Talk:Reptilian conspiracy theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reptilian conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Paranormal Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The information on this page was formerly part of the article now called List of reptilian humanoids. Please see that article's talk page archive for earlier discussions.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[conspiracy theory#Extraterrestrials|conspiracy against humanity]] The anchor (#Extraterrestrials) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Misleading sentence in the text

This part:

particularly Helena Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine written in 1888, with its reference to "'dragon-men' who once had a mighty civilization on a Lemurian continent".

is misleading. There is no reference/word to 'dragon-men' or 'dragon men' in all of the two volumes of The Secret Doctrine. Also is the whole context of this very misleading and insufficent.

Blavatsky was not the only one who wrote about dragons. What is happening here is quite selective. There is a dragon Nidhog in the edda, didn't Michael fight a dragon in the bible? And is there not a wicked dragon of the garden of Eden, a dragon of the Apocalypse or a crocodile dragon in the egyptian sacred writings etc. etc.? This wide range of the word is here completely missing and the perhaps hundreds of authors who wrote about it. Blavatsky reports on this wide range of use of the term dragon in her writings, yes. But none of the past humanities in Theosophy are described there as dragons or dragon-men, as you can read also here in Wikipedia. A daily newspaper is not a suitable source, especially not for such esoteric topics. Especially as it becomes clear in the following paragraphs of this article that Blavatsky is not the basis of this strange theory, but rather symbols of one or more religions.

So this misleading, contradictory and selective not sufficiently documented insert should be deleted or modified.

Here an original quote that's prove thats the sentence is misleading and shows the origin of the human being and what theosophists understand by it. Reptiloids, as the author misunderstood it, are in any case not what Theosophist think about humans related to Blavatsky:

Man in the First Round and First Race on Globe D, our Earth, was an ethereal being (a Lunar Dhyani, as man), non-intelligent but superspiritual; and correspondingly, on the law of analogy, in the First Race of the Fourth Round. In each of the subsequent races and sub-races . . . he grows more and more into anencased or incarnate being, but still preponderatingly ethereal. . . . He is sexless, and, like the animal andvegetable he develops monstrous bodies correspondential with his coarser surroundings. II. Round. He (Man) is still gigantic and ethereal but growing firmer and more condensed in body, a more physical man. Yet still less intelligent than spiritual (1), for mind is a slower and more difficultevolution than is the physical frame . . . III. Round. He has now a perfectly concrete or compacted body, at first the form of a giant-ape, and now more intelligent, or rather cunning, than spiritual. For, on the downward arc, he has now reached a point where his primordial spirituality is eclipsed and overshadowed by nascent mentality (2). In the last half of the Third Round his gigantic stature decreases, and his body improves in texture, and he becomes a more rational being, though still more an ape than Deva. . . . (All this is almost exactly repeated in the third Root-Race of the Fourth Round.).....

(Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 186 f., free online for everyone to check)

Anyone who has referenced a dragon at any time, and these are numerous in literature and religion, could stand in Blavatsky's place here. It makes no sense, unless you absolutely want for whatever reason to associate Balavtsky with this crude hypothesis, but in this we are no longer talking about an encyclopaedia. So it has to be changed.

Anti-semitic connotations?

I've learned of an alleged anti-Semitic component to this theory. Is that a common or mainstream connotation? I am talking about whether people who know about the theory (believers or not) understand it to have an anti-Semitic element, not about the validity of the theory. Does this source [1] establish this sufficiently to add it to the article?

Jaufrec (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The theory often employs ancient anti-Semitic tropes (blood rituals, child murder etc) but subs "lizards" for "Jews". Icke often cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for instance. Serendi ^podous 01:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debatable one. There DOES seem to be some anti semetic tropes involved, but despite that when Icke talks about lizard people I think he geninely believes these are space lizards. The key here I think is about stucturalism and second order semiosis. The myth may not be directly anti-semetic either in form or intent, however by replicating the mechanisms of antisemetism it achieves similar effects, and ultimaetly when it comes to conspiracy theories all roads lead to rome, or in this case the mother of all conspiracy theories;- Antisemetism. It may well be both an academic point and somewhat in the realm of original-research however without good academic sourcing. 103.94.51.49 (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is some good academic research, however, that supports the theory being antisemitic in nature.. See eg: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963947020971997 Leirbagflow (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands

A far right MP,Mr. Baudet, of the Forum voor Democratie, has claimed that lizzard-people control international politics.... he did so in a speech in our parliament. Robert Prummel 2001:1C01:3B06:1900:1D58:2DF8:B8F6:6488 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde mentions it, I think it's notable. Serendi ^podous 20:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilian humanoids

the article says"Icke ... claims shape-shifting reptilian aliens.. take on human form". Therefore they are not reptilian humanoids but humanoid reptilians. Let's keep our nouns and adjectives straight. 142.163.195.205 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Why was the image changed to add small genitals? Here is the original https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reptilian.svg 64.98.31.14 (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there seems to a bit of history here. That old version was removed from this article in 2019, after a discussion on this talk page. A new version of the image, with genitalia added, was uploaded to Commons that year, and added to this article four years ago. Frankly, I don't think either version belongs in the article, but since I've not noticed it was there for four years, I'll wait to see whether the previous consensus to remove it still holds. Donald Albury 15:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Austin Feff, El cid, el campeador, Herostatus, and Doug Weller: participants in previous discussion. - Donald Albury 15:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: again, spelled correctly. - Donald Albury 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would still remove it per my previous argument that AFAIK it's just one guy's drawing. I don't care much tho, I won't be heartbroken if it's kept. It is a cool picture, and since the monsters are mythical who knows what is wrong or right.

As the the genitals, yeah, I believe these monsters reproduce by cloning or something, so they should go. The genitals, not the monsters. Well the monsters should go too, but that's up to if the people of the world will rise up against them, not us. Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture, or the uprising? Cos I'm on board for the uprising if you are. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Wikipedia isn't censored, I don't think that would justify using creature size comparison images that show certain gender-specific features on human reference figures, especially when there's some Wikipedia articles that feature examples of creature size comparison images that don't do that, such as these:

I don't see why any size chart comparing humans to humanoid beings from UFO stories should be different in that particular way. Heck, neither article on Bigfoot or the yeti have such images of this type to begin with, and I don't think a lot of editors have complained about the article being less helpful because of the lack of such images, let alone ones that specifically show a man visibly streaking next to either one of them. To quote Wikipedia:Offensive material; Similarly, editors of articles such as Car do not include images of automobiles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and "Wikipedia is not censored", due to concerns about relevance. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Rupture (2016)

The movie "Rupture" from 2016 borrows/contains elements and references to the reptilian conspiracy theory aswell as Alien abductions/Experiments. Human DNA seemed also to be referenced in the movie.

https://www.toptenz.net/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-reptilian-conspiracy-theory.php

First Part of movie is more or less about secret abductions and conducting hidden (from authorities) experiments on people. But in the final parts of the movie it turns more into a movie with elements of the Reptilian Conspiracy theory where this is:

"Reptilians (also called reptoids, archons, reptiloids, saurians, draconians, or lizard people) are supposed reptilian humanoids, which play a prominent role in fantasy, science fiction, ufology, and conspiracy theories. The idea of reptilians was popularised by David Icke, an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist who claims shapeshifting reptilian aliens control Earth by taking on human form and gaining political power to manipulate human societies. Icke has stated on multiple occasions that many world leaders are, or are possessed by, so-called reptilians." shapeshifting is explictly mentioned by a movie Review page(also Review speaks of alien-like creatures) : https://cinemacy.com/rupture-is-alien-sci-fi-with-more-questions-than-answers/ The growing of Renees head has nothing todo with the theory but afterwards feeling "change of heart"(as mother) leads to the assumptions shes in a kind of transition to this alien-like people on earth with shapeshifti abilities or to the least possesed by one. Also Renée the Main Protagonists biggest fear as we follow through the experiments portion of the movie coincidentally happens to be fear of snakes. While not explictly mentioned the movie contains really alot sick stuff people would probably experience as part of a cult, secret society(initiation ceremonie... well not entirely but sort of) or rumoured in message boards about darkweb "Red rooms" or urban legends like "creepypasta". So its really a mix of different elements and theories being really very discrete (beneath the radar) but a thriller and not parody like "Scary movie" and so on. I would say even "Jurrassic Park" is more likely to be used by people referencing to the reptoides/lizards people (although dinosaurs rather would have been theire ancestors..). But "Rupture" is.. it really gave me the chills and I've never had seen any other non-comedy genre movie directly making me think of the "Reptilian conspiracy theory". And very similiar psychologically in parts of Ridley Scottw "Alien" where Im maunly mean the alien tormenting Rippley. Here a bit more about the movie althought there is a wiki article [2] on it https://m.imdb.com/title/tt4578118/?ref_=tt_mv_close

A letterbox user even felt it me.. his/here words: "Rupture" was a videogame, it would be a stealth/survival horror, my favorites genres. As a movie, it is a clever and engaging mystery/horror that astutely addresses one of the biggest and most beloved conspiracy theories that still generates millions of views on youtube videos" https://letterboxd.com/biscoito18/film/rupture-2016/ Bravo, great description of biscoito18 couldn't have summed up the keypoints better!

--198.145.238.237 (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those look like reliable sources. IMDb is definitely not usable, the others publish user-submitted posts. What we are looking for as sources are articles from scholarly journals and books from reputable publishers. Donald Albury 21:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]