Talk:Dragon/Archive 2

This is an archive from the end of 2006 - mid 2007.

Vandalism

There has been some vandalism here, I don't know how to revert so I'm just gonna delete the vandalism and someone else can fix it. :) 68.207.168.171 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT: It was fixed while I typed that up. Holy...

Are they real?

Can they be real?. like at Unknown fire and jelly-like creatures live in Earth's atmosphere. Maybe all these dragon myths and everything was because people saw the dragons, but couldn't believe and take it as a fact? Maybe they were afraid of society? Who knows -Amf

you can't trust everything on the internet you know.

Seriously. But maybe they were some time ago, or maybe they may still exist today (it's possible). The Republican 02:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

KURU LOOK HERE: This unknown research team wrote a 300 page report on the existance of dragons. Sadly, their main donor stopped giving them money after he heard they were going to publish it. They wenk bankrupt (after putting it on the web) and the donor, owner of the least expensive desirable web hosting service, deleted the page. I found it in Google cache in December 2005.

I'm sorry, this is not a verifiable or reputable cite. Please provide a link to your findings; you must understand that it sounds like you're making this all up. Kuru ^talk 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

tel me more about these jelly like creatures. I have this 1999 calender that lists strange events and one is that this jelly like substance fell from the sky and it dissolved in there hands when the touched it. I'm thinking that this was that creature your talking about and that they are afraid of society because our ancesters drove them out of everywhere so they toke to the skys and we can't prove they're real because they are hiding somehow in the sky or somewhere else. they probably dissolved in there hands because they have a brittle body structure and there bodys dissolve by the germs on our hands.they also had a report that some people saw a slithering reptile in the sky.--Calvinsupergenius 20:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

On animal planet there was a special on Dragons tracing their history from dinosaur times... i think it was called Dragons: fact or fiction (ChildOfMorella 18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

It was called "Dragon's World: A Fantasy Made Real". It was based on the fact that many cultures had myths about dragons... Cultures that could NEVER HAVE COMMUNICATED. Intruiging, eh?Scientist George 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

THEY ARE REAL!-NekoONTHERUN!!!

finally someone who agress. read dragonology, hello? it has the science of breathing fire. ITS

Yup, I also watched it, it was about some people who actually found a dragon frozen corpse and took it to some museum in England, but i'm not sure if it's actually supposed to be true http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/

I'm sorry I have the DVD and it is not real. I completely believe in Dragons nonetheless.

Dragons were once real, but they have been hunted to extinction, not unlike the dodo Orange112 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you except that I think that they weren't necessarily hunted, but starved, died out from genetic defects, or a natural change in the atmosphere that made it impossible for them to survive.Solon Olrek 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they were hunted into extinction because ignorant kings feared them and thought they were demonic(as said in Dragons are real: a fantasy made real)creatures, just because they were animals they didn't understand.(I will update my user page telling a project I am hoping to fund someday)(Brandonrc2 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

I say they are real. I mean it's only logical! How in the world could everyone all over the earth know about one common thing without it being real? Even little kids find out about them at an early age. No matter where you go, you'll hardly ever find someone who doesn't know what dragons are. And I must say, Dragonology does give some very possible truths about them. I think that some may even be alive today. In China and Japan, dragons were, and still are, worshiped as gods of water and rain. This suggests that dragons (some of them) are sea creatures, as well. No one has ever been to the deepest parts of the ocean, so how can we know they aren't down there?(note that China and Japan are two of the more ancient nations in the world, so if there ever were dragons, some large number of Asian people saw them at one time, thus causing them to worship the dragons) I think dragons are much smarter than other animals, too, so I think they know where to go where humans won't find them. There are places on land that humans don't populate, so what about those places? I simply can't understand how something so well known and popular could not exist. --Christknight 00:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I think that dragons being water creatures to an extent is very probable. What about Nesse, and the Leviathon (spelling?). They are very popular and said to live in water. Nice observation there.Solon Olrek 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling = Leviathan. --Þorstejnn 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Solon. I'm sure dragons like that have been seen even by more than the ancient people of Asia. Europian explorers reported to have seen "sea serpents". Modern science says they saw merely octopus or squid tenticals. But they're really only assuming that that's what they saw. Especially considering the size difference from a simple tentical to the head and neck of a dragon. I think what those explorers saw were really dragons coming up for air. Also, most everyone thinks dinosaurs are extinct; but there have been findings lately of dinosaur bodies washed up on beaches. And about Loch Ness, though I don't think it was (or is) a dragon, I think it's a plesiosaur that some how got into a lake, and I think it's still around. Now I'm not saying that dragons are at all dinos, I think it just goes to show how wrong science can be at times. --Christknight 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A plesiosaur is not a dinosaur, by any stretch of the imagination. Dinosaurs are a type of diapsid reptile known as an archosaur, a group which includes crocodiles and birds but not lizards or snakes (which are lepidosaurs). Plesiosaurs not only aren't archosaurs, but they, like mammals (synapsids), turtles and tortoises (anapsids), and fellow marine reptiles (euryapsids such as Ichthyosaurus), aren't even diapsids (reptiles proper) at all! The only true dinosaur carcass you'll ever find on a beach is that of a gull, penguin, puffin, pelican, or the like. --Þorstejnn 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment on the theory of dragons coming up for air, but I have a problem about the loch-ness monster theory. You say that it might be a plesiosaur, but how would a water-based dinosaur get into a lake when they are said to be in oceans. I was under the impression that the Loch Ness lake was a freshwater body of water. Now a plesiosaur could adapt to freshwater over a peiod of time, but that still doesn't explain how it got to the lake in the first place. Not to mention that there have never been sightings of more than one creature at a time and for your theory to be true there would have to be reproduction involved. There is also the problem of the neck. Plesiosaurs had necks that they were unable to lift out of the water, therefor contridicting the pictures of nesse that are commonly shown. Now you could also aply a contridiction to my contridiction on the bases that there was more adaptation involved. Solon Olrek 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I didn't know plesiosaurs couldn't lift their heads above water - I know a bit more about dragons than dinosaurs. So maybe it's not a plesiosaur at all; maybe it is a dragon. If it's a dragon, maybe it is also a land creature, and it leaves the lake to mate. The best answer to how it got there, though, is the fact that Loch Ness lake drains into the Ness River which flows into the Moray Firth - an inlet of the North Sea. I don't know how deep or wide that river is, but it is the most likely way a dinosaur or even a sea dragon would get to the lake. It would also explain why we only see one: it could travel back to the ocean to reproduce. So when you think about it, we might not even be seeing the same one all the time, we could be seeing a few different ones that go back and forth from the lake to the ocean (also explaining why it is so hard to find). --Christknight 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Any sort of dinosaur that would need to stay near a body of water, with the exception of penguins, could just as easily fly to the lake as swim. Plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and their kin, are not dinosaurs. --Þorstejnn 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had to look up plesiosaurs to find the information about their necks, so don't worry about it. Not to mention that they could have evolved to where they could raise their heaads. Now, as to your assesment that they go out to see to breed, that still wouldn't really explain why there has only been one unless the creature in question is territorial. I guess I concede to the fact that Nesse COULD be a plesiosaur, but I am still leaning toward dragon. Mainly because if the plesiosaur is still around, then where are the sightings of the other dinos?

Now onto another discussion. What is your take on the Leviathon (spelling?) Do you think that it might be a different dino?Solon Olrek 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

About Loch Ness, I think it could be a dragon or a dino, I've only seen those blurry pictures taken by terrified onlookers as the camera shook in their hands - not to mention how foggy it is in that area. I'm sure that if I ever got the chance to see it myself, I could tell you; but until then, it remains a mystery.

And about other dino sightings - I'm a Bible believer, so my answer goes to the Bible. You know the story of the Great Flood, and how Noah took two of every animal on earth into a huge arc to save them from drowning. Well, the Bible says that all animals were created in the first six days - even dinosaurs. So what I think is that, yes Noah took the dinos with him, too, but in their extremely smaller numbers, may not have been able to survive. Thus, the only dinos able to be alive today are the sea dinos that didn't have to worry about drowning in the flood. Now, I know this strongly contradicts what you believe if you are an evolutionist, but when you think about it, that's the only way to explain how only sea dwelling dinos could be alive today.

Plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs, all dinosaurs were terrestrial-dwelling creatures; flying/swimming reptiles like pterosaurs and plesiosaurs did exist, but were not dinosaurs.I am tired of explaining this.(Brandonrc2 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

As to the Leviathan, I have absolutly no doubt that it is down there. Even the Bible mentions the Leviathan as a large creature under the ocean. It is much more likely that the Leviathan is a plesiosaur than loch ness, since the Leviathan is supposed to be a deepsea animal. However, it is also likely that it is a dragon, which the Bible also mentions. In fact, I think it is a dragon simply because it's talked about. Like, why else would the Bible, or anyone else who knows about it, point out the Leviathan if it's just like all the other plesiosaurs down there? --Christknight 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go by what the Bible says, then there is no way it can be a plesiosaur. In Job:41, it says that "sparks of fire shoot out," and I don't think that plesiosaurs could do that. Then you have the ancient portraits of it which descibe like a lobster serpent thingy.Solon Olrek 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about the fire part - it has been a long time since I looked it up. So, yes, I do believe it's a dragon. But I really don't think it's that crab, lobtery-looking thing like in the movie Atlantis. My guess is that the idea of it came about in anctien times because people saw crabs or lobsters, and feared walking in the water because they might get pinched by one. They do look kind of creepy, so I think it just created the ideal giant deep sea creature in peoples' minds. But like the Bible says, "sparks and fire shoot out", and crabs don't do that, either. And I don't think God would create a one of a kind thing just so people could read about it for fun. To me, it sounds like more of a warning of what people will find if they go too deep into the depths of the ocean. You know modern science: always trying to dig deeper. I don't know if it'll ever happen, but if one day we dive too deep and find the Leviathan, two things might happen: one would be actually discovering it and finding out what it is all together, now the other thing; who knows what might happen if humans were to stumble upon a creature like this? We know it's dangerous, as the Bible says, but how might it react to humans? I'm sure the divers are dead not long after they find it, but what if it became influenced to come to the surface? The outcome could be catastrophic - that is, if the Leviathan is an unfriendly dragon... I think I'm going a bit too deep into thought here. All I know is that the Bible says that the Leviathan is real, so it is. And if there is only one dragon alive today, I think the Leviathan is it. What are your thoughts about it? --Christknight 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that the Leviathon exist, but I think that it is not the only one there is. I think that the descriptions of the Leviathon are about a creature species, not just one creature. The bible doesn't say there is only one, and neither do any toher references I have found. I also beleive that there are mroe than just the leviathon that can be called dragons. There are reports of things, (animals and aleins mostly [btw, I think that aleins might exist on the basis that it is highly higly unprobable that in all of the galaxies, we are the only planet that can support life. That idea is a stuck up self-centered one in my opinion]) that could possibly be dragons. Although I don't back up that idea very much because even I am a little sceptical.Solon Olrek 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk about aliens much because I really can't say I believe in them. True, Earth may not be the only planet suited for life, but that doesn't mean that there is other life out there - thought it is possible. Life on other planets really isn't my thing, and this is not the page to talk about that on anyway. Back to the Leviathan, I don't see how there could exist more than one. The Bible says that it rises out of the water at times; if there were more than one, one would have been spotted by now, I would think. And we know humans couldn't have killed them or hunted them down because the Bible says that it is basicly invincible. --Christknight 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall it saying that in the bible. I remember it saying somelthing along the lines of the depths being boiled like a cauldron. I beleive that there could be more than one and that they only have one or two offspring max throughout their life which would keep the population very small. Not to mention that it is said be I beleive Socrates to be the gaurdian to the gateway of Atlantis whichit supposedly at the bottom of the ocean which, in turn, supports the theory that they are floor-based sea creatures. And since we have just now found a live Giant Squid which was thought just to be singular or mythical, but not a varietist type of animal, it lends support to the earlier stated theory.Solon Olrek 19:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? And just how many plesiosaurs have you met? I consider it equally likely that dragons, leviathans and plesiosaurs could spit fire. This is easy to presume because I've never seen any of them in person. But consider there is a creature, a tiny one in fact, that can spit fire. The Bombardier beetle squirts an enzyme and 2 chemicals and the whole mixture boils. This can be fatal to nearby creatures. Consider if a large creature with gallons of this mixture, or a similar one, could have been the fire spitting leviathan.

You're right, the Bible doesn't use the word "invincible". I'll copy down the verses that lead me to believe that it is, though. They are all in Job 41, and they are: 13 "Who can strip off its hide, and who can penetrate its double layer of armor?", 15-17 "Its scales are like rows of shields tightly sealed together. They are so close together that no air can get between them. Each scale sticks tight to the next. They interlock and cannot be penetrated.", and 23-29 "Its flesh is hard and firm and cannot be penetrated. Its heart is hard as rock, hard as a millstone. When it rises, the mighty are afraid, gripped by terror. No sword can stop it, no spear, dart, or javelin. Iron is nothing but straw to that creature, and bronze is like rotten wood. Arrows cannot make it flee. Stones shot from a sling are like bits of grass. Clubs are like a blade of grass, and it laughs at the swish of javelins." (these were all taken from the New Living Translation: Second Edition version of the Bible). As you can see, the Bible says many times that humans can't kill it.

Now about the offspring being only two max, I believe that that is a very possibly true answer. It makes perfect sense sinse that means there would only be enough to make just another two with each generation, and the cycle would continue like that. Good thinking!

With the guardian of Atlantis thing, I can't say I believe that. The Bible never mentions it being the guardian of a sunken city, and I don't believe in Atlantis at all, really. You see, for a city to survive sinking to the bottom of the ocean, it would require either super technology(which doesn't make any sense at all), or some really strong magic. I can't say that I beleive in magic either. There are freakish things happening even in modern times that people call "magic", and they really are some kind of supernatural force. However, according the Bible, anything you find on earth that people call magic (or even witchcraft) is not magic, it is the power of Satan(however this is not the page to discuss magic anyways). So if it's not technology(no sense), and it's not magic(not real unless a power of evil), then I don't see the idea of a city at the bottom of the ocean making any sense at all.

So back to the Leviathan, I still think it's down there. And maybe there are two of them? --Christknight 07:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I need to find the verses in Job 41 that talk about the Leviathon breathing fire, because I don't know the exact verses. (About Atlantis, I don't really beleive in it, I was just using it as an example as to the Leviathon being a deep sea creature. I have a few veiws on how it might have a possibility of existing if you want to go itno discussion on another page.)

I think there would be somewhere around 10 to 20, because if one were to die, or one have just one child, the leviathon wouldn't be able to reproduce and would die out because of that. I also think that there might be a rare thrid offspring (Like a ratio of maybe 1/80) to make up for the killed offspring, or death of a mature Leviathon. I don't know if that would be very plausable, but I thought that I would throw it out there.Solon Olrek 19:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean 10 to 20 Leviathans? I think that's too many. The Bible mentions in Job 41:25 "When it rises..." and also a little later on it mentions the trail it leaves as it moves through the mud. This must mean that it isn't an ocean floor only creature; so if there were 10 to 20 of them, there would almost definitely be sightings of them. However, I agree with you that it is probable that more than two were born every once in a while in order to make up for deaths. I said before that I don't think humans could kill one, but I do think that all the toxic waste that is poured out into the ocean could mess up their breeding cycle somewhat. --Christknight 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the sightings. I also think that the toxic waste is a good idea. When I mentioned them dying, I was refering to accidental miscarries or parent killing offsring, parent killing parent. That kind of stuff.Solon Olrek 19:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, miscarries are a possibilty. However, I think that in their small numbers, their instincts would tell them not to eat each other. So, as to the question way up there, "Are they real?", I still think they are. They must be, like I said before. And the Bible even has a chapter about one. I say there's no doubting it, the logical answer (what I think) would be, "Yes, dragons are real." --Christknight 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in total agreement. Shall we meet on the talk page of another topic? Say, Bible, Yu-i-Oh, or Magic?Solon Olrek 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

According to a recent 'vandal':

"they were real p.s. i love pie"

I can only assume this vandal was a dragon (in a past life), but has since reformed and become fond of pie.

Good on ya, pie-dragon. Theavatar3 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that dragons actually can reincarnate into humans, or was that a joke toward the "vandal"?Solon Olrek 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How dragons would function if they were real? It's a fairly debatable and interesting point - since it's SO debatable, I'm not sure it's worth putting in the article but it's worth a thought. If they do exist, as some hope, how would a creature that large function? Would it be able to really fly? I know most fo you instantly think of flying dinasaurs, but they looked like scaly, scary birds - their shapes were very similar, but conventional 4 legged 2 winged dragons are not. I have no idea about aerodynamics but I'm guessing it's not just a matter of scaling up from a birds wings. It's annoying in movies when huge dragons dive off cliffs and DON'T end up as a big splat on the ground. I read in the Usborne book of dragons (when I was little) a story of how the chinese dragon was able to fly - he tricked the cockrel and stole his horns, since that was what allowed him to do so (though this probably wasn't based on legend at all, since I'm fairly sure chinese dragons, or loongs, have deer horns...)

And how, if at all, do they flame? Reign of fire debated about a sac of gas that fed to the sides of the mouth (I can't remember how it was ignited?) whereas others, such as Dragonheart, seem to have it stored in their belly ready to be breathed out. And why do they flame? (No I havnt' read dragonology yet, I know I must!) Can they not eat raw food? Is it to immobilise and kill their prey? Who started that peice of information? Is that global fact for all dragons (minus leviathans) or just european? I'm presuming it's because fire connotates demons and hell and brimstone etc, and so the religious thinking of dragons=evil. This is just a bit of thinking aloud and I know it's quite rambling, but any thoughts? Freaky dragonlady 01:11, 11 Dec 2006

My, you have a lot of unanswered questions. 1. No, I'm quite sure dragons can't turn into humans. There are places on earth that people don't live, and dragons live most commonly in mountains that would be uninhabitable by humans, anyway. 2. They can fly because they have wings. Now, some people would argue that they are too big for their wings to carry them. But bees are the same way, right? They fly very well, but scientists say they are actually too heavy for their wings. I've never heard that story about the cockrel, but trust me, dragons with horns that look like deer horns did not take them from other animals. So about those dragons that fly without wings, I could only guess that they have some kind of gas inside them that helps them float(maybe helium?). 3. There are many hypothosies about how they breath fire. Rein of Fire could have it right. Or, like Dragonology says, they may have a place in their mouths to store something like flint that causes a spark, then they breath a gas that causes the fire; maybe the same gas that helps them float...? I myself have wondered if maybe their saliva has something flamable in it (like alchohol) that can catch fire when they bring their breath up to high heat. 4. They breath fire, most likely, to first kill their prey, then cook it. I don't think they need to eat their food cooked, but cooked meat is always healthier than raw meat, sinse raw meat can carry diseases(that goes for humans as well as dragons). As I said many times above, I think dragons are much, much smarter than most all the other animals on earth. 5. Leviathans breath fire, too. Check Job 41 in the Bible. It's a very short chapter, and it says there that it breaths "sparks and flames". 6. Talk of dragons breathing fire started thousands of years ago when people were first seeing them do it. It wasn't religious thinking that caused people to think thay breath fire; it was the other way around. It was dragons breathing fire that got religious people thinking they were evil. Even though I'm a Christian, I don't think they're evil. Just because they have a coat of scale armor and breath fire, making it difficult for humans to overpower them, doesn't mean they are evil. Christknight 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am certain they are real and, though I'm new here, I think we should set up a page on figuring out species of dragons using mythology and the bible(when I say mythology, I mean accounts where people have slain dragons and(in the case of southern Asia) worshipped a few.-(Brandonrc2 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

You know, they may still be around and disguised as humans. 71.249.11.214 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To Quote John Lennon:I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now? Besides, they're in hiding in the Bermuda Triangle, the depths of antarctica, and other remote areas- that's what I believe. If they aren't, what about Otherkin? Dragonlady :)

I totally believe dragons existed but were probalby killed thanks to western civilisations, mainly christianity, demonising them. I once found a website (i forgot th address tho >.<) which had loads of scientifically based possible dragon anatomies ill do my best to find it again! Volvagia 10:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised the picture of the dragon in Tibet isn't mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.130.100 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

there was a special on dragons on animal planet. it said something about finding a dead dragon in a collapsed cave was that real or was animal planet just making stuff up for ratings? Darthwin 1:14, 03 Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.25 (talk)

Basically all that was said in this section must be real. But most people don't believe it because of ignorance. Maybe not their ignorance, but the ignorance of Medieval fellows (mostly priests I presume) that saw a big frightening lizard, who looked like their depictions of Satan, and above all, who was probably smarter then the human beings of that time - so they thought it was a demon and a nice animal to be killed. The problem is that almost every human beings (with the except of some intelligent people, like buddhists) think that animals don't have a soul or feelings and their only function is to garantee a nice life for humans, and the ones who don't, like dragons, should be killed into extinction. So I agree with the user who said that dragons must be hidden between us, or in places we've never been - it's their only way of survival. --Midasminus 16:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It is genetically possible, and therefore they probably do. But seeing as they are afraid of society, they're problably constantly on their toes (that is, the species that do have toes) and therefore sightings are very rare. There has only been one sighting in the past two centuries-one in the Galapagos ^{(citation needed)} but, provided the sightee is still alive, one sighting is enough to confirm existence. So they do. --Gp75motorsports 16:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Nessie is a dragon. Euro knucker, if I'm not mistaken. --Gp75motorsports 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. We must be setting a record for discussion size here. Would it be okay if I create another page for this? Navigating this page manually takes like ten thousand years, and I was hoping to avoid making it longer by creating a debate page. Please respond on my talk page. Best, --Gp75motorsports 10:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And also, here's a new link to a place called [1]PicturesCloset with thousands of dragon photos, all under FDL. --Gp75motorsports 10:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

Nandesuka, I understand the list is a little long, and should probably be "culled", as you put it, but I don't think leaving just two D&D references is an accurate representation of "dragons in popular culture." Surely the continued use of dragons as major characters in stories has value---from recent movies like Reign of Fire or Dragonheart to older, more literary dragons like Smaug, or back even further into the past. Dungeons & Dragons is not the only example worth mentioning. —Ryan McDaniel 19:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My general feeling is that if one can't even be bothered to add a few sentences, in context, about a given example, then it is not worth including. Laundry lists add little, if anything, to an encyclopedia, and they tend to grow over time as everyone insists that their insignificant examples are just as important as, say, Smaug. I'll propose that someone nuke the laundry list entirely and rewrite it as text. If no one gets around to it in the next week or so, I'll make an effort to do it. Nandesuka 20:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that laundry lists are bad, but I don't think the solution is to delete this one entirely. I suggest the list be changed to something more like this (not in table form, I'm just using this to explain why to keep these dragons):

---

Dragons remain fixtures in fantasy books. Smaug, from The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien, is a classic, European-type dragon; deeply magical, he hoards treasure and burns innocent towns. In Anne McCaffrey's Pern series, however, "dragons" (really genetically modified fire-lizards) feature prominently as workhorses, paired with so-called dragonriders to protect the planet from a deadly threat.	Smaug is a classic and The Hobbit is definitely a well-read book. Anne McCaffrey's books are a major (both as in "long running" and as in "widely read") sci-fi/fantasy series prominently featuring dragons.
Dragons have been portrayed in several movies of the past few decades, and in many different forms. Dragonslayer (1981) was an intense, fairly realistic "sword and sorcerer"-type film set in medieval Britain, in which a dragon terrorizes a town's population. In contrast, Dragonheart (1996), though also given a medieval context, was a much lighter action/adventure movie that spoofed the "terrorizing dragon" stereotype. Reign of Fire (2002), also dark and gritty, dealt with the consequences of dormant dragons reawakened in the modern world.	Discussing the way dragons have been portrayed seems relevant and not too "laundry-listy".
Dragons are common (especially as non-player characters) in Dungeons & Dragons and other fantasy role-playing games	Probably worth keeping to point out that people still like playing with dragons
Puff the Magic Dragon was first a poem, later a song made famous by Peter, Paul and Mary, that has become a pop-culture mainstay. The poem tells of an ageless dragon who befriends a young boy, only to be abandoned as the boy grows up.	"Puff" is (or at least was) a popular, widespread song with which many readers will be familiar.

---

Does this work for you? —Ryan McDaniel 23:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Making the change —Ryan McDaniel 21:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a big step forward. Thanks. Nandesuka 21:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. Let me know if you need help doing something similar elsewhere. —Ryan McDaniel 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, thanks for the move to paragraphs. Listcruft, indeed! If we're going to lockdown "notable dragons", are there any others we should think about including? —Ryan McDaniel 13:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we've left some important ones out. How about we brainstorm here? Nandesuka 15:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, from a literature standpoint, we've included examples terrible, destructive dragons (Smaug) and useful, workhorse dragons (Pern). That would seem to leave an opening for portrayals of benevolent dragons; any notable books out there for this? The Illuminatus trilogy, maybe? (Haven't read it, myself.)

Also, we've only listed Western books and movies. Are there any major Eastern ones worth considering? I have to confess that apart from some of the artistic films that have across lately, I really know very little about Chinese or Japanese movies, and can't recall ever having seen any with dragons. —Ryan McDaniel 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, both those works are very recent. There are older portrayals of dragons. for example, Beowulf. Nandesuka 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but the section is title "modern" culture. Beowulf could go under "Notable dragons of myth and legend". —Ryan McDaniel 18:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the last two paragraphs to this section (Harry Potter and Yu-Gi-Oh references). This is not an exhaustive list---it's an attempt to show the different ways in which dragons have been portrayed in popular culture. Smaug is more-or-less the canonical "bad guy" dragon in modern Western literature---what do the Harry Potter dragons add to that? If someone wants to incorporate Yu-Gi-Oh references into the RPG paragraph, that might make more sense, but it's not worth a standalone paragraph. —Ryan McDaniel 14:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

They're both already in List of dragons, which looks like it was created with the specific intent of keeping this article on topic. Dressing them up there is probably a better place. Kuru ^talk 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be a separate article that is a pure list article of videogames,books, and the like with dragons, and merely a link on this page to take care of list problems. Zantaggerung 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Christian Science

In the 'Christianity' section, the last several lines read: "Dragons are a myth that humans minds created.

Dragons came from all over the world not all from china. Chineese dragons can not fly were others can. Dragons are such mighty creatures that no creature could match them."

Clearly that was written by a four-year-old and needs to be removed. ---

I put a small mention in the article once before that some Christian scientist believe that dragons are possibly remnants from folklore depicting dinosaurs (it being the Judeao-Christian belief that men and dinosaurs did co-exist). Despite what anyone might think it is a relevant entry. Im going to adjust it and add it back in the article. I have a website I could site if it would help I suppose.

It isn't the Judeo-Christian belief that men and dinosaurs co-existed. Rather, the common thought is that the creatures spoken of in the Bible, fitting of what's been common through all of history, are something on the lines of demons; the thought that they're dinosaurs is a reinterpretation that only few people care to make.

I won't remove the piece, though, but I felt it'd be proper to remain consistent in pointing out what's considered pseudoscience. -- ______

Where did you see the dragon at? Solon Olrek 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, please provide the website. A principle of Wikipedia is to always cite sources. Jerdwyer 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious as to where he/she saw a dragon, but I agree with Jerdwyer. Solon Olrek 17:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I need to correct something an anon (66.68.176.213 I think) said about Christian beliefs. He argued that Christians don't believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. That's not true. The Bible says in the very beginning that God created all things in the first six days - that means even dinosaurs and dragons. Christknight 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: All living things, including.............reptiles, mammals, people, birds, arthropods, bacteria, plants, fish, and anything else you can think of. Oh by the way not only all living things, but the planets, the sun, the moon, stars.......... Zantaggerung 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to use ridiculously long strings of periods instead of commas, colins, semi-colons, or ellipses ("..." for missing text or words, "...." at the end of sentences)?

Anyway: Yes, the Christian's bible does describe the creation of what at that time, in that culture, basically would've equated to all living things, in six days. But you can't take that out of its proper historical context. At that time, in that culture, it was not yet known that dinosaurs had ever existed, let alone that they'd gone extinct millions of years before the first even remotely human-like creatures first began showing up, and long before it was known that the origin of the human race lay in a roughly ten-million year pattern of evolutionary advancement in which more-human-like creatures would show up, go extinct, and be replaced by less-human-like creatures evolving to take their place, until eventually some primitive little ape finally evolved into what we now call humanity. --Þorstejnn 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe humans and dinosaurs "co-existed" and that dragon/sea serpent (modern and semi-modern) reports are possibly the same thing that I thing the original dragon legends probably came from: dinos ( and other "extinct" reptiles). I even have a way to account for fire-breathing. Meaning I think dinosaurs/similar creatures and dragons are/were probably the same thing. Zantaggerung 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, humans and dinosaurs do co-exist. There's no "belief" about it. Dinosaurs sing during the day, some hoot at night, and others, like chickens and turkeys, are murdered by the billions for human consumption. Now, if you're talking about non-avian dinosaurs, it is of course possibly that a few isolated populations of smaller variaties lived into modern times, especially considering dragons were once described as relatively small animals (which they would have to be in order to have survived the KT extinction event). As far as "fire-breathing" goes, there's lots of ways to explain it: sulphur, methane, and carbon being belched through an arc of electricity created by a pair of bioelectrical chargers (similar to an electirc eel's or electric catfish's) at the ends of a forked tongue, or gasses spewed from a special venom-sack-like gland creating an effect similar to a bombadier beetle (this would explain the toxic breath of the cockatrice). But neither of these require that the animals percieved as "dragons" be non-avian dinosaurs; they could be various lepidosaurs, avian dinosaurs, or non-dinosaurian archosaurs. As far as euryapsids (such as plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs) are concerned: it's a big ocean out there, and giant sea-tutrtles, long-necked sea-turtles that superficially resemble plesiosaurs, and oceanic variants of the exremely ichthyosaur-like Nile dolphins could all account for sightings of "aquatic dinosaurs"), as could some sort of hitherto unknown aquatic crocodile (with flippers instead of feet, this would look an awful lot like a mososaur). Unfortunately, most sea-serpent sightings could easily be giant sturgeons, enormous sea-snakes, moray eels (horrifying creatures!), oar fish, or even giant moray eels and giant oar-fish. Consider Bloop. One might even imagine a shark adapted with a long, ichthyosaur-like or Nile-dolphin-like snout being mistaken for an ichthyosaur. In short, dinosaurs and euryapsids were far too diverse, as are modern animals, to be able to blame them for any modern or semi-modern sightings of so-called "dinosaurs". Other animals could too easily have filled their evolutionary niches (look at Styracosaurs and Rhinoceros, or imagine how similar some sort of chameleon adapted to be as huge as a Galapagos tortois or a salt-water crocodile would look to a Triceratops!) So, secondly, to say that "dinosaurs/similar creatures and dragons are/were probably the same thing" presumes certain things about the biological world that, with abosolutely no offense intended whatsoever, you don't seem to actually know. --Þorstejnn 09:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

None of this nonsense is going into the article, so you can stop yammering on about it. DreamGuy 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I should certainly hope none of it finds its way into the article, though I can't help but feel the better informed potential contributors are, the better-off Wikipedia as a whole will be. A lot of the talk I see on this page reminds me of when I was in the first grade, discussing with my friends which modern birds/reptiles evolved from which dinosaurs. Now, that may be forgivable for a first-grader, but adults contributing to Wikipedia deserve to know, if they don't already, how evolution actually works, what sorts of things are and are not biologically possible, and out of what is biologically possible, what has actually been observed. Though, if they put this information to any use at all, they'll probably just misappropriate it to fill the page with speculations about how "dragons could have evolved this way..." so it probably is best if I just shut my word-hole. --Þorstejnn 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

adults contributing to wikipedia might not need telling; spelling and general attitude lead me to think that this is an article with a lot of 12-year-old editors ... - --Paularblaster (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry to be a bore, but I'm a little confused as to what that infobox is adding to the page. First, you've removed a historical image and replaced it with some sort of conceptual emblem that has no source. Second, you've added nonsensical information to the fields in the box (last sighted is present day? first reported in the 1890's?). Could you possibly elaborate on your purpose before re-adding this information?

Could you also please add some actual source to the 'In Legend and Myth' section - I'm afraid if you want to present some of the fascinating stories as fact, you'll need some actual reliable sources. A section specifically devoted to cryptozoology and labeled as such might be interesting, but let's not turn the entire mythological article into a cryto page. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very helpful page.

