Talk:List of reptilian humanoids/Archive 4

The Picture

Could someone please get a better picture of the reptilian at the top, it looks to light and luminisiant, thanks. this is my first post! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariobarza (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As in other pages of this type, the image caption should not be actively promoting pseudoscientific or fringe perspectives. Labeling the image with things like 'creature' or "last sighted: present day" is not consistent with wikipedia NPOV policy on these kinds of subjects. I have therefore removed the problematic caption to result in a neutral depiction.Locke9k (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Alex Moritz"

There's a bunch of references to an "Alex Moritz" in the "Modern Claims" section of the article. There are no citations, and I can't find any references to him in connection with lizards on Google. Anyone opposed to removing all mentions? Shostie (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly nonsense. I removed it. If anyone wants to put it back, please discuss here first. PubliusFL (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"He contends that most of the world's leaders, from Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush to members of the British Royal Family, are in fact related to the 7-foot (2.1 m) tall, blood-drinking, laser blaster-toting reptilians from the star system Alpha Draconis." Does that sound biased to anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormchaser (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It's a succinct summary of the man's expressed beliefs. John Nevard (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also a succinct summary of one of George W. Bush's actions to say "He violently invaded a country on the pretense of seizing WMDs, despite the fact that he had practically no evidence that any such weapons existed", but it's still better to say "He moved to occupy Iraq on the grounds that its leaders were concealing weapons of mass destruction. This claim later turned out to be false." Come on. "Blood-drinking, laser blaster-toting"? The phrasing is obviously meant to try to make him sound ridiculous. And don't say "Well, have any better ideas?", because at the moment I don't. That's why I'm discussing it instead of making the edit myself.

Stormchaser (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

Hi all. I am not sure about this, but it seems like this article may incorporate original research, given the manner in which it ties in mythological beings from around the globe with a handful of modern-day fringe theories. It doesn't appear as if the mythology and conspiracy theories are dealing with the same topic at all, although proponents of the conspiracy theories might want them to be presented that way. Thoughts? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

that's basically the way this conspiracy theory is presented. I don't know that the article has original research but actually proponents of this theory such as David Icke and Michael Tsarion have definitely proposed a link to mythology as proof of their claims. As for blood drinking and laser toting that's in there as well, and honestly not the half of what they've discussed.

Yes, I am worried about this too. If the mythological material is just support for the conspiracy theories, it should really be in the conspiracy theory section. If it has independent notability, its not clear that it really is on the same topic; and as currently presented may constitute unpublished synthesis. I'm not sure though, its been bothering me for some time and I can't decide. Locke9k (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

People who've come forward with evidence of Reptilians: David Icke, Dr. Joe Llewells, Matthew Delooze, Zecharia Sitchin, Jan Van Helsing, Jim Marrs, Peggy Kane, Michael Mott, Pamela Stonebrooke, Patricia Smith, Stewart Swerdlow, Arizona Wilder, Credo Mutwa, Pane Andov, Courtney Brown, Paul Shockley, Patrick Bellringer, Robert Dean, Sir Laurance Gardner, Stuart Wilde, Dr. Deagle, Dr. Karla Turner,Dr. Richard Boylan, Dr. John E. Mack, and Micheal Tsarion. Cultures that mention reptilians in their myths are: Sumerians (Sumer is "The land of the ones who watch."), Egyptians (The "Serpent Priests" were the Djedhi or "Jedi"), Akkadians, Phoenicians, Persians, Jews, Ewe, Fon, vhaVenda, Dogans, Zimbabwe (royals claim descent from serpent gods who came from the sky), Greece, Romans, Christians, Minoans, Celts, Norse, Ohio Mound, Chippewa, Comanches, Toltecs, Builders, Northern Cree, Iroquois (the word Iroquois means serpents), Sioux (the word Sioux means Snakes), Hopi (sky gods, called their Snake Brothers, bred with their women), Mayan (their ancestors were the People of the Serpent), Aztec (say they were created by a Serpent Woman), Solomons, Gilbert Islands, New Britain, Fiji, Tuamotua, New Guinea, Philippines, New Hebrides, Melanesia, Hawaii, Admirality Islands, China (Serpent Queen interbred with man.), Japan (Emperors claim descent from Dragon gods who come from the sky.), India (claims they seeded their royal families), Tibet, Vietnam, Australian aborigines (underground reptilians who govern over men, descendants of dragon/humans.) ... and more. America = Amaraka = "Land of the Serpents." King David's Judaic Tribe was the "Nashon" which means "Serpent." "Nashon" evolved to "Nation", thus Nation States are "Serpent States." In Media (now Turkey), the Iranians knew their kings as Mar, which means "Snake" in Persian. The Chinese surname "Chan" means "Serpent."

