User:Filll/AGF Challenge Reptile-Describe the extraterrestrial reptile theory but do not include it in biographies


 * 1) If there are noteworthy authors writing about this theory, it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. However, a separate article makes more sense than incorporating it into biographies. Perhaps a link to the central article could be added to the See Also sections in the bios. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This would be the only logical thing to do in this situation. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yep. Pretty much that. Dorftrottel (ask) 02:09, April 13, 2008
 * 4) It's quite interesting when you start looking into it. Ask Bishzilla. Oops. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Also, consider topic-banning the tendentious editor. Get him working on lizard, to please our new overlords. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Again, an article on the theory is ok, but must include scientific (?!) view that it is all crap. PS As no 16 rightly points out, it should be (and is) mentioned in David Icke!Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) include a stern warning to the editor about BLP, linked to strong long block, restrict them to anything that doesn't include lizards. Let them typo check Russian football team articles for example.   Dan Beale-Cocks  23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) A standalone article if there are proper sources, else a redirect to a mention in the creator's biography, where it can be sourced from his own writings in the form "D**** I*** claims...". No mentions under any circumstances in non-lizardist BLPs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) . Exactly, since in fact there are sources. But it's not actually necessary to say explicitly that it's crap; if there';s a convenient source to that effect, fine.  In bios, keeping this out  is what the ability to exclude  extreme fringe is meant for. DGG (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Assuming that there is in fact a source that says "Some people believe that these world leaders are aliens", then an article on "World leader reptile alien theory" could exist. Actually including this information in the biographies would be giving undue weight to the theory. If it's a source that say "these world leaders have all been looking a bit green in the gills lately", i.e. is just providing evidence towards the theory about as strong as that in Paul is dead, then nothing. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) one article on the theory, maybe, if notable enough. Keep out of the bios, per DGG ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) If the editor continues to push adding it against consensus, dispute resolution should follow. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Describe the theory (making sure to include the commentary from people who say it is bunk) and keep it out of any biographies. Karanacs (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * |Assuming that there are some reliable sources about the theory (otherwise FRINGE applies), it deserves one or more articles, but not inclusion in individual biographies (living people or not. Fram (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I, for one, welcome our reptile overlords! Gimme danger (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Try and confine it to David Icke's article alone.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Zginder 2008-04-15T14:27Z (UTC)
 * 3) If those "thousands of websites" represent at least tens of thousands of people, rather than one guy with a lot of money, then WP:NPOV and WP:V requires that we treat it something like a small sect: let the sect tell its own story in its own words. But don't get in the way of letting proponents insert goofy-sounding material, because my understanding (based on living with a lawyer, and acknowledging that legal questions should be handled by sending them to Mike Godwin rather than by mouth-flapping) is that that's an outstanding defense in a defamation lawsuit. - Dan (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) It sounds like a theory merits its own article, but omitting it from biographies is a must - not because of BLP, but because there isn't a Wikipedia biography long enough for a single mention of this theory not to violate WP:UNDUE. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Until this (if ever) becomes a mainstream view it should be kept out of bios. Report this view in its own article if largish numbers do believe it. JMiall  ₰  20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Sarcasticidealist. It's all well and good to have the one article on the guy himself describing his lizard theory, but there is no way it should ever be included in biographies. GlassCobra 16:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) I can see an article on the reptile theory, and perhaps a "List of Famous People Who (supporters of the theory) Claim are Actually Alien Reptiles". Anything to keep this absurdity away from the serious articles about these people. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) per User:Applejuicefool
 * 11) It's what they believe, but it's not proven. If it becomes part of the bio subject's life, then it might be mentionable, but not as proven fact. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Tt 225 (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) I wouldn't be surprised if many of these people are just trying to be funny. This is not exactly a normal belief, but it shouldn't be hidden, people have a right to know it exists, but they also have a right not to see it in every major political canidates biography. (JR)² (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Well, there's clearly notability for the theory, but the notability doesn't exist outside it's own framework, a few thousand sources naming Bill Clinton as a space lizard are not notable when comparing to millions of sources not so naming him.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Despite the fact that GWB is a blood drinking shapeshifting reptilian humanoid, or at the very least not human, I think this is the only acceptable course of action. Yilloslime (t) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) --Dial (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Pretty obvious that this is the right thing to do. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Since this is, in fact, what has been done on Wikipedia with regard to this topic, I'm going to take the safe route with this option. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Kevin Baastalk 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) It's very unlikely to be anything other than undue prominence on the bio of any public figure. Better kept in an article of its own. Pfainuk talk 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Icke's theory is extremely notable, but inclusion in a biography would violate policy. Sceptre (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Of course, we all know it is really true!  Micro c h i p   08 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) If the theory is notable, and there enough WP:RS to verify that such a theory exists and is notable enough, an article on the theory can remain. However, putting it on biographies is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) The theory has gained enough notability to merit an entry of its own, but it is not a significant part of the public perception of the statesmen concerned to be mentioned in their biographies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) If it's notable enough for mention, then yeah, mention it, but don't go around giving it credibility. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) The premise of the question certainly makes this sound like a notable theory. But the nature of the theory itself is that anyone could be one.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) If its sourced and verifiable, then allow it. D u s t i complain/compliment 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Pretty much what WP:FRINGE prescribes. Stand-alone article describing the belief, but prevent it from encroaching on other articles. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 08:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) If proper sources can verifiable the spread of this idea, it may merit an article, but it does not belong in those individuals' articles. Doczilla  STOMP! 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) This has a following that must be documented on Wiki, but not in biographies. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur  Talk  02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Wikipedia doesn't lead the way in promoting fringe views; aside from this following, general biographies of these people would not include such information, we shouldn't either. If the user cannot follow the community consensus even after some polite discussion with him, a topic ban would be appropriate. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) What does this have to do with AGF? This is just about what to do with fringe theories.  In this case a page describing the theory would be appropriate (assuming there are reliable sources backing it up), and of course it should appear (as it does) on Icke's biography page, but it would be unacceptable to include it in the biographies of those who are described by Icke as reptiles -- it's just not a notable part of the person's biography, and Icke thinks lots of people are reptiles. csloat (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Yep, describe the fringe theory in its own article, don't include it in biographies unless there's other evidence that the specific person is a shape-shifting reptile.  Wotapalaver (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Shape-shifting bloodsucking reptiles unite! Joelster (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Trishm (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)  Allegory to other pseudo-sciences in Wikipedia?
 * 38) Assuming I understood this option right. (I'm not a morning person)--T. Anthony (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) We can't put simply bizarre views in biographies, BLP or not. (BLP is and should be irrelevant here and most places; a good biography doesn't include stuff that violates BLP, unless the law has got seriously askew with reality, like in several cases of British law. (I understand that we might be breaking British libel law, at least under some version of it, by claiming that OJ might be guilty.))--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Keep it out of the BLPs.  If the "theory" is so notable, write an article on it. Bwrs (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) agree, per Cryptic C62. --Iamzork (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) Unless the person has admitted that they are a shape-shifting reptilian alien or a reliable source claims they are such (not simply repeating the claim of a believer) then it stays out. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) The theory should be described in its own encyclopedia page, referenced by reliable sources about the theory. Books published by proponents are not reliable sources, so the theory doesn't get mentioned in any biographies (unless the claims themselves are sufficiently notable to merit sections in biography discussing the claims, just as the page on Elvis might discuss claims that Elvis is still alive). skeptical scientist (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof/source, should not go in biographies unless independent incontrovertible proof is shown (ie BBC shows video of Queen transforming) - in which case it would be a moot point :).
 * 45) The article needs to show that this is wackyness with no independent sources. Felixmeister (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) Kla22374 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) Only include it in the bio if they turn on us and eat us. :-) <font face="Segoe Print" color="#6B4226">Pie is good  <font face="Segoe Script" color="#78AB46"> (Apple is the best)  23:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) LOL! This is quite special indeed. Remove the information from all biographies with the exception of Icke and those who are arguably spokespeople for the theory. Articles about the theory can peacefully co-exist but until reliable sourcing confirms our world leaders are reptilian and names them specifically we need to err on our wp:Brain instead. 71.139.36.216 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) haha no.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 06:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) <font face="Georgia"><sup style="color: #3B5323;">The <font color="#8B0000;">GRAND <sub style="color: #660198;">Rans <small style="color: #FF6103;">✫Speak to Me!✫  00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 51) Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  12:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 52) — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 53) --<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>Allmightyduck &#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> <FONT SIZE="1">What did I do wrong?</FONT> 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 54) LOL - keep a page on the theory but remove all material from BLPs that do not state an opinion on the theory. Also maybe think about trying to start a fund to get David Icke some help towards counselling and some new pants as shell suits are a bit out of fashion nowadays :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 55) Write an article about the hoax, but not in a way that makes it seem absolutely true, as described at WP:HOAX. Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  19:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 56) If there are books, movies, and websites devoted to this theory, then it is a noteworthy topic needing an article of its own, just like Creationism, Astrology, and 9/11 conspiracies. Just make sure the article on the lizard shapeshifter theory is written in NPOV that doesn't assume the theory as fact. No biographies should contain this information. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">contribs 08:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 57) Have just one article that cites the books, websites etc on the theory, written to describe the beliefs, concepts and claims that are made, and any evidence to the contrary from a neutral point of view. Nothing in the biographies, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 58) Sounds like a bit of a fringe theory...but if it's not actually fringe, well, yes, an article wouldn't hurt. Probably. Maybe put it in Icke's article.  Eman <font color="#6643d1">235 / talk  04:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 59) Keep it out of the bios, this is fringe theory. No need to complicate bios and BLPs with this stuff, we are an encyclopedia. Melody Concertotalk 03:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 60) Don't litter biographies with this, an article of its own should do.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 10:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't litter biographies with this, an article of its own should do.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 10:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)