Talk:Reptilian conspiracy theory/Archive 1

"politics"

Edited politics section concerning Louis C.K.. Wording would lead one to believe that C.K. claimed Cheney and Rumsfeld were possibly blood sucking reptiles in seriousness though C.K. was clearly joking. Not that it really matters.

Purported?

Wake up sheeple, they're real! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.239.116 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Go back to bed. Oh wait, there's one just under it, waiting to grab your smelly feet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Which picture?

This article's too short for two pictures, but it begs the question, which picture should we keep? Serendi^podous 14:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• File:Dinosauroid Reptoid.gif
• 

The color image of the reptilian seems to show it better and in more detail, and I don't think there's really a need for a naked human in an article about lizard people. So I vote for the color image.Lullabee05 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to see the size comparison between the alien and the human, I didn't know that the reptilians were that much larger than us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.1.152 (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I say the color one, as the other has the reptilian assuming a human pose, which is unlikely to be possible for an alien.

Now why, why, WHY am I giving the conspiracy wingnuts hints? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 01:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

is it any different than helping people figure out what picture of jesus to use? It's just a theory. Even theories have a place on wikipedia, as long as they contain a "criticisms" section. 64.119.57.59 (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Is it just me, or are sources 4 and 7 the same thing? The same article on the same day on the same site. Or is there a difference I'm missing somewhere? 75.202.82.135 (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Serendi^podous 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Badly worded?

"Icke's theories now have supporters in 47 countries on Earth, as well as in Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, and various extrasolar planets." He has supporters on other planets? has this page been vandalized, or am I misreading this? 75.172.107.94 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Heavy vandalism today. Thanks for spotting it. Serendi^podous 20:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Obvious Disinformation

I deleted reference to a "Hollow Earth", which is not contained in the attached link 7, nor in any of David Icke's presentations or books. This is an obvious attempt to discredit Icke. Ironic that Wiki has not simply deleted this page as Wiki has become an extension of the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, et. al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychicattorney (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC) (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok.... Serendi^podous 18:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hollow earth was mentioned in "The Biggest Secret" by David Icke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.234.200 (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reptilians or Wing Nuts among us?

I doubt the presence of Reptilians amongst us but I dont' doubt the presence of delusional Wing Nuts, desperate for their Warholian 15 minutes of fame.

Why is it that all aliens are evil? Why are they all shape shifters? Why do most alien abductions occur to English speaking people? One would think that statistically speaking, Asians would be far more likely given the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.76.1.62 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Should be expanded

This article should be expanded to include Reptilians in Science fiction and speculative fiction, as well as things like the "Dinosauroid". Currently it's only about UFOs and Conspiracy theories, but they didn't originate the concept of humanoid reptiles. --Hibernian (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what List of reptilian humanoids is for. Serendi^podous 08:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does Chitauri redirect here?

I see nothing in the article which suggests a one-to-one relationship between Reptilians and Chitauri. And certainly nothing referenced. I'll wait a few days and separate them again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You can do it right now as far as I'm concerned. I have no idea why it was linked here in the first place. I kept it because I assumed whoever did it had their reasons. Serendi^podous 14:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping you knew how to do it; I'd hate to ham-fist my way through it and break the Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you want it to go? Serendi^podous 16:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's just delete it. There isn't enough info for Chitauri, and reptilians have enough to stand on their own. Add to that no citation connecting the two, and the decision seems pretty clear. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, was it that easy?? Lol - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I think it's a big mistake not to say anything about what scientists think on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.105.87.14 (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientists don't think on this subject... Ericlord (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, because they are reptilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.189.235 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Reptilian (conspiracy theory) as proposed. Clear WP:CONSENSUS to move, though agreement on where exactly is less clear. But no alternative achieved more support than the proposed destination. B2C 04:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Reptilians → Reptilian (conspiracy theory) – I'm not sure this fringe theory is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suspect a reader searching for "reptilians" may more likely be searching for something else on the dab page Reptilian, especially reptiles themselves, or the List of reptilian humanoids, if the plural form is deliberate. I'm proposing a singular form per WP:PLURAL, but I'm flexible on this, as well as the particular disambiguator. BDD (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Move to "Reptilian humanoid", as in List of reptilian humanoids. The article also includes mentions of reptilian humanoids in fiction, which would not be encompassed by the "(conspiracy theory)" qualifier.--Xiaphias (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The fictional references are not random mentions; they are an attempted explanation for the belief in the supposed existence of these things. "Reptilan humanoid" is too general. Serendi^podous 07:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to something. This should redirect to Reptilian disambiguation page with haste. Reptilian humanoid alien visitor might do, since not everything here is conspiracy theory, some of it is just plain alien abduction. This makes clear this isn't about evolved dinosaurs found in science fiction (which aren't aliens) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• If "reptilians" is too confusing (personally I don't think it is; I've never heard the term "reptilians" used to describe anything but these creatures- people looking for "reptilian" will type that in or "reptiles") then the more specific "Reptoids" would be OK with me. Serendi^podous 06:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• I was surprised, but I went through several pages of the 10,000 Google Books results, and few if any of the hits appeared to be about anything else. And this isn't just fringe books, but also scholarship discussing fringery, which is plentiful: [1][2][3][4] This appears to be the common name of the subject, and though it's hard to tease out, it appears the term (in plural) refers most commonly to these conspiracy monsters. I could see moving to the the singular (with disambuation) per WP:PLURAL but I don't think its pressing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The status quo, with Reptilian as a DAB and Reptilians as the title of this article, seems quite adequate on the evidence presented above. Yes, I'm a bit surprised too. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This discussion, combined with the one above, shows that there is no agreement to move the article. At least three editors think that 'Reptilians' (or possibly 'Reptilian') is a pretty good name, including User:Serendipodous who was only here for the first discussion. Nothing currently presents itself as a better alternative since Reptilian (conspiracy theory) has only one editor still supporting it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

---

• Reptilians → Reptilian (conspiracy theory) – Per closed RM discussion at Talk:Reptilians#Requested_move (page is moved protected; needs admin to actually move) B2C 04:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Object, there is no consensus for this destination, as B2C states in their non-admin close [5]. Possible WP:POINT issue in view of current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus and related discussions in which B2C and I are both also involved. Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment:This RM has been moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests [6] [7] by an uninvolved admin. See the RM above, which IMO was not a candidate for non-admin closure (and therefore the technical request was also invalid). Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions has been recently edited by the closer to include their controversial concept of community consensus (see Wikipedia talk:Consensus linked to above and also Wikipedia talk:Requested moves). Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Object Very faulty reading of above discussion Agathoclea (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• As the initial proposer, you can consider my request withdrawn, if it makes things any easier. Cuchullain demonstrated that "Reptilians" isn't as ambiguous as I thought. I'm also troubled by B2C's interpretation of consensus in general, though I'm more agnostic on the NAC in this particular case. Nothing in that closing statement was wrong, though it probably should've been left for an admin. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Exactly. There were no falsehoods in the closing statement. It just didn't justify the non-admin close, nor the technical RM that followed, and it's hard to see how it could be justified, either in terms of the closing statement or of policy. Andrewa (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know that the issue is the non-admin closure, I think it was just a misreading of the discussion. I actually came here intending to support, but as I said above, it appears to me (1) that "Reptilians" in plural chiefly refers to the conspiracy monsters, and (2) in the sources, the monsters are called "Reptilians" more than they are called "Reptoids", "Reptilian humanoids", "Draconians", etc. There's still the matter of WP:PLURAL, but if the original proposer is withdrawing, I think we can let this discussion rest for now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Alligator People 1959 movie

If someone thinks it's appropriate to mention in the article, I would like to point out The Alligator People, a 1959 black-and-white, sci-fi/horror movie that starred Beverly Garland. Check out a Google image search for stills from the film. 5Q5 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Only if it can be tied specifically to the Reptilian conspiracy theories. Serendi^podous 17:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously

Like, this page a) gives unnecessary credence to a clear paranoid delusion and b) DOESN'T EVEN ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THE CONSPIRACY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.44.214 (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It may not adequately explain the conspiracy (reliable sources on this topic are rare) but I don't see how it lends credence to it. Serendi^podous 10:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hoax derived from fictional Sword & Sorcery literary concepts

This article is an enormous joke as much as the theory itself. David Icke never created the concept of snake like people who shapeshift to resemble humans, preparing a global invasion . Even the supposedly original source, the 1934 LA Times article, sorrily copies the fictional concepts published in 1929 in Weird Tales magazine , written by Robert E Howard in the story "The Shadow Kingdom" . To resume: Howard's serpent men first appeared in a fictional time line supposed to predate even the fictional Thurian Age, predating humankind. Their appearance is humanoid, but more precisely human like with the head of a snake. They survived to see the first humans evolve from ape-like state, build their own kingdoms and drive the said serpent men away for a certain time. These serpent men shapeshift and are able to mimick perfectly humans with their attire and all, but it is only a magical illusion, as this race masters certain powers. King Kull happens to learn a certain formula which destroys the illusion and reveals their true reptilian appearance, formula which when spoken out loud by Kull will prevent them from overthrowing him and invade his kingdom, as the said serpent men had been conspiring for a while and had lookalikes walking unnoticed in the palace, even amongst his closest counselors. Only by magical means (the formula in question) or by death can the snake men be revealed . Kull's palace had secret doors which he himself was unaware of until he discovered them , which led to underground tunnels where the serpent men prepared their invasion. Why refer to an obscure LA Times 1934 article for the origins of the concept when in fact it is coming almost verbatim from american sword and sorcery pup magazines from the 20's, such as Weird Tales ? The LA Times article is perhaps one of the first sources to -use- this concept of ancient conspirating reptilian humanoids and -apply- it in a context of conspiracy theory , claiming all sorts of pseudoscientific discoveries from an unreliable source. Using the concept in this manner redirects it from the fictional literary world of sword and sorcery into the conspiracy theory world, which is not the first time that elements from either mythology or fictional literature would be "borrowed" for such purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the article is polluted by wiki member Serendipodous' imagination which makes him impose to everyone that supposedly a LA Times article would be the origin of reptilian people preparing to invade the earth when in fact it is present in sword and sorcery literature a few years before this article. the connection between the "Shadow kingdom" by Robert E Howard story and the reptilians is not made in anybody's head, it is there. Serendipodous' refs are just not accurate, even wrong , and he should let go of that ridiculous LA Times article as a supposed "source" to anything. Howard took inspiration in ancient mythology but created the concept of reptile looking humanoids living in underground places, scheming to infiltrate the powers that be of the human kingdoms of the time.The problem of wiki members who initiated a given article and imply that the article "belongs" to them is becoming a real nuisance, it is difficult -even impossible sometimes- to participate , even with loads of valid refs, because these refs contradict the said wiki member's deluded conspiracy theory nightmares.