Overall notability issues

Does this article comply with Wikipedia's self-assessment as a *serious* source of information?

Skowronek The Lark (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah it's a legitimate theory, they could exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.1.253 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether they could exist or not, it's not really Wikipedia's job to decide which topics are serious and which aren't. Wikipedia should be impartial but also reflect majority opinion. And in this case, majority opinion certainly does not accept the existence of lizard people. Serendi^podous 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, the wikipedia guidelines on pseudoscience and fringe theories do state that if the theory is notable then it should be reported on from the point of view of describing the theory as a belief of its adherents(although not promoting it or suggesting that there is a debate within the mainstream scientific view). As I have noted below, I believe that there is a notability question with regard to the conspiracy theories mentioned within this article. Its not clear that they reach the level of notability for wikipedia. But putting that aside, it seems to me that the sections on mythology and influence in popular culture almost certainly reach the level of notability, so there really needn't be much question as to whether, overall, this article should exist. The only question need be on this section. The second point is that the title of this discussion section as it originally stood "Ought Wikipedia to discuss discharge from clinically sick minds?" was needlessly offensive and both fails to assume good intent and needlessly provokes an emotional debate. I have therefore changed the section title to "overall notability issues" to represent the content of this section while maintaining a civil debate. Frankly I've never done that before and I'm not sure if there is a guideline on changing discussion titles, but it seems worthwhile here. Locke9k (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The reptilian agenda has been discussed on talk radio shows hosted by many hosts, including Jeff Rense, Dr. Bill Deagle, George Noory, and others. George Noory's show has over 16 million regular listeners, and folks like David Icke and Stewart Swerdlow have described the reptilian agenda on that show with clarity and eloquence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.50.64 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The "reptilian agenda"? No comment. -Falcon8765 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Status

I believe to be completely fair the status should be kept on unknown, i have changed it and it was changed back. There are numerous authors and researchers who believe it to be true and also many other people. Nobody would go on gods page and write status:Fictional so it doesn't seem right to do it on this one either. Nobody is bothered by it being Unknown but people are bothered by it being "fictional" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.130.34 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

pfft get a life ther not real 125.236.154.70 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

do you got any evidence to back up your claim they don't exist?--TiagoTiago (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

External links

Wrt to an editor hatcheting out the entire external links section: This article definately leaves much to be desired. However, among the external links there are Websites with possibly relevant info, which both Wiki-editors and viewers may want to consider. I agree some links are duplicates or irrelevant and need to be removed, but use a scalpel, not a hatchet.

OK. I've gone through it and, after removing three mirror sites, two context-less sites and one blog, that's two left. And really only the first is relevant to the article. Serendi^podous 19:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, with a modification and an addition. The ufologie website is typically better than the Ufocasebook website for general UFO info. And in the case of Caponi, the original content was compiled by the Webmaster of ufologie (and then copied over the net). The addition of the "UFO occupants" external link, although it is not restricted to rep.hum., has a lot of info that is possibly relevant to cases you classified under the "cryptozoology" part of the article (on "lake monsters" etc). In fact, having researched the subject in some depth and from sources in many different countries, I have not come across ANY descriptions like those offered at Rhodes' website (huge, tall lizard looking etc). And I don't put any stock in the D.Icke's "shapeshifters" ... Dhatz (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To ClovisPt "this link has more photos, is exclusively about reptilians, and is in fact the page on which the hyper.net page is based" it was me who first linked this page to ufologie, however the hyper.net page has the same photos by Caponi in much better quality, has unique info and offers possible context. It's not "based on ufologie" at all, in fact there is only one paragraph in common. Dhatz (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The hyper.net page actually has two links to the ufologie page: one for the story, and one for "all Caponi photos". The rest of the content on the hyper.net page is irrelevant, as it is about grays and so forth. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The hyper.net page is in fact more relevant to this topic than the others (unless we factor the domain name). Granted it doesn't deal exclusively with the rep.hum. subject, however it offers context (pls refer to my comments above). The page has over 300 outbound links. Dhatz (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning, however, I don't really see it as an issue of much importance. If anyone else wants to switch back to the ufolofie link, I would support that, but I'm not going to do it myself. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time nor the inclination to engage in external link undo "wars", however the ufologie/hyper site pages are IMO the most relevant ones (outside of the domain name issue) for anyone who wants to start looking into this. The sighting reports I've come across (from US cases like "Loveland frog" or "Dover demon", to cases from Brazil or Germany etc) all mention roughly similar entities. Dhatz (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those links would ever pass a GA nom, but since I don't think this article stands a snowball's chance in hell of ever being promoted, it probably doesn't matter. Serendi^podous 10:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lizard People" vote in MN senate recount

