Talk:David Icke/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Larval human reality tunnels

message: 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)
thread_title: Page protected

message: 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)
thread_title:  READ HIM!! 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Green Party, Unconventional views

message: 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)
::They mean that you should not use that tag just for "presentational" purposes, i.e. for how it looks like (indenting), but for "structural" purposes, i.e. for what it serves for (quoting). The spirit of HTML 4.0 and CSS is using tags to specify what an element serves for and style sheets to specify how it looks like. In fact  is still there in XHTML 1.0 Strict. Bottom line: indent text with  to show that it's a citation and with : for any other reason. --Army1987 13:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anome's changes

message: 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)
thread_title: A sorry example of disproportionality

message: 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)
thread_title:  minor edit 

message: Any comments on the Slitheen and Icke's lizards?
Why would the lizards want to take over the Earth, at what point do they appropriate the entities of the people in question etc?
Would someone care to create a list of "impersonator shapeshifters" - which would include Icke, the Slitheen, an episode of Blakes Seven, changlings....
:You're suggesting a comparative analysis of Dr. Who and David Icke? Hmmm ... it might be hard to make it encyclopedic. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I was putting the idea in the air - as it would involve original research etc and is not my area of interest/research.
I can quite see a "page of ideas for other people to research" becoming totally unmanageable more quickly than Pope Benedict XVI's talk page (several archives within a few days of his election). 
The encyclopediac entry would be "a list of redirections": others would include Uther Pendragon and (what is the name of the film - pod people or whatever?) and a brief (historical) explanation. Wikipedia covers obscurer things (g).
Probably best to put the details under Changeling and create a new page for the not-quite-changelings when there are enough details.
Jackiespeel 18:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: David Icke and [[Dr Who]]

message: I am dismayed by the display of ingrained ignorance and bias in some of these comments. I have spent nearly 30 years as a scientific, political and economic researcher. Truth cannot be seen at face value. It must be researched from many angles and even then the conclusion is only an opinion. The difference is that it is an educated and fully researched opinion which, under scrutiny, would stand up for itself. What truly dismays me is the obvious bias in the Icke article of "Anti Semitism". Anyone who reads this mans writings MUST conclude that he is NOT an anti semite. Indeed, he stands firmly AGAINST any acts of hatred or violence against anybody. He absolutely CONDEMNS it. Any who deny this simply have not read his work or are choosing to select quotes which were clearly intended to condemn anti semitism but which are subsequently quoted out of context to support a bias agenda or at least to provide a buttress to hide the writers ignorance of history, economics or whatever.
Whereas Ickes sanity is as questionable as anybodys, I would suggest that those who pick on his strange notions to prove his insanity look also toward George Bush and Tony Blair, BOTH of whom have uttered their belief that they are 'guided by God' in their actions. Bush has even said that "God spoke to him and told him to attack Afghanistan and Iraq". (In the news as I write this) This, by the standards of some of the comments in the article, proves that Bush is a paranoid schizophrenic in charge of armageddon!! Is this sanity? I suspect not. the difference is that Icke challenges these dangerous fools (who ARE in fact related and of one bloodline...Research Burkes Peerage and the facts are their for all to see)
One could go on forever pointing out the factual deficiencies in the feature on Icke but no doubt the writer would simply come back and challenge the views stated because clearly the writer has an agenda to ridicule this man. Let me state clearly...I have worked with many scientists and researchers in many of the fields Icke refers to, sometimes with the purpose of DISPROVING Icke. It may disturb some to know that, however crazy this mans notions may seem, and however much any editor may consider themselves to be 'rational' or 'sane', the emerging evidence supports what he has revealed. To quote but one small example...the question of Hitlers link to the Rothschild family...there is much recorded history to suggest that this was the case. Not forged, simply on record. Not least the declaration to that effect made in the Austrian parliament and the fact that Hitlers mother was a cleaner working in the Rothschild home. Rothschild was also noted as having many illegitimate children to workers on his estate and others. In anticipation of the cry "Prove it...Quote your references!!" all I can say is that if one is inclined to pass comments such as those which condemn this Icke character in the way they have, one must surely be equipped with the ability to research the subject for themselves. If so, do it...If not,spare others your bias and don't claim to have an ability to be fair and balanced.The records are their for any to reserach. The only problem is that, when you do, there are others there all too willing to condemn you for even looking at the possibility that Hitler was not what you were taught. They cry "anti-semite". There are many Palaestinian "semites" so what does this stupid word mean anyway. 
The ability to write lucidly and intelligently does not give one the right to distort and misquote contextually for the sole purpose of ego stimulation or intellectual falsehood.
:So you think Hitler might be a Rothschild, but do you think they were also both lizards? Just wondering. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go read Straw man. Even if Icke's statement that they're lizards is bullshit, that does not make the totality of his works bullshit.--Army1987 12:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (IMO the article is biased against him in stressing aspects of what he says which are patently absurd, and barely citing at all the most valid parts of his works. Maybe I'm biased as the only book I've read is I am me I am free, which appartently is one of the less debated. --Army1987 12:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which are the most valid parts of his work that are barely cited? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: For example, the chapter 7 on I am me I am free ("It's a piece a shit, walk away") ir a fierce critic to the way the Western culture worries about physical appearances and other unimportant things. The chapter 1 in the same book points out how people behave according to what they think other people think, and the problems this cause (see Abilene paradox, even if Icke never calls it this way. Some of the New Age stuff sounds ridiculous if taken litterally, but perhaps it is meant to be a metaphor. The whole book is a book suggesting people to behave as they feel rather than how they are conditioned by society (esp. mass-media). Bet you haven't read it, have you?--Army1987 19:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what your point is. Are you saying we should add more about his philosophy? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; but I don't dare to write it myself. I think it should be written by someone who has read many of his book (possibly all of them). A good idea would be to add Template:Expert... should we?--Army1987 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We make Icke look ridiculous because we say he thinks the world is ruled by lizards, and not, as he claims, by humanoid reptilians? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Now I've changed them. --Army1987 18:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing, he looks so much less ridiculous now. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he doesn't. (I don't think that was the only reason why the NPOV tag is there...)--Army1987 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your opinions 

message: Hi, I disagree with adding the Littlejohn interview in this section.  If you read the paragraph, it now makes no sense. We first talk about the Wogan interview in 1991, when Icke "came out." Then we rush into an interview that happened around 13 years later (as though nothing happened in between): "He also had an infamous clash with the provocative journalist and columnist Richard Littlejohn on his TV debate show,saying that 'If you had a brain cell it would die of loneliness' after Littlejohn had dismissed his views as being 'Soppy as a box of frogs'."
And then we go back to talking about why he said what he said on the 1991 Wogan interview. "His supporters say that he was in fact describing all humans as children of God, or of some sort of deity, and that the confusion resulted from his scrambling to explain his spiritual apotheosis."
By all means add Littlejohn if you think it was more important than all the other interviews he has given over the years, but please add it in an appropriate place, and say why it was important. Also bear in mind that this is for an international audience: they won't know who Littlejohn is, they won't have seen the clips, so the reference to the interview will be meaningless unless you explain the significance, and therefore it must be one that had significance for Icke, or there's no point in "referring to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, this must be old because it looks like it's not on the page anymore Tyciol 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Littlejohn

message: Milo, I'm sorry, I removed your edits yesterday thinking they were something else. My apologies. I've put them back. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting my revert

message: Simon Jones, is mentioned a few times in the article, and it gives the impression that Jones is a journalist. However following the link http://www.simon-jones.org.uk/articles/david_icke.htm it seams like Jones is not really a journalist, more your average person who's written half a dozen articles, and the linked article was about David talking at a local school hall. How does this measure up on the verifiability scale? --Salix alba (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simon Jones

message: Yeah, it's so easy to throw rocks at the mentally ill - just like the Nazis.  You're all so very, very tedious.  Go and do something useful instead of attacking a harmless schizophrene.
Godwin's Law is invoked. DavidFarmbrough 10:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Twisting the knife