Polluted by my imagination? My dear, you have no idea where my imagination goes. Truth be told, I didn't add that LA Times citation, but it is cited to a reliable source, unlike anything you've added so far. Find a decent citation for any of your claims, and they can go in here. Otherwise, they stay out. It's not complicated. Serendi^podous 22:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlike anything I cited? there is an article for the Serpent men on wikipedia! one for The Shadow Kingdom as well! As for the date of publication in Weird Tales it speaks for itself: 1929! You read one miserable article on a blog, which is only the personal research of this author in question and you think you've discovered the truth. Sadly he is the only one to ever say that the LA times article is the first and original source of the whole myth. Read the novel "Vril, the power of the coming race" (1871) where it is mentioned that a mystical race the Vril-ya, live in underground galleries. one of the founders of the Vril-ya, the great-grandfather of a vril-ya "philosopher" is described as being a "Batrachian" and a "Great Frog". Suffering of overpopulation, the Vril-Ya race will probably invade the humans.That's one point of origin for the "reptilian" mythos but it lacks the plot, the human body doubles and the evil intentions of underground people, moreover, the Vril-Ya are not humanoids reptiles, only their ancestors were . it is only in The Shadow Kingdom of Robert E Howard that there are serpent men described verbatim as being human up to neck only with a head that resembles that of a snake ("A man with the head of a snake!" Kull murmured. ) , which live in underground passages , were overthrown by humans eons ago and are plotting with human impersonators (body doubles feat being achieved via magical means)to overthrow King Kull's kingdom. You condescendingly claim that all this is "only in my head" but unfortunately for you it is written black on white in the pulp story of sword and sorcery "The Shadow Kingdom", published in 1929. The "Handbook of Religions and Cultural Production" by Cusack and Norman, published by Brill (2012 reedition, as the original is 1962 ) states on page 113 & 114 that as a "cultural production" , the first fictions ever to incorporate elements from theosophy such as Blavatsky's lost worlds and dragon people(modified by Howard as serpent men), was published in Weird Tales starting in the late 1920's . Howard's stories were the first to adapt Blavatsky's dragon men into -verbatim as stated in the book- "humanoid reptilians" , "serpent men" which fought against King Kull. Link for the book on Google books (see pages 113-114) is http://books.google.fr/books?id=5aRyJ-vbrJsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false . The book does not say the serpent men first appeared in "Shadow kingdom". For that you have to read Howard biographies or simply ...refer to wikipedia article on the said story! You need a good dose of education and stop referring to blogs that only compile original research that is not backed up by anyone else. The guy on skeptoid is doing a good job but sometimes he doesn't look past a few examples or refs in his personal research, his goal being to debunk urban legends and to moralize the gullible who believe in the said urban myths. His article on reptilians has not been peer-reviewed and NO OTHER author has agreed with him about this business of the 1934 LA article being the first ever source of the rpetilians living in underground galleriesetc etc. Many people (web authors mainly) acknowledge the times article is ONE OF the first source but not the first, far from it. You have no notion of what is theosophy nor of any pulp authors of the early 20th century that were inspired by these ideas, nor did you ever take the time to check elements pertaining to this urban myth, present in late 19th century fictiion as well (such as Vril) . Start by checking Vril ( http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1951/1951-h/1951-h.htm ), The Shadow kingdom ( http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0603491.txt )and the handbook about religions and culture in question with the link provided a few lines before. Look at the associated wiki articles as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Serendipodous, you want more valid refs? how about the book "Culture of Conspiracy:Apocalyptic Visions in contemporary America(Comparative Studies in Religion and Society) " by Michael Barkun, 2006, University of California Press, New edition, ISBN-13: 978-0520248120 ISBN-10: 0520248120 . On page 1968, in the chapter "The Serpent Race" , the author says that Icke based almost everything on M.Doreal's claims and alleged "translations of egyptian tablets" pertaining to humanoids with the body of a man but the head of a snake. Doreal published between 1940 and 1963 (date of his death) . The author shows that Doreal based his esoteric conspiracy mythos on various authors,but THE FIRST ONE EVER to release such a concept of conspirating shape shifting serpent men -reptilians- came from Robert E Howard in 1929 in the pulp magazine Weird Tales. This is mentioned black on white on page 1970. Stop vandalizing the article with the false claim about the 1934 LA Times article and please check out pages 1968 to 1970 in the link of the said book which studies in detail the origins of many conspiracy myths : http://books.google.fr/books?id=9Gy0HPzcxkEC&pg=PA1890&hl=fr&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "false claim". It is one person's speculation that you happen not to agree with. However, given the vague nature of this topic, it has about as much right to be in this article as any other piece of speculation. Thanks for the source, but, again, your comment does not make a connection between the modern reptilian conspiracy theory and Robert E Howard. You're basically just saying, "Some people today believe shapeshifting Lizard Men control the world. Robert E Howard wrote fiction about shape shifting lizard men controlling the world." Where's the connection? Do people actually believe his writings had an influence on Doreal, Icke, et al? Or is this connection just in your head? And for God's sake, get a username; you're not protecting yourself from anything. Serendi^podous 06:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Serendipous, you are extremely dishonest and should not be allowed to write any article on wikipedia. The LAST ref I gave, the book "CULTURE OF CONSPIRACY :Apocalyptic Visions in contemporary America(Comparative Studies in Religion and Society) " by Michael Barkun, states SPECIFICALLY on page 1970 that the first ever mention of a changeling serpent race scheming to overthrow humans came from Robert E Howard. It is linked DIRECTLY to EREAL and ICKE's allegations between pages 1969 and 1970: READ THE DAMN PAGE, I gave a google books link. A publication from the University of California Press is much more reliable as a source than a vague blog article by skeptoid.dom found randomly by you on the web . The personal research here is the article by skeptoid, not the source I found.I will rewrite the said paragraph. You're playing the dumb game with me by saying "Do people actually believe his writings had an influence on Doreal, Icke, et al?" I mean you DID NOT READ THE LINK I provided, where it is clearly stated that the initial source for Doreal and then Icke is HOWARD, here's an excerpt form googlebooks:

pages 1969- 1970: " Where did Doreal's ideas come from? (...) the material from the Serpent Race first appeared sometime between the mid 1940's and the mistaken nuclear war prediction of 1953. Although Doreal and the others spoke of the serpent race as a confirmable historic reality, the idea almost certainly came from pulp fiction-indeed from publications similar to those in which Shaver's work has appeared (...) In all likelyhood, the notion of shapechanging serpent race first came from the imagination of an obscure pulp fiction author, Robert E Howard (1906-1936) (...) In August 1929, he published a story in Weird Tales magazine called "The Shadow kingdom" in which the evil power was the snake-men whose adversary, Kull, came from Atlantis.These creatures had the bodies of men but the heads of serpents, just as Doreal was later to assert, and like his Serpent Race they had the capacity to change shape, appearing human when they wished. In Howard's story they were thought to have been destroyed, but they returned insidiously, insinuating themselves intopositions of power. While Howard was well known amongst devotees of fantasy fiction, he never received widespread recognition and committed suicide at an early age. (...) Doreal's appearance in "Amazing Stories" provides grounds for believing he was familiar with pulp fiction and makes plausible his appropriation of one of Howard's motifs. It is clear that in the early 1950's, the pieces were being put together in a manner that would make them available to the Dulce writers nearly forty years later. this is strikingly eveident in a 1951 publication by Robert Ernst Dickoff, "Agartha" . HE cited (...) the Emerald Tablets (...) he wrote about humanoid serpent men that came from Venus exploiting and antediluvian tunnel system in order to infiltrate and capture Atlantis and Lemuria(...) Although the serpent men seemed to have been defeated, they and their agents have infiltrated high policymaking circles through their powzers of mind control . (...) by the time reports of underground installations began to appear in the late 1980's, the fictional scenario of reptoids presented as fact by occultists like Dickhoff, was available fully, formed "

Simply saying that fictional piece X is the first ever mention of a changeling serpent race is not the same thing as connecting it to an actual conspiracy theory. How does it connect to Doreal and Icke? If you quote the source saying that Doreal or Icke drew their ideas from reading Robert E Howard then great. If not, it's not a frigging connection. And stow the ad hominem. Serendi^podous 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First you deleted my quotes from the book, secondly the connection is CLEARLY ESTABLISHED with the author showing where Doreal's ideas came from, where he published and how it is possible that he took elmements from Howard's concept. Earlier (as the author goes backward in time at a certain point) ,on page 1968 it says how Icke directly took inspiration from Doreal with minor changes as well. Why the heck do you think I provided the googlebooks link for??

I have not deleted anything; the only thing I have done since we began this odd conversation, besides add my own comments, is reinstate sourced content that you removed. And if the book makes such a connection, please make it clear in your synopsis, because so far you have not done so.