Purported origins of dragons

I wrote a (very long) report on dragons back in high school, and the general consensus of the sources I read suggested that Eastern and Western dragons had similar but seperate origins. It was alleged that the legends came from what amounted to descriptions of real-world animals, then made more and more legendary and divergent over time. Ironically, it was generally seen that the Western dragon was actually derived from a mixing of stories about snakes. Though this is fairly obvious in the form of Worms or Wurms, dragonesque creatures which were basically giant snakes, there was the more subtle allusions to it. Many dragons were described as having poisonous breath, and the fire was theorized to have arisen from the same source; e.g. it was a metaphor for poison. Meanwhile, the Eastern dragon was said to have originally derived from the Chinese Alligator, hence its affinity for water. While all of this was quite logical, I have long since lost my research and hence, the sources I cited. The current section on speculation is absolutely terrible. It repeats the myth that dinosaur fossils were mistaken for those of dragons or were the source of the myths; indeed, this was rare and generally it was actually mammilian fossils which were seen as being the bones of such beasts, as they are much more common and easily obtained, whereas dinosaur fossils are rarer and less accessable. Moreover, it is unlikely that the legends began in this way; indeed, it is much liklier the bones were ascribed to the beasts rather than the beasts being manufactured from the bones. Titanium Dragon 09:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One author had the notion that the Loch Ness creature was an invertebrate related to modern Polychaetes or marine bristleworms. He cited some medieval sources of dragon-living-in-well tales as consistent with this hypothesis. In this theory, the fire-breath part of the tales may have come from a toxic slime that left vegetation with a scorched appearance. If I ever locate the book again, I'll cite it here. __Just plain Bill 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

  yeah but what about cats??  even germanic coats of arms with the dragon winged lion
reference the lizard aspect of cats, their eyes.  Germans new they were muts, cross
breed animals are all over there coats of arms.  I'm not so sure it is all anthropomorpic.

The European dragon did derive, pretty certainly, from snakes. If you look at Greek and Roman myth, the creatures described as "draco" or "drakon" are actually giant serpents - sometimes with poisonous or fiery breath. In fact, in Latin "draco" and "serpens" are interchangeable words. Sometimes the word "draco" gets translated "dragon" when it should be "python" or another big snake. Vultur 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, March 22 2007

I arrived at this page to find it had been vandalized, with just the word "poo". Tankmaster46 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I did a revert to the previous version. Someone make sure this guy doesn't go unpunished. Tankmaster46 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to find all of them.

Refs and OR

It seems that the bulk of this article is lacking in citations and alot of the text has a tone that smacks of original research, esp in the "Speculation on orgins" section. Is there anyone here that has been working with refs to buiild this article that could include some inline citations? NeoFreak 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that the article needs a bath. A brief glance at the rather lengthy history shows that most of the material was added without reference and one chunk at a time. Next time I get a weekend free, I'd be happy to dig up the cited works and see if I can inline them, as well as try to dig up some references to the vast amount of unsupported material here. The article length and cohesion could use work as well; for example the whole 'Dragons in world mythology' is somewhat redundant with List of dragons in mythology and folklore. Kuru ^talk 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

There have been some attempts to reduce the number of external links, but, in my opinion, these have often ended up deleting the best and most relevant of the external links, besides which, we don't have very many links overall, so I'm not sure of the need. I wanted to start a dialogue here rather than get into a revert war. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Before:

Here is the external links section before the deletions:

• Chinese Dragons in the news
• Professor Huang Li's backgrounder on the difference between the Chinese and Western conceptions of dragons
• Dragons at Animal Planet
• Lecture: The Meaning of Dragons in Korean Folklore from The Korea Society
• Draconika Dragons
• The Dragon Stone
• Sommerland

Cut versions:

Per this edit by DreamGuy, who is well-known as someone who cuts out lots of external links, often in a heavy-handed way, and also this later edit restoring DreamGuy's work:

• Chinese Dragons in the news
• Professor Huang Li's backgrounder on the difference between the Chinese and Western conceptions of dragons
• Dragons at Animal Planet
• Lecture: The Meaning of Dragons in Korean Folklore from The Korea Society

The problem:

In my opinion, the cut websites are not violating WP:EL in any way, nor is it out of line to have a total of seven external links on such a big topic as this (just look at the external links section in Dinosaur). Furthermore, some of the kept websites seem to be of far lower quality and more questionable via WP:EL than the cut websites. Therefore, I propose a full-scale discussion of the merits and problems of each external link. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC article:

• Chinese Dragons in the news, while interesting, is very short and only has a couple of tidbits of information not found in Wikipedia's article. Why is it needed? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese vs. Western dragons website:

• Professor Huang Li's backgrounder on the difference between the Chinese and Western conceptions of dragons, once again is extremely short, and doesn't give much information not already found in Wikipedia's article. Furthermore, its language is kindergartenish and repetitive (obviously ESL), spending much of it's time arguing one point by repetition instead of elaborating on details. Why is this needed? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon advertisement:

• Dragons at Animal Planet, this is the worst one of all, why was it kept when far better ones were cut? It is an advertisement, no more and no less, and the ad contains NO information that is useful. If the documentary is relevant, list it as a resource, but don't link to the ad, please. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean dragons:

• Lecture: The Meaning of Dragons in Korean Folklore from The Korea Society, this is actually pretty good, I have no problem that it was kept. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Draconika Dragons:

• Draconika Dragons, this is a large and high quality site with lots of sections on history, mythology and different cultures. Definitely goes beyond the Wikipedia article as something that truly exhances the browsing experience. Why was it cut? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Dragon Stone:

• The Dragon Stone, this is the best link of them all; just look at it to see it's quality and the large number of highly informative individual sections it has. I have a hard time believing that anyone who looked over this website would want to cut it. Why was it cut? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sommerland:

• Sommerland, once again, I have a hard time believing that anyone who spent some time browsing through the sections of this website would consider it worth cutting. Look at the subsection here as just one example of the size and quality of this website. Why was it cut? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you insist on giving everything all these subheadings (which I just now removed because it was screwing up the table of contents above and overkill), but it comes down to some simple, basic Wikipedia policies. Our Wikipedia:External links policy says that links must have an encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a mere web directory. The links I left, while admittedly dry and boring, had genuine information and were scholarly and came from reliable sources. The other pages are simply sites put together by people with no demonstrated competence, no scholarly background, andthe kind of content for which Wikipedia articles should (and often do) have better, more trustworthy information.

We are not here to entertain people with cutesy websites with bells and whistles. We are not here to provide promotional links to people who want their personal websites featured. We are here to provide solid, reliable information.

We stoppe linking to Encyclopedia Mythica, for example, on mythology articles because of it's chronic unreliability as a home grown site that, though large, contains all sorts of information unchecked by reliable scholarly sources. It's popular, but it's not trustworthy. All these sites I removed suffer the same problem, but perhaps even worse.

(See also WP:ENC for additional information germane to the handling of this project, if the above isn't clear enough.) DreamGuy 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not really listening to me. You're making sweeping generalizations, and not adhering to WP:EL in any SPECIFIC ways. The reason why I made a list is clearly stated here. SO YOU CAN COMMENT INDIVIDUALLY ON THESE LINKS. For example, I've listed my reasons why to keep or remove under each individual link. You have only given me sweeping generalizations, as you did before in your edit summary. Please give me specifics. For example, see Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked, especially #3, which most of the deleted links fall into. As to your idea that the only viable external links are those written by professors and journalists..... !?!?! Also, not linking to personal websites means not linking to personal home pages, blogs, and the like. It does not mean avoiding all good links in favor of spam and ESL ramblings that simply happens to come from professors and corporations. External links are not sources. They don't need to pass the same standards as published material. Please don't use policies about sources to delete external links, use WP:EL please. Unless you can use SPECIFIC reasons that are actually from WP:EL, AS THEY RELATE TO PARTICULAR EXTERNAL LINKS, I'm going to restore the good links you deleted and delete the spammy ad link you kept. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The standard for inclusion is not "Any link people feel like throwing in minus those that are discussed in ponderous detail." Rather, links need to bring something to the table that is directly relevant. I think WP:EL is fairly clear on this. Wikipedia is not google, and I think that "Draconika" is a great example of a link that, while perhaps interesting on its own, simply is not encyclopedic. Nandesuka 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To Nandesuka: please state HOW a link is unencyclopedic. I'm not saying "Draconika" should be kept because I like it. I'm saying that it's a large, informative site with content too detailed to be included in the main Wikipedia article. That meets the guidlines for "should be linked". How are you saying it doesn't meet the guidlines? If you say "unencyclopedic" then you should say why. Sweeping generalizations are not going to win me to your side. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add that, according to DreamGuy's personal criteria for external links (must be written by a professor or journalist) then Wikipedia articles aren't allowed either, so that by that logic Wikipedia should never have any internal links. Please cite policy from WP:EL clearly and specifically instead of using your personal beliefs about what an external links section should be. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, external links have stricter rules for content than our own internal pages, because the idea is if we have to choose one over the other of equal quality we of course choose linking to Wikipedia articles as its our own site. That's so obvious that it shouldn't even need mentioning. Note also that, with the policies on providing reliable sources and avoiding original research and so forth, our expectations for our articles (though not ncessarily the practical reality) far exceed the quality of those pages you are angrily wanting to be listed here. DreamGuy 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding calls to be "SPECIFIC", how much more specific than the fact that they are not by any reliable source, contain bad information, run by individuals, offer nothing othe than hat Wikipedia could and should provide, and clearly do not meet Wikipedia policies on such matters? You asked for reasons why they are unencyclopedic, and we've given a bunch of them. Asked and answered. DreamGuy 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You can keep repeating yourself and patting yourself on the back, saying that you've answered my questions. That doesn't make it true. You've yet to point out a specific reason why, for example to select just one website, "The Dragon Stone" is not reliable (according to the LESS STRICT criteria in WP:EL, not when used as a SOURCE which I am not trying to do), why "The Dragon Stone" contains bad information, why "The Dragon Stone" is regarded by you as a Personal web page (a website does not need to be run by an organization, a professor or a journalist in order to not be regarded as a personal web page, please read the article), and when you are saying "clearly does not meet Wikipedia policies" you should realize that this is a nonsense reply when you say it in response to a request for more detailed information. Nor, to take the other approach, have you adequately replied as to why you kept the spammy advertisement for the Animal Planet documentary and why TWO articles with only a sentence or two of new information should meet WP:EL, when in fact they miserably fail WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1 and one of them sounds like it was written by a kindergartener (OK, a professor with ESL issues, but its still pretty bad). You're going to have to address the issues I actually brought up instead of continuing to repeat the info from your edit summaries if you're going to win me over to your side. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Dream Guy wasn't draconian enough! I would recommend cutting all but the Korean lecture, as being either of no utility or of no reliability (fansites and college projects). --Orange Mike 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Utility" and "reliability" in what way? Remember, WP:EL is a guideline and it is currently hotly disputed (see the template at the page's top), and including useful sites with lots of information of reasonable levels of accuracy enhances the article. Getting rid of most external websites just because they aren't as high quality references as books are is kind of silly. Then you end up in the situation where no external links really qualify, because all websites are inherently somewhat unreliable, or you end up with links to spammy corporate sites or professors who can't put together English sentences very well, simply because corporations and professors are considered more reliable. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should make a habit of linking to unreliable websites, I'm saying that, if you want to delete an external link to a website that is huge and full of seemingly reliable information, you ought to be able to point out some error in it, instead of just yelling out that it hasn't been written by a professor or a corporation, so isn't reliable. I have no problems in deleting crackpot websites, but I'd really like someone to point out a real problem with one of the deleted external links. Furthermore, considering the unreliability of the Internet in general, it seems to me as if most of the arguments being made here against my position would tend to exclude all external links from Wikipedia, which I'm sure shows that such arguments can't really be according to policy. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please reread WP:EL as it looks like you missed the concept entirely. And your questions have been asked and answered. Refusing to accept that and asking again for a "real" reason to be given is just nonsense. Plus I noticed that you went around following my edit history to undo my modificatins to several unrelated articles and never gave any explanation (or at least honest one) for the vast majority of anyt of it. Therefore asking people here to explain themselves when you haven;t explained yourself on a regular basis seems to be rather hypocritical. DreamGuy 00:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are kinda missing the point, Mermaid. Most external links are not reliable enough to be part of this project, and should in fact be removed. That is the point of WP:EL: most external links should be avoided altogether. --Orange Mike 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Full disclosure: DreamGuy asked me to take a look. I must say I hate getting involved with the rebarbative external links business, so I just picked one link to review: the Draconika site. Since you emphasize its informativeness, Mermaid, I guess it says something about the other deleted links. Draconica is a startling mix of (a little) cultural history and (a lot of), well, ... I don't quite know how to describe it, but did you look at for instance this section, Mermaid? What is that? It's certainly not an example of "no external links really qualify, because all websites are inherently somewhat unreliable". It's not in a kind of place where "reliability" comes into it, or a place where you can reasonably ask people to "point out some error in it". What kind of error--"No, Red dragons aren't greedy and covetous"? "No, it's wrong to say the horns are long, they're pretty average"? Please note that there is no kind of reference to any culture or tradition offered in this section, there are just these deadpan... uh... facts. Black dragons will eat meat, but prefer to allow their victims to float in ponds for days. The green dragon is a master of intrigue, politics, and backbiting. There's stuff like that, although in varying quantities, in all the Draconika sections. I have to agree with Nandesuka and Orange Mike that DreamGuy wasn't draconian enough. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

That's quite obviously the D&D section of the site, and I have no idea why that fact that a large dragon website that has info on D&D dragons in one small section should make it "unreliable". I'd say it makes it comprehensive and expansive. Furthermore, NOBODY has yet answered my questions about the spammy/silly links allowed to remain. Anyone? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody? My feelings are hurt! I'm the one who wrote, "Frankly, I think Dream Guy wasn't draconian enough!" and urged the deletion of almost all of them. --Orange Mike 23:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I meant that nobody was answering me as to why they should stay or why they were supposedly better than the deleted ones. I know that you're on my side as far as trying to get rid of those silly things too! This comes of writing when too little sleep has been had. Sorry about that! You are not a "nobody" Orange Mike, you're a valuable commentator on these proceedings! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first commercial sales were to Dragon (magazine), so it's a matter of professional pride to me. --Orange Mike 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Furthermore, NOBODY has yet answered my questions about the spammy/silly links allowed to remain. Anyone?" Again... asked and answered. You can't ignore the answers you don't want to hear and then try to claim nobody answered and then try to use it to justify restoring links that people clearly say do not belong here. DreamGuy 02:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguing for a long time doesn't mean that my specific concerns were addressed. So far, the only specific concern that has been addressed is that one editor looked at JUST ONE of the deleted websites and tried to fault it for having a D&D section. Wikipedia itself has an article on D&D dragons (see Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)), so I don't see why that's even relevant. Should Wikipedia itself be deleted as unreliable because it includes D&D material? Furthermore, you've already made your views clear - you love the links that I consider spammy or extremely low in quality, while you hate the links I think are higher quality, and you keep trying to sweep aside my concerns with either broad generalizations, personal feelings masquerading as policy, or citing Wikipedia policies that apply to internal Wikipedia content, not external links. Repeating yourself along these lines doesn't really help this discussion. Wikipedia is not a shouting match, where repetition wins the day. I honestly don't see how your points apply, and repeating over and over that your points do apply won't win the day. More users on your side could win the day, especially if they could come up with solid reasons. As it is, there are too few people involved in this discussion for me to feel comfortable with your claim that consensus is on your side, and not enough is being said that has any relationship to actual policy. If this conversation doesn't at least bring up some legitimate reason to keep the links that I believe are spammy or low in quality, I'm planning on eventually deleting them. I know that at least one user agrees with me on that count. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, "arguing for a long time" does not mean concerns were addressed, but then you being in denial and refusing to accept what other people say doesn't mean they weren't addressed either. A number of people of weighed in. People tried to explain WP:EL to you. All you've done is respond angrily and try to rationalize away what everyone else said. At this point that means that you are free to believe you were right despite all evidence to the contrary, but consensus and policy are both clearly against you, so deal with it. DreamGuy 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely there must be more dragon related sources out there other than the less than adequate ones linked to at the moment. I respect that you have to be careful, not linking to sources which could be considered factless or irrelevant is important. However your limiting the information on Wiki to just a few pages worth of information for a subject which deserves several. It also seems to me that the people moderating this section of Wiki have absolutely no interestin the dragons, their affect on our culture and history or their physiology. That being the case it makes them very poor judges of what site is based on reliable sources and what sites arent. I think this because dragons are a very difficult subject to state facts on due to them being thought up in a time that we couldnt write. I will take the site Sommerland as an example. This site was most probably the best site i had seen regarding dragon related information. There are books (writted by scientists) with less comprehensive information and yet you prevented the link. To me this seems ridiculous. How can you justify not linking to a site which prevents realistic arguments and researched facts on the dragon? Sommerland are no longer running but the point i made remains. You either need someone willing to study dragons to moderate the dragons section, or at least someone willing to see the research they are cutting off. Dariune