message: "...Reptilian humanoids, known in ancient times as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent people are descended from them, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, and Kris Kristofferson." (My Italics)
Is this for real, is it vandalism?  It would be great if it was but sounds unlikely, even for Icke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.63.25 (talk • contribs) .
Apparently so, a web search for Icke Kristofferson yealds lots of results, guardian is the most orthorative source I can find. --Salix alba (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kris Kristofferson

message: In response to Slim Virgin, the sources for Icke's claims about the majority of these people (and others besides) can be found here: 
That's a list from around 1999 and as I pointed out above, it is out of date because he has accused other people since. Most of them are there though. Of the names not on the list:
Aaronovitch is definately accused by Icke, as I remember reading Icke's allegations about him on his website a few years back. The same goes for Pat Robertson. However, I cannot find the webpages and much of his site actually seems to be closed and has been for some time so searching the archive is difficult. The only other reference to Icke's claims about Aaronovitch I can find is on the Aaronovitch Watch weblog, not sure if a weblog is any use even, as is this case, if the information has been posted in an article by the webmaster rather than just an messageboard poster. 
I have never heard of Jm J. Bullock or Talmadge Evans. These sound very dubious to me and are probably vandalism. 
I have heard before that he has accused Jim Davidson, Kissinger, Littlejohn, Madelson and Murdoch, but I cannot find sources anywhere on the web, although I havent searched so throughly, I will have a better look when I get a chance. I have never heard of him accusing Andrew Marr, Bill O'Reilly or Frank Sinatra and can't find anything on these. 
Most likely many of these claims come from Icke's more recent books and I don't own any of his books so obviously somebody who does could confirm whether or not he has definately accused these people and provide the sources. Otherwise, there does not appear to be many sources on the web for a few of these people. It may be easier to confirm sources after Icke gets his webpage sorted out and unless other sources can be found beforehand, it might be wise to delete some of the names for the time-being.  
As I say though, the majority of the names are in the list I have linked to above which is widely distributed in the net and has been for many years, hope it helps.
--195.93.21.103 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, 195. We do need a proper source for each name, and by that I mean either Icke himself (one of his books or websites) or a reliable third-party source who is discussing him. The sites you put up were neither. The article by Icke was not on his own website, and therefore we have no reason to believe it's actually what he wrote. My suggestion is to leave this list out of the article, because it's incredibly silly. If you do add it back using an Icke webpage as a source, it should probably be one with no mention of pedophiles. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for 'Alleged Reptilians' 

message: (moved from SV's talk page)
Why did you revert my edit:
:Last but not least it is important to take note of the fact that David Icke strongly emphasizes extending unconditional love to all people on this planet without giving regard to race, gender, nationality or religious affiliation. In fact, even though Icke fingers a faction of an advanced reptilian species as agents of control and manipulation to the detriment of humanity, Icke advocates extending love and forgiveness even to the reptilian entities thought to be responsible for human plight. A consistent love that completely disregards not only categories such as race but also extends across to a presumed, alien species can only be regarded as completely incompatible with the common perception of a racist, Neonazi or antisemite he is pointed out to be by individuals and interest factions. 84.160.247.104 02:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm expecting you to take up discussion of this matter within a reasonable amount of time. If I don't hear from you in 24 hours from now I'm going to assume your revert is unfounded and I will repost the information to the article. Should you consistently choose not to discuss this matter with me as can be reasonable expected, or consistently hinder me from making this factual addition to the article without good reason, then I will escalate this matter through Wikipedia's arbitration processes. Regards 84.160.247.104 03:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't issue threats. Your edit is inappropriately written and isn't sourced. You must write it in a neutral tone and provide a citation to a reliable third-party source who says this, or to Icke himself. It's also not appropriate for the intro, which is already too long. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If it has been broadcast, you could quote from it, then write after the sentence (for example): "Name of film/documentary", BBC Television, broadcast in the UK, April 28, 2006. If it has not been broadcast, we can't use it. All our sources must have been published. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although possibly having it on a website would be enough i.e. would constitute publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: I feel this article spends too much time on the Anti-Semitism aspect of Icke's brand of global conspiracy theory.  There's no mention of his other favorite topics such as The Bilderbegrs, Masonic shenanigans within Governement, Skull & Bones etc etc. He's been featured discussing these on a number of Televisions hows covering secret societies, various conspriacies, alien abducition ect.  Because he's so well-spoken and often sprinkles his presentations with genuine historical fact, he usually comes off as the most reasonable talking head in these shows.  Frightening but true.  I'll try and add a small section listing the other conspiracies he ties into his own.Lisapollison 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icke's other fave topics