It is entirely possible that the "Lizard People" ballot will decide the composition of the US Senate for the next 6 years. See the pictures. 216.106.172.40 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Added. Serendi^podous 15:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It was one ballot. It perhaps deserves some mention because of the commentary it drew from the press, mostly lighthearted, but not an extended paragraph. Jonathunder (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve a mention at all. The write-in could quite easily have read "flying monkeys" for all the difference it makes. It's testament to quite how poor this article is that the section in question is considered one of its better parts. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how an article on reptilian humanoids could ever reach any kind of academic standard. My main concern in editing this is to keep the whackos out. Serendi^podous 13:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, indeed, but I think we're better off having a short article entirely absent of whimsy than including factually accurate but entirely useless material simply for the sake of padding out the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

on the "politics" section

The guy who wrote lizard people on his vote is my friend (who will remain unnamed) from Bemidji, MN.

I was honestly really surprised to see him mentioned there, as i was just randomly reading about reptilians. Go figure.

Apparently hes getting a lot of flack around town for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.74.241 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Notability

At the present time all or almost all of the links in the conspiracy theory section link to fringe webpages. This is fine for reporting on the beliefs promulgated by these web pages, but it doesn't really do anything to establish the notability of these conspiracy theories as a whole. As it is the section appears to just report on some web pages that may or may not be notable. There really needs to be a few references to independent, non-fringe sources to at least establish the notability of these fringe theories. Otherwise it is not clear that they meet the notability requirements for inclusion. If anyone is aware of such references, please add them. Otherwise this section should probably be significantly shortened if not entirely removed. With that in mind I have added a notability tag to this section (couldnt find an appropriate section one so I just used the article tag on this section alone) Locke9k (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm too busy working on some of the other conspiracy theory articles, but there's at least one reliable source I already know of related to this topic [1]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Icke may be crazy but he is certainly notable; his following is shockingly huge. Not so sure about John Rhodes. Serendi^podous 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't call Icke crazy. He is my favorite author. He is brilliant, and he is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.50.64 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If thats the case, we should try to find some independent reference that established his notability by describing his large following. Unless I am missing something, there is nothing of that nature cited in his section right now. Frankly I am not familiar with his following so if you or someone else knows of such a reference it would be helpful. If one simply can't be found then I'm not sure whether there is any way to establish notability sufficiently to warrant inclusion in the long term.Locke9k (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, here is at least one reliable source about Icke [2]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to work this into a clarified section on Icke. Frankly my biggest concern is the Rhodes section. One of the references is to his personal page, and the other is to a blog. I don't think that either of these can really satisfy notability requirements.Locke9k (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also what do people think of the 'pseudoscientific concepts' box? It doesnt seem to add anything to me other than to repeat things that are presented just as clearly in the text. I'd be in favor of removing it.Locke9k (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Suits me. Serendi^podous 18:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding blogs, here's what Wikipedia's policy on verifiability has to say on the subject:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed John Rhodes. There hasn't been any notable citation added in the months since he was added, and it is up to the person who originally posted it to make the case for its notability. Serendi^podous 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

All looks good to me. Nice improvements.Locke9k (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy author David Icke cited the work of John Rhodes numerous times in the reference section for his "Don't Mention The Reptiles" chapter in The Biggest Secret. He also wrote, "John Rhodes, one of the foremost of the researchers into the reptilian presence, ...." (Icke, David, The Biggest Secret, pp 24).

