Talk:David Icke

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are citations needed in this section?

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

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

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