd hope that somebody will fix this sad situation by adding requested cites to that para. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A citation is definitely needed for the 2nd sentence on the page: "Describing himself as the most controversial speaker in the world, [where???] he has written 18 books explaining his position".

I don't doubt this is true, but it needs to be demonstrably true, otherwise it should be removed.Selkhet (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the footnote at the end of the paragraph. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, but it wasn't very clear to me and I'm used to following references. I wouldn't look at the end of a paragraph for a reference to a quote so early. Perhaps add another ref mark to make this clearer? Just my view. Selkhet (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As your first post here was your very first edit, you won't be aware that it's not unusual on Wikipedia to place footnotes at the end of paragraphs, so you'll know where to look from now on. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. Trying to 'be bold' before I have enough experience to be! Selkhet (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

wake up...

the ruling elites are responsible for more than 100M deaths during last two centuries. they supported nazi, feeded soviet, build communist china. exploited africa.........they've done millions of crimes. they destroyed you in the hand of your own people, and they later came as the savior..

and they call themselves freedom fighters and they promote equality....? just to make everyone slave to them.

watch "the enemy of my enemy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.111.106.7 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Curse those ruling elite, aren't they nasty? 81.97.127.199 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

David Icke is a tool created and nurtured by Nasa for its upcoming alien contact/invasion hoax. His website is a cesspoole of Nasa shills and his moderators are Nasa agents posing as unbiased forum moderators. David Icke never posts in his own forum, go figure. The true enemies of freedom rally around Icke as a means to launder their genocides and evil on the backs of non-existant reptilians. Of all the billions of dollars in public treasury appropriated by NASA under false pretenses a portion is invested in operating the public forums in Icke's name. A truly despicable tyrant and fraud he should be tried for his transgressions and for facilitating multi-billion dollar fraud-RD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.219.57 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Um . . . [citation needed]?

Bagheera (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this section has been left untouched by the mysterious cabal that polices this article. Usually, anything even remotely interpretable as a WP:BLP violation is removed in the blink of an eye. Does the above not qualify as such? DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

NO! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I added the pronunciation of David Icke based on J.C. Wells' pronouncing dictionary (and Forvo too). For some unknown reasons it was deleted. Why?--Carnby (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've re-added it. I'm not sure why it was taken out. JonC^Talk 11:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

David Icke wrote most of this article.

Almost all of this article reads as though it were the personal opinions of DI, except 'I' has been changed to 'He'. It is highly unsuitable considering this man is a campaigning anti-zionist and general conspiracy spokesperson. It is much too soft and warm and personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.234.149 (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, he have gained a considerable number of followers. It's more plausible that a few adherents have made some "sympathetic styleup edits" here and there. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

immanuel velikovsky and david icke

what has immanuel velikovsky got to do with david icke?~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey11123 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Names in lede

I currently see no legitimate reason for including two obscure country musicians in the lede as individuals Icke has claimed to be reptilians. At the same time, even though the Rothschild family plays a very significant role in Icke's brand of conspiracism no mention of them is made in the lede. We should only provide significant and relevant individuals who he claims are reptilians.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Both are significant enough in Icke's theories for him to mention them by name, and country music may be more central to his views than people appreciate. It distorts what he's saying to tweak Icke's statements into consistency with what other people think is important. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing any evidence that country music is even slightly important to his views or that these individuals are mentioned in any way other than as part of some large list of people he thinks are or may be reptilians. The Rothschild family is clearly far more significant in his philosophy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the reason for choosing those names in the first place (taken from a mainstream secondary source, though I also have a primary source for them) was to offer diversity. To choose all political leaders or businessmen is too predictable, whereas to expand the list to include unexpected characters such as Kris Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie shows the very broad reach of the idea.

Also, I think that approach introduces the article with less of a contentious slant than would be the case if we mentioned the Rothschilds. There, we're right into alleged antisemitism territory. We did have this in the lead for a while (that aspect, not the Rothschilds), but it started to feel like a BLP violation, and the longer ago the incidents that gave rise to those allegations, the more inappropriate it felt. So I would not like to see it re-introduced, not even indirectly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Rothschild family is mentioned frequently by Icke, while these names are only mentioned in a very trivial manner. As to what you say about it being there to "offer diversity" the first discussion on the talk page I found seemed to be more about overt mockery, as opposed to an objective desire to reflect Icke's views.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a funny sentence, and this is what I meant about starting the article with a less contentious slant than would be the case if we start talking about the Rothschilds. David Icke is regarded in the UK with some affection. He has gotten himself into trouble over the years because some of his ideas seemed to cross the line, and we have a section on who said that about him, and why. And that is where we mention the Rothschilds. But largely he is liked, and he gets big audiences. People like that he once said Boxcar Willie was a lizard (or descended from lizards, or whatever it was).

This article is actually very respectful of him, something that editors have complained about in the past, along the lines of "why are we taking this person so seriously?" and "why are fans of Icke being allowed to control this page?" SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty clear to me that discussion had very little to do with respecting Icke, regardless of how you may try to spin it. The only time I see those names mentioned it is to mock and demean Icke, nothing more. What he says about the Rothschild family is far more significant and relevant than some comment about a random country musician.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This article offers a respectful and sympathetic portrayal of his background, and a brief, but also respectful, summary of his ideas, including giving readers an idea of the diversity of the people he has discussed. This isn't mockery; it's important to show that his ideas are all-encompassing (it's not all Rothschilds, the Queen, Al Gore and George Bush; it's totally unexpected people too). It deals with the antisemitism allegations in a section devoted to them, and it ends with two competing academic assessments of his outlook.

What does he say about the Rothschilds that is particularly significant and relevant that isn't already dealt with, and in what way significant and relevant? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is about what we include in the lede. The lede should only include information covered in the article body and the information should be significant and relevant to the subject. Icke's claims about a couple of obscure country musicians does not seem to satisfy any of it. Finding his ideas to be funny is perfectly fine, but this is still a BLP and is also subject to policies such as WP:UNDUE. Unless you can demonstrate how the claims about these country musicians is significant or relevant enough to be included in the lede, or included in the article in general, they should probably not be mentioned at all. Otherwise it seems the motive for including it here really is just to mock him, which is very much not appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not correct that the lead may only include material covered in the body; examples and quotations are particularly excluded. Second, the material shows the unexpected diversity of the reptile idea, something several sources have commented on. Third, you're implying that he becomes a subject of mockery for claiming Kris Kristofferson is a shape-shifting lizard, but not for claiming that the Queen of England is one.

You wrote above: "What he says about the Rothschild family is far more significant and relevant ..." In what way significant and relevant? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to hear the answer to that question as well. I might add that the complaints mentioned above (about the article's lenient slant, were never addressed -- or more precisely, they were dealt with by stifling the discussion. While I completely agree that we should extend all basic courtesies -- including respect, and the benefit of the doubt -- toward any article's subject, we should at least be able to talk about it. I think "liked" is probably the wrong descriptor of Icke's status in the UK; based on my own personal experience, I would say "bemused" is probably more accurate. Granted, he draws big crowds and sells a lot of books -- his entertainment value is substantial. But how many of those buyers actually believe that the world is controlled by shape-shifting lizards who live inside the Moon? Not too many, I reckon. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how we'd judge whether his audience believes him. He was invited not long ago to the Oxford Union, and obviously people there didn't, but the invitation shows he has become an interesting cultural phenomenon. As Michael Barkun says, he has tapped into a serious far-right strain of thought, but it gets delivered alongside Kris Kristofferson and giant lizards. Does that make him funny and harmless, or dangerous? I don't know. There's some bad stuff on his website (e.g. Jews did 9/11) but I'm not about to write it up and give him a platform, and I haven't found any serious secondary sources who deal with it (except the ones from a few years ago already in the article). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think people's up-take of Icke's ideas is as simple as believing in actual shape-shifting lizards, or else believing everything Icke says is nonsense. I haven't yet been able to read Lewis and Kahn's article, but people understanding the lizards as allegory may be part of what's going on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That article's here in case you have any interest, Tom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized accounts there were free. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The article postulates that Icke is "representative of a major counter-cultural trend", which I suppose falls into the allegory category. However, Icke himself clearly does not present his theories as allegory; if we are to take him at his word (another common courtesy), he literally believes that alien shape-shifting reptilian blood-sucking pedophilic Illuminati agents have ruled the world for centuries -- which is disturbing, at least to me. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, is there any evidence at all that these country musicians are significant or relevant to Icke's philosophy? If not the names should be removed from the lede and probably not included in the article at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Substantial following

I've deleted again the claim in the lead that he has gained a substantial following across the political spectrum. This at best requires a citation. If someone wants to revert this, can they please show any information at all showing that he has a 'substantial' - a significant minority at least - of support across the political spectrum in the UK. Making lots of speeches at small venues does not equate to this claim. --Speedevil (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; plus, the word "substantial" is extremely vague. Is 100 followers "substantial"? 1,000? 1 million? Even if you can find an article that says the word "substantial," I think we need to quantify this to some extent. (And, just because someone buys your book and/or comes to hear you speak, that doesn't make the person a follower. I would possibly go hear him speak only because I think he's amusing, but I certainly wouldn't do so because I think he has anything substantive to say.)JoelWhy (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The source for that is here, p 3, so I'm going to restore it in some form, though I may tweak the wording. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a self-published source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources - See also http://independent.academia.edu/IagoPontloroy/Papers/1580784/The_lack_of_following_of_David_Icke - which clearly explains that he's not got a following, as he's a Smurf that lives in a pineapple under the sea. (For clarity, I should point out that I am the author of this, and it is fiction. I have no personal knowledge of where Mr Icke lives)

Reverted once more. --Speedevil (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't self-published; it's an academic article. [9] I added the self-published link only as a courtesy link so people without access to the academic database could read it. Please read the footnote, and stop removing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Slim is correct, this is an academic article. And, the authors are clearly not Icke-followers.JoelWhy (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed "substantial," so that part of the sentence now reads: "... and has attracted a global following that cuts across the political spectrum." I think that's a pretty fair summary of the authors' description of him on page 3 of the courtesy link [10] (I don't know the page number in the journal [11]). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Football

The football picture says "probably for Hereford", but I don't think so. The player to the left in the all pale kit is from Coventry, for whom I note Icke played as a Youth. I suspect this is either a Youth, reserves, or possibly testimonial game when he was at Coventry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.59.222 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll add "probably for Coventry," or maybe just leave out the commentary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Academic source about Icke

I found this scholarly article when looking for sources for another topic. It discusses Icke's thought and ideas (amongst others), and probably has content that should be included in this article. I don't plan to edit here myself, but if anybody would like a copy of the article. just send me an email and I will send it off to you. --Slp1 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a copy of that, Slp. I've only been able to find two academic sources on Icke so far, so a third would be most helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture is terrible

There should be better picture displaying him at the top! Clearly posted by a Icke hater 82.83.49.22 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Do remember that Wikipedia can only use freely licensed pictures; if that's the only one available then that's what's going to be used. I just checked the commons and there was a better one (just uploaded a couple months ago vs the old one from four years ago), which is now even better after cropping. I will switch it in a moment. -- Limulus (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be reduced to a couple of short paragraphs?

Why such an in-depth look at what are essentially the views of a crank? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"He made no effort at school and failed at practically everything..."

I am very uncomfortable with this sentence, even if he said it about himself:

"He made no effort at school and failed at practically everything, but when he was nine, he was chosen for the junior school's football team. It was the first time he had succeeded at anything, and he came to see football as his way out of poverty. He played in goal, which he writes suited the loner in him and gave him a sense of living on the edge between hero and villain.[7]"

I think that this is not neutral in tone. It is wrong to label any 5 to 8 year-old boy as a failure at practically everything because he made no effort a school. I am even uncomfortable saying that he struggled academically, as young children mature at different rates, and any evidence to support this would need to judged according to modern educational principles. Perhaps just say "When he was nine he was chosen for the school football team. He was inspired by this success, and came to see football as his way out of poverty."? Any comments before I alter it? --Dr Kathleen (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Website shutdone / legal action?

David Icke's website ceased responding today, 2012-11-09, and there are suggestions of legal action forcing him offline. Given the explicit and detailed information that has been on there for years, it is possibly of some note that action has been taken now, after other internet venues (esp. Twitter) have named some of the same names Icke has named for years in the same capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.172.57 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. The null hypothesis would seem to be that there was a technical glitch, because the site is now running normally once again. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Arthritis

Icke's descent into metaphysical conspiracy theories began when he pursued alternative medicine treatments for his arthritis. He is obviously still suffering from the disease. Are there any reliable sources discussing the role the disorder has had on Icke's thinking and if it plays any actual part in his theories? For example, I believe his ideas about energy and "vibrations" are taken straight from various forms of quack energy medicine. Mvaldemar (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

New Age conspiracism? Sufficient?

Icke may have ideas which are new and, in all probability, pretty unlikely to be true. But many of the underlying themes in his work are not "new age conspiracism" - as the more positive statements in the article suggest - rather, they draw together a multiplicity of ideas, from literature, science and so forth, which have been with Humans since recorded history began. And which, in writings from Buddha to Jesus, right up to the present (in Sci-Fi for example) have often been expounded.

My worry about this article is that his work is largely dismissed, because of those aforementioned strange ideas, and that he is, in consequence, summed up as a "new age conspiracist". No doubt he is such. But the article might also link to/refer to those very many other authors, past and present, who note or observe or experience similar phenomenon? Neutrality ought to be the byword for Wikipedia. Sianska79 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the grouping you suggest would constitute WP:OR, but I could be wrong about that. Out of curiosity, why does it worry you that Icke's body of work is "largely dismissed?" I find it reassuring, quite frankly, that most normal people do not find the theory that the world is controlled by shape-shifting lizards to be credible. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Section on Rothschild Zionism

I have noticed a particular user reverting edits to Rothschild Zionism citing "POV language, excessive detail, unsupported by reference"... none of which accusations/claims happen to be true. The section is written in proper neutral language, such as use of "he purports", "he cites", and third-person mentions of "he" and "according to". Further more, the claim of 'excessive detail' is both fraudulent and foolish, the section is not excessive and a modest amount of detail is needed since, according to Icke, "Rothschild Zionism" is one of the main instigators behind the purported problems that he alleges. Furthermore, the claim that the statements in the section are 'unsupported by reference' are blatantly untrue. The link (citation) is provided, and i will continue to add citations if needed. I fear that the user in question, has a conflict of interest leading to his constant reverts and removals of the section article. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this particular element of his thinking to say whether it's an undue amount or not, but the wording and POV as it presently stands look fine to me. Euchrid (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So now, you're removing the entire section altogether? The previous user was merely reverting additions back to a stripped-down version of the section. Meanwhile, now you have gotten rid of the section outright, and without even proper course and disregard for the citations from David Icke's own website! 24.90.230.216 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I've removed the section in question (apologies for the unclear edit summary when I removed it; I meant to write "rmvd repetitive section," not "repetition section").

We already deal with the antisemitism allegations in the reception section. I tried to be careful when writing this article to describe without promoting. The section as written, and as highlighted with its own heading, verges on the promotion of these ideas and is based only on self-published sources. For material as sensitive as this, we would need secondary sources to place the views in context, which is what we have in the reception section. That section doesn't go into the same detail, but nor do the secondary sources that I'm aware of, and as Icke has written a lot about this subject, it's hard to summarize it without inadvertently cherry-picking. So I think we should describe those views the way reliable secondary sources describe them, per WP:PSTS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning, SlimVirgin. Can I suggest that nobody touch the page itself until we reach a consensus here? Edit warring does nobody any good, and can lead to administrator action. Everybody here is clearly editing in good faith and with the intention of making the article the best that it can be, and I'm sure that a consensus can be reached. Euchrid (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is NOT a new section. It is an existing section, that has existed for quite some time now (look it up). The issue is, previously it WAS written in POV lagguage, and had incomplete information. A few weeks ago (25th March) i decided to change the language to Neutral language and added additional clarification/information. That edit (My edit) was reverted on 27th March by User:Keira1992, who claimed that it was uncited and POV (the opposite of what was true) and reverted it back (to the earlier state). That is why i brought it to the Talk Page (today), because i feel that HE is at conflict of interest as his motive for reverting/removing my edits (and you guys can judge for yourself, whether my edits or his are uncited/POV). And here You are, removing the entire section altogether, which goes against BOTH our edits, and you seem to be making up the claim that its a "New" section? That is proposterous. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As the reception section explains, Icke's material about Jews mirrors claims made in the Protocols of Zion, updated for the 21st century to include things like 9/11. The article does not go into detail about claims like these, or similar claims that the swine flu vaccine was manufactured with the intention of wiping out humanity (I'm writing from memory, but it was something like that). There are a wide range of claims from this source that, were Wikipedia to promote them, could have damaging effects – such as people choosing not to be vaccinated, as far-fetched as that sounds.

If serious secondary sources were to write about these matters, then the article should include them (within reason, length constraints and per UNDUE), but so far as I know they haven't except in the context provided in the reception section. We can't base anything sensitive on self-published material alone, per WP:SPS. So please post some secondary sources here on talk so that we can decide whether a separate section about this is justified. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I respect your decision, and I will leave the secondary-sources upto you. I've made my final edits, and I believe it is vital information to be included in the article as part of the section that deals with Icke's main ideas. I see no real justification to keep it removed, and to say that its been addressed in the "Reception" section which is, not Icke's own ideas, and reaction to his more older ideas, before he developed a position of more coherent critique of "Zionism" that he holds today. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet you've put the section back into the article, after being asked, politely, to discuss it here first. You're going about this in entirely the wrong way. You have to remember that articles are written by a large number of people, some better than others at being neutral. Don't assume that everyone disagrees with you. If you get combative and start monologuing, people just tune you out or ignore you, or worse, conclude you have some POV you are trying to push on the rest of us. You will find you get a lot more done around here by being patient and building consensus. It only takes a day or two, typically. This isn't a full time job for any of us, after all. It sounds like you have some good ideas; now try politely putting them in a more pithy way, and you will find others that agree with you. Most people WANT an article to be 100% accurate, very few have their own agenda. Make it easier for the rest of us to agree with you by being a little nicer and less stressed out. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay -- if everyone is now calm, perhaps we can discuss this in a civilized manner. Below is the "stripped down" (minimalist) version, as it appeared last week. May I invite comments as to whether it should be in the article, and if so, how (if at all) it should be modified?

Icke pins much of the blame for the world's troubles on an ideology he calls "Rothschild Zionism", which "...represents only a minority of [Jews] and many others who are not Jewish". Its basis, he claims, is the concept of a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine and a belief that the Jews are God's "chosen race" with a God-given right to the promised land. Icke also thinks Rothschild Zionism controls media and movies, governments, finance, and commerce. According to Icke, Rothschild Zionists were responsible for the September 11 attacks, the Iraq War, and the 2008 financial crisis.

DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No comment at all? So should I put it back in as written above? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi DoctorJoe, as noted above, the paragraph would need secondary sources that say something that isn't in the Reception section, which already deals with this issue the way secondary sources have approached it. The new subsection was added here on March 13 by an account with very few edits, based only on Icke's website. It shouldn't be restored in any form over objections and without reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you completely - but the above IP was so adamant about putting it back, and there was so much edit warring over it, that I thought bringing it up here would trigger at least some discussion. Strangely, the IP seems to have disappeared, so perhaps the point is moot. I do think a case can be made that a separate subsection is warranted, since Icke is a leading proponent of this "Rothschild Zionism" rubbish -- but I also agree that secondary sourcing would need to be found. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you can find reliable secondary sources, then we can look at it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Paedophile Network???

Despite insisting there is an international paedophile network since at least 1999 when his conspiracy theory book _The Biggest Secret_ was published, you mention nothing about it in the David Icke article. Why not??? Is David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? Icke has a "Child Abuse" Archive on his website dating back to 2002. If you take the time to review the the David Icke Channel on YouTube, Icke has posted numerous videos relating to this PN, including this video of a radio interview with English barrister and former intelligence officer Michael Shrimpton in which Mr Shrimpton states that both the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE and former English Prime Minister Ted Heath molested and murdered children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8&list=UUAhmDfQ1LfOYECmNNWgXJ7Q&index=4 The question persists: with his long interest in a paedophile network, why isn't a "Child Molestion" section included on Icke's article???johncheverly 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Asking Wikipedia editors to establish the actual truth of Icke's theories about conspiratorial alien paedophile rings is rather optimistic! If the article doesn't cover a certain aspect of Icke's theories, it's possibly because no third-party reliable sources have ever written about them, but if you can dig up any press time that Icke got over the Savile affair, feel free to quote and cite it so we can see what we've got. If mainstream sources never talked about it, then it's not Wikipedia's job to undertake its own investigation - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of already-verifiable material, not a source for publishing breaking news or private research. --McGeddon (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

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

The opening sentence contains an original synthesis. It combines the observation that David Icke is known for his views, with his own description of those views, to imply that people who know about them accept his description. What is Icke "known for"? Here's a sampling from books in which other people have mentioned him:

• conspiracy theorist: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]
• writer/researcher: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]
• Green Party figure: [35][36][37]
• free-thinker: [38][39]
• reputed racist: [40]
• inventor of fiction: [41]

So, a variety of views, with "conspiracy theorist" apparently in the lead. 'I'm not pushing to include the phrase conspiracy theorist in the opening sentence, but the synthesis needs to go. It's fine with me if the article opens with Icke's self-description, presented as a self-description and nothing more than that. I trust that the body of the article will adequately discuss his reputation. 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

He is best known for what you call his conspiracy allegations. That is correct. But the way you wrote it gave us no information. The way Icke himself puts it is more descriptive: best known for his views on what he calls "who and what is really controlling the world." Given the number of people who buy his books and tickets to his talks, and the people who interview him, all wanting to hear the latest about his views on "who and what is really controlling the world," I can't see why you'd see it as problematic. If you're thinking it's pro-Icke, it really isn't (nor anti, it's just factual). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, neither you nor anyone knows what people think of the subject of this article. Best known for his highly public descent into madness, I would say. You say something different. All of them are points of view. From the use of the word "perhaps" you can see what a vague and meaningless claim is is anyway. NPOV is a core policy so this opinion must be removed. And secondly, using his own promotional blurb to describe what you think he is "best known" for is not neutral either. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

undue section

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

Undue Haste

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

Bill Schnoebelen??? Comment

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

Hm... Isn't the 80s TV series "V" the first with the reptilian alien controllers? I saw Icke many years after having watched V (in early secondary school) and I immediately thought of them --- it's a carbon copy. I'm always surprised the Wiki entry doesn't mention them (for similarity, at the very least -- I understand that a definite link may not be established). --82.43.250.74 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Barkun photo

Unless anyone has any objections, I'd like to remove the photo of Barkun. Barkun's discussion of Icke's work is, of course, appropriate. But, it seems rather odd that we include a photo of him in the Icke page. Now, if we had a photo of Barkun in his true reptilian form... ;) JoelWhy?(talk) 13:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Saturn-Moon Matrix

I was the anon user who added the edit about the Saturn-Moon matrix and am not sure why it was reverted. The moon matrix thing was present in Icke's earlier work but he makes it clear in his more recent writings (primarily Chapter 6 of Remember Who You Are) that Saturn and its artificial rings are the real culprit. I think the page could use a whole subsection on Saturn, to be honest, as Icke's been on a real Saturn kick in the past few years, and would like to add it in the future, but think that getting some mention of this out there is important. MichaelJWood (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's good (or may be) but when you do, quote a source or at least write an edit summary, as otherwise you appear to be some random person adding vague nonsense to the article. Britmax (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. 24.69.108.34 (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Obsession with Anti-semitism

The protest (shouldn't that be criticism?) section is almost entirely about allegations of anti-Semitism. Why not mention the more obvious objections to Icke's claims - that they are insane, dangerous, illogical and deluded. Not to mention that he is defamatory, racist, anti-capitalist and effectively supports revolution and class warfare.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone considers the term "anti-capitalist" to be a bad thing, nor are class warfare and revolution objectively bad things. The other things (racism and anti-semitism) I would support adding though.65.209.62.115 (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Constant usage of "Conspiracy Theorist" etc.

Now don't get me wrong - thinking Reptilian Humanoids control the world and anything like that is full-on psychothic. But at this point is it even in any way notable anymore that he has "conspiracy theories"? Of course he accuses people left and right, but those aren't theories ; they're [redacted]. The term is used so often as a label nowadays that it has completely lost all meaning. Could he be compared to someone productive like Gary Webb? At the core of his behaviour is obviously his form of New Age belief, so we should instead focus on explaining that. I'm not even a "conspiracy theorist" myself but it annoys me how often I come accross this loaded term. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's sourced. We can have our own opinions on whether he is a conspiracy theorist, but we go by sources, not our beliefs as to what is the case. Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, but it's more than a little bit POV to put such a thing in his wiki page.65.209.62.115 (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Under the rules of Wikipedia, it's OK for sources to have a POV, and it's OK to reflect that in an article. Neutral Point of View, in Wikipedia, does not mean "don't put POV in an article." Neutral POV means reflecting various POVs of reliable sources -- without Wikipedia itself taking sides as to who is right, and without straining to give "equal weight" to each point of view. If, for example, 90% of reliable sources say that such and such a person is a "conspiracy theorist," then under the rules of Wikipedia the article about that person can show that. Famspear (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Wogan's death

Hello. If [42] is not enough of a reliable source, here's the same image posted on Icke's official site. 89.72.244.110 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Icke. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/british/combat-18/press/evening-standard.052695

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Icke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/british/combat-18/press/evening-standard.052695

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Craziness

"professional conspiracy theorist" does not convey the depth of Icke's craziness. Most conspiracy theories are outlandish or at least highly improbably - Icke's are plain crazy. The idea that major world leaders are shape-shifting alien reptiles can only be interpreted two ways - Icke is completely insane, or he is a satirist. I prefer the latter theory. In some ways his ideas are rather like Jonathan Swift's modest proposal (for cannibalism). The joke is on those who fail to see that it is a huge joke at their expense.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be funny for him that no one takes him seriously and he lost all credibility? Anyhow, this isn't going to improve the article. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Addition to the lead

Arrivisto, you added the following text to the lead: "After 1991, Icke spent some time in the wilderness, but today his career has recovered. He has written numerous books, published through his own publishing house, David Icke Books; and he has become a successful public speaker to loyal audiences. Nevertheless, he remains dogged by the public’s lingering memories of that devastating Wogan TV interview." I'm sure the addition was meant to be helpful, but as I said when I removed it, the addition is not written in a way suitable to an encyclopedia. The third sentence, beginning "Nevertheless", is especially bad. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

prejudicial wording combined with original research no notation or references

Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Icke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518144619/http%3A//thepeoplesvoice.tv/ to http://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Icke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ynw62.dial.pipex.com/icke.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516215454/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/12/jonathan-kay-when-paranoia-goes-intergalactic/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/12/jonathan-kay-when-paranoia-goes-intergalactic/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Reptilian: Metaphorical or literal?

This article presents David Icke's theory as being the idea that the world is literally ruled by a non-human species called 'reptilians'. I do not think that is a correct understanding of Icke's ideas. Peter Myers, an Australian right-wing journalist, told me 'the reptilian part is metaphorical' and 'I understand that phrase of David Icke's is metaphorical, not to be taken literally'. I think Icke's phrase is intended as an offensive metaphor, in a similar way to Hitler's description of Jews as 'parasites' was a metaphor rather than a literal statement of fact. RandomScholar30 (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is what the man himself has to say about the "Reptilian Agenda" There are various images of reptilian humans in it. The reptoid hypothesis implies that he believes that there are real reptilians.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

he may be more of a seminar& video-style "creative novelist" than a "conspiracy theorist" ...but, I think that is for the viewer to decide tho, Wikipedia can't, at least at this time, make a non-prejudicial call on that Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

David Icke is very clear on his statement that reptilians are intelligent beings like us who evolved from reptiles instead of mammals as we did and who came to Earth long time ago from the constellation of Orion travelling inside the Moon. Doru001 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism Category. Anti-Judaism is the essence of Icke's notability.

