Talk:David Icke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Khranus

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

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

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

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

- Khranus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page protected

Page protected per request User:Gtrmp on Rfpp:

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

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

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

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

READ HIM!!

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

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

==

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green Party, Unconventional views

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

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

and began to express unconventional views

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

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

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

What does David Icke have to do with neofacism?

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

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

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

Reference request

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

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

Adding neofascism back

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

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

Anome's changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candidate for removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

and here Falsifiability

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

Anon deletions

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

Green party expulsion

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

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

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

A sorry example of disproportionality

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

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

Marked pov

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

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

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

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

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

You mean this one?

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

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

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

References required

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

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

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

Oliver's reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

minor edit

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

POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

82.35.37.118's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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