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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This part:
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:
(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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This part:
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:
(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.
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)
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)
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)
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)