Ah, I see you have added a quote to the above conversation to make it look like I ignored it. Nice one. Now who's being dishonest? And as I said above, I did not post that Skeptoid claim. I am not the only editor of this article. Here's a compromise; paraphrase that quote (I can't do it as I lack the necessary background information) source it to the book, and put it in. But be sure to begin it with "Professor Michael Barkun of Syracuse University argues that...", and keep the Skeptoid claim, opening with "Author Brian Dunning says that..." Serendi^podous 13:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

what is NICE is that I have to copy for you, poor little baby, all the material down because you're to LAZY to go on googlebooks read the excerpts yourself. The LONG PARAGRAPH with the quotes is taken VERBATIM from the googlebooks link. this is the last time I lose time to "show" you anything, next time you take on your own time and read the liks so kindly provided. I initially thought you deleted the quotes, but it happens you answered while I was posting the second part.You cannot place the skeptoid claim at the same level as conspiracy theory history expert Michael Barkun's 2000+ pg book published for the California University Press. Are you realizing what you're saying? YOU decide that skeptoid is a valid ref, YOU decide if yes or not the refs I searched should be published?? WHO ARE YOU?? You're just another wikipedia user like me or anybody else, but you're acting as if the article belonged to you. Let me tell you the article is crappy, doesn't give much info and has a structure much worse than what is found in other languages on wikipedia. for example, there is absolutely no history of how Icke came up with his allegations. Someone posted a brief resume of what Icke's reptilian mythos consists in and nothing else. That is wastly insufficient and is probably done on purpose to give a certain legitimity to Icke's whacky claims. by the way, the handbook of new religions, another ref I posted here on the talk page (link and ref is JUST ABOVE, just STOP BEING LAZY and read the googlebook page in question), references Howard also as the first to put togetehr a solid scenario involving reptilian humanoids plotting against a kingdom thansk to their shapeshifting abilities and mind control powers. No it's NOT "just" BArkun, it's Barkun and a whole crowd of experts in theosophy, conspiracy theory, pulp fiction and so on: READ THE REFS IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY (follow the inline refs in the said books, many other experts are referenced each time a connection is made). Serendipous, you're just vandalizing and monopolizing the wikipedia article because you want to impose your own little truth based on ONE article on a BLOG while I provided TWO books with EXTENSIVE bibliography and refs. Books which are known references for researchers , unlike the blog article you provided. FACT. Edit: even if the Times article is a minor discovery neglected by almost all experts (just one out of many publications surfing on the underground serpent men , famous in the 1920's and 1930's) , I rephrased the paragraph on the 1934 LA Times article and incorporated it in the section in question, with more details about the said "Lizard People", Shufelt and the alleged source, Macklin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Detailed response below Scolaire (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I found the links provided by 82.240.163.245 hard to follow, I did eventually establish that Michael Barkun, in Culture of Conspiracy, did establish a clear link between Icke, Doréal and Howard's 1929 "The Shadow Kingdom" (page 121, full text at French Google Books). The connection between Howard's reptilians and Blavatsky is brought out in Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, p. 113. There is every reason, therefore, to include this information. On the other hand, there is no reason to portray this and the Los Angeles Times article as rival sources of the conspiracy theory. After all, the intro says that reptilians "play a prominent role in science fiction, as well as modern ufology and conspiracy theories." Since there is no apparent quarrel between Barkun and Brian Dunning, these should not be portrayed as competing theories, and indeed there is no need to pin down a specific article as "the origin of such beliefs." Fictional and "factual" representations can and should go side by side. I recommend (1) that the original paragraph be restored, with the omission of "may have been the origin of such beliefs", (2) that the recently added content be edited down drastically – to about the size of the Dunning paragraph – and the citations be fixed, and (3) that the section be re-named "History" and go at the top of the article. Scolaire (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the very first edits by 82.240.163.245 , you'll notice the parts on the newspaper article as analyzed by Dunning were never removed. From what I recall when Howard's influence was mentioned in a new paragraph -then- , it only specified that it (the publication in Weird Tales )occured in 1929, before the date of the article of the Los Angeles Times, no negative POVs were established concerning Dunning's website or article neither. The repetitive deleting of the additional paragraph concerning Howard led probably in return to a repetitive deletion of the part concerning the LA Times article. The history of the editions will show this easily. Now someone ( MONGO , not a joke, the wiki pseudo of a member )simply destroyed a certain amount of time and research under the pretext that it is an "adolescent POV pushing" . I read the previous version and it had both a "history" of the myth and it presented a revised but not condescending rewrite of the paragraph concerning the LA Times article. If you go and check Dunning's page on the subject, you'll notice he is mocking the LA Times article over and over so the rewrite by the IP poster is absolutely not biaised anyhow since it condenses exactly what Dunning meant. I will repost the previous version which represents a serious research mainly based on Barkun's analysis but still contains the parts about the TV series "V" and the rewritten paragraph about the LA Times as criticized heavily by Dunning initially. Feuds for editing this page and constantly reverting to a piss poor wiki article with almost no explanation of the concept of reptilians is unacceptable. I some parts of the new paragraph are considered not well written or should be altered , then people should rewrite the parts in wuestion, not delete them constantly like angry children, this is why I will repost the "long" version including the historical research part -and- the paragraphs about V and Dunning's "discovery". It's fair isn't it? I think the wikipedia page should expand and a historical part is mandatory , look at the wikipedia article on David Icke, it has -more- info in its chapter about reptoids (slash) reptilians than this present article we're discussing about!! Simply hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.152.110 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

.. I just noticed editing isn't possible for the moment. I've read the new added material and while I think it can be condensed, it cannot be done up to the point to which it would hypothetically equal in length that of the paragraph about Dunning , as suggested by Scolaire : it is impossible. There are too many -key- elements. The part on Branton can be deleted by simply mentioning his name instead; the part on Theosophy is also crucial as the themes that inspired fiction authors and obscure esoteric cult leaders crystallized into the concept of underground dwelling snake like people, stemming from vague concepts such as mystical hidden cities and rulers, forgotten races of all kind, and lost continents from antediluvian times. The part about Kull can also be resumed,but it is mandatory to explain how Howard's "serpent men" inspired the "Serpent Race" of Doreal's and then those of UFO conspiracy authors such as Branton and Icke ("humanoid reptiles" , "Dulce Aliens" as quoted by analyst Barkun, "reptoids" as defined by Icke ) : the essence of the story in a nutshell, general shape of the creatures in question, main abilities such as mind control and shapeshifting into humans at will, their underground whereabouts , the fact that they ruled the earth before mankind but failed in keeping the lead, their evil intentions and their ways of conspiring against humans thanks to body doubles, secret pacts with human or non human "traitors" and a few other details. Barkun stated in his book that the main details were similar but that there were slight variations when passing from the 1929 sword and sorcery fiction serpent men right to the modern 21st century ufo&biblical fiends of some new age beliefs. Apart from pulp fiction authors Howard, Smith and Lovecraft all the other mentioned in the new material were ufologists and or cult leaders who lifted the fictive concept of these creatures to give weight to their own conspiracy theories. The added "historical research" material, probably too long, that has been added recently but ended up deleted is available in this link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.152.110 (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Although Mongo's edit summary was unfair, it is true that the edit was too wordy, too focused on plot details, difficult to follow, and sometimes strayed from the point. It would not be a good idea simply to repost the deleted paragraph. I would be willing to write a paragraph which would state all the important points of that paragraph if other editors were willing to stop edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, other than what has been previously mentioned that is out of subject, I agree with how you have rewritten and restructured the article, it is a much better base to continue with than the former version of the article which seemed plagued with anectodal unsourced material and numerous vandalisms, a glance at the incoherent requests on this talk page from amateur pro-conpiracy theory followers says it all. 89.82.152.110 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with anything you have done here nor am I in in concert with Scolaire's edits. If you persist in your personal attacks I'm just going to remove your adolescent posts on sight no matter what IP they come in on and you can take that to the bank. I'll have more time to examine the veracity of the most recent edits and make adjustments this weekend. Until then you better play nice or my promise will become a reality.--MONGO 11:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The only adolescent here is you, Mongo, as you admitted publicly your goal would be to stir trouble endlessly with edit wars. The article in its previous form, as layed down by Serendipodous had adolescent written all over it: poor structure, false claims ( such as the claims with the V series, debunked). Our research took time and is very serious which led to a paragraph unfortunately too long compared to the actual article's length. As for Scolaire, at least he took the time to check the sources and the previous edits. You are so condescending that your last post in the talk page implies that Scolaire didn't do a good job at checking out the sources , nor did he condense well the previous posts in your not so humble opinion. You cannot continue deleting edits under the pretext of them appearing adolescent in your eyes when you have no grounds to qualify them as such since the refs are valid the sources come from reputable authors who have been peer reviewed numerous times, not to mention the case has been arbitrated by user Scolaire (third opinion request, remember?) : Mongo, you wish simply to drag a useless edit war on a subject you know absolutely nothing about, a form of vandalism to please your friend Serendipodous.89.82.152.110 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Mongo, your own post was a personal attack. You are no better than 89.82.152.110 in that respect, and you have no authority to remove anything from the talk page. Incidentally, I did not appreciate the implication that the "veracity" of my edit was suspect. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Next time you make a major edit to this article without establishing a xoncensus I will revert your alterations in sight. No, I do not concur with the changes you made to the article and I am going to revert them.--MONGO 13:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, my edit is already under discussion. To revert it now would simply be edit-warring. Please state what it is about my edit that you do not concur with, and suggest an alternative. The facts have been clearly stated, and references given. The onus to establish a consensus is on you, not me. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the typical ploy of everyone that thinks they are right....to make others disprove their edit...it's an arrogant ploy so I have reverted your additions which were done without concensus because I dispute the quality and reliability of your references...to be frank they are lousy.--MONGO 14:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lousy in what way? Yes, it is a typical ploy of everyone that thinks they are right to ask why others disagree. Scolaire (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I took this page off my watchlist precisely because I realised that constructive collaboration was impossible. I thought maybe if I could draw another voice in, it would lead to a solution amicable to all parties. Instead, it seems to have made things worse. I was asked to make good on my request for a 3rd opinion: all I can say is, the current layout is fine with me, and a condensed, concise, properly sourced version of the added text would also be fine with me. However, I don't have any authority left as regards this article, so I don't know if my opinion will count for anything. Because I was the only person maintaining it for a while, others have come to the conclusion that I wrote everything in it, which is patently false. I created the article ages ago but am responsible for virtually none of its current content. But it doesn't matter; I was the last one standing, so I take the blast for the team. Wikipedia's supposed to be a forum for constructive collaboration but more often then not, it just degenerates into a pissing contest between pouting egos. Until we zip up and think with our brains, there's no going forward. Serendi^podous 14:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Serendipodous, it is difficult to be more of a hypocrite than you and Mongo. You speak of pissing contest yet you deleted new material that was added even if it was correctly sourced and formulated. Too long? Then condense it. You certainly did not write the entire article in its extremely short version, but you did supervise its expansion, which implicates your responsability directly. Your supposed wish for collaboration is a a great exagerration, you had to fight verbally for pages before accepting finally to have an edit made. You pretended to check the sources but did not until entire pages were copied from the source on the talk page. Then you disappear for a while from the talk page and let your friend Mongo do the deleting and constant ad hominem attacks towards me and my friends who looked up the Howard subject, then he attacked Scolaire even though he chimed in following a third opinion request that you yourself probably requested, cleaning up the mess and proposing a new start for the article, taking into account what needed to be, keeping everything that was valid and only discarding the fabricated V TV series part. Why weren't you happy with this result? Your opinion was voiced, ours was too, Scolaire condensed, cleaned up and restructured the article, then Mongo comes in to reinitiate a feud on the talk page, deleting Scolaire's work and insulting me and the people involved in the research on Theosophy and Howard, calling this material a dolescent POV. Mongo is just an insulting character whose purpose never was to add material nor to check sources, but purely to maintain a poor atmosphere. Please show me one single constructive edit of his for this page, lately: he only deleted and insulted. Imay have had a few words with you, but at least I accepted a mediation to resolve the problem. Scolaire is not a personal friend, so you cannot accuse him from chiming in to push my own POV and that of my co-contributors. Either Mongo is your own meat puppet ( a term I learned from Scolaire), pushing your POV for personal reasons unknown to the public and maintaining the article in the form you desired it to be maintained initially, while you remained silent on purpose, either he's just someone looking for trouble with everyone here and something must be done by requesting a different sort of mediation to prevent Mongo from "deleting on sight" anything coming from me, my friends, Scolaire or anyone else who wouldn't agree with you. I suspect your whining is intended to make other users believe that you and Mongo are not working together on this one. 89.82.152.110 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The only time I ever deleted material you added was when it was when it had no third party sources. Serendi^podous 19:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

