Talk:David Icke

Archives

Archive 1

Immortalised in Song!

I found that “A Song for David” with lyrics about David Icke and Britain’s "current surveillance state" has just been released!It's on “Take the Fruit?” by Tim Bragg – a soundclip can be heard at: www.cdbaby.com/timbragg3

Link to Icke's Website

Obviously there is nothing wrong with having a link t his site in the relevant place, but I do not think it is encyclopedic to include a commercial link to his site as a jpeg - hence removed. However I am sure that David has his fans who will soon revert...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.173.194 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Advise

Don't forget a signature when you apporach someone. --AmonRaa 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are getting into David Icke, just remember that his theory isn't the only one. Don't get sucked in. All his theories are unfounded, although very plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeny-5 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at this: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeny-5 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather contradicting your comment is. It's not plausible. Plausible would be sounding reasonably sane. Go tell this to a police officer with a straight face and let's see how you stay out of the booby-hatch.--Big Mac 00:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheap commment

I removed "... Now you may be wondering just what nefarious activities these people could possibly get up to. Icke, of course, has the answer." As this appears to be saying that Icke has an answer to everything. If you were to watch his documentaries, and in particular, http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1505950948532590200&q=david+icke you will realise he does not claim this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.51.7 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

His son has a rock band...

David Icke's son has a rock band. Where should a comment to or link about this be placed?

http://www.kody.co.uk/

Their music sounds reptillian...--Planetary 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant - it's trivial and should be left out of an already long article. Rrose Selavy

Genius

Why isnt Icke in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geniuses yet? He's a Genius

Because he's a lizardphobe and smart people like lizards.

Leaving the BBC

If I remember rightly, Icke left the BBC because he publicly refused to pay his poll tax and thereby embarrassed the corporation, which at that time didn't like its presenters getting involved in frontline politics.

I don't consider him right wing, he is too much of a "bleeding heart" for that (mind you, I haven't read his most recent books).

Meltingpot 10:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Icke's First Book

Correction Made: "In 1990, he wrote his first book, It Doesn't Have To Be Like This, wherein he outlined his environmental positions and political philosophy." This wasn't his first book. He wrote "It's a Tough Game Son", pub by Pan in 1983, about professional footballing --Vivamancer 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Why do they let sportsmen write books. It's a shame.

About Zechariah Sitchin

David Icke has claimed that Zechariah Sitchin told him not to look into the reptilian bloodlines wich has been the basis of most his work. Thus indicating that Zechariah Sitchin is an illuminati hench-man, and a fighter for the Reptilian Agenda.

About Jordan Maxwell

Although his theories are mostly the same (on paper) as Mr. Ickes, Jordan Maxwell has said that hes is not a fan of mr Ickes and that he even wouldnt say hello to him on the street, although he says he made Icke who he is today. Also, Jordan Maxwells "style" varies with mr Ickes, whereas Icke seems genuinely disturbed by all of this corrupt symbolism, Maxwell seems proud and also loves proclaiming the "fallic" nature of a lot of the symbols used in the "coverup". He is not as credible as Mr icke, as far as i can tell.

That's all wrong, Maxwell is completely in line with Icke when it comes to how they relate to the "conspirators" so to say. They both are openly and honestly opposed to it all. The reason why Maxwell would not see Icke eye-to-eye, is, according to Maxwell, that Icke has blatantly stolen a lot of Maxwells work and not ever given him credit for it. I don't know how much of it is true. However, as far as I can tell, Icke has never even mentioned Maxwell anywhere, so even if it's no proof, it might be an indication that Maxwell is correct. At least, that would be typical of one who has ripped of the work of someone else - to pretend he doesn't even exist. Personally, however, I wish they could overcome that unnecessary squabble and start actually doing some real work, take real action, against the forces they both proclaim the existance of, and their opposition against.... - A-ixemy 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jordan Maxwell has obviously read Manly P Halls Secret Signs Of The Ages as part of his research. That book was first published in the 1920s - 30s. David Icke as also read it (he mentioned it in a talk). My point is that just because Jordan Maxwell has written about certain things before David Icke, doesn't mean that he (Maxwell) hasn't used some other persons work. Even Manly P Hall mentioned about the possibility of infringing on sombody elses work (because when ever anybody researches and finds the truth its the same information) in the beggining of his book The Secret Signs Of The Ages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.0.124 (talk • contribs) 09:26, May 29, 2007 – Please sign your posts!

lol, he's proper jealous of ickey! maxwell is also well pissed about some of his 'ideas' being used in hollywood for films. to be honest, the guy seems like a bit of a twat and has an ego the size of a house.86.135.49.223 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

GAR GAR GAR what about Robert Anton Wilson - He did write Illuminatus after all and i might add he was talking about this way before maxwell was. Unless i got the dates wrong, please correct me if i did.