message: Another auther mentiond the problem-reaction-solution thing and I take the burden of evidence. Please wait a moment ;-) Foreigner 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Problem-reaction-solution]]

message: Please see the caption describing what happens on the photo. SlimVirgin has repeatedly done away with B'nai B'rith nevertheless protesters were organized by B'nai B'rith and are obviously presenting a writing with the logo of B'nai B'rith. Foreigner 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[B'nai B'rith]] should be mentioned in the caption

message: I appreciate that Wikipedia has to deal in facts for which there is source evidence, rather than opinion.  However, I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that David was someone who went from mid-life crisis into mental breakdown only for his ostracisation by society to tip in into freefall delusion.  It's difficult not to feel sympathy, and I don't mean to be patronising saying that. 
He's certainly intelligent - intelligent enough to have managed to pull together every piece of new age claptrap and conspiracy theory into an almost coherent world view. The fact that he has a ready audience for his writing has only encouraged him to go deeper into his fantasy world - the people who buy his books are fuelling his fantasty. He clearly is not anti-semitic - when he says 'reptiles', he really means 'reptiles'.81.19.57.146 07:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been gone over ad-nauseum in the archived discussions. Icke is an anti-semite and a thinly disguised one at that. He appears on neo-Nazi platforms in many countries and simply re-packages the ancient blood libel against the Jews, with a few non-Jews thrown in for good measure. His slur that Jews aided Hitler and planned the Holocaust is a typical example. I don't subscribe to the view expressed elsewhere that he is mentally ill or deluded, he just has this powerful anti-semitic theory he's picked up and has restructured it to his own satisfaction and is going around hawking it to anyone who will listen. He also is not the Son of God of course. MarkThomas 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: MarkThomas - why delete cited facts, relating to Icke's claim about the Abkhazian origin of Ashkenaz Jews?  Despite citing your comment above in the deletion record, this comment doesn't relate to the deletion you performed.  If you're going to delete, at least make it clear why.  Punanimal 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental Illness 

message: In this edit SlimVirgin removes the following paragraph, being the last part of the Reptilian humanoids section:
:Icke has since published additional books on the same theme. His latest work sees George W. Bush, also a reptilian, playing a key role in what Icke alleges is a 9/11 conspiracy. In a 2008 interview on BBC Radio 2 with talk show host Russell Brand, Icke accused George H. W. Bush of being a "“notorious paedophile”.
Is this a part of Icke's œuvre which for some reason is unfit to be mentioned in his Wikipedia article? If so, why? __meco (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's libellous, and the published source is very poor, so I removed it. Calling someone a giant lizard is just silly, but the above is more serious. I'm going to archive this soon, Meco, because per BLP we're not supposed to move this kind of contentious claim to the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been expressed on the BBC and repeated in mainstream (albeit tabloid) media. It's out there. I cannot see that your point is at all relevant. Please elaborate! __meco (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't presented by the BBC, but blurted out by Icke during an interview, and the article is about how the presenter is worried about it. Also, I'm not sure I'd call that newspaper mainstream. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following your line of reasoning, I suppose it could be seen as a moot point. It is not one that I will pursue to any lengths. __meco (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I'll be archiving this shortly, per BLP, if there are no objections. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have this on Google alert now, so if the story breaks unequivocally (i.e. with an expanded perspective), it will probably resurface here. __meco (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph with information about the Bush family removed