89, the fact that I alerted you to the meat puppet policy does not give you carte blanche to go round calling other people meat puppets. You admitted, even stressed, that you are a personal friend of 82. There is no reason whatever to think that Serendipodous and Mongo are personal friends. Serendipodous has expressed the view that the current version and my edit are equally acceptable to him. Whatever may have occurred between you in the past is history now. Please, please stop the personal attacks. They achieve nothing useful, just make a bad situation worse. Scolaire (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, I think that what makes everything worse is that I am being constantly threatened to be IP banned. I take this like a personal mockery and a way to push aside people who are not registered and only are simple "IP users" like second hand contributors who can be easily discarded. You mentioned meat puppetry telling me it suffices for a friend to promote publicly another friend. Alas your understanding of the term is not accurate: it is when the friends are denying their personal links and ( not or) when one recruited the other that the term is justified: neither of these conditions concern my previous posts. If someone uses the term inadequately concerning me, I will do so for the others who bully me online on the talk page and defend each other in the process against me. No carte blanche here. Now let's put all this crap behind as you advised all of us to do and wait for the moderation below, I have nothing more to say and by the way I put the links to the parts I contributed to directly and indirectly below as well.89.82.152.110 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"If someone uses the term inadequately concerning me, I will do so for the others who bully me." That's where you're not being reasonable. Two wrongs don't make a right. Unsubstantiated claims are never justified, certainly not by saying "someone else did it to me." Just saying. No need for either of us to say more. Scolaire (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

V

The paragraph beginning "Skeptics who adhere to the psychosocial hypothesis of UFOs argue that the "Reptilians" mythos originates from V, a series of science fiction television movies, miniseries and series which first aired in 1983" appears to be totally unsourced. There is a ref at the end of the paragraph to Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy, but it does not include a page number, and it is unclear whether it is meant to support the entire paragraph or just the last few words. In any case, it is clear from the previous section on this page that the myth originated in the 1920s, not in 1983. I am going to delete the paragraph until it can be clarified. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read, Conspiracy Theory (1997) , The X-Files motion picture (1998) and the 1977 Tv show Alternative 3 are discussed in detail but V is nowhere to be seen throughout the book, while a few other movies are briefly mentioned. Looks like textbook example of quoting a reputable book to back a personal claim or one that could originate from a non valid source.89.82.152.110 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is this a reasonable edit?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are Is the following paragraphs informative, verifiable and neutral? Note: they it – and the article – concern both literature and conspiracy theories. Note 2: Amended 07:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC) because only the first paragraph is really under dispute. Scolaire (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2014‎ (UTC)

The first appearance of "serpent men" in literature was in Robert E. Howard's story, "The Shadow Kingdom", published in Weird Tales in August 1929. This story drew on the Theosophical ideas of the "lost worlds" of Atlantis and Lemuria, particularly Helena Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine, with its reference to "'dragon-men' who once had a mighty civilization on a Lemurian continent". Howard's "serpent men" were described as humanoid with human bodies but snake heads, being able to imitate real humans at will. Having been defeated eons ago by the predecessors of King Kull, they remained hiding in underground passages, using their shapechanging and mind control abilities to infiltrate Kull's court. Clark Ashton Smith used Howard's "serpent men" in his stories, as well as themes from H. P. Lovecraft, and he, Howard and Lovecraft together laid the basis for the Cthulhu Mythos. In the 1940s, a non-fiction writer, Maurice Doreal, wrote a pamphlet entitled "Mysteries Of The Gobi" which described a "serpent race" that had "bodies like man but...heads...like a great snake" and an ability to take true human form. These creatures also appeared in Doreal's poem, "The Emerald Tablets", in which he claimed the titular tablets were written by "Toth, an Atlantean Priest king". Doreal's ideas almost certainly came from "The Shadow Kingdom", and in turn, "The Emerald Tablets" formed the basis for David Icke's book, Children of the Matrix.

The earliest known news media reference to an underground reptilian race is a 1934 Los Angeles Times article which reported that a geophysical mining engineer named G.W.Shufelt claimed to have discovered subterranean labyrinths beneath Los Angeles to an underground city by means of a "radio x-ray" device (which Brian Dunning says was little more than a dowsing pendulum). Shufelt was reportedly told by a certain L. Macklin aka "Chief Little Greenleaf" that, according to a Hopi legend, the city had been built by an advanced race of "Lizard People" to escape surface catastrophes some 5,000 years ago. Schufelt failed to excavate any passages. Dunning notes that the "Lizard People", if they existed, would have been human, not reptilian, but he suggests that the story may have been a "kickoff" for later reptilian theories.

Survey

• Support - I've checked the references (except Skeptoid.com-- I can't see that behind the current firewall I'm behind. The rest of the sources say what the paragraph says (not word-for-word, of course ). So I'd say include it. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Rough topic to find any reliable sources on because it's a no go zone for most publishers and a not so popular or entertaining subject that would attract neutral and non biased examinations...In other words, serious treatises of the subject of Reptilians in folklore is rare. I'm going to look over the sources again in the next couple days but can tell all now that the last one at least is bloggish at best and lacks peer review.--MONGO 17:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  I am opposed to the second paragragh due to the reference. While the reference may be that of a reputable commentator, it is not a published source. The first paragraph is a bit tortured wording but I can support its inclusion.--MONGO 01:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  Mongo, see what I posted in the discussion section below. The second paragraph is already in the article. It's in the version you reverted to. I'm going to strike it from the RfC question because the question is about the content that I added. I only included that second paragraph originally because I thought you wanted it kept in its current form. Scolaire (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes...what you have now would be fine.--MONGO 21:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - viable topic, well sourced and well written. Relevant topic; I can't see what the fuss is about. --Drmargi (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Sure, why not. If the article was just about Icke's theories, then no, but it's about reptilians in general: "Reptilians are purported reptilian humanoids that play a prominent role in science fiction, as well as modern ufology and conspiracy theories". Kind of a catch-all article, but that's fine. I think this is also better than the current "A 1934 Los Angeles Times article may have been the origin of such beliefs" because that seems to not be true. Herostratus (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

As Mongo says, the whole second paragraph is based on a single blog entry "bloggish" source. But, of course, the second paragraph is only the second paragraph of the Skeptical interpretations section of the current version, slightly re-worded to better reflect what the blogger said! I would have no objection to that entire paragraph being deleted. It would be ironic, though, since it was the attempted deletion of that paragraph that caused this massive row in the first place.
The first paragraph is mainly based on the work of Michael Barkun. According to his Wikipedia article, "Historian Paul S. Boyer writes that Barkun knows his way around the world of conspiracy theorists better than any other scholar in America." Again, it would be ironic if his book were rejected as unreliable, while the likes of Divine Caroline are left in the article for years without comment. Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dunning is a well known and respected researcher in the skeptical community and his work shouldn't be dismissed as "blogging". But it's not academic work like Barkun either. My issue with the second paragraph is one of weight, not sources. This seems like an incident that should be mentioned in passing, at best, especially when there's only a single source cited and no real connection to the phenomenon overall, other than belong an example, maybe. Gamaliel (talk)

I didn't intend to be dismissive of Dunning. I would not have cited him if I thought he was just a "blogger". I was only repeating what Mongo said: that the Dunning source was not a book or an article in a peer-reviewed journal. I think it's wiser to leave the paragraph out altogether until there is consensus on the primary issue, which is the first paragraph. When that is resolved, we could always return to the question of whether it is worth a passing mention. Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree both with Scolaire and Mongo here: it has been repeated many times on this talk page ( I also mentioned it previously) that a "bloggish" entry (Dunning) that was not peer reviewed had no weight compared to a book written by an acclaimed professor emeritus of political science (Barkun) whose works have been peer reviewed and are considered as major references in the community. As for Dunning, his reputation is not at all that of a white knight, he has been accused of fraud and lost his trial, see his wiki entry. Now what must be removed as well is the paragraph mentioning the V TV series from 1983 as a supposed probable source of the reptilian conspiracy myth when in fact V isn't mentioned at all in Barkun's book although some sneaky editor slipped it in to justify his personal claims, thinking no one would ever find the time and make the effort to check it out and see it's not in the book. Alas, his little trick has been exposed. Who will verify this also to back me up?89.82.152.110 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No one is claiming that a peer-reviewed academic source is not a superior source. Dunning's conviction for an unrelated crime has no bearing on his reliability as a source, and I think both irrelevancy and WP:BLP should stave off any further discussion of that matter here. I used the Wikiblame tool to look into the matter of the V miniseries, and given that the now-inactive editor who added it is a doctoral student with a good reputation on Wikipedia, I see no reason to suspect anything more sinister than a mistaken addition of the wrong scholarly source. WP:AGF and all that. But that material should be removed since we have no idea what the actual source is, and can be restored once a source is found. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Starts off badly, I can find plenty of 19th century mentions of "serpent men".[8] [9]

And look at [10] - humans with serpentine characteristics. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It starts off with the first reference to serpent men in literature, i.e. in fiction, and the first known reference in news media. Besides, those texts are not referring specifically to a race of serpent men who remain hidden and use their shape-shifting or hypnotic powers to gain political power. If you think the article could be improved by adding this additional material (and if you could find a reliable source that says these texts influenced the 20th-century literature and/or conspiracy theories), fine. But let's first see if any editing at all along those lines is considered acceptable. Scolaire (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Starts off that you guys ( not speaking to you, Scolaire) didn't read anything in this present talk page entiled "hoax derived from etc". Howard did not invent the serpent men in terms of creatures that have a man's body and a snake's head: this already exists in many mythologies in various forms ( Wajdet for example, sometimes depicted as a woman with a cobra head in egyptian depictions) . What Howard created ( and that is what Barkun meant if you took the time to read the source really instead of pretending to do so) was the concept associated with snakemen, a background, a sort of bio: they lived before man on earth, they have magical powers of shapeshifting and "hypnotic gaze" ( mind control), they were vanquished eons ago but are scheming to come back by taking the appearance of "normal" human beings, to the point that they managed to get infiltrated in King Kull's court and tried to assasinate Kull, they dwell in underground caves and passages. THAT is what Howard created, this particular STORY BEHIND the serpent men that reunites specific powers, abilities, and background scenario. Nagas from hinduism are sometimes malevolent but in no case do they reunite all characteristics found in "the shadow Kingdom" by Howard, at best they're evil and shapeshift from time to other. No special conspiracy against kings by infiltrating the court and taking the appearance of deceased true humans. This is the concept Barkun is talking about since he compares the differences between Howard's pulp fiction serpent men and Doreal's serpent race creature as well as with the "dulce aliens" from the fuologist theories: they all follow the guidelines layed down in the Shadow Kingdom, but with slight variations ( in Barkun's terms they do not deviate much from the 1929 descriptions). The serpent men of Howard are connected to Lemuria and Atlantis, unlike any reptilian humanoid creature from the various mythologies. Now if someone serious took the time to read the sources, for the moment it looks like only Scolaire and two other persons really checked out the book in question....being a snake lke humanoid is not enough to belong in this article as a source of inspiration, but Howard's serrpent men have MORE to them than just the appearance of men with snake heads!! IS that SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND??? This being said, Scolaire I have to tell you that it's not only a question of being in literature or in mythology, the concept of scheming reptilian men as described INTRICATELY by Howard in his pulp tale is nowhere to be seen in mythology as is: Doreal and Icke didn't write variations on Nagas or egyptian cobra gods, they wrote theories inspired by serpent men as found in the 1929 tale. That's a world of difference.89.82.152.110 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No mention of King Kull?

The origins chapter is very clear and precise, yet one point may disorient people who have no notion of Howard, Conan and the serpent men : Howard created the character Conan the Cimmerian, yet Conan lived in the Hyborian Age which is thousands of years after the Thurian Age, the age which saw King Kull fight against the serpent men ( as seen in the story "The Shadow Kingdom" where these creatures first appear) . Centuries after Kull's era, Conan fought reptile like creatures, but they were not serpent men. The wiki article confirms this point already. I think the name Kull should be mentioned in the chapter to not confuse the reader as it is mentioned in the present version "the creator of Conan" which is absolutely true, but the story concerns only Kull ( see Barkun's ref page 121 " (...)best known for his character Conan the Barbarian (...) published a story in Weird Tales magazine called The Shadow Kingdom, in which the evil power was the snake-men whose adversary, Kull, came from Atlantis " )89.82.152.110 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

KIng Kull is not relevant. This is not an article about the works of Robert E Howard. Serendi^podous 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

King Kull is much more relevant than Conan the Barbarian since Kull is the main hero of the story "The Shadow Kingdom" and conan isn't mentioned at all. Kull is the king against whom the serpent men conspired. Oh and by the way some works of Howard -are- obviously " relevant" read the sources or simply the paragraph of this same article. Good luck "supervising" this article, what had to be said was said anyways.89.82.152.110 (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Conan is known to people, so he's a useful intro to Howard. Howard's works are only relevant as one potential origin for this conspiracy theory. David Icke has had a far more potent impact on the establishment of the idea than Howard. Serendi^podous 17:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

People that shares or propose this theory

Just added a section with some names, I know there are many more. Dont know if they deserve to have an article , but Barbara Marciniak should deserve its article. Since she is the author of many books. I will start with that next week.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Image

A reptilian next to an adult human

An editor deleted this image, with an edit summary of "This is just a sketch an editor drew, why are we using this at all? Besides the point that it suggests there are reptilians." This might be a valid reason, so I'm not restoring the image right now (I reserve the right to tho), but I'm not certain it's a valid reason so I'm bringing it up for discussion.

All sketches are drawn by somebody. I've contributed an occasional own-work original-research image and I think it's OK if it's accurate and taken from reliable sources. So I think the main question is the image an reasonable representation of reptilians? I don't know if the person who drew it had some source for the size scale and appearance or just made it all up. As to the image suggesting that reptilians are real, enh... we have lots of images of fictional characters here without implying that they're real. Herostratus (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It might help to clip the image to take out the human. It's not really all that relevant anyway. Serendi^podous 13:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess if we clipped the human out and gave it a more appropriate label. No tail though, which is a shame, and I'm not at all sure about the legs. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not just change the caption to "An artist's conception of a reptilian next to a human"? That's what it is, and this eliminates any possibility of it being construed as depicting the only possible anatomy (or size) of a reptilian. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say that would work for me, but it still seems to leave 'reptilian' and 'human' on an equal footing. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I really think you're overthinking this. The only people who might construe the presence of an artist's conception of a reptilian with a human to mean that reptilians are confirmed to exist are those who haven't read the lead of the article (or much of anything else on the topic). You're unlikely to either create or dispel such belief through the presence or absence of an artist's conception. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, go ahead. It does say "conception" in any case. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Add a name

The scientific name for such creatures is "homoreptillans". TheRailgunMisaka (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that's the Doctor Who name, and it's stupid. A better play on our species name would be Sauros sapiens or Reptile sapiens. Serendi^podous 16:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who not science!?!? cygnis insignis 16:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Fictional associations

A lot of the people my age who go in for reptilian conspiracy theories would have seen reptilian villains as a recurring trope in both science fiction (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheReptilians) and fantasy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LizardFolk) stories popular in their childhood. 1960s/70s Doctor Who had a number of reptilian villains including the Ice Warrior, Draconians, and Silurians, and a secret reptilian invasion was the core plot of the 1980s series V (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085106/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3). Lizard men and draconians were also key bad guys in the Dragonlance novels that were spun off from the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game system. The association between reptilian symbolism and villainy in fiction can also be found in things like the names and logos of evil organisations (eg COBRA in GI Joe, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReptilesAreAbhorrent). I've often wondered if all these representations have primed some people to find reptilian based conspiracy theories intuitively appealing. This would count as original research, but if I can find some credible secondary sources who have written about this, it would be a great addition to this article. Danylstrype (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone "know" (to the extent that is possible) when the "current Reptoid conspiracy theory" mania started? When I saw one of the new (2005 reboot) Doctor Who episodes that featured the Silurians, I thought that the conspiracy stuff must have been inspired by that. But DW introduced the Silurians in at least 1970 with Doctor Who and the Silurians - were they portrayed earlier in other media?. David Icke published The Biggest Secret in 1999, but did he have his.. ideas.. for a while before that?

Or is my perception that the "Reptoid Conspiracy Theory" started "recently" just another example of the Internet Effect (every small strange/crazy thing in the world can now be known to anyone)? Jimw338 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Popular culture

Shouldn't we have a section for this? The idea of reptiles (dragons, specifically) shapeshifting into human form and posing as the leaders of human societies is present in the Rifts RPG for example, and has earlier examples in Heroes Unlimited and Palladium RPG. You also had the "Dar'ota'" in Beyond the Supernatural (and Rifts Conversion Book) who were "large, slimy, scaly, hunchbacked humanoids that resemble a monstrous lizard" who "are shape-changers who take on the physical appearance of an attractive human" who "kill their unsuspecting victim by tearing out the throat and drinking their blood". I imagine there's probably some shapeshifting reptiles secretly ruling human enclaves in D&D or other RPGs (or other entertainment media) too. BTS interestingly came out in 1987, which I think precedes any of David Icke's writings on the subject, though I don't know if Siembieda has clarified any inspiration for the idea from 1976 "12th Planet" or 1929 The Shadow Kingdom novels. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

They would have to be cited as having been explicitly inspired by the reptilian conspiracy theory. Serendi^podous 04:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They live, we sleep! fight me!! Regards, cygnis insignis 16:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Credo Mutwa

I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm doing some cursory research on Reptilians for a novel I'm writing and it seems that this notion of Reptilians comes from Credo Mutwa, or at least from a collaboration between Credo Mutwa and David Icke. We must fight against the tendency to only cite white people!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vusamazulu_Credo_Mutwa

Requested move 14 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is consensus that this is not the primary topic for the term "Reptilians". It will therefore become a redirect to the dab page at Reptilian. If anyone thinks that "Reptilian" and "Reptilians" should be changed to a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Reptilia, that's a separate question and a new move request could be started for that.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Reptilians → Reptilian humanoid – Current name is confusing; see discussion at the bottom of [11]. The animals in class Reptilia are reptilians; surely they're more significant than a concept that appears only in fantasy, science fiction, ufology, and conspiracy theories? Given the nature of the Internet, I don't think we can trust Google results here, since topics appearing in fantasy etc. are likely to get lots of hits on forums, personal websites, etc. Instead, I ran searches on JSTOR (from home, so it's not searching what my institution has access to) for reptilian and reptilians. Data:

Reptilians by subject, out of 308 total:

• Biological Sciences: 87
• Ecology & Evolutionary Biology: 42
• Film Studies: 1
• Folklore: 0
• General Science: 33
• Language & Literature: 11
• Performing Arts: 0
• Sociology: 13
• Zoology: 27

Reptilian by subject, out of 23,312 total:

• Biological Sciences: 7,565
• Ecology & Evolutionary Biology: 2,339
• Film Studies: 115
• Folklore: 29
• General Science: 1,989
• Language & Literature: 1,318
• Performing Arts: 107
• Sociology: 231
• Zoology: 3,658

Note that these searches found 172 and 3,658 documents respectively, so many or most results have been assigned multiple subjects.

