Talk:List of reptilian humanoids/Archive 5

Unpublished synthesis?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 I am beginning to think that this article constitutes unpublished synthesis; by including all of these things in one article under the unbrella term "reptilian humanoid", it is implying that they are somehow all the same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)[reply]

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. Serendi ^pod ous 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. I have an idea. Serendi ^pod ous 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There. Done. This page was never much more than a glorified disambig anyway. Serendi ^pod ous 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendi ^pod ous 19:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Serendi ^pod ous 19:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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] Serendi ^pod ous 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Serendi ^pod ous 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved all Icke-related redirects from here over to reptilian extraterrestrials. Serendi ^pod ous 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendi ^pod ous 20:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendi ^pod ous 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendi ^pod ous 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Star Trek Reptilian Humanoids

I don't think that most of these belong on the list, as there is rarely any mention on the pages linked to of them being reptilian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanJA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if they were taken down they'd just get added again. Serendi ^pod ous 10:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tags on fiction list

Can someone please explain to me how to define a notable fictional reptilian humanoid? Serendi ^pod ous 16:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have established a criterion for notability: if the creature links to an article or section of its own on Wikipedia, then it is notable. I can't think of any more concrete criterion than that. Serendi ^pod ous 22:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good enough to me. ClovisPt (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds about the inclusion of "the nameless city" creatures. On the one hand, they have no article of their own, and thus would fail this criterion; on the other hand, they have no name at all, and so linking to the article on the story itself would be all you could do anyway. Serendi ^pod ous 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a reference somewhere in this article to the richly detailed List of dragons in literature. That would cover one of the most widespread popular images of reptilian humanoids.

Filursiax (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Kings

The article claims "Dragon Kings" are from Chinese mythology, but the linked article refers to creatures from a fantasy role-playing game, not right surely. Darmot and gilad (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Serendi ^pod ous 10:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citations

Given that all these examples link to articles defining them, I'm not sure why citations would be needed for this page, except to prove that they are reptilian humanoids. Serendi ^pod ous 14:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pointless tag that should be removed. Artw (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete...

So I assume any real human reptilians will never make it onto this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.64.91 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"real" ones? Serendi ^pod ous 21:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an idea that some kind of dinosaur would evolve into humanoid before Dale Russell

As you may know, Dale Russell suggested the idea of Dinosauroid evolved from troodon. In a related matter,　I'd like to introduce　an acute observer ahead of Russell. His name is Aritsune Toyota (豊田有恒). He is a science writer. He was affected by the theory of "Warm-blooded Deinonychus" (John Ostrom, 1964), and developed the idea that some kind of dinosaur would evolve to acquire intelligence. He sought counsel of experts to pursue biological plausibility. He finally published his idea as the science fiction, Kako no kage (『過去の翳』, A shadow of the past) in 1977.

I tried to add this story[2], but it was not accepted[3]. I knew Toyota is not so famous as Russell. I prepared a reference as the source. The reference was written by a Japanese zoologist, Tatsuo Saneyoshi （實吉達郎）. According to Saneyoshi, Toyota's idea is remarkable because Toyota was ahead of Russel and his idea was very sophisticated.

I'm not familiar with English Wikipedia. My English is not fluent. So I don't know how the story can be accepted in Wikipedia. Would you please give me some advice? --Damena (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list only includes examples with links to their own articles on Wikipedia. I don't know if your example has any article on the English Wikipedia, but if it does, then it can be included here. Serendi ^pod ous 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my example has no article on the English Wikipedia at this time.--Damena (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real life human condition?

Anyone got anything to expand on concerning this? Robo37 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given how horrific the condition is, unless there's an established tradition of referring to sufferers as "reptile people", I'd avoid any connection with it whatsoever on courtesy grounds. Serendi ^pod ous 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am no doubt that the condition is a horrific and upsetting condition, but note that Wikipedia is not censored, so you can't remove something purely on the basis that people may find it offensive. However I do see that it may be a bit far fetched to link a condition that gives scaley skin to reptiles, perhaps it was wrong of me to make that assertion. I just thought people viewing this article may be looking for some kind of real life example. Robo37 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzalcoatl and Cihuacoatl are not reptilian humanoids

They just have the word snake in their name. Quetzalcoatl is either depicted as a man or as a feathered snake - never as a combination. Cihuacoatl is just depicted as an old woman with no particular snake like features. Tlaloc is a much better candidate for "reptilian humanoid" as he is generally depicted as a human with snake fangs. Still it would require a source that explicitly classifies them as "repitilan humanoid" to include any of them here or otherwise it is OR. The same is probably true for a lot of the other inclusions in this list - but I don't have the expertise or energy to sort the wheat from the chaff on those.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point though; if you're going to establish such strict criteria for inclusion, then you would have to "sort the wheat from the chaff", as you say, for this entire page. Either that or leave them in. Serendi ^pod ous 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument. I will of course remove them again as they do not fit the inclusion criteria that already exist as they are by no means reptilian humanoids.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What inclusion criteria? "reptilian humanoids" can be interpreted several different ways. Serendi ^pod ous 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the list doesn't have inclusion criteria? That sounds like an MfD candidate to me, then. In case I don't see how the two mentioned deities would fall under the label anyway. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. This list would never lose an MfD. If you want to establish some arbitrary criteria for inclusion, go ahead. Serendi ^pod ous 14:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat Correction

Chameleon's race hasn't officially been revealed, it's just fan speculation that he's related to Reptile & Khameleon. Khameleon is the same race as Reptile, Zaterran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.240.175 (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Fixed. Serendi ^pod ous 09:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reptilian humanoids??

There are no reptilian humanoids. This should be titled list of fictional reptilian humanoids. 184.66.160.91 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would only work if you want to make the claim that religions are fiction. Which is a fairly non-NPOV claim. Serendi ^pod ous 18:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2014

This edit request to List of reptilian humanoids has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the Argonians from the Elder Scrolls universe to the list of Roleplaying and strategy games.

Please add Wesker from Resident Evil Series and Sephiroth from Final Fantasy 7 could be a potential candidate as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:83C6:DA90:A4C9:1288:A565:8ED3 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC) More info from http://elderscrollsonline.info/argonian Dagaut12 (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: To be listed on this page, it must first have a Wikipedia article. Stickee (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Stickee (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you can't add Argonians as other reptilian races have been added to the list that do not have there own page. One even links to the Lizards page. AWC3117 (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014

This edit request to List of reptilian humanoids has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

-5 In Fiction --5.5 Games ---5.5.1 Roleplaying and strategy games Add "Argonians, a race in The Elder Scrolls series LoNDoN (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done. Serendi ^pod ous 16:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The Shadowlands Mysterious Creatures page

[2] Police Officer Herbert Schirmer Abduction - Ashland, Nebraska, United States - December 3, 1967 - UFO Evidence

[1]

[2]