In the book Our Secret Planet, author Christian Von Nidda lists John Rhodes as a "Top notch researcher" into the reality of Reptilian-Humanoids. (He also mentions Jason Bishop III and conspiracy author David Icke). (Von Nidda, Christian, Our Secret Planet, Lulu press, pp 131)

Renowned British Cryptozoologist Karl Shuker reports that John Rhodes is "the foremost expert on Reptoids" (XFactor Magazine, Marshall Cavendish Publishing. Issue 59, ViewPoint, pp 7).

Late night radio talk host Art Bell (Dreamland) first interviewed Rhodes about his investigations of Reptilian-Humanoid contact in July of 1994. Rhodes has also appeared numerous times throughout the years with radio talk show host George Noory's on Coast-To-Coast AM discussing the subject of Reptoids.

These published references should meet the requirements for Notability. As I am uncertain as to how to input this change into the Wiki format, if anyone can help restore the John Rhodes section to its original state, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.70.142 (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The usual requirement for establishing notability of this sort of thing is non-trivial serious coverage in third party, non-fringe sources. As all of the above publications seem to be fringe sources associated with this sort of idea, I'm not sure that any of them really do establish notability. The larger problem than notability in this article though, is also the issue of undue weight. Given that this is a fringe theory about which there is not much scientific coverage (because it is so fringe), it is important to be especially discriminating about which fringe points to include to avoid giving the theory undue weight relative to the mainstream view. Locke9k (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For the following reasons, the John Rhodes section has been replaced.

It was stated by you that the sources for notability cannot include blogs, open-wikis, forums, web sites or self-published material. As you can see, the sources listed above for John Rhodes Notability were from acceptable sources, as per Wiki requirements. No sources provided were cited from the unacceptable sources you listed.

In addition, the word "Fringe" is a highly subjective, personal, interpretative label. The word has been tossed about repeatedly by editors of other Wiki pages as an excuse to block legitimate content. This is a recognized danger with Wikipedia editors. If someone is seeking to establish a credibility for UFO's or Reptoids, this certainly is not the venue for argument. To present oneself as a Wiki-Enforcer, while trying to steer the public point of view by using terms like "Fringe" as a justification, and adjusting the rules to fit ones own belief system, is deplorable activity.

Locke9k, you have admitted having trouble with the subject of this article altogether. It appears as though you are trying to strip the article of its own notability, as well as listing those individuals that have clearly demonstrated the Wiki requirements for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.70.142 (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. It appears as though you are claiming bad intent on my part. To be clear, I don't believe that this section presently bears on the overall notability of this article. I'm also not trying to "[adjust] the rules to fit ones own belief system"; I am simply ensuring that as per Wikipedia policy and guidelines, this article reflects the notability of the topic in third party sources and does not give undue weight to minor points of view. Further, I don't think that its productive to throw around words like "deplorable". I assume that you are trying to improve this article in good faith, and I would appreciate the same in return.

Secondly, the term 'fringe' and its meaning is well established in Wikipedia wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories|policy, guidelines, and arbitration committee decisions. It is not my own invention and represents Wikipedia policy. The material on John Rhodes as it has been re-introduced is unchanged from the prior material. It still contains only a self-published reference and a blog. Also, as I have mentioned, none of the above listed references in are reliable third-party sources. Again, this requirement is not my own construction, you can find it throughout the above linked policies, guidelines, and arbcom decisions. Locke9k (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why Jon Ronson would not meet WP:RS Artw (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke9k-I retract my initial observation of appearance of intent and agree, "deplorable" was a poor choice of words. sword's down.