Remember that JSTOR is more of a social sciences/humanities resource than a hard-sciences resource; if every item in JSTOR used these two terms, JSTOR would return fewer hard sciences results merely because of its scope. Therefore, when the hard-sciences usage vastly outnumbers the disciplines that might be studying this article's subject, it's clear that the animals are more significant than reptilian humanoids. [I expect that a large share of the Language and Literature people, in particular, are studying something other than this article's subject; among the top results are items on the Divine Comedy, Quetzalcoatl, bird evolution (how did that get into literature?), wyverns, alligators, and an Edgar Allen Poe poem.] Whether they're the primary topic I don't know, and I'm not arguing for moving the disambiguation page, but as they and reptilian humanoids are the only items on the disambiguation page that could reasonably get pluralized, it seems best to me that we move this article and make its title a redirect to Reptile. Final note, if we move this article, I'm not clear the best place; I got the proposed title from List of reptilian humanoids, but if you can propose a better title, that's great. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right. And this is obvious, altho I've never realized it until now. (And any objection along the lines of "Well but 'Reptilian' unadorned is what David Icke and his acolytes use, and so that's what the sources say" is weak tea, because that's not how we determine primary topics for article titling purposes; rather we use importance and so forth.) I think tho that "Reptilans" should redirect to the menu page "Reptilian" rather than the article "Reptile", probably. Herostratus (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• If the article was solely about Icke's deranged fantasies, I'd oppose based on it not being the correct title (I'd still support moving it, though; perhaps to Reptilian (conspiracy theory) or something). However, since the article is more generic than that, I am fine to support the move. Matt Deres (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree. Many names by which things are most commonly known (the usual criterion for a Wikipedia article title) are not entirely logical or clear. From my reading of several decades in the area of "Fortean" subjects "Reptilians" is the name most commonly used in the (sadly extensive) literature which deals (positively or negatively) with belief in these supposed hidden manipulators of humanity (a belief which, to be clear, I do not share), so anyone looking on Wikipedia for information about this topic is more likely to search "Reptilians" that any other term.

Conversely, in my reading about zoological topics, I have rarely encountered actual reptiles being described as "reptilians". The word is used as an adjective (e.g. "reptilian features"), but a secondary implication of it can be (though often is not) that the thing so described may resemble a reptile or reptile feature, but may not actually be so – this seems appropriate for supposed creatures that, if they are extra-terrestrial, may resemble Earth reptiles but presumably are not actually related to them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.65 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I see no reason to disagree with your first point, but the problem is that other concepts are also known as "reptilian"; if "reptilian" more commonly refers to other concepts than to the subject of this article, this article ought not be at Reptilians. Moreover, it sounds like you disagree with my conclusion that scholarly literature uses the term to refer to reptiles far more often than to refer to this article's subjects. Why do you disagree? Do you believe that JSTOR is not representative (and if so, why?), or do you think I misunderstood the JSTOR data, or do you have other explanations? [Remember that anyone with Internet access can use the JSTOR search page that I used to generate these results; you don't need subscription access to check my findings.] Whatever your reason, your argument would be more convincing if you provided evidence to back up your arguments. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• PS, you say that there's a lot of literature on this subject. Can you provide examples with useful metadata, especially relevant LCSH or the concept's records in other authority files? [Several examples will help your cause, but identifiers will be particularly helpful.] d:Q13114416, the Wikidata entry for this article, doesn't have anything. Quick searching at WorldCat found me some potentially relevant books, [12] and [13] and [14], but none of them had subjects more precise than Conspiracies -- Miscellanea or Illuminati. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"Do [I] believe that JSTOR is not representative"? – yes, precisely because it is scholarly, that is, by design biased (in a good way) towards academia and science, which obviously (and rightly) ignore most if not all CT-type writings, a subset of which however are the focus for the article in question. "Reptilians" may not appear frequently as a primary term in searches on broader "popular" "non-fiction" works because the concept is most frequently mixed in with a range of other whacky conspiratorial belief, which "authority files" may largely and understandably ignore.

I say that there's "a lot of literature" on the subject because over the course of 40-odd years' interest in "strange phenomena" I've run across it in magazines and on bookshelves, but I've skimmed only a little and ignored the bulk because it's obviously delusional – I'm not going to wallow in the sort of swamps that the likes of David Icke, Milton William Cooper, Alex Jones, Zecharia Sitchin, etc., inhabit, even to dredge up numerical measurements of such people's sincere but accidental, or cynically exploitative, malevolence. I've had what say I want to on this proposed move and am happy to see what the preponderance of opinion turns out to be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.65 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to article titles, we generally go with what the scholars use; sometimes we have to pick an alternate name for WP:NPOV or WP:ENGVAR purposes, but when no such problem exists, there's no reason to go against scholars. If cataloging librarians and scholars writing in JSTOR-indexed journals and books have largely or totally ignored this topic, why should we disagree? And since there's not even an LCSH for this topic, and you've provided no other way for me to find publications on this subject, why should I believe that there is a lot of literature on the subject? Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what criteria you're using in that search engine, but there is a difference between "reptilian" and "reptilians". Anyone using "reptilian" in its non-CT sense is unlikely to use the word "reptilians" when "reptilian" and "reptiles" are available. A specific search for "reptilians" using Google shows an almost universal result for the CT theory. And regardless, "Reptilian humanoid" is even worse, because that can encompass anything from CT to fiction to mythology. Serendi^podous 10:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Google search: exactly. This is why I used JSTOR, which includes only the scholars rather than trash such as forums that you'll find through Google. And if you read my statement, you'll see that my criteria are reptilian for one search and reptilians in the other: no limiters whatsoever. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Hyperbolick (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, a scholar would know to use "reptile" if that's what they are looking for, they don't need to be catered for by a redirect. Almost everyone searching for this term would be looking for this topic. Erogenous Bone (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Erogenous Bone, article titles are based on what the scholars write about, not what they search for when they're reading Wikipedia. Are you claiming that scholars who use reptilian generally use it to mean the subject of this article? If so, please explain in detail why I have erred in drawing the opposite conclusion from JSTOR details. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• You want it to be a redirect, not an article title. Erogenous Bone (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Also Lizard people is a much better title than reptilian humanoid, perhaps it could go there. Erogenous Bone (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A quick Google search demonstrates that Google's search engine has determined that most people searching with "reptilian" are looking for this and related topics, not members of Reptilia. Let's not take them all to a dab page they are forced to peruse, find the topic they seek and click on that, when we can take them here immediately. Let's not worsen the WP search experience. --В²C ☎ 19:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Did you not notice that everyone but you thinks that’s a terrible idea? Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_48#What_if_we_determined_primary_topic_totally_differently..._solely_from_Google? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Ambiguous with reptilian. The plural form is too small a SMALLDETAIL. For titling, the non-plural form is preferred if possible. Lizard people could work as well as reptilian humanoid, do source’s use both? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Google ngram suggests Lizard people might be better. I think it better suits the topic, “reptilian humanoid” sounds a bit scientific. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The plural should go to the same place as Reptilian, obviously. Lots of things can be reptilian, even in the speculative fiction in which reptilian humanoids appear, e.g. dragons, aliens, etc. Nothing about the term suggests bipedalism. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 15:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support: "Reptilians" are animals that are reptiles or are similar to reptiles. Humanoid reptilians are a small and obtuse subset of that category, not the primary topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It does seem somewhat astonishing that the plural of reptilian, a common term that refers to members of the real-world order Reptilia, would instead direct to an article on fictitious reptilian humanoids, and seems unnecessarily ambiguous with the singular reptilian. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per long-term significance. Red Slash 07:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Note: I was about to close this as moved (closed by non-admin page mover) and do a pageswap but moving is sysop-protected so an admin is needed. Either way, consensus is clearly for the original move request. SITH (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• oppose per WP:NPOV, my premise is how does this not refer to 'reptiles' (Reptilia) but to exclude aves and 'reptiles in culture/literature'. Answers welcome, but keep it civil ape-boy. cygnis insignis 16:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, totally muddled. What gives here, where will 'reptilians' redirect? cygnis insignis 16:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

delete; the title is plural, to create a what, a pop-cult fork? cygnis insignis 16:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: "reptilian humanoid" is a terrible choice for a move. It's too general. If you want a more specific name, "reptoid" fits the bill. Serendi^podous 14:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Concur: how it this a solution to unproven organisms, except to weight contemporaneous belief systems over verifiable content? cygnis insignis 16:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As an admin, I am prepared to make the necessary moves here, but I am not clear on the preferred new title. Shall it be "Reptilian humanoids", "Reptoids", or "Lizard people"? I persoally like "Lizard people", but would like some concurrence on the name. - Donald Albury 17:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This may need some more thought before closing the discussion. Why is Reptilian a disambiguation page? Why does Lizard people redirect to Lizardman? Bradv 17:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the consequences of having over 5 million articles in Wikipedia.(-: Moves become complicated and may have cascading effects. Perhaps we should invite comments from editors following other pages that would be affected? - Donald Albury 19:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The advantage of "Reptoid" at least is that it doesn't need to be disambig'ed. Serendi^podous 20:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for this move

Reptilian humanoid should redirect to List of reptilian humanoids. It is too general. There are many far more specific terms that would need no disambiguation, such as Reptoid, reptiloid, or even reptilian alien. Serendi^podous 10:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Th proposed move was to Reptilian humanoid, and there was clearly a consensus in favour of that move. You made this point about it being "too general" in the move discussion, but I don't see any wide agreement on that.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

When you closed it, the consensus had been "Move from Reptilian". Then people started asking what to move it to. That had not been resolved yet. Just read the last few comments. Serendi^podous 12:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the proposal finished with "Final note, if we move this article, I'm not clear the best place; I got the proposed title from List of reptilian humanoids, but if you can propose a better title, that's great." When a move proposal ends with something that vague, support votes don't necessarily establish support for the location. --14:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Well there certainly wasn't a consensus for any other possible title, and even the most recent discussion had seen no action since Saturday when I found this RM. As I said below, if you have a specific proposal for some other name, start a new RM with that proposal and see where it goes. Maybe ping the people who participated in the original one too. Relisting the above RM would be unlikely to lead to a clearer conclusion, given the length of time it was open and that many of the original participants haven't contributed further since their original support votes.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this move was premature. There was no clear consensus on the name to move the article to. - Donald Albury 12:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There is overriding concern in the structural navigation, that anyone seeking organisms classified reptilian, reptoid, and any other term that is within a broader consensus (i.e. verifiable) is separated for the reader from the incidental and informal usage: be that parable, metaphor, or actual and non-conventional hypotheses that are not my place to judge but are obviously and proudly deviate from widely cited conceptions of Reptilia (lizards, birds, and so on). What an article says is a local concern, how this intersects with the rest of the document requires clear demarcation. [maybe the Fringe notice board will be interested, to make an idle threat] cygnis insignis 13:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If the concern was that "reptilian" is also a real scientific term, then this page should have been moved to Reptilian (humanoid) or something similar. If Reptilian Humanoid is not used as a free-standing term, it doesn't make sense for this to be here, in my opinion. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

1 relating to or characteristic of reptiles: the reptilian ancestors of mammals.

