Talk:Reptilian humanoid

I don't really understand what's in this article that isn't in List of reptilian humanoids

I suppose a massive amount of input from someone knowledgeable on the subject might be in order, but that's not me. Serendi^podous 13:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's the same difference between Car and List of Ford vehicles. One covers the concept, the other is a list of examples. Right now it's a stub, but it will be filled in with more descriptive information._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See also section

I feel like a link to the furry fandom article would be appropriate there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B04B:EA7A:7589:AC1B:5F44:DA34 (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

Reptilians are real- Divine revelation from the God of the Bible whose knowledge will forever surpass that of man. 2019 71.244.111.160 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Reptilian humanoids and anthropomorphic reptiles

these are not the same thing and anthropomorphic reptile is a reptile in the shape of a human being to some degree. A reptilian humanoid would be a humanoid who is to some degree in the shape of a reptile. This article is talking about anthropomorphic reptiles 142.163.195.205 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

Under “games”, and in the last paragraph, the newest and recent Dracthyr race in world of Warcraft should be added. Like D&D’s Dragonborn, they are humanoid dragon people

It should be noted that dracthyr are a playable race that players are able to play as, and aren’t just NPCs like nagas.

Dracthyr were introduced in the latest expansion, Dragonflight. CaptainRelyk (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rehsarb (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Lizard People

"The reptilian conspiracy theory alleges that shape-shifting reptilian aliens control Earth."

This is wrong. It is merely a metaphor for people that act unhuman, and cold-blooded. 79.106.203.57 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Untitled comment

This should be changed from conspiracy to unproven hypothesis. Or a section added. There is a hypothesis about a reptilian race that does not involve conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B1AF:CB82:847B:2AA6:C683:4B47 (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) How are you annointed to declare that this is a " fictional" concept? Im not saying its fact or fiction, I believe a more accurate and honest statement is to say that the subject is debatable,due to the lack of enough readily accessible information that would allow the general public to render conclusions to disprove or unquestionably support either concept. Whether information and data is known ro some level to support/ disprove is also unknown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:1402:2C47:79C:499:6DEE:C631 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent comment. Wikipedia proports neutrality on controversial topics. But they consistently promote the "mainstream" (aka lamestream) media and government approved scientific / historical theories, despite any facts to the contrary. It was sad, but expected, that the once independent Wikipedia would fall to become just another tool of the system. It's been a decade since I opened a Wikipedia page for any purpose, and it'll be a decade, or more, before I bother with it again. It's nothing but a foul, stagnant, festering swamp of dead and dying ideas. 2601:80:C502:B4E0:5121:B3E9:1EAE:C82D (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with excluding crazy bullshit from the set of reasonable ideas, and the Wikipedia rules explicitly say so. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Image of Dinosaurid

I have reverted the addition of [[:File:Dinosauroid.jpg|thumb|The Dinosauroid, a hypothetical anthropomorphic sapient dinosaur.]] to the article because it is a depiction of a thought experiment on how bipedal dinosaurs might have evolved if they had survived the K-Pg extinction event, and has nothing to do with the cryptid. Donald Albury 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirected

this page came up in my history in replacement of private documents I was viewing about UFO communications 87.206.90.4 (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit about what you were trying to view? Donald Albury 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

"The" reptilian conspiracy theory? There's only one...?

So, disclaimer: I am not suggesting any reptilian theories are true or not true, that isn't my point... but isn't that a bit assertive, or declaratory, to word it as "The reptilian conspiracy theory alleges that shape-shifting reptilian aliens control Earth.[21]"?

To say it that way is a bit "definitive", I think... especially for a resource such as Wikipedia that strives for neutrality. Personally, I would say something like "Many theories exist surrounding purported extraterrestrial reptilians and reptilian humanoids. One such theory alleges that a race of shape-shifting reptilians are present on and control Earth, and have infiltrated the minds of the elite and ruling classes." That's just one theory though, and others are out there...

Hence I would also perhaps call that section "conspiracy theories", rather than "conspiracy theory", as it's not the only theory in existence. Even if only one or two are currently described on the page, it should be pluralized as "theories". It's more open that way. There are dozens of other theories regarding reptilians beyond the typical "shape-shifting", mind-infiltrating ideas. There are theories of reptilians abducting all of the missing people to be eaten, for example. Just saying. 2600:1700:B450:7640:F4C1:274E:AD70:1F7 (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Fictional label applied without valid reason

The word 'fictional' has been used in the first paragraph in an invalid and misleading way. The word fictional means that a topic is based on an imaginary or fantasy context. Just because something does not exist, doesn't mean that the discussion of it becomes fictional, eg: the topic of reptilians, while sometimes fictional in context, is most often discussed in non-fictional contexts, ie: the discussion of a possibility of having real existence. The opposing example is when someone writes a fictional story about things that really exist. if i write a fictional story about a president, are you going to say that presidents dont exist, because they are in a fiction book? or in a Biography, which is by nature a work of non-fiction, perhaps someone mentions they saw a ghost, are we to say ghost now exists, because they were written about in a non-fiction book? words are not genders, you cant just make up a new meaning for one just cos you have an emotion or prejudice about the subject. "Fiction" is a noun denoting a discussion perspective, not an adjective for the object of discussion #WordsHaveMeanings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.194.64 (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Antisemitic reptilians

I removed the paragraph that says "Belief in reptilians sometimes references anti-Semitic texts" stating that it is an overgeneralization not found in the cited sources. I was reverted with edit summary it is not an overgen.

I object the revert. The paragraph speaks about a killer who was influenced by a crackpot David Icke who insists that Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a reptiloid conspiracy. A single crackpot cannot be a reason for the disputed statement in the voice of Wikipedia. On the other hand, I am not against mentionioing the case of David Icke per se.

On the other hand, it now occurs to me that cherry-picking a single cace does not belong to this article and must be moved into "Reptilian conspiracy theory". and the section "Conspiracy theory" here must be written according to WP:Summary style, i.e., it must summarize the article "Reptilian conspiracy theory" rather than to present a single example, which is atypical, too. --Altenmann >talk 05:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

How can it be weasel words and an over generalization and cherry picking? Delectopierre (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2025

Please include the Naga in the Hindu scriptures as this page is racist to the religion. The reptilians are from the Hindu Religion. Sidwaysslim (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Naga is already mentioned here. And it has its own article: Nāga. --Altenmann >talk 07:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)