It's true, Jon Ronson, who said that Rhodes introduced the subject of Reptoids before Icke, appears to meet WP:RS

In consideration of Rhodes, it's just that, with a site called reptoids.com, and a long list of TV and radio interviews he's done about reptilians, doesn't this long public history with the subject count for anything for this poor guy? Considering he's even called the pioneer in reptilian-humanoid studies by cryptozoologists and even Icke himself, it seems as though he'd be an obvious notable. i believe our intentions are to improve this article in good faith and look forward to contributor input. 64.234.70.142 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You make some fair points; I'll have to think about them a bit in the context of this article to see if I agree. I'll try to think it over and respond soon. Locke9k (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So let me try to make a few clarifying points here before trying to weigh in directly on what I think we should exactly do. Its important to realize that notability guidelines "only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article." "They don't directly limit the content of articles." Notability is still an issue though, but for a slightly different reason I will outline shortly.

To me, the relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; in particular, the concept of giving due weight. From the above policy: "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." In order to satisfy this policy, when you have several different viewpoints covered on a page, the more prominent viewpoints should receive more coverage and the less prominent should receive less. In order to accomplish this, its effectively necessary to require that details of a less notable viewpoint be more notable within that viewpoint since the viewpoint as a whole is less notable in the first place.

For example, suppose that we have an article on flight. The mainstream viewpoint is that flight is caused by fluid dynamic processes in the air. But suppose there is a notable fringe view that that claims that flight is actually caused by magic. This fringe view should still be covered, but should receive far less coverage than the mainstream view. Thus only the very central and most prominent points of this fringe view would be covered, while the article might go into much more detail regarding the mainstream fluid dynamics view.

How does this apply to this article? The 'mainstream', most notable sections of this article are the mythology and fiction sections. The conspiracy theory is clearly less notable (although still notable enough for inclusion), since mythology is a subject of broad popular interest, as is popular fiction. However, at present the conspiracy section already receives about as much coverage as those other sections, when as per the above policy it should actually receive less. Thus, my objection to adding Rhodes is that we actually need to be shortening this section, and it appears that Rhodes is less relatively notable than the material already in the section. In other words, we should be raising the relative notability within the conspiracy theory viewpoint required of details in this section rather than lowering it in order to satisfy due weight. I think that a lot of the material in this section needs to be substantially condensed. I thus think that the Rhodes material could possibly merit inclusion (although I'm not sure), but only in a very condensed form; perhaps 1-2 lines.Locke9k (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to apply NPOV, we simply cover the topic in the same manner as WP:RS do. Here are some WP:RS which may or may not help. [3] [4] [5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly clear what you mean by covering it 'in the same manner'. There may be no single reliable source that discusses all of the aspects of this article, so we have to try to weight the coverage of the various sections in proportion to their notability in reliable sources. Certainly it seems likely there are many more reliable sources regarding reptilian humanoids in mythology and popular culture than there are covering conspiracy theories. For example, if, as the mythology section claims, reptilian humanoids have figured heavily in the mythology of several cultures, then there are probably many reliable sources documenting that in the anthropological literature. In other words, this section is claiming to cover mainstream material. If it were to turn out that such sources did not exist and that the material was not mainstream, then I would be amenable to shortening this section as well. Certainly there are many reliably documentable instances of reptilian humanoids in popular culture; this certainly has a high notability relative to the rest of the article. The conspiracy theory section, on the other hand, doesn't even make an inherently high claim to notability. As I said before, it is clear to me that it is sufficiently notable for inclusion, but even if you accept all of the assertions of notability presently made by this section then it is still, by its own admission, a fringe theory with less notability than mainstream material. Locke9k (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I was on the David Icke article. Yes, you're right, there's more to reptilian huminoids than just the conspiracy theories. As I look at the page as it currently stands, the conspiracy theory is less than a screen long. That's not too bad. If there's no single source about reptilian huminoids, are we in danger of WP:SYN? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I was thinking that I could help by quickly providing some cites to RS to use in the article. I realize that your argument is more involved than I thought. Disregard the last half of my comments. If the sources help, great. I'd like keep to my plan to get the last 10 cites to the article on misconceptions within the next 10 days or so, so I can't really focus on this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good question, and I have worried about whether this article effectively combines several different subjects into one in an unpublished way. Are the 'reptilian humanoids' in mythology really related to the ones in conspiracy theories, for example? Do they really belong in the same article or are we effectively synthesizing the two in a way that implies that they support one another? My inclination right now is that we are OK. There are sources for each of the article sections, and we aren't synthesizing the various sections. We are just separately including each section, trying to weight the extent of its coverage with its relative notability. However, I'm not at all sure that this is correct. Maybe we are combining totally different topics in a way that is inappropriate because, although similar, they are really about different things. I'd welcome a second opinion, because this has been troubling me for some timeLocke9k (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Speculation Section