2 (of a person) deeply disliked and despised; repulsive: a reptilian villain with no redeeming features.

Something people started projecting out to social media ecosystems is more elusive, "I do not mean actual humanoid reptiles, if challenged for details, just to sow some discord and gain acolytes", Not given in any serious glossary I have at hand, and a marginal usage in cited literature. cygnis insignis 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This RM was open for well over a month, and consensus was already clear around 9 November, so it's a bit absurd to say the move was "premature". The point was made, ten days ago, that the proposed title was not the optimal one, but that point did not find consensus amongst the participants in the RM. The consensus was for the original proposal. Anyway, if people here think there is a case for some other title then I suggest you agree on what that title should be and then open a new RM with a specific suggestion and see if it gains consensus. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The interpretation of consensus, largely correct on your part I think, is not going to have that effect on how users and intuitive linking is going to affected by a local decision (to which you have no consensus to discern, a product of a narrow discussion that is also not your doing, no blame as the I Ching says so often). Perhaps if you opened that discussion then we can see how it plays out, or I will if that is a coi of some sort, reptilian prettily accords with Reptilia (reptile) and I think consensus for that is easily wrought. cygnis insignis 14:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I hope yoou follow what I am getting at here, as I think I follow your concern of cascading effects. cygnis insignis 14:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: If you (and the others who've commented here) have a proposed title, and you want me to start the RM rather than you doing it, then I'm happy to do that. I would be neutral on the matter obviously, I don't have any opinion either way on where this should be located. But you'll have to tell me which one to propose, since several were suggested above! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The consensus for a move away from Reptilians was crystal clear, but that is not the same as a consensus for the specific move location. As you say, another RM may be in order, or perhaps a RfC to decide between a number of options? The options should probably be worked out before setting one up though. An obvious option already suggested is Reptilian (humanoid). Another possibility is Reptilians (conspiracy theory), since if you take out "in fantasy, science fiction" from the lede, that's essentially all the article is - mentions of science fiction/fantasy are purely in the "origins" section and cover a tiny fraction of reptilian humanoids in fiction. Seems like it might be a fig leaf to avoid calling a spade a spade. --tronvillain (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

More needed on V?

I think this article may well be improved by adding more on the once popular TV series V (currently seemingly just an entry in our See also), particularly V (1984 TV series), which included a proposed marriage of leading lizards-disguised-as-humans Charles and Diana, and which is alleged in this item to have "seemed to have inspire David Icke to go and visit cloud cuckoo land", though I don't know whether it counts as a Reliable Source (but quite likely it does). This was only a few years after the 1981 marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, and presumably only a few years before Icke came up with his theory that the British Royal Family were really disguised lizards. At the time I vaguely remember him saying that somebody or somebodies had claimed to have seen them as lizards, and that he believed them (I presume it's quite likely the somebody/somebodies was/were real and had been watching V, and so on). However even if we don't accept the above link as a reliable source, we could still mention the series in the article without linking it to Icke. But, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, I'm probably neither sufficiently interested nor sufficiently knowledgeable to do anything more than mention the matter here, just in case other more interested and knowledgeable editors want to do something more about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether Icke knew about the link to V when he came up with his theory (as already mentioned above, it may have been others who saw V), but if he didn't it would seem that he knows now, based on this user review at IMDB:

(stars) 9/10

V:The Complete Series

filmbuff197410 May 2006

I remember watching the original mini-series in the mid eighties and how it caught my imagination and sense of wonder about the real possibilities of humanity's first contact with an advanced civilization.This mini-series was just amazing as was the second mini-series.Then this came out and it was definitely a diminishing of quality across the boards.I don't think I even made it through all 19 episodes back then in 1985.

It's now 2005 and I only invested in the DVD collection because I've been reading books by David Icke who is this conspiracy theorist who believes our planet has been ruled for the last ten thousand years by a race of shape-shifting reptilian beings from another galaxy who are posing to this day as humans and that they are mostly the ruling elite in all fields of human society.It was in his books that he suggested I watch "V".So I purchased the series and have just viewed the entire 19 episodes.

Irregardless of David Icke's theories I have found V:The Complete Series the most fun I've had in years.Yeah, the series is badly acted and the characters are pretty one dimensional and in the case of Diana and Lydia absolutely campy, but so what? The original Flash Gordon serial is campy and the effects are laughable but I can still enjoy that as much as the first three episodes of Star Wars. V:The Complete Series is 1980's television at it's most fun.I suggest just putting your brain aside while watching this series and you'll be just fine.

16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?

Tlhslobus (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought / minor clarification: Maybe I should add that, contrary to what some might reasonably conclude from what I wrote above, the above review doesn't actually prove that Icke now knows about a link to V (tho it still looks to me like pretty strong evidence that he does). That's because a conspiracy theorist (and/or a 'true' skeptic, as distinct from a so-called pseudoskeptic who is supposedly only sceptical about one side of a story) might point out that at least in theory the above review could, for instance, just be somebody else's clever publicity stunt to help sell books that may then never mention V. So Icke himself might be unaware of the supposed stunt and thus still unaware of any link to V. This however could still leave him unwittingly inspired by V thru its possible effect on others as already mentioned above. Icke may also be unaware of much of what his fans/skeptics say on his website, and of what Uncyclopedia (and perhaps other humorous sites) say about him (see links below).Tlhslobus (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

V is also discussed by his fans/sceptics at his website here. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia also deals with the matter here, thus proving itself more informative than us. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Be bold and add a section yourself. I would recommend a section titled "In popular culture" which can include information on V and any other verifiable pop culture locations. I don't know anything about V but if it has its own article, it should be fit to print here as well. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful feedback and your helpful suggestion, ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia. I'll probably give it some thought, though as already mentioned above, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, quite likely I won't actually do it (and definitely not just yet anyway), but of course your suggestion is equally useful to any other editor who wants to have a go. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've now added a section as suggested.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Focus

Switch, "Icke has stated on multiple occasions that many world leaders are, or are possessed by, so-called reptilians".

To:

Icke has stated on multiple occasions that many world leaders have been, or are possessed by, so-called reptilians

Or:

Icke has stated on multiple occasions that many world leaders are, or have been possessed by, so-called reptilians

SemionMogilevich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Reptilian humanoid → Reptoid – The page was moved before consensus had been reached as to what it should be moved to. "Reptilian humanoid" is too general and could apply to any reptilian humanoid, mythical, fictional or conspiratorial. It should redirect, as it originally did, to List of reptilian humanoids. "Reptoid" is a term referring specifically to this concept and requires no disambiguation. Serendi^podous 10:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article appears to be about reptilian humanoids in general, I don't see that it's about any particular concept. Not sure I see the problem. PC78 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's about reptilian humanoids in conspiracy theories. Serendi^podous 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, I see that now. But what's the evidence for "reptoid" being the proper or established term? I've been looking through the cited sources and most of them aren't using that word. PC78 (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't. The established term is "Reptilians" but that got voted down above for being too similar to "reptiles". "Reptoid" is a distant second. Serendi^podous 15:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not a very robust rationale for this move. The current title is more descriptive, but I would suggest Reptilian conspiracy theory since that's really what the article is about, rather than the supposed "reptilians" themselves. PC78 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fails WP:COMMONNAME] and MOS:NEO. "Reptoid" isn't used by much of any sources, ever. It's not clear if this has a common name, but "reptoid" certainly wouldn't be it, and in absence of one the current title well-satisfies WP:NTITLE, WP:NATURAL, WP:PRECISE, and WP:RECOGNIZABLE (which collectively beat the pants off of WP:CONCISE, while WP:CONSISTENCY doesn't appear to be a factor at all).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Isn't there some sort of guidline about accuracy, like redirecting knife to bowie knife? That's the problem I'm trying to fix. I don't really care what the final destination is, as long as it's specific to the topic. Serendi^podous 12:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Reptoid" appears to be an obscure nave for this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion

Look, I fundamentally do not care what name this page is moved to; it could be scary skinky people for all I care. All I care is that it is specific. "Reptilian humanoid" is NOT the appropriate title for this page. Reptilian humanoids are reptiles with humanoid bodyforms. They cover every possible type, from mythlogy to movies to comic books. "Reptilian humanoid" should link, as it did, to List of reptilian humanoids. Even excluding "reptilians", the most popular name for them, which was opposed, ironically, because it was too vague, there are nine possible names for these things that would be specific to them that already redirect here.