Dan

Historians of Freemasonry

Since David Icke is an opponent of Masonry isn't that categorization misleading. FDR | MyTalk 17:14 August 11, 2006 (UTC)

Comments from "Lucy"

(these comments moved from further up the page - please always put new comments at the bottom of the paqe and sign your comments)

Hello I have published and added new authentic informations and orginal video sources to "david icke" from google and youtube have fun about:

Problem-Reaction-Solution ( David Icke )

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hkJym5JrYQ

Shapeshifting&Vampirismus

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI-NTQUFz8Q ( Ickes Interview mit Arizona Ryder )

Ickes Interview with medicinmen Mutwa over reptilien-creatures

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCG0PdH8zWc

Illuminati Beginning Symbole (David Icke )

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpzZt5fXrXg

Illuminazi City Of London / Geld&Boden AG ( David Icke )

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJzzV90VyJw

HistoryChannel Secret Society

• http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=1270081493781521177&q=David+Icke

The Prophety Club former freemason "vampirist" and "Illuminat" speaks about their secret bloody sacrefies

• http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-2134284036772812990&q=Bill+Schnoebelen

vampirismen&shapeshifting Rammstein-Video "Du riechst so gut" / "Rosenrot":

• http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-2745379614817802147&q=rammstein+Du+riechst+so+gut
• http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7037471555348149719&q=rammstein

"the eye over the triangle" power and control belongs of censorship and manipulation of the authentic information - "the pyramid game"

democraty and wiki need all this information and sources to safe independent information and aware off unvisible lobbyism and influence...

Lucy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.54.56.220 (talk • contribs) .

I have removed them from the article since they clearly do not meet our guidelines for external links. Gwernol 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

icke criticisms

This article seems very biased. I don't doubt that this article was written almost entirely by Icke supporters. Where in this article does it mention his educational background? Where does it mention critical opinions of his theories? Where does it mention that many distinguished persons believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.175.253 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not need to do so. It's implicit throughout that Icke's "critics", "that many distinguished persons" you mention, are part of the full-blooded or hybrids who control our world. Who would believe them??? You sound suspicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.140.152 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Hell it's obvious to anyone that his man is a whackjob. If you claim people are shape-shifting aliens, you have to provide proof. Icke cannot provide such proof because even children know that kind of thinking is merely make-believe. If you honestly believe in aliens and shape-shifting Star Trek rejects, you need to either euthanize or commit yourself. Offensive? It's the honest truth. Only morons believe in this guy fully.--Big Mac 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, Icke is all OVER the History Channel, National geographic Channel, Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel whenever they want a talking head on conspiracies, aliens, UFOs etc. The way the shows are edited, Icke always comes out as articulate and often the least whacky of the all the wack-jobs featured. He has an ability to speak about a variety of subjects that fall within his elaborate belief system but is such a way as to appear uninvested in the conspiracy aspect of it. He speaks well about historical subjects and so he is often used as the "talking head" to give the background of Freemasonry or to talk about CIA experiments in mind control and so on. The interesting thing to me about Icke is that if you watch footage of him from over the years you can see that he didn't just jump into his current views feet first 20 years ago. He seems to have accepted a bit from one area and some from another into the woven cloth that is his current worldview sort of the way a frog stays in warm water as the temperature rises but would jump from boiling water. Do you get my analogy? David Icke is not a stupid man, in fact, he's quite intelligent. I believe his evolved theory is a unique compilation of Right-wing UK politics, new age beliffs seasoned with a variety of unrelated conspiracy theories he has managed to connect into a unified theory - sort of like Einstein's elusive Theory of Everything. There is internal logic to his beliefs and that logic tells him he has the answer to weverything that is wrong with the world. In a word, it's a religion. I believe Icke is as popular as he is because his views are attractive as a unified conspiracy that answer all the questions. The people who believe he is right, are not morons, they are people looking for answers and feel they have found them in Icke's writings and lectures. They are using his unified conspiracy theory the way others use religion and when you get right down to it, what's the difference? He's their modern prophet. Lisapollison 10:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"They are using his unified conspiracy theory the way others use religion and when you get right down to it, what's the difference?"

Bingo!!!! There is no difference. Fairytales are fairytales.

            I'm with you. I wrote a several paragraph article on his criticism's, qoutes and sources and all. I must of Re-entered it 3 or 4 times today because some jerk(s) keep deleting it. This page is completly biased, and we need to do something about it.ProductofSociety

Green Party?

In what capacity is Icke a spokesperson for the Green Party? I'm a member and am not aware of him being a principle speaker, or in fact playing any role in speaking for the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostsocks (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Their article states that he has left the party. Totnesmartin 15:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This article does not however, it uses the incorrect tense and suggests that he still speaks for the party. Given his current right-wing views I think it may be a bit cheeky to suggest he is still a principal speaker Not a big problem, i'll amend it now. Lostsocks 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say David Icke is in no way right wing. His theories may be strange but the attacks on him by the Anti Defamation League are scandalous.--CharlesBronson18 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

yup, he has no right wing views, as far as i know. you don't know what you're talking about there86.135.49.223 23:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lovecraft?

Some of Icke's ideas sound very Lovecraftian. Does he "credit" Lovecraft at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.26.145 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Or did he get the lizard idea from V? Totnesmartin 15:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovecraft had some very Blavatskian ideas, and he never credited her. 121.44.194.104 17:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the entire plot about lizards-shapeshifting-into-humans-in-order-to-cause-global-armaggedon was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Robert E. Howards' "The Shadow Kingdom" (Weird Tales, 1929). Check out the ebook text here, and the weird and wacky history of the serpentmen in later, Howard-inspired comicbooks of the 1970s through to the present day. I think this should go into the main article, wouldn't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.42.180 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Adams

I removed this:

• In his book So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish, Douglas Adams satirises both Icke's theories and democracy when Ford Prefect speaks of a planet where a population of humanoids is ruled by lizards. This world is a democracy, but everyone votes for a lizard to prevent "the wrong lizard getting in".

This book came out in 1984, before the lizard theory was published. Totnesmartin 15:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Channel Five documentary

I've cleaned up the piece about the TV documentary "David Icke: Was He Right?" but don't feel it's particularly wiki-worthy, does anyone have a problem with deleting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM Andy (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 December 2006

It should stay, the documentary was a far more neutral representation than other examples that are mentioned or cited in the article. - Solar 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mental Illness?

Has David ever submitted to an examanition by a psychiatrist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.24.238 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you offering? Please sign your posts by the way, using four tildas after your post. Thanks. MarkThomas 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is assuming psychiatrists are sane themselve and can give a realistic opinion. Most psychiatrists are just as nuts as their patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twomind (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They are shape shifting lizards. Zomghax 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Icke may be right for all you know, who are we to say? I suppose Columbus ought to have checked himself into a psych. ward rather than prove what he knew to be true to the world. 192.249.47.11 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well he seems to exhibit several attributes of Schizotypal personality disorder [2] and paranoid schizophrenia. One must remember that schizophrenia is not an on/off condition but it is a spectrum from eccentric "normality" to outright mental illness. Diamonddavej 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

When David came to the Northwest to give talks in the early 90's he used to stay in my flat and call me his friend: I am a Jewish experienced psychological counsellor and doubt very much that he's a: anti-semitic(he used to have a vegetarian breakfast with me in the local Tesco's frequently, while trying to understand what he felt was the paranoia of the post-holocaust Jewish community) or b: paranoid schizophrenic (that idea is just laughable. However all this was before his lizard phase, I havn't spoken to him for many years David100351 21:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Heavily muscled hero type guy Fantana

I don't know this topic, but I deleted a reference to this, as it sounds like nonsense. Correct me if i'm wrong, it was in the section about his court case --AW 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Corey Story

Everyone should know, that this video is itself a fraud of TVseeker.com, for details see youtube: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1023816687524543446 The persons on this Corey-Video are all actors!