You made the claim "It also seems to me that the people moderating this section of Wiki have absolutely no interestin the dragons" -- to the contrary, I have a very great interest in the myths and legends of dragons and how they evolved, and many years of study of scholarly sources on the topic, which is specifically why I remove bad information from the article and remove links to sites with unreliable and unscholarly information that was thrown together by amateurs with no real understanding of the topic. Furthermore, we have WP:EL rules to follow as well. This has already been discussed, with a fair number of good editors weighing in on the process, so we have strong consensus already about what does and does not belong here. If we can't find many sites that meet the standards for what does belong here, then no links is better than linking to bad sources. DreamGuy 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

oh i agree entirely. There are several sites on that list that i personally felt were more fantasy than researched evidence. Im glad that your into dragons and im not winging about your aproach to removing the links. All i am saying is that, yes you may have studied them, several of us have, but there are lots of differing ideas and theories on dragons and it is impossible to discount them all regardless of how "Scholarly" you are. Going back to my earlier example, Sommerland was a mine of researched information. Much of it was wrong, for instance their statement that there have never been dragon legends in ireland couldnt be further from the truth. Never the less, with dragons, there are rarely any confirmed rights. So linking to Sommerland would have been both beneficial to Wiki and, as far as i understand them, would have fallen under the WP:EL

I am not trying to advertise them. They are now closed down and i am not associated with them in any way but i am trying to understand exactly why you wouldnt link to them and wont consider some of the better sites out there. Yes they have differing opinions, but with a subject as volatile and unconfirmed as the dragon, thats to be expected. Dariune

"Much of it was wrong, for instance their statement that there have never been dragon legends in ireland couldnt be further from the truth." Actually, nowhere on Sommerland was that claim ever made. The website said Ireland, prior to Celtic expansion, lacked dragons as they are traditionally viewed in the west- i.e. with four legs, two wings, breathing fire, hoarding gold, etc. -Mouse.

Ouroboros

It looks like much of the discussion here is about... whether dragons are/were "real." This seems extremely strange to me, but I suppose that's a common enough speculation. I was going to add in a link and expand the section on Ouroboros - it's not very good, and understanding Ouroboros is fundamental to understanding the role of the dragon in most culture's spiritual allegory. The page seems to be locked though. Ouroboros is just another name for The Matrix from a time long before computers were invented. The serpent coiling the world and devouring its own tale is a symbol for the memeplex of unconscious beliefs that we hold about life that decieves our minds and causes us to dissipate our energy on futile endeavors in pursuit of empty goals. The "dragon-slayer" tales are all allegories in this school describing the individual's search for, and subjegation of, this slippery and powerful aspect of the human psyche. Ouroboros can also be equated to the Hindu concept of Maya (you'll note that in "The Matrix" the song playing during the climactic showdown with Smith in the final episode (entitled "Navras") is, lyrically, a Hindu verse lifted directly from the Upanishads - it is a prayer to be delivered from Maya.) "The Matrix" movie itself is essentially a modernized dragon-slayer tale, and the matrix is in fact a very old name for Ouroboros. Without this information being included in the article, no real insight is provided into the allegoric role of dragons in traditional fiction. [05/05/07]

Sounds like a good thing that page is locked. That's a particularly twisted brand of original research and perhaps POV and not something that should be in an encyclopedia with some very clear citations to recognized experts who say such a thing, and even then it should be given as their opinion and not as fact. DreamGuy 01:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit

Can someone change "Aboriginal Myth" to "Aboriginal Dreaming" in the "symbolism" section, it is not regarded as Myth in the Aboriginal Culture and is part of their belief structure. I am not able to edit it. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DragonCharm (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

No. Please see myth and mythology articles for what those words mean. If you mean "not regarded as false" that's different than "not regarded as myth". By the encyclopedic use of those terms this is without doubt a "myth". Changing the article to try to not only protect their sensibilities in general but to do so under a mistaken idea of what the words mean is POV-pushing, which is against Wikipedia policy. We're here to write a factual encyclopedia, not to molly colly the emotions of people who don't understand the meaning of words they are offended by. DreamGuy 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says, when talking about dinosaur fossils:

"It is unlikely, however, that these finds alone prompted the legends of such monsters, but they may have served to reinforce them."

Weasel words. Why is it unlikely? Is that a fact? No, its not a fact; actually, its a commonly held belief among cultural anthropologists that the dragon myth is based entirely on the discovery fossils and man trying to explain what they have found. This article needs to be changed from protected to totally open to edits. It's a poor article and this one example is enough to show that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.162.134 (talk • contribs)

"its a commonly held belief among cultural anthropologists that the dragon myth is based entirely on the discovery fossils and man trying to explain what they have found." is complete nonsense. I dispute that that is the common belief among cultural anthropologists, and even if it were that's not at all what folklorists and people who have researched the stories think. That's simply not how myths and legends are typically formed at all. If that's your one example to show that the article is poor it more shows that you don't know what you are talking about. But if you'd like to try to go find reliable sources for your claim, all the more power to you, as long as if you find anything that they are cited properly. DreamGuy 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy - There's no need to get upset, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just trying to make wikipedia better. And even if you disagree with me, you still have to admit, the part starting with "It is unlikely..." in the article is a weasel word sentence, and it's not cited. Still, I'm not making this up, I don't have an agenda or anything like that, unlike cryptozoology buffs. I'll research it and talk to the professor that told me, and the class, that dinosaur bones are the most likely origin of dragon myths, just like elephant skulls were the origin of the cyclops myth. Disagree or not, thats the consensus among the experts...and I'll be back with sources. plus, dreamguy...occams razor, what other explanation is there? the only people I've seen rabidly against the dino bone/dragon connection are either young earth creationists or david icke lunatics who think reptillian humanoids came to earth from space. where else would a cross cultural dragon myth come from? Evidence: there is a common myth in many cultures of giant reptile beasts that roamed the earth. how did this happen?, could it be a)the giant reptile bones scattered all over the earth? or b)some other as of yet undefined reason. Its mindblowing how anyone can logically disagree with this.

The subject is generally discussed by folklorists as being down to multiple possible origins (including fossils, but not limited to them). People didn't know what dinosaurs looked like back then (reconstructing skeletons is a modern obsession). You'd have to mix in other influences, like current animals, to get a dragon. The sentence could be explained better and cited, but it isn't wrong as such. Even if you find references for people who believe fossils are the one true origin, you still need to discuss it alongside those who disagree and believe in multiple origins. Polenth 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So one professor tells you his opinion and you claim without evidence that that's the consensus among experts?! Nonsense. Furthermore, Occam's Razor does not mean "I am too ignorant to think of any other explanations so I must be right." First off, the idea that dragons are a world-wide common belief is just false, from people who don't know any better. Lots of mostly unrelated stories were eventually grouped together as being similar despite their differences. And where do the stories come from? Where do any stories come from? Exaggerations of natural animals in the environment is the main one. Your idea that these were all created by people who saw fossil bones and somehow knew them to come from reptiles (a huge flaw in the theory) and then created stories about them is sheer ignorance. It's not like these fossils turned up on a regular basis and got handed around and identified as giant lizards.

And, on top of that, if you think cyclops myths came from elephant skulls you are eaully ignorant there. It's too bad there are so many people passing off mere theories as if they were proven facts, and it's even more a shame they are so aggressively arrogant in their ignorance. DreamGuy 03:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought David Icke lunatics believed that the so-called "aliens" flying UFOs around the earth aren't from space at all, but are actually reptilian humanoids who evolved from Stenonychosaurus and, having a 65 million year technological headstart on humans and therefore mindboglingly advanced technology, secretly spy on us with saucer-like aircrafts they keep hangared beneath the earth. Isn't that kind of the opposite of reptilian humanoids coming from space? Also, David Icke doesn't touch on the subject of dragons nearly so often as the more human-like reptilian creatures from mythology and folklore (like Nagas), with the possible exception of the deity-like Oriental dragons, and even then only because of similarities to the more human-like reptilian creatures (such as the pearl in the brow he's always talking about, which he seems to think is representative of the third eye and seems to view as more an allegorical symbol than a physical feature; his line of reasoning here is probably inspired by a knowledge of Native American artwork, which attempts to portray the spirit or soul, rather than physicality, of its subjects).