• Reptoid
• Reptiloid
• Reptilianoid
• reptilian extraterrestrial
• Reptilian alien
• Reptilian Conspiracy
• Reptilian Agenda
• Reptilian shape shifters
• even Space lizard

Can we at least decide on one? Serendipodous (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Reptilian Reference Image

Compares scale between Reptilian and human — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Feff (talk • contribs)

An artist's conception of a reptilian; an adult human male is shown for scale

Based on what? How is this not original research? Oh, and a reptilian with a scrotum? Even among mammals, only Boreoeutherians have scrotums. - Donald Albury 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that this image has been on the page since at least 2012; I have no idea why this image was posted here at this time, though (potentially disruptive?). Ultimately it is an artist's depiction of a fictional (hopefully) creature - so it should not be expected that it would be based upon any reliable source. I support it staying in the article unless we have another drawing we can use, or it can otherwise be determined that this is 'inaccurate.' ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, but "being here since 2012" doesn't really address the accuracy of the material. If it's taken from a good source and/or represents a fair consensus of what these entities look like, that's one thing. If a Wikipedia editor just decided it looked cool and drew it, that's another. So the question is, which is it?

So let's see... it was uploaded by one "Austin Feff" (his only activity ever), and described as "own work" and as "An artist's conception of a reptilian; an adult human male is shown for scale.". Since it is "own work", I'd have to assume that the "artist' in "Artist's conception..." is Mr Feff himself. Unless Austin Feff is an expert in this field, who cares what he thinks a reptilian looks like? Remove the image, it is just some random person's interpretation. It's a nice picture, and probably accurate. But "is probably accurate" is not a substitute for a good source.

An exception to the discouragement of original research would be if you have good sources that describe reptilians such that the the picture would, to any reasonable person, be a reasonably close representation. Find those sources, and you're good. Otherwise: no picture. Herostratus (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I don't recall a grandfather clause in WP:NOR. I do know that we try to clean up violations of policy when we find them, even if they have been in Wikipedia for many years. An artist's conception of what Westlothiana looked like in life, File:Westlothiana BW.jpg, works because is based on descriptions of the fossil published in reliable sources. What might work here is an artist's conception of what a reptilian humanoid looked like, based on a fairly detailed description of one in a reliable source. Admittedly, such a description in a reliable source might be hard to find. - Donald Albury 12:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

How can a depiction of a fictional being be inaccurate? It is literally a conspiracy theory/fantasy creature without an agreed upon description. Further, I only raised the issue of it being 2012 to show that this was not just added yesterday by the poster in this thread. If you want to take it out that's fine but I want to clear up any misconceptions. Further, the 'grandfather' clause is found it WP:BRD - if something is currently in the article and you take it out and you are reverted, that starts the discussion on inclusion while the article stays as it was before - not the other way around. But again, I don't have an issue with taking it out, but let's not act like I did anything absurd. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it on the basis of WP:NOR and [[WP:VERIFY], basic policy. The BRD essay doesn't trump that. I see that User:Fram removed it shortly after it was added. We've become much stricter on these policies since it was added. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved Reptilian humanoid → Reptilian conspiracy theory. Cannot move the others until the broad concept article exists to be the target of primary redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Reptilian humanoid → Reptilian conspiracy theory
• Lizardman → Lizardman (disambiguation)
• Snake man → Snakeman (disambiguation)
• Serpent Men → Serpent Men (Kull)

– This page is a hodgepodge of the fantasy concept of a lizard-person and the conspiracy theory, which has little to do with the fantasy concept beyond being based on it. I suggest making a WP:BROADCONCEPT article about the fantasy monster at Reptilian humanoid once this page is moved, using the information in the "Origins" section of this page. The other articles would be moved to disambiguate and create primary redirects. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. If this is the move that works, I'll take it. Serendi^podous 20:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The concept of reptiles with human features is as old as civilization itself, and as enduring. We should have a general concept article on the various iterations of that concept, with all the name variations redirecting there, and subtopic articles on specific kinds where needed. bd2412 T 20:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

We do. It's List of reptilian humanoids, which is where "reptilian humanoid" linked originally. Serendi^podous 21:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

That is merely a list, with no explanation of any sort of history. Additionally, list articles are generally recommended only when there is a main article on that subject, so it would work well in concert with the list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I support the first one as the gist of the page is reptilian conspiracy stuff. I am not sure why we are bundling in the others; lizardfolk is the current name for lizardmen so I don't see the need for that one. The others I will check Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, you have a point, I assumed their name was more properly lizardmen. I adjusted the move target, but I still think lizardfolk is a generic term for it to be the primary topic, see this TVTropes article that refers to them as such in a generic way._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • If the term "lizardfolk" is used by RS to describe things not related to D&D then I support that move; otherwise I do not. I'm not sure that TVTropes is RS for that sense. BOZ (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
      • All right, after checking it over, it does seem like "lizardfolk" is almost entirely referring to D&D usage. I have removed that particular move from the nomination._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• I support the suggested moves. It is about time and the moves make sense as long as we do build an article explaining the conspiracy theory over time and through history with a well-referenced sub-section on the current Conspiracy and how it has become enmeshed with so many other currently popular New world Order type conspiracies. LiPollis (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 16:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support the first, oppose the others. It makes sense to label the reptilian humanoid thing a conspiracy theory, if that's what it is. I don't see a need to establish it as a primary topic for the other terms, though. Lizardman is far more useful in its current form, as a disambiguation between the various settings in which such a character has occurred, with Reptilian humanoid as one of its entries.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: If it isn't clear, I am proposing a WP:BROADCONCEPT article at Reptilian humanoid rather than a redirect. The concept of a reptilian humanoid is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "lizardman", as all of the disambiguated pages are of reptilian humanoid characters or races. Same deal for "snakeman" or "serpentman". I can't see a single article on the disambiguation pages that isn't somehow related, besides maybe Snake Man of La Perouse, but that's a WP:PTM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Refutation of Icke

I think this article needs to expand the section on the conspiracy theory to include refutations or contrary evidence. So far this article lets it seem like it could be for real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.82.230 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Icke's ideas are unfalsifiable. Any evidence you put in front of him will just be countered by the reptilians' extradimensional powers. Serendi^podous 12:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Immanuel

The fact the current President is quoting this physician, who pushes the Reptilian conspiracy, might fit in the politics section. Thoughts? One of a ton of sources here. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

added. Serendi^podous 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And I reverted it. This is not an instance of Trump endorsing a reptilian-related view - he 'endorsed' something unrelated that this doctor had to say, and it was 'uncovered' that in the past the doctor had made reptilian-related statements. It's like Trump quoting Washington and then someone adding to the slavery article: "Trump quoted Washington re the electoral college; it was later uncovered that Washington had owned slaves." It's tangential and obviously meant to disparage Trump. Well, he doesn't need any help looking bad, and this addition does not improve the article. Yes, I'm sure the media is covering this story, but that does not mean it belongs here. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 22:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bad analogy. The electoral college was retained because slaves couldn't vote, and direct election would have disadvantaged southern states. Regardless, it's the refrence to Trump that makes her relevant at all. Without it she'd be just another Icke believer, of which there are a depressingly large number. Serendi^podous 07:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

At the time of the Constitution the smallest states were all New England states without slavery and nearly all the small population protections were included at their insistence. You may be thinking of the 3/5ths compromise. But whatever, that's obviously irrelevant. The point is that Trump's comments about masks and his association with Dr. -Immanuel are not relevant to this article. It's not our job to 'legitimize' her or her views by connecting her with a president (especially when that connection is retweeting a video - is that what WP has come to?). She also has her own WP article, which provides plenty of information on her and her views. If her reptilian views are not significant by themselves, they shouldn't be included - if we need a paragraph of introduction to the comments maybe they aren't important after all. I will also note that the current citation links to a different article than advertised and the claims are currently unsourced. Seriously, I don't like Trump any more than you, but this is seriously reaching. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 11:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"Seriously, I don't like Trump any more than you" Articles are not supposed to reflect our personal opinions and preferences anyway, just what the sources state. Trump has not stated anything concerning this conspiracy, so making the connections sounds like synthesis at best. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You're certainly right that this should not reflect our personal opinions - that was meant as a tongue-in-cheek remark and I just don't want to be accused of being politically motivated in my removal. I did strike that comment though, don't want it to misconstrued now or later. Cheers. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. It's stupid and dumb and doesn't belong here (even in a frivolous thinly disguised "in pop culture" section in an article about a stupid reptillioid conspiracy). One can promote someone without endorsing all views ever held by that person. The fact that someone likes O. J. Simpson's role in The Naked Gun says nothing about their opinion in the. O. J. Simpson murder case. The fact that click-bait-addicted news websites tenuously connect the two stupid dots doesn't mean Wikipidians must blindly follow. Trump's activities in this case have no relevance to lizard people, and Dr. Immanuel is hardly a politician, so neither belong here. I know everyone loves inhaling deeply every time Donald J. Trump farts, but not every fart needs be preserved forever on Wikipedia, even if verifiable. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(TV_series)

Not every (or even any) sci-fi use of this trope need be enumerated, but perhaps this one, especially with reference to kitten-eating comment. Drsruli (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

V is discussed at Reptilian humanoid - this article is more about conspiracy theories re reptilians. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Add a list of Notable Reptilian Conspiracy Whack Jobs (Reptilian Conspiracy Researchers)

A New section should be created for a list of Notable Reptilian Whack Jobs whose research has been proven false (Reptilian Conspiracy Researchers)

here is a few names that should go on it. Bold should be on it for sure

David Icke

Kinninigan (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ0-QjvMGDbEXgV4m4X6uoA) a real deep researcher of the theory on youtube.

David Wilcock (Talks about more than just reptilians)

Definitely David Wilcock. He managed to get a program on the History Channel, i.e., Ancient Aliens. Here is the IMDB link for an 2018 episode with whackjob Wilcock emphasizing reptilians: Reptilians and Aquifarians [15]. And the video appears on the Gaia site.Dogru144 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, from the looks of the videos at the Gaia site, anyone having any contribution to any of these videos is a candidate for whackjob designation. The only questions is who are the priority whackjob cases for notables for the list.Dogru144 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Corey Goode (Claims to be a Secret Space Program Insider who had encounters with reptilians) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.142.129.17 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Icke has an entire section already. Youtube is not a reliable reference and never heard of the last two.--MONGO (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a better link for a reference for kinninigan, his own website no longer exists so it will have to be a wayback machine snapshot https://web.archive.org/web/20161026142515/http://www.ragingreptilian.com/aboutus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.142.129.17 (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)