Let the article stand, with all of its claims and sourcing, however there needs to be a protected and clear presentation, preferably early in the article, as to this being a work that, while claiming to be scientific and academic in nature, is not not only not supported by mainstream science and academia, but that it is widely held to be modern mythology, fiction, etc. by a majority of academia. There should be no mention in the individual biographies, and attempts to do show should be deleted as vandalism. Frame the article properly as a widespread hoax or other some such. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Several parts here. (1) The article on the theory itself should stand but present the material accurately. (2) The edits to biographies should probably be disallowed. However, I would present the following compromise -- if there are independent, reliable general biographies on any specific individuals that make mention of the theory, so can we. Chances are, there won't be any, or only a couple. It's a good standard, and fair -- we don't pass our own judgement on whether or not the theory is to be taken seriously, but take our cue from what others have done. (3) The editor's behavior is a problem. If they can't be reasoned with and continue to be disruptive after being humored to some extent, they will need blocking sooner or later. Mangojuicetalk 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Describe the extraterrestrial reptile theory but do not include it in biographies EXCEPT in cases where there are mainstream reliable sources discussing such theory being applied to a biography. For instance, if a book published by the Oxford University Press has a page dedicated to the biography of Bill Clinton and on this page it mentions and refutes Icke's theory, then the information could be presented on Bill Clinton provided that the weight given in the Wiki article is proporational to the weight given by the source. -- Levine2112discuss 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mango pretty much nails it for me, however my compromise would possibly solve the editors behaviour problem as well - allow the creation of Category - People believed to be Alpha Draconian alien impostors by a surprisingly large number of people and attach that to bio's. Satisfies both the editor and injects a little humour into WP ;) (I'm 97% serious by the way - seriously - create the category - it'd be funny. And a nice legacy of the AGF_Challenge.)
Block the editor for being moronic :( Stifle (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy, just because a couple of people want to demean someone, doesn't mean that they should get their way ~ AmericanEagle 03:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the problem? Don't you folks know that the Clintons are shapeshifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis? Oh wait. That was Newt Gingrich. Bwahahaha. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Email the user that if he does not withdraw, I will visit his house in reptilian form and devour him and his family, along with several of my ArbCom colleagues. (Sorry, couldn't resist!) FT2(Talk | email) 11:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes happy to have an article as per Mango, also including (subject to verifiable sources) the "it's coded anti-semitism" argument. Happy to have at least one Bio referring to it, specifically David Icke's. I'd also check for any edits like this to reptile or Alpha Draconis by the theory's proponents, though the current link from Reptilian seems OK. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
First, it would be very interesting if this was real. I would allow the weird people to put a section in any articles titled something like THEY WILL KILL YOU AND YOUR MOTHERS "Controversy" or "Conspiracies" and add this in any article they want. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 13:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Include the dry boring and sourcible bits only on BLPs and bios of main proponents/people known to advocate these theories. Likewise on articles about these theories. The rest should be treated case-by-case if the dubious information is notable enough to go on each article. A lesser known celebrity who constantly mentions this and writes about it may have generated enough to warrant inclusion on their article. -- Banjeboi 10:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors shouldn't be allowed to state their own opinion on an online Encyclopedia. You're only allowed to state facts with legit sources, and failing to do so should lead to a warning. But strangely enough, I say keep their opinion on here (IF there are sources provided and a lot of people stuck with the belief) but put it under a sub-heading labelled "fictional beliefs". Amandaaa99 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