I have removed this section from the article and pasted it below for discussion, for the following reasons. Essentially, it does not as it stands satisfy either notability or relevance, and it also contributes to a non-NPOV. As the section notes, the discussed speculation was a 'thought experiment', not in any way a suggestion that an intelligent dinosaur descendant might have actually existed. The speculation was not an attempt to explain mythological stories of reptilian humanoids nor an attempt to support fringe claims that such creatures actually exist. Nor has this section shown that the speculation itself made any notable contribution to science or had a notable influence on sociology or culture with respect to the mythology, popular culture, or conspiracy theories of reptilian humanoids. As it stands, this section also creates a misleading impression the there might be mainstream scientific support for the existence of reptilian humanoids. This is a problem both in its violation of NPOV and in the fact that it would appear to be independent research or unwarranted synthesis. I have pasted the removed section below to aid in discussion. Since the image only makes sense in relation to this section, I have removed it and pasted it below as well. If anyone can add additional references establishing notability and relevance, parts of the section could possibly be reincorporated into the article.

Locke9k (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, you discuss the removal of entire sections before you remove them. It's considered polite. Just because that section is not based on lunacy is no excuse to remove it. It is still about reptilian humanoids, and thus within the scope of this article. There is no evidence one way or another that dinosauroids existed, and such speculations are perfectly valid. Russell's dinosauroid is very well known in paleontology, and has been discussed and referenced in popular science many times. Indeed, as far as notability goes it is probably the most notable topic in this article. Serendi^podous 17:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WP:BOLD makes clear that discussion before significant edits is unnecessary, although of course it is best to preserve information (which is why I moved the section here). Second, one of my issues was on relevance. Frankly, I prefer to retain material in the article. The question is notability and relevance. Whether there is evidence for or against the actual existence of 'dinosauroids' is not the issue here. The questions are whether their existence is accepted by mainstream science (it is not; it is viewed as a fringe theory) and whether the speculation is notable and relevant. If you are arguing that this speculation is notable within paleontology and has been discussed and referenced many times, then there should be many available references to document that fact. If they cannot be found and added, then the material probably is not actually notable. If they can be found and added, by all means, that would be outstanding. That to me would demonstrate notability. I'll try myself to rework the section some to clarify that the 'speculation' in no way was an attempt to claim that such creatures existed, but was merely a thought experiment (as I understand things). Also, I'll put a citation flag on the section for now to indicate the need for further support to show notability. Would you agree with this approach? Locke9k (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The David Icke section isn't all that well-referenced either. Why is this topic any more worthy of removal than David Icke's insane babblings? Serendi^podous 18:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please apologize for referring to David Icke's books as "insane babblings." He's my favorite author because he's brilliant. His books promote a worldview that is far more useful than the insane babblings of mainstream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.50.64 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have a problem with this section. It clearly describes Russel's thought experiment as speculation. The only way this really lends itself to the belief that there might be mainstream scientific support for reptilian humanoids is if the reader fails to understand what the terms "thought experiment", "conjecture", and "speculation" mean. It also includes several sentences of criticism of the thought experiment. The last sentence about Turkish artist Nemo Ramjet could probably be removed. Aside from the fact that it's probably not notable, the referenced cite is broken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually you may note that I questioned the notability of that section as well, along with the conspiracy theory section in its entirety in this article. If no one can add more references to independently establish notability of that section after some time, I do indeed intend to remove it. My initial response to the 'scientific speculation' section was that in addition to not clearly establishing notability, it was also unfortunately worded in a way that would easily (and incorrectly) be read as providing scientific support for the conspiracy theories by suggesting that a credible scientist actually published an article suggesting that these beings exist. As I could see no immediate way to fix the issue, and the section appeared to rink resulting in a gross misunderstanding of the subject that really caused an NPOV problem, I moved it to the discussion section pending correction by someone with access to more references. However, in the light of your objection, I am presently making an attempt to clarify and flag the section sufficiently to allow its present retention in a way that is not so confusing. Yes, the reference does seem to be broken and perhaps the sentence could be removed. I agree that the section could be read in the correct way, but I still think that there is a substantial risk of misunderstanding. Perhaps, based on what you are saying, this problem is more one of organization and wording than of content. I'll see if I can come up with an edit that improves things and we can go from there.Locke9k (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps expanding the criticism part of this section might address your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reworked the speculation section. I also renamed it, as I realized that one of the clarity issues I had related to the fact that the title of the section was very broad when the section in fact addressed only one 'speculation'. To my eye it is much clearer now, although it could still benefit from some additional references.Locke9k (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an account for JSTOR, but the following article from Science News, Vol. 130, No. 14 (Oct. 4, 1986), pp. 216-220 [6] might be usable as a source. Of course, we'd need someone with an account to verify. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