“The story that this movie tells so superbly, portrays what is happening in your world today.”- David Icke. I'm really not sure why you had to point this so significantly, no one is hiding anything from anyone. Lovelight 21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why u so passionate about proving this?--CharlesBronson18 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda like pointing out the fact that 'Skulls' or 'Enemy of the State' are just movies.121.44.194.104 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with the far right

David Icke is extremely far right in his political views and makes no secret of it. Therefore I changed the heading "alleged relationship with the far right" to "relationship with the far right". Icke makes no secret of being far right and of his hatred of liberals such as the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Carnegies, so this is still NPOV. Prb4 16:38:44 February 13, 2007 (UTC)

The quotations used in this section are partial and do not accurately represent his views. He is often misquoted in order to represent him as being a right wing extremist or anti-semitic. He in fact distinguishes 'the average Jew' from the Elite bankers who happen to be Jewish just the same as he distinguishes the 'average Baptist' from the Elite bankers who happen to be Baptist, etc. He maintains that a vast majority of Jewish people have been exploited and mislead by the actions of a few within their own society. Just like everyone else. He does draw considerable attention to the founding, development and present state of Israel, so he in turn draws the defamation and hostility that every critic of Israel does (Semites of all kinds included).

Also, there is no mention of hatred for any of your so-called 'liberals' in David Ickes books, interviews or videos. He pokes fun at the antics of people he views as being part of a 'hidden agenda', and though he seems to find many people's actions altogether sinister, he doesn't condemn them. And if you haven't read, listened to and watched a majority of David Icke's material (which I have, objectively), then you have no authority. Correct?

If I've learned anything from David Icke, it is this: People revel in the ability to blindly denounce facts, ideas, and the sources of those facts and ideas when they can do so in a group. Thankfully, not all are so easily lead down such a blind alley, and some do manage to actually be informed with some degree of rigor. 121.44.194.104 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it you want to add to the article, and what is the source you are citing for it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to add anything to this article, though I would like to see libelous representations removed. The claim that David Icke has a 'Relationship with the far right' is based on the opinion of questionable sources. The reality is that any such relationship is completely indirect and unintentional on the part of Icke. Some would say that these apparent relationships are arranged for the purpose of defamation, as in the case of the Combat 18 endorsement of Icke's speaking tours.59.167.187.132 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Which sources do you object to? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of David Icke's relationship to the far-right and anti-semitism is a long and complex one, and for non-Jews especially who are lacking in awareness of the history and methods of anti-semitism, it is just too much to take on here. However, as a Jewish person who has studied Icke, and know personally many of his "followers" I will assert that he promotes and feeds the most cowardly and sinister form of anti-semitism -- though I cannot say with certainty that he is even aware of it. I am of the opinion that David Icke is certifiably mad. What is more concerning is that the gullible and historically uninformed who are seeking answers just eat up his fairytales with little to no discernment.66.82.9.92 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)66.82.9.92

Wow, i wish i was jewish, then i too could point fingers and call people anti-semites without any factual backing of my claims. But let's recap this:

David Icke is a far-right nutcase, who promotes and feeds the most cowardly and sinister form of anti-semitism, without knowing it, though you being a jew, can tell. Rooiiight. If you ever check this out again, could you answer these questions please?

Has David Icke ever said anything that would imply that he has anything against jews as a race?

Do you have to be a jew to know "the history and methods of anti-semitism"?

the most cowardly and sinister form of anti-semitism calling them lizards? (not saying that he ever did, but guessing that's what ur reacting to).

Is it really possible to promote the most cowardly and sinister form of anti-semitism without knowing it, and at the same time as be certifiably mad?

If you think David Icke is certifiably mad, then why bother to write here?

If my posts results in anything different than someone calling me "Anti-semite!" i will be possitively suprised.

Agrees and rewrites the above in E-Prime:

David Icke is extremely far right in his political views and makes no secret of it. Therefore I changed the heading "alleged relationship with the far right" to "relationship with the far right". Icke makes no secret of being far right and of his hatred of liberals such as the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Carnegies, so this is still NPOV. Prb4 16:38:44 February 13, 2007 (UTC)

It seems that David Icke 'may' have connections to the extremely far right in his political views and it seems to the person who wrote this that David Icke "makes no secret of it".

USE general Semantics and e-prime people to make more common sense. Whatever that means?

his theory vs. mine

ok this is a theory but if that is possible then shouldn't the flapping of butterfly wings emitting a speical force making them think they are in control when they are not acceptable?q —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debater4eva (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

the thing behind it is that in a debate round someone brought this topic up saying they lived underground and they controlled our minds with mind control devices. but my question to them was how do you know? and htey couldn't answer that is when i brought up this theory. what the debater did was take his theory and then build upon it. so if david ickle's can be accepted then so should mine right. (this means only in debate)

Removed innacurate assertion that "Icke's ideas are popular in Canada"

The following is NOT supported by the article referenced in the footnote for this item. In light of that the rest of the paragraph is a non sequitor. Icke supporters can splice it somewhere else in the article if they want. The only relevant reference to Canadian popularity in the article, which scathingly denounces him, is: In the last five years he has spoken in Vancouver as many times, and across Canada he can turn out substantial audiences. His organizers claim he had 1,000 people out to hear him at his last gig in Vancouver, and he hopes to fill the Vogue Theatre on March 19.

