Talk:List of reptilian humanoids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Talk:Reptilian humanoid)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives

Please post new discussions at bottom of page.


[edit] Unpublished synthesis?

I have been working on this article for some time and have long been a bit at a loss for how to improve it further. It seems to be a concatenation of random unrelated bits of information that are not even clearly on the same subject. For example, are the evolutionary thought experiment, mythology, and 'conspiracy theory reptilians' actually the same thing or even related in a way that has been established in WP:RS? I am beginning to think that this article constitutes unpublished synthesis; by including all of these things in one article under the unbrella term "reptilian humanoid", it is implying that they are somehow all the same thing or closely related. Perhaps they should be separate articles. Can anyone produce a reliable source that relates all of these things under one name? Otherwise, I think we need to consider splitting the article and looking at each 'reptilian' on its own merits as far as notability and verifiability. I'll give a bit of time for people to mull over this and potentially respond while I consider the best way to split the article if need be.Locke9k (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends how you look at it. If there's any synthesis, it is formed in the mind of the reader, but yes, Wikipedia should do its best to discourage that from happening. The problem is that none of these subsections are large enough to stand alone. If we were to break this article up, each section would either have to be merged, which would lead to a redirect nightmare for the reptilian humanoid name (where would "Reptilian humanoids in mythology", or "reptilian humanoids in ufology" go, for instance?) or massively bulked up, which would mean a huge search for reliable sources ("Reptilian humanoids in fiction" has already been broken off from here, deleted and then merged back with this article for lack of citation). The only other option is to delete the content, which is always risky for a topic like this, because it opens up the gates for lunatics to remake the article in their own image. Serendipodous 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've addred one ref, it could probably do with some more - especially linking the myth/conspiracy aspect to the fantasy/science fiction aspect. Shouldn't be too hard given that Icke basically lifts his lizard man stuff from Robert E. Howard via V. Artw (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have an idea. Serendipodous 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There. Done. This page was never much more than a glorified disambig anyway. Serendipodous 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a little drastic. However if the previous content was all either unreferenced or covered in other articles then it would seme to be for the best. TBH I would be all for expansion of the text where sourced reasoning can be found for why these are significant examples of the reptilian humanoid context, especially where common themes are discussed (for instance the repeating theme of secret lizard people taking over the world). Artw (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
(I kind of wish such a drastic cut down were possible on the Human Disguise article, but since we are operating in a wind-tunnel over there it would seem unwsise)Artw (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Very nice start. I guess we'll see how it play out with other editors and whether the various pages are able to stand on their own legs. Locke9k (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Upon further thought, since the page really comprises a list now, I have moved it to the title "List of reptillian humanoids." Its a big change, I know, but the new title seems vastly more suited to the new format. Locke9k (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping not to have to use the word "list", as it opens up the possibility of anyone and everyone contributing their own lizard man. But, according to the disambig guy, that's what this article now is. Serendipodous 19:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ufology

The only really big hole in this article is references to ufology. But I think that as it was, this article was preventing that one from forming properly, since reptilian aliens links here. So I think that article needs to be created. If there is an article on Greys, an article on little green men, an article on bug-eyed monsters, and an article on Nordic aliens, there should be an article on reptilian aliens. Serendipodous 19:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd - it's a common alien type in Ufology. I'm not seeing that addressed anywhere on wikipedia that I can link to - one suspects it's fallen victim to a purge by other-enthusiastic WP:FTN types so we'll need an exterior cite for that if we want to retain it in the lead - or as you sya create a proper reptile alien article. Artw (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's everything the old article had on it, ie virtually nothing:

In many of the modern claims of encounters with reptilian humanoids, a UFO is part of the encounter; alien abduction narratives sometimes allege contact with reptilian creatures.[1] One of the earliest reports was that of Ashland, Nebraska police officer Herbert Schirmer, who claims to have been taken aboard a UFO by humanoid beings with a slightly reptilian appearance, and who bore a "winged serpent" emblem on the left side of their chest.[2] Serendipodous 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we;re probably going to need a bit more than that. Artw (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've created the nucleus of an article around two paragraphs from the old article. Here's hoping there's enough to keep it from going under, as I don't really feel qualified to expand it further. Serendipodous 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved all Icke-related redirects from here over to reptilian extraterrestrials. Serendipodous 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of material seems to have been lost from here recently, [1] and now I'm being told not to link here because it's just a disambig page. Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but this term does seem to be used in relation to David Icke, and it might be interesting to see who else has talked about creatures like this in the past. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Which would give people the impression that Icke's "mythology" is connected to all these previous mythologies, which, though I'm sure Icke would wish it so, is not Wikipedia's job to suggest. Serendipodous 20:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It's Wikpedia's job to use the expression others use, and they use "reptilian humanoid" for Icke's ideas. Plus, regardless of Icke, there was a lot of other material in the article that perhaps could be kept. Was there a reason for removing it, or has it been moved elsewhere? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know why it was moved, go to the top of the page. Most material has been moved elsewhere. What hasn't been moved elsewhere has been moved into the reptilian extraterrestrials article. Serendipodous 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Very little was moved into the reptilian extraterrestials article. Can you show me where the material was moved to, and can you say what was wrong with it staying in this article? I'm just trying to find out what the motivation is for deleting such a large amount of material, then reverting me twice when I try to use the term "reptilian humanoid" in an article about someone who's writing about reptilian humanoids. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See the title above. Unpublished synthesis. The article, as it was, was creating a false connection between the reptilian humanoids of mythology and cryptozoology and the ideas of David Icke. There was little in the article that was not already in other articles. Very little information was actually original to it. What was could either be merged with other articles (as with dinosauroid) or moved to Reptilian extraterrestrials. Serendipodous 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

All WP articles are unpublished syntheses. The article gave examples of the idea of the "reptilian humanoid" throughout history. Granted, it wasn't that well-written and it needed fluffing out, but it was interesting to see the context and development of the idea. Ideas like that don't come from nowhere, and this is the context in which Icke's ideas were developed, whether or not he acknowledges it or is aware of it. For example, he talks about reptilian humanoids who live in the inner earth, and this article explained an earlier version of that same idea. This isn't the kind of synthesis that's not allowed per OR; it's the kind of synthesis that's encouraged.
As it stands, it seems all this material has gone and hasn't been merged anywhere else. Even if it had been, it would be good to have it on one page so that people can see the history of the concept. It's exactly the kind of thing WP is useful for. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Er, no, that really isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Now, personally I am all for expanding the lede with material showing the links between the various concept, but it's going to need to be sourced. Artw (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly how WP works, Artw. It's how a huge percentage of articles are created. Someone has heard of an idea, and traces the history of it for WP. It can produce an article with material that's quite hard to find elsewhere in one place. Unpublished synthesis is only regarded as OR if it advances a position. This article didn't do that, at least not that I could see. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Here and here are some books with material on reptilian humanoids, and here and here are some scholarly papers. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that 'thats how Wikipedia works'. When the same word or term has multiple meanings or significantly different meanings in different contexts, we have a separate article on each. In this case there were multiple meanings that, while denoting superficially similar creatures, had no connection to one another established by reliable sources. It was therefore appropriate to simply link to them in a list. Certainly the other option would be to try to set up a disambig. page and have each different reptillian humanoid article have a parenthetic addition to the title to separate them; however, a list seemed more appropriate in the present case.
As for your second issue, there was actually very little material in this page on the extraterrestrial, David Icke reptillian humanoid, because of issues with notability and verifiability. That has been the case for some time on this page, and doesn't really have anything to do with the latest rework. The relevant material that was here has been moved to reptillian extraterrestrial. If you feel that more material should be added to that or that it should be moved to a different page name, feel free to contribute there or start a discussion on that talk page. Certainly reptillian humanoid (extraterrestrial) or reptillian humanoid (conspiracy theory) would seem to be options. Locke9k (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_reptilian_humanoids"