'Adherents to the pseudoscience of cryptozoology' - I don't like this as the word pseudoscience is POV. Disputed science seems better to me as even David Attenborough has voiced a willingness to be open-minded about the existence of the yeti. Neilho (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....our article on Cryptozoology states that it is a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Which I'd argue is POV pushing itself. Artw (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably a discussion better had over on the Cryptozoology page itself. Artw (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what reliable sources say. If the mainstream scientific view is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, then it's a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look up wikipedia guidelines on NPOV for pseudoscience and fringe science you'll note a few things. The first is that Cryptozoology and UFOlogy meet the definition of a pseudoscience as laid out by the arbitration committee. The second is that in these cases the pseudoscience should be reported on as a social phenomenon, "should not obfuscate the description of the main views", and that "and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." The mainstream view is that this is a pseudoscience, and under wikipedia guidelines it is considered a pseudoscience. Furthermore, satisfying the above policy basically requires that it be made clear from the beginning of the article that it is a pseudoscience and a fringe view. Locke9k (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Artw has removed this wording without discussion again. I will again refer you to wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories and to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases, which both make clear that "theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." I will point out again that the next category up is "Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Cryptozoology is nothing like psychoanalysis in terms of scientific acceptance. It does not have mainstream scientific acceptance, and is considered a pseudoscience; it is thus appropriate to label it one as per these policies. Locke9k (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Thought Experiment

This section has no bearing on the article. Unsorced and admitted speculation does not belong in an encyclopedia article.--Adam in MO Talk 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But a guy who thinks the world is run by blood-drinking Jewish Nazi lizards does? Serendi^podous 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do they drink blood? I missed that part. I just don't see how pure speculation relates to the rest of this psuedo-conspiritorious(is that a word?) mess. But if people want it to stay I am not the edit warring kind of guy, cheers. I suppose the thought experiment is the closest we will get to factually asserting reptilian existence.--Adam in MO Talk 20:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've contemplated whether or not the dinosauroid deserves its own article, but as of yet there aren't enough online sources to make an expanded version feasible. But, as of right now, it is a reptilian humanoid and as such, it fits into this article, however tangentially. Serendi^podous 21:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Adam in MO Talk 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I also deleted that section a while back and someone reinstated it. After that I reworked it heavily to make it more clear. You can see the old discussion on this above. In a nutshell, the key realization I made is that this article should not be "about" the conspiracy theory stuff. That material is part of the article, but more mainstream material on mythology, popular culture, and and scientific material should have prominence. Since this is a notable appearance of "reptilian humanoids" in science, it aught to be here. After I followed up the references I was convinced this thought experiment was notable. Locke9k (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The old discussion is under the title "Scientific speculation section", by the way. Locke9k (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

MASONRY?

Can anyone tell me how to relate free masons with reptilians? I know there is a connection there but i cannot find any reliable sources! Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonabona (talk • contribs) 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not likely to either. Conspiracy theories involving lizard people are not written by reliable sources. Serendi^podous 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Title Needs To Be Changed In My Opinion

The Title Of this article should be changed for the reason of accuracy. I say this because Reptilians humanoids are a completely different subject. "Reptoid" would be a more appropriate title, as it is the name that is proper name! Reptilian humanoids are quite literally humans, with a "reptilian Brain", if you don't know about this subject, read David Icke's work. Get your facts straight from no on.