I put Icke in the "Critics of Judaism" category and was reverted. The only reason David Icke is known because of his bizarre conspiracy theories about the leaders of International Jewry, he believes they are lizards and all that other nonsense. If he had not written that nonsense there would be no article about him, which makes him different from other Anti-Jewish people such as Adolf Hitler, Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Jung and Helena Blavatsky, who were famous people who happened to be Anti-Jewish, the only reason Icke is well known is because he is Anti-Jewish. If he were not Anti-Jewish there would not be an article about him. Even Lothrop Stoddard who was only mildly Anti-Jewish and did not discuss Judaism much in his writings is included in that category. So why shouldn't Icke be included in that category? RandomScholar30 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

David Icke never said or implied that any human is a lizard. He is not anti-Jewish, as I explain below. Doru001 (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Newman in her book The Rainbow Swastika:A Report to Jews on New Age Anti-Judaism" stated [begin quote]The best personal example of neo-Nazi ideology merged with NA thought is David Icke, former BBC commentator turned Green Party activist and "son of the godhead" guru, whose seminars are crowded with NAers and neo-Nazis alike. Likewise the British magazine _Rainbow Ark_ and the Australian periodical _Nexus_, which Icke recommends to his followers. (For a good overview of Icke, see "From Green Messiah to New Age Nazi", _Left Green Perspectives_, Jan. 1996.) [Note the quotes by Icke, many of which are almost verbatim Bailey teachings.] Also worthy of mention is the "New Acropolis", ostensibly a NA philosophy club to outsiders, but a Fascist group known by insiders to be imitating the Third Reich.[end quote] The quoet is in chapter F: Nazism and New Age. http://philologos.org/__eb-trs/naF.htm Newman is a Jewish apologist, opposes New Age, and is also fringe, so she cannot be used as a source in the article itself, but it gives my point that Icke is Anti-Jewish evidence which makes me inclined to think my judgement was correct, so I will look for reliable sources that are not biased and are mainstream that support the fact Icke is Anti-Jewish. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I found one reliable, mainstream source (although not more neutral) that also described Icke as Anti-Jewish. "British author David Icke, accused of promoting Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, found that theatres in Vancouver were unwilling to rent their space to him for a proposed public seminar in February." D. Singer and L. Grossman editors American Jewish Year Book 2003 page 316 [43] RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Icke was also called 'the prolific Anti-Semitic British conspiracist, David Icke' here Handbook of Spiritualism and Channeling [44]RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"David Icke asserts a conspiracy to rule the world by Jews who are shapechanging lizards from outer space." Matas, David Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Anti-JudaismRandomScholar30 (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I found this source from Hannah Newman's book,http://social-ecology.org/wp/1996/01/left-green-perspectives-35/. It states " He openly endorsed the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the tsarist anti-Semitic forgery that informed Hitler’s notion of a global Jewish conspiracy.

Icke seems oblivious to the fact that the Protocols were long ago exposed as a crude device to stir up hatred of Jews. Nor is he concerned about their popularity with Nazis from Hitler onwards. “Just because Hitler used knowledge for negative reasons doesn’t reflect on the knowledge,” says Icke.

The Robots’ Rebellion weaves a complex tapestry of extreme right-wing concerns about conspiracies to control the world through such diverse means as banking, the New World Order, freemasons, the FBI, the Waco siege, microchips, extraterrestrials, and gun control.

The anti-Semitism of the book is not concealed. Icke accuses Jewish bankers of funding both Hitler and the Bolsheviks,a classic piece of far-right propaganda. He attacks “Jehovah, the vengeful God of the Jews,” as “quite possibly an extraterrestrial." I think there's enough evidence that his Anti-Judaism should be mentioned in the article and he should included in the category "critics of Judaism". RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT applies here. I don't disagree with the basic assertion that David Icke has said some wacky things, but he is more of a conspiracy theorist recycling every conspiracy theory there ever was than a far right racist figure. Categories at the foot of the article need to be supported by text and citations within the article. The best source that I could find on this issue was this piece in The Guardian. Icke is careful to avoid saying things that are outright anti-semitic as this might get him banned from travelling to other countries. Some people have argued that "lizards" is code for "Jews" in Icke's work, but not all of the people that he has classed as lizards are Jews.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but a lot more of Icke's villalins are Jewish (at least ethnically) than people think. For example the Rockefeller family are of Jewish ancestry even though they do not consider themselves Jewish, and some people regard Judaism as an ethnicity as well as a religion, so by some definitions they would be Jewish even though they don't identify with Judaism. They are one of the families Icke calls "lizards", another was the Rothschilds who are also of Jewish ancestry. It seemed to me that people of that group predominate in Icke's theories. Also, even though we cannot use it as a source because she is fringe, Jewish-Zionist author Hannah Newman has well documented the Anti-Judaism of the New Age Movement in her book The Rainbow Swastika: A Report to Jews on New Age Anti-Judaism [45] I found much of it convincing, and she referenced Icke in the book "The best personal example of neo-Nazi ideology merged with NA thought is David Icke, former BBC commentator turned Green Party activist and "son of the godhead" guru, whose seminars are crowded with NAers and neo-Nazis alike. Likewise the British magazine _Rainbow Ark_ and the Australian periodical _Nexus_, which Icke recommends to his followers. (For a good overview of Icke, see "From Green Messiah to New Age Nazi", _Left Green Perspectives_, Jan. 1996.) [Note the quotes by Icke, many of which are almost verbatim Bailey teachings.]" [46] RandomScholar30 (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ianmacm. It is certainly not the case that "Anti-Judaism is the essence of Icke's notability". Some of his statements may indeed be seen as anti-semitic, but that does not make him a "critic of Judaism" - that is, a critic of the religion. "I found much of it convincing" is, I'm afraid, not a good basis for editing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I added much evidence from reliable sources my finding Newman's evidence persuasive was not my only basis for editing this it was mainstream reliable sources. Icke is described as AntiJewish in most mainstream sources. And he is New Age and New Age has definite AntiJewish tendencies. He directly attacked the Jewish God according to one of the reliable sources I showed that is attacking the religion and he also has targeted the racial group in addition for example most of the villains in his writings are ethnically Jewish even if not theologically for example the Rockefeller family. RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why should we believe what people say about what people say about what David Icke says when we can see what David Icke says? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGWp57NzWSY Doru001 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the Guardian article because it gives some perspective on this issue. It's interesting that in 2001, he was questioned for four hours by the Canadian authorities before being allowed into the country, following complaints that his work was anti-Semitic. In the end, he was allowed into the country.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

New Age people are all over the place, & to call them broadly as "antisemitic" is ridiculous, as for Icke, he could more possibly be described as leftwing conspiracy theorist, than rightwing, his critique is of a large amount of the power elites & the very wealthy, just because he finds favor with right wingers doesn't mean he himself is that, it may in fact just be that a portion of the far right are more open than anyone else to any "radical" theories, just as they seem to be more open to religious radicalism, while the far left concern themselves more with practical material realism except when reading or writing denoted-fiction (sure, without taking sides, a polite way to say: looks like lower-crazies-percentages and/or less imagination-inclined) anyway... as to accusations of Icke being antisemitic, hard to say without knowing him personally, may be more he simply takes issue with bankers & financiers, as a primary concern, so then could be more the fact that Jews happen to be well represented in banking, for instance as of old European laws (eventually overturned) prohibiting Christians from banking interest, so they find themselves in some of his many crosshairs simply as a matter of historical "coincidence" as there are many prominent Jewish bankers & financiers in this era Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that at least currently, Icke is critical of so many varied interests, he is better described as anti-everybuddy, than antisemitic, at least he seems to be anti-most-everybuddy, so whatever your religion, welcome to the club, Icke distrusts you! Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

David Icke is not anti-Judaism or anti-Jewish.

He says that ethnicity is irrelevant because our souls live within our bodies, like an austronaut lives within his space suit, and discussing ethicity is like discussing the type of space suit one wears.

He never discusses religion, because he considers it a hoax. He says that people who discriminate between Jews and non-Jews are racists.

You also mix Judaism and Jewishness which are two different concepts. Doru001 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

He may claim to not personally harbor any ill-will toward Jewish people, but that doesn't really excuse claiming that the Protocols of Zion are authentic (and it doesn't help that his defense is that he says he's talking about inhuman monsters instead of people who happen to practice the Jewish religion, which is kind of a moot point since he also says that organized religion is a tool of the reptilians) -- especially considering he does defend Holocaust denial. Throw in that he says rehashes the same old antisemitic conspiracy theories about the Rothschildes, and it's pretty obvious that the whole reptilian thing is a metaphor (whether he realizes it or not).

Even if he really, truly, does not hold any negative feelings towards people with Jewish ancestry who happen to engage in Judaism's spirituality, many of his ideas are just putting lizard stickers on Nesta Helen Webster's stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We are not getting sucked into unproductive "discussion" about authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is off-topic and also a long-term settled matter with no genuine ongoing controversy. Read the article about the book if you want to know whether it is an inept heap of forgery, plagiarism and bollocks. (Spoiler alert: Yes. It is.)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Protocols of Zion, the Jewish religion, antisemitism, the Holocaust denial, the Rothschild conspiracy, the people of Jewish ancestry, the Jews and the Nesta Helen Webster stuff are all completely different concepts which you mix in a completely incoherent way. Let us begin with the lie about the Holocaust denial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsu0svUs9HU first minutes. And we can continue about your intentional confusion between Zionism and Judaism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4wHbWCSlvg Please reiterate the argument that anyone who considers religions manipulative is antisemitic, because I can not grasp it. You also confuse ideas with feelings. We are discussing ideas, not feelings. You want a Wikipedia article that psychoanalyses David Icke? How can reptilians be Jews when he says that reptilians have developed from reptiles and have come to Earth from Orion traveling inside the Moon? So you read the mind of David Icke and you know that he hates Jews, even though he says that there are no races, that we are all the same spirit, only our bodies differ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGWp57NzWSY I very much hope that you will not succeed to destroy Wikipedia, which is a well structured information database. Doru001 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC) David Icke says that all over the world there are religions about reptilians and Central American Quetzalcoatl and Chinese dragons represent reptilians. How could all these refer to Jews? You are so far from the truth about David Icke that you can not be well intended. Doru001 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC) If you know absolutely nothing about what David Icke says but you continue to edit the article, then this should be considered vandalism. Also, the fact that you are completely incoherent makes you unfit to edit Wikipedia. Coherence is the most important characteristic of encyclopedias. Doru001 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC) I begin to suspect that you imply that whoever believes that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are "authentic" must be an anti-Semite. Whether the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are "authentic" or not is a matter of rational discussion. However, your assumption that all living Jews would be responsible for what 20 idiots secretly wrote one century ago is Nazi racist propaganda and you should be banned on Wikipedia. Besides, there may be people who believe that those "Protocols" are "authentic" and like Jews, or maybe even support the message of the "Protocols", but this is certainly beyond your understanding. Doru001 (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC) These "Protocols" seem typical pre-programming to me, but of course I don't know. In your dogmatic language, this means that they are "fake". Very poetical style they have ... Doru001 (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I browsed Wikipedia's rules and I came to the conclusion that it would be fair to present, cite and refer both positions: that of David Icke and that of mainstream sources. So, David Icke acknowledges the Holocaust in his video, and we refer the video, and your mainstream sources claim that David Icke denies the Holocaust, and we let your references in the article, too. What do you think? And the same about your mainstream view that lizards are actually Jews, as opposed to the detailed explanations of David Icke about the stupidity or racism. I place a short summary with links, you do the same for your position. This way, readers will have a view of different important opinions in the society and will learn to evaluate the evidence for themselves, which is always the only solution. Two weeks for you to consider my proposition would be enough? Doru001 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So I propose to add this:

David Icke's position on Holocaust can be inferred from his own speeches:

"The horrors of Nazi Germany should not be forgotten. The unspeakable, unimaginable treatment of Jews and communists and the disabled by the Nazi regime was almost beyond comprehension. But there is something else beyond my comprehension. How people who didn't suffer in Nazi Germany can exploit the suffering of those who where there to pursue an agenda today of the deletion of freedom of speech and the deletion of any criticism of the far right apartheid regime of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsu0svUs9HU?t=28s

What do you think? Doru001 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit clash)What we need to balance is what mainstream sources say about Icke against what Icke says about himself. We do not need to get bogged down in the truth of his spiritual/esoteric/conspiracy beliefs. Our readers can probably take it as read that they are all obvious nonsense so there is no need for an evaluation there. What we have to do is is document what his beliefs are (using reliable sources not ourown research) and how notable people/organisations have responded. As we do this we need to remember that nobody knows what is really going on inside Icke's head, quite possibly Icke himself the least of all. We must take care not to appear to legitimise his crazy ideas, to accuse him of holding other crazy ideas that he might not actually hold, to accuse him of only pretending to hold crazy ideas as a cynical cover for extremist political views (unless there is some very solid reliable evidence of that which I have yet to see) or simply to be appear to be mocking a person who may have genuine mental issues.

I'd also like to address the claim in the section title that "Anti-Judaism Category. Anti-Judaism is the essence of Icke's notability". This is just not true. If Icke had only been a journalist and television presenter he would still have a short article. If Icke had only been a involved in the UK Green Party then his rise (effectively to co-leader) and fall there would have justified a short article. Icke is definitely notable for multiple separate things and perhaps the most notable thing of all is his strange trajectory from one thing to another. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not against including that quote as part of the coverage of his views, provided it already appears in an existing WP:RS source. If it was culled from one of his self-published sources then that might be getting into WP:OR territory and more caution would be needed. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You either consider that we need to balance what mainstream sources say that Icke says with what Icke says, or you consider that Icke is crazy and we do not need to present his ideas. You can't have both.

The title of the section in this Talk page is irrelevant, the article is full of just such statements about David Icke, and that is relevant.

So you consider David Ickes's YouTube channel videos, which show David Icke presenting his ideas at length, as an unreliable source on David Ickes's discourse, because he might lie in his own public speech in order to hide his own public speech, and therefore David Icke's real ideas are to be found in established organizations' documents? I am not sure I understand correctly what you are trying to say, but this would be a wonderful response! Doru001 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misconstrue what I said. I said that we do not need to address the truth of his ideas. We just need to say what they are. The article should neither promote his ideas nor excessively disparage him as a person. We will need to point out that he has been heavily criticised by notable people and organisations because he has. This is what WP:NPOV is about. YouTube videos are generally self published and hence they are normally not WP:RS. This is not specific to Icke. This is just how we write articles on Wikipedia. If you find something that sounds like it would be good to use as a reference in a non-RS source (e.g. a self-published video) then the correct thing to do is to search to see if any RS source has picked up on it. If they have, then you can use it in line with what the RS source says. If not, then that is WP:OR and you can't use it here. I Googled for the quote you offered and did not get any Google hits at all so it does not look likely that we can use it. Of course, it is possible that a very quick Google search might not provide the final answer here. If you do know of any RS coverage of it then that would make it usable. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I have removed the slanderous, unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false garbage about Icke being an anti-Semite form the lead of the article as per WP:BLP. "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."

Campaign Against Antisemitism are a politicly motivated organisation with an agenda and cannot be considered an impartial or reliable source in this instance.

The other information I removed form the lead: The first point: "Icke has been described as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist;" is obviously just the authors opinon, as there is literally no actual evidence to back up the slanderous statment. But as it is from a reliable source, there may be grounds for a potential discussion to be had as to wether or not it should apear in the Reception section of the article, if it is made clear it is just one persons opinion of him. But considering there seems to be only one reliable source actually claiming something that has the possibility of harm to a living subject, I think it should likely not be included at all, unless various other sources can be found to back up this claim. To claim Icke is antisemitic in the lead of the article is clearly giving it far too much weight and is not only in violation of WP:BLP but WP:NPOV as well. The second sentance: "according to Political Research Associates, his politics are "a mishmash of most of the dominant themes of contemporary neofascism, mixed in with a smattering of topics culled from the U.S. militia movement."" I have added to Reception section of the article Screamliner (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

One small problem: he promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories. Specifically about the Rothschilds, for example. There are endless examples of him spouting overt antisemitism including on his own website and YouTube videos. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Some sources might help calling him antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In the past I've been 50-50 on this. Icke has said wacky things that could be interpreted as antisemitic, which led to problems when he visited Canada in 2000, but he was allowed into the country. He has never been arrested or charged for an offence related to antisemitism. Critics have argued that Reptilians = Jews, a view expressed here in the Times of Israel, which says "The reptilian take-over is understood to be about Jews, who are capable of inhabiting and controlling people’s minds. In recent years, Icke has packed stadiums across Europe with this mash-up of sci-fi horror and old-fashioned anti-Semitism." There is another article about the Reptilians = Jews theory here in The Spectator. Both of these articles point out that his theories have led to this criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I think we have enough to say he has been called antisemitic, not that he is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally I am strongly against it's inclusion altogether as it just apears to be unsubstantiated slander unfit for inclusion in an encyclopaedic article. But if someone can find enough reliable sources to back it up, and wants to add to the Reception section that some sources have claimed he is anti-Semitic and give a brief outline of the reasons why they think that, then I think that may be justified as there is obviously a small but presumably large enough minority cliaming it, for it to possibly warrant inclusion as note worthy in the reception section. But we must be very clear that it is only opinion and subjective interpretation of some of his ideas and writtings rather than anything substantial he has actually said, or that it is in anyway a verifiable fact. It's not clear to me that a wikipedia article should be including slanderous disinformation in a biographies of living persons article even if it apears in a few sources which pass the standards of WP:RS, when there is nothing to actually back up the claims. There appears to be no evidence he has ever expressed any hatred or discrimination towards jews or jewish people in general, and there is no evidence cited of him ever denying the holocaust happened. So the information, if included at all, should only be an extremely brief outline of what they think as per WP:NPOV and specifically in this case WP:RSUW. And just to reiterate my point from above Campaign Against Antisemitism are a politicly motivated organisation with an agenda and cannot be considered an impartial or reliable source in this instance, so information sourced from them should definitly not be included, we need any information to only come from secondary reliable sources as per WP:RS. This kind of thing clearly does not belong in the lead however. Screamliner (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Screamliner Explain this revert [47]. zzz (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've explained it in my two posts above Screamliner (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

zzz Why are you refusing to even try and engage in discussion about this and reach consensus. Do you need my point reiterating and spelling out for you again. Why not at least attempt to address the numerous points I've made above about this baseless and slanderous information appearing in the lead of an article of a WP:BLP. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. Screamliner (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Enough RSes call him AS - [48][49][50][51].Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok well something could be put in the Reception section then, but to put it in the lead when there is nothing he has actually said that is anti-Semitic, is giving others opinion and vague interpretations of his work far too much undue weight. So my point from above stands that it should be couched in the terms "that some sources have claimed he is anti-Semitic and give a brief outline of the reasons why they think that...But we must be very clear that it is only opinion and subjective interpretation of some of his ideas and writtings rather than anything substantial he has actually said, or that it is in anyway a verifiable fact...So the information...should only be an extremely brief outline of what they think as per WP:NPOV and specifically in this case WP:RSUW"

Also what are your thoughs about my statment above that "It's not clear to me that a wikipedia article should be including slanderous disinformation in a biographies of living persons article even if it apears in a few sources which pass the standards of WP:RS, when there is nothing to actually back up the claims. There appears to be no evidence he has ever expressed any hatred or discrimination towards jews or jewish people in general" Is this kind of tabloid style baseless slander really something an encyclopaedia should be propagating RS or not? And as for the holocaust denial part that certain editors keep trying to shoehorn in, there is literaly no direct evidence anyone can produce that he has ever denied the holocaust, and some have even been claiming sources say it when they actually don't, so that should clearly not be included it's just a disgusting thing to say about a person who has never said it, and it is not only slanderous but likely against deformation of character and liable laws as well Screamliner (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Holocaust denier

David Icke says that it is appalling the way Zionists use the suffering of Jews under the Nazi regime to support their own abuses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsu0svUs9HU first few minutes. Doru001 (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you implying that he acknowleges the suffering of Jews, as he must to think that Zionists use it for anything, and that this makes him a Holocaust denier? How does your logic work here? Britmax (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The slanderous information about him denying the holocaust has been removed form the article, the source used did not even claim it, they had a vague and sensationalist statment that he "flirted with holocaust denial" and then the quotes from Icke they gave to support there assertion were essentialy free speech arguments.Screamliner (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Per - Nico Slobinsky - ""David Icke is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and a modern-day Holocaust denier"[52]. And here - "Mr. Icke, a former sports broadcaster from Britain who began publishing his New Age conspiracy theories in the 1990s, has frequently been accused of anti-Semitism because of his endorsement of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an early 20th-century document that claimed to describe Jewish plans for world domination, and his Holocaust denial." [53] it would seem The Globa and Mail is factually claiming this in its own voice. Something to do with the lizards and how they actually steer things, no doubt.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So The Globa and Mail is printing lies as fact with nothing to back it up. This is clearly one or two groups throwing mud and hoping it will stick, and it is then been reported on, it's gossip style sensationalist agenda driven guff. Both articles basically concede at the end that there is nothing substantial to back up the groups attemps for him to be stopped speaking in the statments from the City of Vancouver and the Canada Border Services Agency. We should be avoiding gossip and feedback loops and specifically circular reporting which this clearly is as per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Please also see WP:EXCEPTIONAL "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended", there are countless examples of Icke's views on the nature of reality, spirituality, and race, which are totally in contrast to the idea propagated by some that he is anti-Semitic, and no statements, either spoken or written, by Icke where he denies the holocaust. Also see WP:QS "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." The articles cited are clearly relying on personal opinion re: holocaust denial, zero facts are presented to support the slander. And just to emphasise as per WP:BLP "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Screamliner (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, per this time piece They are among us. Blood-drinking, flesh-eating, shape-shifting extraterrestrial reptilian humanoids with only one objective in their cold-blooded little heads: to enslave the human race. They are our leaders, our corporate executives, our beloved Oscar-winning actors and Grammy-winning singers, and they're responsible for the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City bombings and the 9/11 attacks ... at least according to former BBC sports reporter David Icke the issue of denial is rooted in responsibility for the Holocaust, which per Time Magazine Icke ascribes to the reptiles and not to the Nazis. Per MSN It seems that The as-yet-untitled book follows highly inflammatory writings including And The Truth Shall Set You Free, in which he claims Jews financed Hitler to power and orchestrated both the First and Second World Wars. - so the Jews themselves were involved? Per antisemitism.uk, which cites the International Definition of Antisemitism - Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).. It would seem that per some definitions denying the Nazi responsibility for the Holocaust is Holocaust denial. It also seems there are others who use this label in their own voice - e.g. the Sydney Morning Herald.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

To summarize the above, at issue is whether Holocaust denial is limited to stmts such as "The Holocaust did not happen" or to wider stmts denying some accepted facts (e.g. responsibility for event). It would seem that many sources use the wider point of view.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Dont you think this is getting into the teritory of WP:OP though? Ickes views on the reptilians are that they are possessing certian individuals and some bloodlines to a greater degree, in a similar way to say demonic possession might work in some religious ideas. So in truth he would not be denying that the Nazi's carried out the holocaust just that there were other forces at play and involved in the manipulation of them 'behind the scenes'. This seems like highly semantic teritory and claiming someone is an anti-Semite or holocaust denier because of those kind of beliefs is very disturbing indeed. The link form MSM was pobably circular reporting from a misleading statment on wikipedia which I have just recently corrected. Unless I missing something the SMH uses the phrase "alleged anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist" which is quite different from calling him a holocaust denier. Screamliner (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OR, not OP. And no - it is not quite OR. You are correct on the SMH - struck - misread it. There are some who are using this in their own voice, and many (or it would seem to me possibly the vast majority) who are saying this is alleged and/or attributing this claim to various people/organizations. It seems that, per Ickes, Jews (or some Jews) or somehow connected to the reptilians who then are somehow connected to the orchestration of the Holocaust. To me, parsing the sources here, it seems this doesn't fit a very narrow definition of Holocaust denial but it also seems that several sources are using a wider definition.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The 'Jew's' are no more connected to Ickes reptilian ideas than any other religion, race, or creed. The people who Icke connects most closely to the reptilians are a specific group of bloodlines he claims date back to the ancient world.Screamliner (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denile BS has been added back to the lead of the aricle "Critics view Icke as a Holocaust denier and his "reptilians" and other theories as antisemitic." This is WP:OR the source given does not claim he denies the holocaust, they just give a quote from one person claiming it. This is synthesis by the wikipedia editor who added it, to make out like the source given claims, or that it claims critics (a plural and general term) claim, he denies the holocaust, and is in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:QS. So re: holocaust denile, we have one source provided in this talk page discussion from 'The Globe And Mail', claiming it in their own voice with no evidence to back it up, and editors feel it is justified to be placed in the lead of the artcle of a WP:BLP?

From WP:NPOV "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view". Screamliner (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

Removal of following statement on the basis that it is personal in nature and not factual.

"Critics view Icke as a Holocaust denier and his "reptilians" and other theories as antisemitic.[13]"

Wikipedia is all about factual information and not that of Critics or other defamatory anonymous groups, the information in this statement is not verifiable. Also, the complete statement seems to be ambiguous and out of context which leads me to believe that it might be from a bias viewpoint and a personal opinion. Devopsbyday (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC) — Devopsbyday (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done: The information in the statement is not only verifiable—it is cited to a reliable source. Frankly, the wording strikes me as a bit overly cautious; it seems quite clear that these theories of Icke's are antisemitic regardless of how his critics view them. Incidentally, bias is a noun, not an adjective, and cannot modify another noun. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denier?

Greetings,

I think there's been some approximations made about the character of David Icke. Wiki is supposed to support such statements as "Holocaust denier" with facts. You can see at the bottom of the page Icke is listed as "English Holocaust deniers." As per Wiki's rules "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

I just read through (not with a fine-tooth comb) the Wiki entry of Icke and there wasn't the usual references when it comes to his so-called Holocaust denial.

I suspect what's happened here is that his revisionist/conspiracy views have been misconstrued as Holocaust denial. I strongly think that these are two different things and I would urge that he be removed from the English Holocaust deniers section.

For the sake of Wiki's good reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HourisDefender (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC) — HourisDefender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The claim is supported by a reliable source, Deutsche Welle. The linked article quotes "Jan Rathje of the Amadeu Antonio Stiftung, an NGO that tracks racism in Germany" as accusing Icke of being a key figure in Holocaust conspiracy circles, whether he intends it or not. I would welcome further sources on this, and a deeper description might be in order. But I don't yet see grounds to remove the category "English Holocaust deniers." Category titles do ususally lack subtlety, and it may seem wrong to group Icke with the likes of Harry Elmer Barnes and David Irving. But readers who lack subtlety in their reading and thinking probably never notice Wikipedia categories anyway. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 23:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Icke's criticism of his Wikipedia article

Recently, there has been a lot of criticism from public figures that editors favourable to the Israeli/Jewish far-right are distorting article content in Wikipedia to create libelous content in biography articles about people who support human rights for Palestinians (most notably left-wing figures such George Galloway and Craig Murray have had a very public dispute with Philip Cross over neoconservative bias and manipulation of Wikipedia biography articles). Icke has added his voice to this. We should probably address it in the article, his view of his own Wikipedia article.

The phony claims of "anti-semitism" levelled by the pro-Israel far-right against Jeremy Corbyn and the current Labour Party leadership has seen a lot of this kind of stuff dragged out into the clear light of day and people are becoming far less willing to go-along-to-get-along with a lot of this unaccountable, opportunistic crying wolf by Israel partisans. While Icke certainly has some oddball opinions (shap-shifting lizards from outer space??) it is probably worthwhile scrutinising the almost certainly BS claims of "anti-semitism" made by the Israel Uber Alles crowd on this article too. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not our job to "scrutinise". This would fall foul of WP:OR. Our job is to write based on what reliable sources say. So this approach isn't going to get anywhere unless those "public figures" have been reported in reliable sources. So far all you have offered us is a (frankly TLDW) video self-published by Icke himself on YouTube, which is no good at all. Also, this article is about Icke, not to advance some wider unproven conspiracy theory drawing in Corbyn and others. (Surely Corbyn has enough of his own problems without being dragged into this nonsense?)

Finally, you need to dial back that "Israel Uber Alles" nonsense sharpish! You are not helping your case at all by attacking other editors without any justification and you couldn't have picked a more tone deaf term to have used. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We can review each source on this specific issue to see if there is a COI or if they actually adhering to a NPOV, for example. If the sources are coming from Jewish right-wing pressure groups or journalists with a clear neoconservative bias, then there is a strong probability that the tactically deployed claims of "anti-semitism" against left-leaning figures are not coming from a NPOV and the sources may not be reliable for use on Wikipedia (as well as falling foul of our BLP policies). Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with DanielRigal; airing Icke's views about the existence of an unfair cadre of Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia is a bad idea many times over. If the "content" is indeed "libelous," then delete it with a warning to the editor. If it is skewed to misrepresent a source, then check the source and rewrite the sentence or paragraph from a neutral point of view.

I happen to think there is circumstantial evidence of organized partisan editing on Wikipedia, including of articles concerning Israel and Palestine. But that doesn't give me an excuse to presume bad faith on the part of any individual editor. (WP:AGF) If you think a cadre of activists is evading Wikipedia's many mechanisms for self-policing, then the remedy is to form a similar devoted cadre of editors committed, not to defaming Zionists or pushing an anti-Israel agenda, but to upholding Wikipedia standards on articles about Israel and Palestine. And organize the group in a way that avoids causing burnout.

Lastly — not to pile on here, but unfair charges of anti-semitism from extremist Israeli nationalists do not justify irresponsible counter-rhetoric like "the Israel Uber Alles crowd." Apartheid in Israel is not going to be overcome with counter-demonization. Extremists thrive on that kind of attack. Anyway Wikipedia is no place for labeling people, even if you think it's appropriate elsewhere. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 23:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, while there is legitimate debate over the existence and/or extent of antisemitism in the Labour Party, Icke has ranted for hours about the New World Order, an antisemitic conspiracy theory, he's on record as supporting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a true document and he has also engaged in holocaust denial. Whether this is genuine antisemitism or just his tendency to believe every batshit crazy conspiracy theory known to humanity, I wouldn't like to guess. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Quote from Icke: "My use of extracts from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was too much for political purity to take. It didn't matter that I had emphasised, as I do in this book, that this is not a plot by Jewish people; it didn't matter that I renamed them the "Illuminati Protocols" for the specific reason of getting away from their association with Jewish people; it didn't matter that these Protocols, which came to light in the late-1800s, contain details of the very plan of manipulation which has provably unfolded through the twentieth century."[54] Many people would have a problem with the fact that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an obvious forgery. It also shows why Icke's theories have led to the claim that he is antisemitic even if he isn't. If you recycle old antisemitic material and give it a New Age conspiracy theory twist, people are still going to say that it is antisemitic. It's perfectly valid for the Wikipedia article to point out that Icke's theories have led to this criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Re this edit: Here is another quote from Icke: "I strongly believe that a small Jewish clique which has contempt for the mass of Jewish people worked with non-Jews to create the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War. This Jewish/non-Jewish Elite used the First World War to secure the Balfour Declaration and the principle of the Jewish State of Israel (for which, given the genetic history of most Jewish people, there is absolutely no justification on historical grounds or any other). They then dominated the Versailles Peace Conference and created the circumstances which made the Second World War inevitable. They financed Hitler to power in 1933 and made the funds available for his rearmament." Icke is careful not to say that all Jews are bad, but this type of language is bound to lead to criticism. It is fully compatible with WP:NPOV to mention this criticism as it is in numerous reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Reception section

Ok Alexbrn what exactly was the problem with the edit you keep reverting? I grouped the paragraphs sensibly so the topics and critisisms been discussed were placed together and restructured the overall section for improved readability and flow to be coherent and make more sense for the reader. It was a good faith edit, and your edit warring is unjustifed imho. Nothing controversial either criticism or praise was added or removed. Reverted back until you give some justification and we can reach consensus as to what needs to be changed as a lot of work went into that edit. Screamliner (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The ordering masked the criticism by placing positivish content in the beginning and end. The support of rather unsavory neo-nazi groups have also been removed, leaving text that has him receiving broad support.Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok i'll give it a quick re-work and see what you guys think, I was just trying to improve the article. Screamliner (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise the Ku Klux Klan lawyer thing was part of Barkun justification for far right allegations it just seemed like a random sentance form nowhere by the way the article was written and not related to any general reception of Icke. I have re-added it and moved the other quote back to the top. But kept the overall section in a more sensible and reader friendly order now hopefully Screamliner (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If others agree though. I think the block quote should be put as a right quote next to the section discussing claims of anti-Semitism just makes more sense and is more aesthetically pleasing to to me, but whatever it's a minor point. Screamliner (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP problem in chapter 5. Reception

Despite his relationships with the far right, Icke's New Age beliefs create a division between him and them.[98] David_Icke/Archive_4#Reception

I am requesting help with addressing this issue with the article. Relationship suggests quite a lot. I see no source given for it. At the moment I have not yet envisioned a solution how to fix this. Remove entirely? --Mick2 (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry please ignore my (now deleted) previous comment I was confusing the sources and though it was sourced from a different book. Looks like it is sourced to 'Barkun 2003 page 106' have you checked it? You could potentially change it to "Icke's New Age beliefs create a division between him and the far right..." if you think using "relationship" is too contentious/emotive or un-encyclopaedic. If it is not in the source it should be removed. Screamliner (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories as heading for section 2 of the article.

This heading doesn't make any sense to me, as the information contained in it is not about his conspiracy theories at all. It is about his early 90's spiritual 'awakening' period. Any thoughs on a better heading for this section? I'm thinking it should be changed to 'Spiritual Awakening' maybe. If we change section 2 to that, then section 4 'Key Ideas' could be changed to 'Key Ideas & Conspiracy Theories'. Screamliner (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I will go ahead with this edit Screamliner (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

Take out "Critics view Icke as a Holocaust denier and his "reptilians" and other theories as antisemitic." from the introduction. Molekingq (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC) — Molekingg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See above. I haven't argued that the article should say that Icke is antisemitic, but that critics have interpreted his theories in this way. WP:LEAD says "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The claim from critics that he is recycling old antisemitic material in New Age language is a prominent controversy and one that has followed Icke around for years, so it is worth mentioning in the lead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:LEAD / prominent controversy

Dear Ian,

I see your point and respect it. It should be very clear however, even to the casual reader, that this is an opinion of some critics and not the opinion of Wikipedia. WP:BLP means we have to be very careful in our phrasing, and i have made two adjustments to this effect. Hoping you agree, --Mick2 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No. (I'm not Ian, but this page is a forum for collective discussion, not dialogues.) Your paragraph spacing is unnecessary and breaks formatting conventions; and "critics" is much more unspecific and appropriate than "some groups of critics". Who are these "groups"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. I was trying not to downplay the amount of critics, but this vagueness is even less desirable. So I would opt for "some critics". Will do. --Mick2 (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope. We don't water down verifiable information by qualifying it in that way. "Critics" isn't intended to mean "all critics", and few readers would read it that way. The previous wording was verifiable and accurate, and I have restored it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In this particular case there actually is a case to be made for saying this in our own voice - without critics - as several RSes call him such without attribution in their own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The source given does not claim he denies the holocaust, they just give a quote from one person claiming it. Screamliner (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

As long as the sourcing is impeccable, it would be consistent with the way we handle various other articles to say it in our own voice. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, Icke is not widely viewed as a Holocaust denier. He does not deny it happened. He does not deny who did it. He just points out that he thinks there were some extra people involved. So he is a conspiracy theorist. Which is totally different from "denier" imho. After some consideration, I think the LEAD should voice what wikipedia thinks, not what some random critics say inside or outside reliable sources WP:RS. If normal encyclopedia's would not describe Icke as a Holocaust denier, neither should Wikipedia! I would be asshamed of us if we did. I am moving the sentence to "Reception". --Mick2 (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mick2. As I argued above in this talk page Talk:David_Icke#Holocaust_denier & Talk:David_Icke#Antisemitism having this statment in the lead is blatantly giving these "critics" far too much undue weight and is in violation of WP:NPOV "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view". Icke is known for his conspiracy theories and the reptilian stuff, he has not denied the holocaust unless you give denial a ridiculously wide definition, basically destroying what words actually mean, and he is unequivocally and clearly not an anti-semite as per his beliefs about race, religion, and the nature of reality etc. And in regards to Icewhiz comments above about putting it in wiki's own voice, re holocaust denile, we have had one reliable source provided to my knowlage in this whole discussion claiming it in their own voice, and they are doing so with zero evidence, probably just loose circular reporting repeating what this small selection of groups with an obvious bias against any critics of Israel say as fact. Screamliner (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Most RS either report in their own voice he is a denier, or do so attributed. There is no indication of any bias in those sources. Icke seems to be promoting that the Holocaust was Jewish-Lizard conspiracy, as opposed to a Nazi led action, which some see as denial.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no suggestion anywhere of pro-Israeli bias (except from Icke's supporters on this page). zzz (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

