Jump to content

Talk:Reptilian conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 154: Line 154:


The paragraph beginning "''Skeptics who adhere to the psychosocial hypothesis of UFOs argue that the "Reptilians" mythos originates from [[V (science fiction)|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. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "''Skeptics who adhere to the psychosocial hypothesis of UFOs argue that the "Reptilians" mythos originates from [[V (science fiction)|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. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk: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 that could originate from a non valid source.[[Special:Contributions/89.82.152.110|89.82.152.110]] ([[User talk:89.82.152.110|talk]]) 03:10, 4 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.[[Special:Contributions/89.82.152.110|89.82.152.110]] ([[User talk:89.82.152.110|talk]]) 03:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:11, 4 September 2014

WikiProject iconParanormal Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Purported?

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

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)[reply]

Which picture?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good point. Serendipodous 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah. Heavy vandalism today. Thanks for spotting it. Serendipodous 20:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok.... Serendipodous 18:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's what List of reptilian humanoids is for. Serendipodous 08:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 14:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where do you want it to go? Serendipodous 16:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seriously, was it that easy?? Lol - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The wonder

What if, What if i cant help saying what if, This scares me i happen to think there real and i believe they cold easy pass us by on the street and we would never know it. There are some people you see and walk pass that leave you with that feeling, that feeling that surrounds you like nothing else in the world i believe that its our natural instant to react to it but we can see why. The thought lingers in my mind what if they are real how could we face theme how many are there, are we out numbered all ready. The question is one that needs to be asked, if they are real and they are eating us or use us to rise to the top how do we stop theme.

So i leave you with this when you pass a crowd of people and you feel like you just saw a ghost many you will think on it, What if. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Son of Aunbis (talk • contribs) 12:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 07:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Serendipodous 06:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Only if it can be tied specifically to the Reptilian conspiracy theories. Serendipodous 17:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 10:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 22:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 06:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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..." Serendipodous 13:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Detailed response below Scolaire (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

.. 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)[reply]

With all the good faith in the world, I cannot avoid the conclusion that 89.82.152.110 is the same person as 82.240.163.245, pretending to be somebody else. Not just the length of the posts, or the views expressed, but certain idiosyncrasies of punctuation etc. point to them being the same person. This is called sock puppetry and, to quote the policy, "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts..." and more.
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)[reply]
I will make an official complaint soon enough if you do not erase these unfounded and serious accusations along with this present reply to be fair and square . First please indicate to me where the misuse would have occured anywhere on this article or its talk page on my behalf, secondly how could you ever prove that one IP corresponds to one person and one only or even many other people and what guarantee do I have that Serendipodous or Mongo are not your sockpuppets as well, Scolaire? Did it ever occur to you that a certain number of people who know each other can use each other's computer, Sherlock? Do you think I'm stupid to the point that I would not know that anyone is able to check the history of my personal edits on wikipedia and those of the other persons who use the same computer as mine, one in particular being the one whose personal IP is the first one mentioned? I will kindly ask you first to delete your post which unjustly accuses me as well as this present reply of mine. I do not understand why all of a sudden you would start checking IPs and threatening me and the other persons on the other IP, simply because your friends Mongo and Serendipodous are acting as if the page belonged to them and no one else could be allowed to edit unless they have the exact same ideas, even if material is sourced, referenced and valid? Why are you going this route all of a sudden? Do you want me to start checking your web identity as well? Should I falsely accuse you if ever I find that some posts of yours that happened to be deleted ended up reworked and reposted by you or a friend of yours on another IP? This is brilliant: deviate from the subject which is to expand and make the article richer in sourced information, and instead make false accusations. What a splendid third opinion indeed. Or is it a unique one? Should I start making unfounded accusations as you did, that will lead to nothing if just pollute the page and not make things evolve positively? The ball is on your side, Scolaire. 89.82.152.110 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&oldid=624105135"