This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
I currently see no legitimate reason for including two obscure country musicians in the lede as individuals Icke has claimed to be reptilians. At the same time, even though the Rothschild family plays a very significant role in Icke's brand of conspiracism no mention of them is made in the lede. We should only provide significant and relevant individuals who he claims are reptilians.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both are significant enough in Icke's theories for him to mention them by name, and country music may be more central to his views than people appreciate. It distorts what he's saying to tweak Icke's statements into consistency with what other people think is important. Tom HarrisonTalk16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing any evidence that country music is even slightly important to his views or that these individuals are mentioned in any way other than as part of some large list of people he thinks are or may be reptilians. The Rothschild family is clearly far more significant in his philosophy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reason for choosing those names in the first place (taken from a mainstream secondary source, though I also have a primary source for them) was to offer diversity. To choose all political leaders or businessmen is too predictable, whereas to expand the list to include unexpected characters such as Kris Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie shows the very broad reach of the idea.
Also, I think that approach introduces the article with less of a contentious slant than would be the case if we mentioned the Rothschilds. There, we're right into alleged antisemitism territory. We did have this in the lead for a while (that aspect, not the Rothschilds), but it started to feel like a BLP violation, and the longer ago the incidents that gave rise to those allegations, the more inappropriate it felt. So I would not like to see it re-introduced, not even indirectly. SlimVirgin(talk)20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rothschild family is mentioned frequently by Icke, while these names are only mentioned in a very trivial manner. As to what you say about it being there to "offer diversity" the first discussion on the talk page I found seemed to be more about overt mockery, as opposed to an objective desire to reflect Icke's views.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a funny sentence, and this is what I meant about starting the article with a less contentious slant than would be the case if we start talking about the Rothschilds. David Icke is regarded in the UK with some affection. He has gotten himself into trouble over the years because some of his ideas seemed to cross the line, and we have a section on who said that about him, and why. And that is where we mention the Rothschilds. But largely he is liked, and he gets big audiences. People like that he once said Boxcar Willie was a lizard (or descended from lizards, or whatever it was).
This article is actually very respectful of him, something that editors have complained about in the past, along the lines of "why are we taking this person so seriously?" and "why are fans of Icke being allowed to control this page?" SlimVirgin(talk)22:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear to me that discussion had very little to do with respecting Icke, regardless of how you may try to spin it. The only time I see those names mentioned it is to mock and demean Icke, nothing more. What he says about the Rothschild family is far more significant and relevant than some comment about a random country musician.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article offers a respectful and sympathetic portrayal of his background, and a brief, but also respectful, summary of his ideas, including giving readers an idea of the diversity of the people he has discussed. This isn't mockery; it's important to show that his ideas are all-encompassing (it's not all Rothschilds, the Queen, Al Gore and George Bush; it's totally unexpected people too). It deals with the antisemitism allegations in a section devoted to them, and it ends with two competing academic assessments of his outlook.
What does he say about the Rothschilds that is particularly significant and relevant that isn't already dealt with, and in what way significant and relevant? SlimVirgin(talk)14:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is about what we include in the lede. The lede should only include information covered in the article body and the information should be significant and relevant to the subject. Icke's claims about a couple of obscure country musicians does not seem to satisfy any of it. Finding his ideas to be funny is perfectly fine, but this is still a BLP and is also subject to policies such as WP:UNDUE. Unless you can demonstrate how the claims about these country musicians is significant or relevant enough to be included in the lede, or included in the article in general, they should probably not be mentioned at all. Otherwise it seems the motive for including it here really is just to mock him, which is very much not appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not correct that the lead may only include material covered in the body; examples and quotations are particularly excluded. Second, the material shows the unexpected diversity of the reptile idea, something several sources have commented on. Third, you're implying that he becomes a subject of mockery for claiming Kris Kristofferson is a shape-shifting lizard, but not for claiming that the Queen of England is one.
You wrote above: "What he says about the Rothschild family is far more significant and relevant ..." In what way significant and relevant? SlimVirgin(talk)15:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd like to hear the answer to that question as well. I might add that the complaints mentioned above (about the article's lenient slant, were never addressed -- or more precisely, they were dealt with by stifling the discussion. While I completely agree that we should extend all basic courtesies -- including respect, and the benefit of the doubt -- toward any article's subject, we should at least be able to talk about it. I think "liked" is probably the wrong descriptor of Icke's status in the UK; based on my own personal experience, I would say "bemused" is probably more accurate. Granted, he draws big crowds and sells a lot of books -- his entertainment value is substantial. But how many of those buyers actually believe that the world is controlled by shape-shifting lizards who live inside the Moon? Not too many, I reckon. Cheers, DoctorJoeEtalk to me!14:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how we'd judge whether his audience believes him. He was invited not long ago to the Oxford Union, and obviously people there didn't, but the invitation shows he has become an interesting cultural phenomenon. As Michael Barkun says, he has tapped into a serious far-right strain of thought, but it gets delivered alongside Kris Kristofferson and giant lizards. Does that make him funny and harmless, or dangerous? I don't know. There's some bad stuff on his website (e.g. Jews did 9/11) but I'm not about to write it up and give him a platform, and I haven't found any serious secondary sources who deal with it (except the ones from a few years ago already in the article). SlimVirgin(talk)15:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people's up-take of Icke's ideas is as simple as believing in actual shape-shifting lizards, or else believing everything Icke says is nonsense. I haven't yet been able to read Lewis and Kahn's article, but people understanding the lizards as allegory may be part of what's going on. Tom HarrisonTalk15:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article postulates that Icke is "representative of a major counter-cultural trend", which I suppose falls into the allegory category. However, Icke himself clearly does not present his theories as allegory; if we are to take him at his word (another common courtesy), he literally believes that alien shape-shifting reptilian blood-sucking pedophilic Illuminati agents have ruled the world for centuries -- which is disturbing, at least to me. DoctorJoeEtalk to me!16:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, is there any evidence at all that these country musicians are significant or relevant to Icke's philosophy? If not the names should be removed from the lede and probably not included in the article at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial following
I've deleted again the claim in the lead that he has gained a substantial following across the political spectrum.
This at best requires a citation. If someone wants to revert this, can they please show any information at all showing that he has a 'substantial' - a significant minority at least - of support across the political spectrum in the UK.
Making lots of speeches at small venues does not equate to this claim.
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