For clarity I was refering to the groups quoted in the sources not the sources themselves or wikipedia editors, these groups are always 'campaign against antisemitism' type groups of some description. But I probably shouldn't have brought that up in those terms, as it is out of the scope of this discussion thread, so sorry about that. Icke is featured relatively regularly in mainstream news articles in the UK and has appeared on mainstream TV shows including the BBC's This Week, and ITV's This Morning, in recent years. He is never referred to as an anti-semite, or holocaust denier out side of this ideological echo chamber of similarly politically aligned groups. That is my point. Icewhiz sorry to push this, but I think it is important, you say "most sources", yet we have only have a handfull provided in this discussion, some of which are quoting the exact same groups or sometimes even the same people, and we have only one stating holocaust denial in their own voice. And stating "Icke seems to be promoting that the Holocaust was Jewish-Lizard conspiracy, as opposed to a Nazi led action" is (I am sure unintentionally) really misrepresenting his ideas. Screamliner (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources I see, seem fairly uniform with the antisemitism label. The denial label seems to depend on a technicality on what constitutes denial. On what basis are you calling groups labelling Icke as antisemitic biased? Specifics please.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz sorry for the continued confusion, I corrected my self above and said that is out of the scope of this discussion. They are very similarly politically aligned or motivated groups that is my point. Screamliner (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Specifics please. Who specifically and how are they aligned?19:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Screamliner: Icke is a quintessential antisemite, according to multiple RS, with no RS in opposition. This talk of an "ideological echo chamber" sounds rather Icke-esque, unrooted in any sources - best to WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"A quintessential antisemite" who belives we are all one conciousness experiencing it's self subjectivly, and the body is just a vehicle for this experience of life, therefor judging someone for their race, religion, or the patch of earth they were born on is idiotic? Yes there are a small nuber of RS claiming "anti-semitism" or "aleged anti-Semitism", but the vast majority of time he is mentioned in RS it is not claimed, as he is not one and is not widy know as one either. Therefor mention in reception section but not lead of article is valid as per WP:NPOV. And as I have stated to the point of boredom now in these discussions Holocaust denile is mentioned in 'own voice' in RS once Screamliner (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the "only a small number of sources discussing the earth mention that it's round" argument deployed by flat earthers. The only sources of use for the question of Icke's antisemitism are sources that address that topic. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not the same thing at all and conflating the two does not help the conversation. I'm not contesting the info's inclusion in reception section ayway just in article lead as per npov Screamliner (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

In our Earth article we will not mention that critics think it is flat, or round or hollow, or anything of the sort. Imho the undo by Signedzzz is not justified. There is not a shred of evidence that David Icke would express anti-semetic opinions (despite him criticizing some of Israel's leadership and some millionaires of jewish and non-jewish descent), or would deny anything about the Holocaust. That some critics have these delusions is certainly noteworthy, so mention of their view should be in this article. But is says nothing about the WP:BLP it is about the reception he is getting. So it should not be in the WP:LEAD where it suggests it is a Wikipedia consensus opinion. It is a fringe opinion, held by some Wikipedians as well we can see above. If anyone disagreeds, please provide a quote from David Icke himself, either from Primary Source or a Quotation in a WP:RS attributed to him. There exist 7 billion opinions on this planet, and other peoples opinion should only be in the WP:LEAD if there is some merit in it. --Mick2 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not how article content is decided. There is "some merit in it" because it is published in WP:reliable sources, not because a Wikipedia editor agrees or disagrees with it. Can you understand that? zzz (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond being PRIMARY, using Icke himself would violate WP:FRIND and require quite a bit of WP:OR in regards to reptilians and other issues.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As I've said, Icke has never been arrested or charged with an offence related to antisemitism. However, various people have denied him a platform because of concerns about some of his work. For example, in November 2017, Manchester United cancelled an event with Icke as a speaker because of concerns about the alleged antisemitism angle.[55]. And of course, Icke wasn't pleased about this.[56] The crux of the problem is that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a known forgery and was written as deliberate antisemitic propaganda, but Icke is still treating it as though it is a valid text, albeit with a New Age makeover. I don't believe that Icke is a far right political figure as some have claimed, but his endorsement of the Protocols has left him open to this criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a small but vocal amount of critics who propagate the view Icke is "anti-Semitic" and an even smaller subset of those who suggest he denies the holocaust. Putting aside the fact that with even a modicum of research one can determine that neither of the accusations stand up to much scrutiny (you literally have to pretend he means something entirely different from what he is actually saying in order for the criticisms to make any sense, ie: reptilians = jews.) The criticisms are not widespread critiques of his work, and they are certainly not what he is primarily known as, or for. It really is the case of a handful of groups stating this and managing to drum up some sensationalist reporting, and yes, get a few venues to stop him speaking because of their accusations. The quotes from Jan Rathje in the article from DW given as a source are laughably misleading and nonsensical, take this stupidity: "People know how to decode the code about reptilians - whether Icke means it or not, it doesn't change that fact. It seems ridiculous, but the conclusion that Icke draws is that because he thinks the reptilians are pulling the strings behind it, therefore the Holocaust didn't happen - that's anti-Semitism." It "seems ridiculous" because it's a fabrication of Jan Rathje's making, and it doesn't even make sense on it's own terms! Why then are these slanderous accusations consistently propelled to the lead of an article of a WP:BLP on wikipedia? They should be placed in the reception section at most, along with all the other various analysis and criticisms of his output form WP:RS; that is fair, that is balanced, and that is encyclopaedic. Why does this highly dubious alleged antisemitism/alleged holocaust denile criticism get special treatment? As I have said numerous times on this talk page including it the lead is clearly giving it far too much undue weight, and is in violation WP:NPOV. And there is a borderline argument that it's inclusion is also against WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:QS, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. There is in no way a consensus has been reached that it should be in the lead. Why is it back there again? I feel like I am constantly repeating myself in this matter so I will likely leave it at that. Screamliner (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering multiple speaking venues have cancelled appearances of Icke due to these concerns, it seems quite lede worthy and significant.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From DW source "event in Germany cancelled after being dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism." The accusations caused the cancelation not his actual content. The whole thing is pathetic. Read the quotes from the venue as to why they cancelled, not one mention of anti-semitism/holocaust denile, just vague stuff about contridictory statments and them staying politically neutral and in line with the "democratic principles of our society." And with the source form the guardin re: manchester united, the reason was again the extremely vague statment "objectionable views", no mention of anti-semitism/holocaust denile for the reason of cancelation. Why is that? Because of liable laws I would strongly suggest. Screamliner (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In order to attempt to find some resolution on this very contentious issue I am changing the sentence at the bottom of the lead to this:

Critics allege Icke is a Holocaust denier and claim his "reptilians" and other theories are antisemitic, a claim that has been countered by others.

It's an alleged claim and is reported as such in the few RS that mention it (in the source actually used in the article it's just a quote form one person), it should not be refered to as a view and certianly not as fact. Also adding the Robertson source for the counter anti-semitism claim. Screamliner (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ALLEGE, and frankly since RSes say so unattributed we should be considering that for AS. As for Robertson's singular opinion of not AS but questionable regarding Jews... That is a singular opinion, and presented as such in Robertson's book that should be attributed to Robertson, not to others, and probably does not belong in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We have a singular opinion for Denial presented as such in the lede of article currently. Why is it one rule for some opinions, another rule for others? Re jews = reptiles = antisemitism, souce mentions him and ronson, re: AS specifically he counters it through varous points himself. Screamliner (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of those accusing him of antisemitism are more nuanced than reptalians=jews - which Robertson attempts to refute. For instance, referring to Icke's promotion of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is distinctly antisemitic.[57].Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a prominent controversy because he has been unable to find a publisher for his books since the 1990s and has had to publish them himself. Whatever one might think about Erich von Däniken or Graham Hancock, they have been able to find mainstream publishers for their work. Icke is off limits for major publishing houses because his recycling of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and comments about the Holocaust are regarded as too controversial and they don't want to have anything to do with them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• I seem to remember there was a lot of criticism on Barack Obama in the WP:RS, but none of it is in the LEAD of that article. Similarly, criticism by critics of Icke reported on is not the same as criticism endorsed by the WP:RS. Therefore, this criticism has no place in the LEAD of the article. --Mick2 (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Presidents do a lot of controversial stuff. Due weight is also a factor. Though as far as the assertion goes, it qualifies under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This assertion qualifies. I am going to add a qualifier because he does deny it, but it should stay in the WP:LEAD as that is the accurate summation of reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References