The dubious number of 1000 provided by his own organizers and "substantial audiences" is not footnoted nor qualified. The idea that this proves he is 'popular in Canada' is absurd.

According to Political Research Associates, Icke's ideas are popular in Canada, where the New Age aspect of his philosophy overshadows his more controversial beliefs. During an October 1999 speaking tour there, he received a standing ovation from students after a five-hour speech at the University of Toronto, while his books were removed from the shelves of Indigo Books across Ontario after protests from the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Ghettodev 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The source says: "In the last five years he has spoken in Vancouver as many times, and across Canada he can turn out substantial audiences. His organizers claim he had 1,000 people out to hear him at his last gig in Vancouver, and he hopes to fill the Vogue Theatre on March 19. It's a large milieu that can afford the hefty prices Icke charges - up to $67 to attend a lecture, forty to fifty dollars for videotapes - and that generates a sizeable income for Icke and his message of conspiracism, fear and hate."

I think that justifies: "According to PRA, his ideas are popular in Canada ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to my point: The dubious number of 1000 provided by his own organizers and 'substantial audiences' is not footnoted nor qualified. The idea that this proves he is 'popular in Canada' is absurd. Please quote the line that says his ideas are popular in Canada. A 'substantial audience' does not mean nor imply popularity. Substantial compared to what? The point is not popularity, it's the fact that even such limited numbers can present a significant revenue stream.Ghettodev 05:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave the section of text in until the discussion is resolved. It is cited, so if someone thinks it's false they can always read the supposed source for themselves until consensus is reached. *Leaves the two of you to the argument :-)* Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is becoming obvious that this article is an opinion piece and not interested in the tenets set out by wikipedia. If you both are comfortable with ignoring facts and promoting falsehoods it is between you and your consciences. Ghettodev 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada has a population of over 30 million people. Does attendance of a few thousand people indicate that Icke's ideas are "popular in Canada"? I myself am Canadian and only 1 person I know has even heard of David Icke

not appropriate?

SlimVirgin, how are SonOfGod's contributions "not appropriate"? They are sourced. -Eep² 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He's right. They are sourced. Wikipedia is not designed to be politically correct, it simply states the facts. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 04:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be all or mostly original research based on primary source material and not obviously relevant to a biography. It's best to stick to secondary sources for an article like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Best" why? According to who? -Eep² 03:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

According to our content policies, e.g. WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:ATT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The references simply sourced that what Icke said was true of him saying it--not that what Icke says is true. That isn't original research:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. -WP:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

-Eep² 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're quoting selectively. The policy makes clear that secondary sources are preferred, and any primary source material shouldn't be subject to a Wikpedian's interpretation. This article is about Icke the man, and the ideas of his that reliable secondary sources have chosen to highlight. If we were to start delving into the details of his theories and the various reptilian ideas, I can only imagine what kind of article we'd end up with. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If by "quoting selectively" you mean I didn't quote the entire WP:NOR, well, damn, you got me there, Slim. I quoted the most relevant part to sources. Funny how all it takes is someone to write an article about someone's ideas in order for that to be a "secondary" source. I don't think Wikipedia's policies are going to last much longer considering the nature of traditional print media sources and credibility (newspaper decline et al). What happens when all (or most anyway) sources appear on blogs, forums, and other discussion-based mediums (chat, newsgroups, etc)? Good luck keeping up with that! In case you haven't figured it out yet, we're in a relative existence--everything relates to everything else (in varying levels of circular logic). It's all relative--absolute relativity. Can you imagine an article about everything? Cuz that's where Wikipedia's heading towards... -Eep² 07:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My edits are not only entirely appropriate to this article, which in fact is about David Icke and naturally, his beliefs, but also entirely permissible. My edits reflect the central core of his conspiracy theory. Furthermore, his ideas about "Aryans" are very unorthodox in this day and age, and this fact should not be denied, and I suggest to SlimVirgin that she read that Aryan article, as well as Nordic theory, in order to become familiar with why connecting "Aryan" to blonde haired, blue eyed people is not only inappropriate, but completely incorrect. He literally uses the term as a synonym for White people. Why SlimVirgin would revert such edits, to me, is quite bizarre. SonOfGod 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that this is the core of his conspiracy theory? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Read The Biggest Secret, and specifically Chapter Three. SonOfGod 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to read it. What does it say exactly about this being the core of his conspiracy theory? Please quote it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not get to go through primary sources (or secondary sources either) and synthesize an original thesis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but every Wikipedian does just that every time they add something to an article--it's all relative. Even if the contribution is sourced, it is still an "original thesis" in that it was decided on by the editor for inclusion into the article. -Eep² 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is covered in the policies, Eep. Where there's disagreement about primary-source material, in terms of relevance or interpretation, we need a secondary source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This article reads quite disbalanced. While the ideas of Icke himself are given very few attention and detail, the author seems to be obsessed with whether Icke is antisemitic or not, to the extent of making this the central topic. Given that Icke hardly ever mentions Jews in his books and talks, and that his theories are clearly far from anything racist, it all makes an impression of a Jewish activist writing. A good match for Jewish Encyclopedia, otherwise a shame. 217.174.101.27 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Some joker has put a bunch of nonsense about space lizards in the article, that really needs to be filtered out. 01:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you say where exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's nonsense, it's Icke's nonsense. He does claim that the reptillian bloodline comes from space and the 4th dimension. ProductofSociety

The original poster here is making a joke. He's pointing out that David Icke's conspiracy theories are so ridiculous it looks like someone vandalized the page when they really didn't.

AWWW YOUR A SPACE LIZARD TOOOOOOOOO@!!!!!

Legal problems

What legal difficulties does this guy have?--Filll 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reposted Criticism's

Reposted Icke's criticism's.

Wouldn't be that surprised if Either a biased admin or someone with a random IP is going to take them off like the last few times times. ProductofSociety

Please don't keep adding the second criticism section. It violates several of our policies, including WP:V and WP:NPOV, and it's hard to understand e.g. "Icke's main critism is the face value ridiculity of his position on the Ancient blood-sucking, shape shifting, reptillian bloodline from the Drocanian star system who travelled here for the sole purpose to establish complete and total control over the Human Race through Religion and Government." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do your really expect the criticism section to be nuetral? And everything I posted was a sourced criticism of him. I didn't make anything up out of thin air. And if you have a hard time understanding something in an article it would be more of a "nuetral" action to correct it rather than deleting it all together.ProductofSociety

A third of the article is pro-semitic ranting

LOL @ jews getting frothy over a harmless nutter like David Icke then locking article. 24.12.189.115 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Another comic book influence

In the 2001 Vertigo book I, Paparazzi by Pat McGreal, Stephen John Phillips and Steven Parke the titular protagonist is discovering that Icke's theory about lizardmen running the world is frighteningly accurate.

Image

People keep adding fair use images of Icke. Because he's a living person easily reached by e-mail, we can't claim fair use under WP's policies. If someone wants to add an image, they should contact Icke and ask him to release one. All he has to do is attach an image by e-mail confirming that it can be used by anyone for any purpose, with no restrictions. If he wants to be credited every time it's used, we can use it under a Creative Commons Attribution licence, which could be suggested to him. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

CSI

The page is locked or I would add it. Can we put in a link to the CSI Episode about those beliefs? --BenWoodruff 17:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Reading through this page I got to the section "Contact with the spirit world", and there is a hat for note 14 (video) which links to google video for "David Icke, the Lizards, and the Jews" which is credited to Channel 4 Television. C4 is a commercial station in the UK. Doing a quick google for it, I couldn't find any reason to believe that it has been released of copyright, therefore I am removing the link to google video. Quoting the source as that documentary should be enough. If anyone can provide proof that it is not a copyright violation then the link may be able to be reinstated, but I feel it is wise to err on the side of caution in an issue of linking to a likely copyright violation. Champion sound remix 04:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems it more than just this one item that is a problem, I'm going to have a go at cleaning some of this up. For anyone unaware of the policy [WP:EL] is what is relevent here as far as I can tell. I quote "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked."

Champion sound remix 05:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OH WHY DONT YOU ALL HAVE A ROBERT ANTON WILSON BISCUIT FROM IRELAND AND GET ON WITH IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.58.195 (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)