I wouldn't be so quick to trash David Icke's stuff. He may be out there on the fringe with his conspiracy theories, and often draws implausible connections (like faires with Pharaohs), but the guy is completely lucid. Drawing out one's logic/reasoning to irrational (used here in the literal sense of "disporportionate" or "overboard") extremes does not a lunatic make. His ideas, though often rather ludicrous, are nothing if not thought-provoking. I'd venture so far to say that a small section on fringe theories discussing the alleged connection between dragons and reptilian humanoids would make for an interesting addition to the article. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor ^talk 12:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Polenth- All you need is a giant tooth. The fact that I've heard "reconstructing skeletons is a modern obsession" on a dragon myth website before tells me that its a pretty widespread misconception. Ancient man spent nearly all of his time outside, he had an intimate knowledge of animals, killing them, their skeletons and bodies; aside from that, he was no different from we are today. They weren't fools, they were curious and interested in the world. Imagine you're living in pre-history, you're outside (as usual) walking to get some water, and you see a giant tooth partially sticking out of the ground. You consider yourself an intelligent man of the times, you know all about every animal in your area, but you've never seen anything like this before. This is something special, rare, and old. You dig around some more and you find a skull. Now you have proof that a giant beast once lived in your area...and if one once did, then there may be more still. You extrapolate as much as you can from looking at the skull and comparing it to the animals you know. Its a giant version of a lizard. So you tell your tribe, watch out for a big freaking lizard folks, they exist, I have proof. Man is man, ancient man wasn't an idiot, he's not going to come up with a scare story about a crazy animal based on nothing. If people had brains enough to come up with the myth, then they had brains enough to think critically and rationally. So basically, I'm saying, the origin of the myth was just a rational guy showing the others some proof and telling them giant lizards that may be still around, the magic and the talking and the flying dragons probably came later as it got farther from the factual origin and more got added on.

You've actually agreed with me on some points though you don't seem to have realised. I won't go into details because it's missing the point I'm trying to make. The fossil thing is the point of view you want the article to have. It doesn't match what folkloric books say, which is the main source of information in the article. It isn't about persuading people that your opinions are right, but about showing sources of experts that hold that opinion. And even once you've found the sources, you have to discuss the other side too - the argument that fossils alone aren't enough. I'm sure someone can help you with the last part, if you can provide the first part with references. Polenth 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous user who keeps going on here is just engaged in his own opinions on the matter and wants to force them into the article, both of which are EXTREME violations of Wikipedia policy. Some idea you think makes sense doesn't mean it's so, and it sounds like you are basing it upon several mistaken ideas. DreamGuy 03:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several theories as to how Dragons existed not just one. The idea that bones from the dinosaurs sparked the dragon myths is certainly not the most widely viewed. Another more popular theory amongst European and Asian cultures is the serpent or snake started the dragons with histories figures such as Tiamat and Aapep and the the dragons, and their surrounding legends) evolved. However there are other theories and to say the dinosaur bone myth is the only one is a little short sighted. Just my two cents. Dariune

Speaking as a cultural anthropology graduate, I think dragons simply combine the features of all the predators known to traditional peoples: big cats, predatory birds, large fish (or crocodiles) and snakes. &#151; NakedCelt 08:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats a very popular theory for the oriental dragons. Though not only predators. Horses are thought to be one of the largest physical contributers to the chinese (and therefore the Japanese) dragons as per the Fu-Hsi tale. I personally think that as time went on that the dragon legends evolved, ideas were taken from other predatory animals, but the initial dragon was taken from the serpent. Thats just my opinion though. (Dariune 10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Treasure Hoards

Dragons of fiction have sat on piles of gold since Beowulf, but how many dragons of myth had treasure hoards? (Yes, I know the line between fiction and myth is a little blurry.) 63.215.28.84 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

is the dragon an ancient civilization?

 I ascribe to a belief similair to the chines, that hold their lineage to a dragon. of which
apperentlly ther are more than one. what if the dragon were a refernece to older 

civilizations and poeple. indo china has amazing public works upon its rivers just as egypt, around similiar times of construction. could the dragon be a reference held over from legends/histories at the time of those civilizations? In my opinion yes.

--MZMcBride 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)== Polynesian Dragons == This is a new user, not related to the above comments. {{editprotected}} TANIWHA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taniwha) are a class of Supernatural guardians reverenced by the New Zealand Maori. The word Taniwha is derived from 'shark'. However a very wide range of types occur in the histories of the local people. Some are like sharks or whales or even octopods, and live aquatically, and many are like eels, and live in rivers. Some have the range of features associated with beings of the Naga class in Asia: that is, they are serpentlike and live underground or in large bodies of water, and some are said to be able to influence the weather. (In this connection it should be recalled there are no snakes in New Zealand. If the Maoris saw a large snake in water, I suppose they would call it an eel). There are also flying Taniwhas whch are more like our notion of a dragon. I think that by 'Taniwha', the Maori are referring to a type of being (big, supernatural, solitary) rather than any specific pattern. refs: Taniwha article linked above Reed, AW, Myths and Legends of Maoriland, Wellington, 1947. Although this book is by a Westerner the Maoris themselves regard it as authoritative.

(end of requested edit)

I've disabled the editprotected request. Editprotected tags are usually only used for minor edits (typo fixes, blatant errors, etc.). Also, the request was very difficult to understand. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

 In florida they have eels with four tiny legs and tiny feet .  Kind of like the asian 

dragon. Isn't an eel just a water snake?

guys put mushussu the babylonian dragon of chaos it is marduks dragon

Nagas and Dragons

When I want to find out more about the reality and classification of supernatural beings, I go to Tibetan Lamas, who know such things in great detail. I suggested to one such that surely dragons were members of the Naga class. The Naga are considered a powerful and varied class of supernatural beings. After all, dragons look somewhat snake-like and, like Nagas, control weather and have great knowledge. His reply was interesting. Dragons were not part of the Naga class, he said. Also, Nagas are part of the ghost class, one of the six major classes into which Buddhists divide beings. I have since verified this latter remark by reference to Sadhanas (ritual chanting texts).

This lama (who comes from an extremely remote part of Tibet, one of the world's most remote places) said that his uncle occasionally used to travel to a distant lake and had on two occasions seen the dragons come down out of the sky to drink. (In a Tibetan way of thinking, such a being would only appear as solid or visible in our realm when it wanted to be).

This reminds me. During the 20th century, Buddhism in Thailand was revived and restored by an extraordinary enlightened master, Ven. Acharn (Thai for Acharya) Mun(1870-1949), whose students are the most prominent in Thai Buddhism today. In his autobiography there are two (section 100 and section 177)histories of his encounters with nagas. I will retell one story as I heard it from one of the Acharn's main students: One night when Acharn was staying in the village of Nong Phue, he asked all his students to shut themselves up in their huts at night and take no notice of any unusual sound. They heard some very strange noises that night. In the morning, they found a channel about two feet wide and six inches and more deep had been gounged through the sand to the Acharn's Hut, and again away from the hut. Both trails vanished at the corner of the forest. The Acharn told them that he had been visited by a Naga, who had appeared in solid form out of respect. Many monks who are famous teachers now saw this trail. Incidentally, the monk who told me this speaks seven languages and holds a master's degree in physics.

The Thai also believe that Naga and other beings can appear in the form of humans, usually for no reason that portends good for human beings.

Reference: Maha Bhoowa, Acharn, tr.Buddhasukh, THE VENERABLE PHRA ACHARN MUNBHURIDATTA THERA Meditation Master, Thailand, Wat Pa Barn Tard, 1982. Copies availavle at several places online (http://www.bdcu.org.au/BDDR/bddr12no7/)

Geoff Byng Geoff Byng 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The only etymology in this article is under the Christianity sub-heading. Does anyone think this would go better at the start of the article, or even under an etymology heading, where it could be expanded?--Jcvamp 00:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Taniwha

Added the taniwha, a Māori mythical beast which is at least very dragon-like &#151; but neglected to log in first &#151; NakedCelt 08:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)