~Isaiah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isshii (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is independent-minded enough not to take cues from David Icke. Serendi^podous 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

NO MENTION OF THE SUPPOSSED LIZARD PEOPLE CITY UNDER LOS ANGELES

No mention or even a speculation of the lost "Lizard People" City under the city of Los Angeles.See article jan 29, 1934 issue of Los Angeles Times. Also , suppossed link to Hopi legend of Lizard People and there Un derground cities! Thanks! Dated/DecvidedPMSunset,Fr.Jul24,2009 21st cent. Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC.PINEAPPLEMAN (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories section

The section regarding Reptilian-humanoids in Conspiracy theories needs to be much longer, since that's generally what they're best known for. Although I'm usually against making entirely new articles about a subject that could be covered in the main article itself, I think "Reptilian-humanoids in Conspiracy Theories" could actually make a fairly good article. In short, it needs more information than just a few of David Icke's theories... Xhaoz ^{Talk • Contribs} 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is reliable sources. You would need to show that these reptilians are of sufficient note to be included as their own article. Tracking down reliable sources on David Icke is fairly easy; tracking down reliable sources on his ideas is surprisingly difficult. Serendi^podous 14:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a lotof relible sources for the Reptilians in conspiracy theories. Here are just a few websites; not sure how reliable they would be, but whatever.

• XeeATwelve.com (somewhat popular website; popular amongst users of the God-Like Productions forum, the Noble Realms forum, and others.)
• Truthism.com (another somewhat popular website; more widely-known than XeeATwelve.com but it has less of a following.)
• Montalk.net
• Illuminati News
• The Universal Seduction (especially James Bartley)
• ...and then of course there's always David Icke's website.

There are a lot of books about the subject as well, including a lot of work by Zecharia Sitchin. If these sources don't correspond with WP:RELIABLE, let me know so I can find more. Xhaoz ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be a bit confused vis a vis the definition of reliable sources. Conspiracy theory websites certainly do not qualify as reliable sources. We Wikipedians can look across the bay at Crazyland but must observe it from the fortified shores of Sanetown. Serendi^podous 22:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reptilian agenda

(content merged from Talk:The Reptilian Agenda)

Merge

I'm suggesting that The Reptilian Agenda and Reptile Agenda be merged to this page (The Reptilian Agenda), with a redirect placed on Reptile Agenda. The Reptile Agenda article states that Reptilian Agenda is the more commonly used name, and we don't need a redundant article. -- dcclark (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree about a merge, but in the direction of David Icke or reptilian humanoids since this article is so short and has no references. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - i agree (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with the proposal to merge & redirect, to David Icke, since this theory belongs with him, more than it does with the broader reptilian field. - HenriLobineau

• merge to reptilian humanoids. (Emperor 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

NPOV

For such a short article, it sure is filled with an awful lot of positive adjectives that are used to describe the people who believe in a "reptile agenda." -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.244.36 (talk • contribs) 20:41, September 9, 2006 UTC

In my opinon---> i think this entry only loosly communicates the ideas put forth by david icke, which unfold through an EXTENSIVE number of books, videos, lectures, etc.. although i dont discredit Icke and his research, i find that this entry lends as more of a link to davidicke.com, and fails to communicate the concept from an unbiased context. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul phoenix (talk • contribs) 06:07, September 10, 2006 UTC

feel free to change or add stuff from the article. i just wrote it from the top of my mind, and as i read it now, i thought it was kinda accurate. i noticed the multiple references to davidicke.com, so i erased 2 of them. also, im no professional icke reader, but i think credo mutwa is the best evidence to what hes saying. but im changing that now. again, feel free to edit the article. god damn thats an interesting movie!! (reptilian agenda) -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.63.28 (talk • contribs) 11:20, October 16, 2006 UTC

Speedy deletion

This has been tagged for speedy deletion under the criteria that is it blatant nonsese. I've added the hang on tags because:

• It may be strange but it is a real topic.
• It is tagged to be merged and the vote (above) suggests it will get merged to somewhere else.

Given that speedy deletion doesn't seem like the best solution to the problem. (Emperor 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC))