Jump to content

Talk:David Icke/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

David Icke Defence Fund

1) If what they claim, he is not defending the court cklaim

Does anyoine have details on what it is about, his site claims "Royal Adams" stole his work and has been printing and selling it in the USA without Icke getting any money. I do not believe this. What he says the court ordered is not inline with blatant piracy breach, more argument over contract.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


The Biggest Secret description misleading

This statement needs editing: "The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." Icke does not believe that the leaders are literally lizards. This statement should mention that.

How about this: "The Biggest Secret, in which he figuratively described the Illuminati as a race of "reptilian humanoids" known as the Babylonian Brotherhood. He described many prominent figures as "reptilian", including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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/cd/timbragg3 Can this reference (culture - music) be added to the main site?

Why is the reference to this song (completely legitimate and factual) removed from the article? The song - Song for David - exists as hard copy on CD and as a digital download, yet somone keeps removing the reference - perplexed.

nobody has a problem with this wikipedia entry having copious links and corporate logos, etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace

or this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_king

or these people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_klux_klan

how about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newegg.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there is nothing wrong with having a link to 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)


I dont see where there would be a problem linking to his website. A picture link would deffinately be uncalled for, but numerous bands on wikipedia have external links at the bottom for their websites (which could be considered as commercial websites). The following people have their official sites on their wikis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffani_Thiessen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Berkley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_williams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Braff Cheesecake42 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Advise

Don't forget a signature when you approach 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)

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)

i believe david icke would say "take what you agree with, discard what you dont"

its pretty revealing when people approach him with such antipathy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2008 (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

Proof?

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

Lizardphobe" is someone who is afraid of lizards, presumably.. If smart people like lizards, shouldn't that make him a "lizard-o-phile" instead?

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)

I don't know too many conservative (right wing) green party people. Don't they tend to be more left wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.136.139 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Extreme Green activists come at both ends of the political spectrum. Just tap "green and right wing" into Google and you'll get a lot of examples. Mrstonky (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:08, 7 January 2008 (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.

OK: Icke's first book which was not about football is actually, by New Age standards, not all that loopy. Nor is it all that original: he just rehashes and reiterates concepts which have been tenets of faith for quite a long time in the New Age/Spiritualist camp. Ideas like "if we keep abusing the planet, we'll lose it", for instance, or "unless we mend our ways and move to a higher state of awareness, Mother Earth will hit back at us with tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, fire, flood, et c". What might be called New Age Apocalyptic Theology, in other words. I found it most interesting that one of Icke's angelic advisors was recorded as sternly warning him to use the power responsibly and wisely, or David Icke would be punished with insanity. Quite clearly, after that not-all-that-barking-mad-and-actually-quite-interesting first book, Icke must have used his new powers irresponsibly and for selfish personal gain (wasn't there some sort of rumoured sex scandal involving multiple female followers - allegedly?) as subsequently, he quite clearly was visited with outright insanity!80.177.253.74 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarities between Icke's 'manipulated disasters' ideas and Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Doctrine'?

Talking about books, I figured this was a good place to put this. (sorry if this is hijacking a thread, I dont know how to create a new paragraph) when I was reading the main article about Icke's main theory in his books about disasters or situations being manipulated or created by the powers that be, it struck me that Naomi Kleins book pretty much puts forward the same idea, albeit without the alien reptile angle... I have only read half her book, and shes not exactly saying that world leaders create the very disasters to let them take 'advantage' of the shell shocked populace, but I do find a common thread amongst two different peoples ideas... Maybe it's just me?  :) KCM 204.191.239.189 (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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!






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

The difference is, Icke beleives in it. RAW (most of the time) has tongue firmly in cheek and is just playing with ideas to see where they go. Wilson quotes a dialogue between James Joyce and Jung, where Joyce is asking for help with his schizophrenic daughter, who has taken to incoherent stream-of-unconsciousness babble.

"But I play the same wordgames in my books, like "Ulysses" and "Finnegan's Wake", and I'm perfectly sane" objected Joyce. "Yes" said Jung, "But you're swimming. She's drowning. That's the effective difference"

RAW remained more sane than most people. David Icke may therefore need a lifebelt.... 80.177.253.74 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Historians of Freemasonry

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

i think you can be a critic of something and simultaneously study its history, dont you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2008 (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 )

Shapeshifting&Vampirismus

Ickes Interview with medicinmen Mutwa over reptilien-creatures

Illuminati Beginning Symbole (David Icke )

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

HistoryChannel Secret Society

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

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

"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


totally biased i's written by the few people who DONT think he's of his head like the rest of the world and if someone tries to put some sense into it then it gets deleted!62.56.67.78 (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

its self-evident really. icke presents information in such a way that reveals links and exposes hard-kept secrets the honest way. in case none of you knew, there ARE a such thing as secrets among those whom Icke investigates. these secrets are closely guarded and when we get close to seeing it, smoke and mirrors pop out of the woodwork to confuse us using buzzwords and pushing our buttons that were formed by 911, the holocaust, WWII, etc. i would call that manipulation. its no mystery why things get screwed with on this article constantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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) the left-right political labelling is precisely what his work is opposed, and anyone that thinks beyond politics and applies that to real life surely knows of the farcicle and labelling that is 'left-right' politics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.1.253 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2008 (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)

yeah, i hope lovecraft is getting royalties! lets mock david some more! if there is any truth to the serpent race thing, why wouldnt people who arent investigative historians (writers etc) be influenced by them and remark about them in a harmless way like they did? i would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk • contribs) 17:26, July 11, 2008

Douglas Adams

I removed this:

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)

David Icke has often acknowledges in his many "lectures" that he became "somewhat overwhelmed" around the "turquoise period" of the well known Wogan interview, and I think most accept he went through a period of what used to be defined as mental breakdown. Probably, he can now be described as a conspiracy theorist. He now expounds a (alternative) far more commonly excepted understanding of the world; primarily that of George Bush's "New World Order". A world run by a very few families (c.10,000) as a global fiefdom, controlling politicians through secretive, but now well the now well known "Round Table Groups" such as Bilderberg, Trilateral commission, CFR, Chatham House, Bohemian Club, U.N. etc. I for one now agree with a lot he lectures on. But it should be made clear, he is just a presenter of many other peoples research and facts. He has found a home with the broad church of the the Anti Globalisation Movement. People are seeing through lies, and using the Internet for an alternative view of the Rockafeller / Rothschild and big corporation controlled media / education system. Time will tell, and the best part is, it's probably too late! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.244.237 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Do psychiatrists still do "examanition"s?
Are you offering? Please sign your posts by the way, using four tildas after your post. Thanks. MarkThomas 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, can't find the "tilda" key.
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 [1] 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)

who is making the definitions and why do you trust them so implicitly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

David makes no secret of the fact he suffers from severe arthritis. It is well known that the side effects of certain arthritis drugs such as Indomethacin are hallucinations, depersonalization and paranoid delusions. If his new personality is really a result of drug side effects, then I really feel sorry for him. [[2]] Chrisc62 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2008 (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)

You are an idiot. The left-right X-axis is the economic depiction of the political spectrum. Being "extremely Right wing" would mean believing in purely free markets, a Laissez-faire economy and small government; while "Left" reflects extents of government intervention, nationalisation of the economy and a large government. I suggest you learn about the X and Y axis of politics before you make such silly comments. 87.102.16.15 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And I suggest you read WP:Civil before calling other editors idiots. Besides the fact that in the real world you are simply wrong about what 'extremely Right wing' means (and I have a degree in political science so I think I know what I'm talking about). Doug Weller (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2008 (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.

i thought he seemed extremely left wing and communist! boy am i suprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)




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)

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. [1] During an October 1999 speaking tour there, he received a standing ovation from students after a five-hour speech at the University of Toronto, [2] while his books were removed from the shelves of Indigo Books across Ontario after protests from the Canadian Jewish Congress. [3]

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)


Also, this statement needs editing: "The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." Icke does not believe that the leaders are literally lizards. This statement should mention that.

How about this: "The Biggest Secret, in which he figuratively described the Illuminati as a race of "reptilian humanoids" known as the Babylonian Brotherhood. He described many prominent figures as "reptilian", including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2008 (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.


This statement needs editing: "The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." Icke does not believe that the leaders are literally lizards. This statement should mention that.

How about this: "The Biggest Secret, in which he figuratively described the Illuminati as a race of "reptilian humanoids" known as the Babylonian Brotherhood. He described many prominent figures as "reptilian", including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie."

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

  Not nearly enough. But he's got more than his fair share of mental difficulties. (Or would have, if he actually believed this nonsense. He doesn't need to, as long as it sells books, though...)

-written by a true hero. you tell us! make sure we poopoo david icke. hell, we might get crazy too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2008 (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)

LOL @ retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.162.41 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

im not jewish and i have never persecuted a jew. wonder who is doing all this persecution! the most persecution ive seen has been on south park, and i believe that was by a so called jew. why do people make up names for themselves and make those names more important than whats within? just another valve to control the flow of information with the trusty rubber stamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (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)

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)

Inclusion in the British Atheist Category

Although Icke is no supporter of religions, to put it mildly, he makes frequent references to God as if it where a real entity, therefore, should he really be included in the British Atheists category? Dala0 07:38, 15/11/2007 (GMT)

Is available here: http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/index.php?a=210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.175.212 (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Giant Lizards in Charge

Given that Icke is obviously correct in saying that 12 foot high shape-changing lizards are in all the positions of power it is clear that many of them will have infiltrated Wikipedia posing as admins so there is no way we will a honest, non-lizard opinion here.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement needs editing: "The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." Icke does not believe that the leaders are literally lizards. This statement should mention that.

How about this: "The Biggest Secret, in which he figuratively described the Illuminati as a race of "reptilian humanoids" known as the Babylonian Brotherhood. He described many prominent figures as "reptilian", including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Boxcar Willie

He hasn't really proposed Boxcar Willie is one of 'THEM' (A.K.A reptillian humanoids) has he? Really? Ebglider91 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it HIGHLY unlikely & I strongly suggest that this be removed from the article. Does anybody know who Boxcar Willie is?? The fact that his name appears here among a list of the world's "prominent figures" who may or may not be reptile overlords is beyond laughable.

In the referenced source, the journalist Jon Ronson lists a group of individuals who have failed to sue Icke for libel. My suspicion is that Ronson facetiously added Kris Kristopherson's & Boxcar Willie's names as a joke, to mock Icke's ridiculous beliefs.

A Google search for David Icke / Boxcar Willie shows this myth all over the internet, in articles & forums, but I find absolutely no source testifying to when, where or in what context he named Boxcar Willie or Kristopherson as possible reptillians. A search of David Icke's website finds no mention of either of them.

I propose that these two names be removed from the Wikipedia entry unless a source can be found quoting Icke actually designating them as possible Illuminati / reptiles.

(79.72.161.116 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Well, it was as simple as doing a genealogical search on Lecil Stuart Martin, aka Boxcar Willie and sure enough, exactly what I expected for him. He is descended from the royals, the Capets among others, like many thousands of Americans. Kris Kristofferson, I cannot verify. But I would hardly be shocked at such a thing...that "evil reptilian bloodline" is about as "rare" as a Subway sandwich kiosk. I myself am descended from the Capets. Hiss! :P Now, I can't be used as a source myself, but I hope this will mitigate your unfounded suspicions of Jon Ronson. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The question was not 'is Boxcar Willie descended from royalty / reptilians?'. The question was 'has David Icke (the subject of the article) specifically identified Boxcar Willie as a reptilian?'. The article claims that he has, but no source has been identified quoting Icke himself as making this claim. Your own research into Boxcar Willie's genealogy does not shed any light on the subject of David Icke's works. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Predictions made by David Icke:

"We can expect the power and frequency of hurricanes to increase after the millennium." "A psychic message said there would be a severe hurricane around the gulf of Mexico and New Orleans." (Hurricane Katrina) Truth Vibrations, 1990.

"The bloodline hierarchy at the top of the human pyramid of control and suppression passes the baton across the generations, mostly sons following fathers" (The Bush Presidents) The Biggest Secret, 1998

"The plan is to engineer events real and staged that will create enormous fear in the countdown years to 2012. This includes a plan to start a Third World War, either by stimulating the Muslim world into a holy war against the West, or by using China to cause global conflict - or maybe both" (China is the second biggest military spender in the world, behind the US. Unjust conflicts with Afghanistan, Iraq and soon Iran. Propaganda in America used to justify these conflicts.) The Biggest Secret, 1998

"The years after the millennium will see gathering conflict all over the world to the point where the United Nations will be overwhelmed." Truth Vibrations, 1990.

"Don't be surprised if the US finds itself in another manipulated war during this administration. You will see monsters created in the public mind to justify such action" (Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad) January 2001

"Between 2000 and 2002, the United States will suffer a major attack on a large city" (New York, 9/11, 2001) January 1999

All of these have either come true or are very likely in the near future. David Icke has warned us. Alex Jones also predicted 9/11 and has made many documentaries about the rise of the police state, big brother society and the lies of 9/11. There is also much proof that the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq have been about the personal fortunes of those in power in America.

David Icke claims that there is a secret agenda to put into place a world government and a global police state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.225.116 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

People have been predicting half of that stuff for years:
  • Both the US and Russia were accusing the other of wanting global hegamony since before Icke was born. George Orwell also said some of the same things and he died before Icke was born.
  • Bloodline hierarchy claims have been made for ages too, they are a staple of anti-semitic texts and there were similar claims going back with the European kings and Queen for centuries.
  • "another manipulated war during this administration" could be applied to just about US administration since 1916. Vietnam, Panama, the Gulf, WWI and WWII, even the Cold War itself.
  • "Between 2000 and 2002, the United States will suffer a major attack on a large city". This could be manipulated to cover so many things from so many times. The Washington Sniper, Virginia tech. There's been a big attack on a US city pretty much every year. It just depends on how you tweak the definition. For example, the Olympic bombing could be counted as a big attack on a US city.
  • "The years after the millennium.......", That's so generic that it's not even funny. Take a look at evens before the Millennium. Vietnam, Korea, the Pacific war, even Mogadishu. History repeats itself over and over again. Predicting one more event like that isn't a big leap.
  • "A psychic message said there would be a severe hurricane around the gulf of Mexico and New Orleans". The gulf of Mexico suffers multiple hurricanes every year. Statistically that area will suffer several hits, and since no time period is given any hits between 2001 and 2999 could be counted. That's basically 100% odds.

perfectblue (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

David Icke's new book

David Icke has released a new book. I havent been a member long enough to edit the David icke page. Can someone please add the book to the list of his publications? its called "The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy (and how to end it)2007"

Honans (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Honans

Added the surname. Because it just creeps me out to think that some of these people believe they are on first name terms with the... author. Added an apostrophe because it should have had one.

I have sadly to admit...

..that this page is very different from the Italian version, which is blocked.. I think they don't like what Icke says.. but blocking a page for personal thougths isn't "exactly" what being a wikipedian means.. don't you think?

Any hints? Thanks --82.50.112.113 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is "they"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.118.198 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the Reptilian Humanoids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.155.189 (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

This is a really great and informative article dealing with incredibly difficult subject matter - well done to all those who have had a hand in it! I'll be back to visit again, but I am really impressed - yet again - by the way that wikipedians can take this kind of project on and come up with trumps. thanks Excalibur (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much appreciated. :) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Publisher's name

Amazon.com lists the publisher of many of his books as "David Icke Books". I don't want to change the "Bridge of Love Books" to "David Icke Books" without some independent confirmation, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"David Icke" Warriors Against Reptilians or W.A.R

Wolf1 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)http://www.groups/myspace.com/WarriorsAgainstReptilians ,

MMA Fighter Cung Le among The W.A.R. Members! wow!

Son of God

I'm sorry, but this is the most misquoted phrase ever. He actually said "A son of god" (along with the rest of us), not "the son of god" (ie, the messiah). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.63.17 (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, during a memorably embarressing interview with Terry Wogan, Icke said

I am a channel for the Christ spirit. The title was given to me very recently by the Godhead.

During the audience laughter that was building up during the interview, Icke said something about the power of laughter to cure evil, Wogan said, "but their laughing at you, not with you." Apepper (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

how about we are all sons and daughters of god? why is that such a shock? oh, thats right, heavy hypnosis and social programming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.211.238 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Global Elite

Why is there no article for the "Global Elite"? "Global Elite" is mentioned in this article quite a bit, but doesn't it make sense to have a dedicated article for it? If I'm not mistaken, I seen somewhere a little while back that the article has been written twice but erased almost immediately. Is that true? If not then that article should definitely be made. I have been to many sites asking about the "Global Elite" but unable to direct them to information. I would compile the article myself but I have no experience in that area. 75.65.35.127 (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was only created once, and only a few headings, before it was deleted in 2006. Perhaps an article could be written, but I'm not the one to do it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Is the footballer infobox really the best one? I came to the article looking for a quick link to Icke's website after a mention of it at Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, expected to find it at bottom of infobox as it would be for a politician or musician (apparently not an item most footballers have as it's seems not to be in the template?), then was surprised not to find it as an External Link so added it there. A more appropriate infobox might provide a space for the website. PamD (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia article

The Uncyclopedia article uncyclopedia.org/wiki/David_Icke may provide some (pretty much unsourced) information about the subject, but might provide hints as to where the sources might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject Introduction Problem

"...while his books were removed from the shelves of Indigo Books across Ontario after protests from the Canadian Jewish Congress."

This is the last line in the introduction at the top of this page, but suggests that there is an on-going public debate about Icke being an anti-Semite, which there isn't. That was the establishment's way of getting back at him, by a group of people who, a while back, called around to get his books removed from shelves and to get him cancelled from radio interviews. Why? Because they accused him of attacking the Jewish faith by symbolizing them by the green-skinned Reptilian aliens who Icke believes are manipulating our world. But there is one problem with this: when Icke says that we are being secretly controlled by green-skinned Reptilian aliens, he means it. There is absolutely no shred of evidence to suggest that Icke is an anti-Semite. The people who attacked him didn't even think he was, it was a load of horse manure. Seems to me that someone went out of their way to find something negative to hit Icke's character with, and this was the best they could do?

Richard Warman is a fellow member of the Green Party of which Icke is a member, and Warman has repeatedly expressed his dislike of Icke, claiming that Icke has called him a “hypocrite” and “puppet” of Fascism. Warman has attacked Icke’s character a number of times, and as a lawyer for the Canadian Jewish Congress is it surprising that they held a meeting for only those who agreed that Icke was an anti-Semite and that he had to be stopped? One member was asked to leave the meeting because he had questions as to why they felt this way, to which they had no answers. This was caught on a video documentary on Icke called “The Lizards and the Jews.” After their attempts to get him boycotted failed due to the adoration of many Vancouver residents, Warman and masked supporters of his resorted to dressing up as Reptilians and throwing a pie at Icke as he spoke in a public library, which by the way missed and permanently damaged a handful of children’s books. Are these the sort of people whose views should be taken seriously?

So, I am asking that the line be removed on the grounds that A. The supposed accusation has absolutely no ground. And B. The incident happened a while back, it was dishonest and had no basis upon which to judge Icke as being discriminate. Accusing someone as discriminate is a pretty serious accusation, is it not? Shouldn't it be accompanied by some pretty strong evidence? And what if there isn't any? Albert Einstein said: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." So then why should Wikipedia be party to it?

I apologize if I’ve over-explained my case, perhaps a short line or two would have done, but I wanted to explain my thoughts on the matter. Neurolanis (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see no doubt that he's anti-Semitic, even though he denies it. Thereoux's comments appear to be stating that he (Icke) is anti-Semitic, but his theories are so silly it's not worth enforcing the laws against anti-Semitism in most European countries against him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, no doubt huh? Please explain the evidence to me then, because I am aware of none. Neurolanis (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see what the sources say about it. We go by what reliable sources (e.g. mainstream newspapers, academics, think tanks, other specialists) say. SlimVirgin talk|edits 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. If I used sites like those for references for my comments on controversial subjects I'd be told that they were "not credible" yet you call these "reliable resources." Why is that, because they support what you have to say? As for Icke's own words regarding a small group of Jewish political figures and "non-Jews", he has attacked large political individuals and factions of various religions, governments and institutions. You could easily say that he's against old men, or against men in dark suits, or against politicians or any other group or minority he has ever bad-mouthed members of. But it is what is called "taking something out of context."

Clearly one or more persons here have shamelessly used Wikipedia to exploit anti-Icke propaganda. I am shocked and ashamed to see it. Neurolanis (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Which sources do you regard as unreliable? SlimVirgin talk|edits 05:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
He has similar issues elsewhere, see [3] Doug Weller (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of "turning this into a forum", which Wikipedia doesn't want for these Talk pages, all links that I came across, SlimVirgin, would have been called "not credible" by Wikipedia moderators by all I have spoken with for the use of controversial subjects. (The link to Icke’s own words I have no issue with as I do not doubt he said them, for reasons I already explained.)

DougWell, you said, "He has similar problems elsewhere." What problems are similar? On the 9-11 Attacks discussion I have been trying to have a change of wording okayed (rather than editing it myself without permission) and the conversation "got carried away." Here, I am pointing out that this page has been used intentionally to float propaganda regarding Mr Icke. In this case, I am not the one who would be requested to supply "credible" links to support my claims, the persons who worked this propaganda into the article are. Let's stay on-subject and deal with the facts.

So like I said, I am waiting for someone to review this article in regards to a ridiculous and completely unfounded descrimination assumption concerning a Mr David Icke. Neurolanis (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article and find it to be a balanced biography of Mister Icke. The dead link (Jabbari, Dorsa. "U of T provides accused anti-Semite with mike") needs to be fixed, but contentious material is supported by citations to reliable sources, is presented in context, and gives ample (even generous) space to Icke's views. Tom Harrison Talk 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh how kind of you, to give Icke's say a place on the article David Icke. So you are thinking of him as well, golly gee that's swell.

I only pray that with time someone with authority and sense takes a good look at this issue. Neurolanis (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reptilian Evidence

I've had a look at some of David's books. What I can't find is any hard evidence eg a photo of a hybrid or of one of these lizards. Surely until he produces something like this then none of it can be taken seriously can it? ThePeg (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New Age

I have removed references to Icke as a New Ager, but left in references to people say he is a New Ager. He has stated he doesn't affiliate himself with the new age, although he may agree with and interact with people who would call themselves New Agers. He has even got a chpater in one of his books criticising the New Age. I believe that these claims that Icke is a New Ager should not re-appear in light of this. Icke says he is not a New Ager and criticises the movement, so it is silly to have such a claim on an encyclopedia. However, I left in claims that Icke is a New Ager, because this is something that is regularly claimed and thus has a place on Wikipedia. --81.155.72.165 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Icke is Not New Age

After the Icke article was reverted to remove my edits regarding Icke as a New Ager, I have taken the liberty of digging up this:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/andtruthfreebook/truthfree15.htm

It is a chapter from one of his books that criticises the New Age. --81.155.72.165 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Offley, Will. "David Icke And The Politics Of Madness: Where The New Age Meets The Third Reich", PublicEye.org, Political Research Associates, February 29, 2000.
  2. ^ Jabbari, Dorsa. "U of T provides accused anti-Semite with mike", Varsity News, October 12, 1999
  3. ^ Kraft, Frances. "New Age speaker set to talk in Toronto", The Canadian Jewish News, October 7, 1999.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Icke/Archive_2&oldid=1142757864"