Talk:Dragon/Archive 1

{archive}} {This is an archive of the dragon talk page with all topics not contributed to since the end of 2006.

Smaug stolen from Smok

Anyone else think Tolkien used the Polish dragon for the basis of his dragon?

-G

History of Dragon mythology

I think there needs to be more on the history of dragon mythology, and theories as to why legonds of dragons have existed for so long in so many different parts of the world. One theory I've heard is that they may be the result of an instinctive fear of large reptiles that all mammals (including humans) have - dating back to the age of the dinosaurs...

Also, I think the dragon article should be significant enough in its own right that it shouldn't have to share a page with the disambig page.

--Blackcats 07:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Anne Mccaffery wrote Dragonriders of Pern, and I for one believe that it is possible that a dragon could exsist. It is not a coincedence that the nations of the world ALL have tales of dragons. The "neo-dragon" earlier is an Aztec god.

It is indeed a coincidence. The dragons of different parts of the world a almost completely different. While what Blackcats heard is a possibility, it is extremely unlikely. And that would explain while all dragons are monstrous and evil, if indeed they were. Chinese dragons, while they are symbols of China's imperialism and hypocrisy, were generally seen as good, as was the Plumed Serpent of Aztec mythology. Dragons are present in almost all mythologies because almost everyone has known about the existence of snakes and been fascinated by them, but the Europeans were about the only ones that saw them as evil.elvenscout742 08:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out Dragons on the Web: Are Dragons Real? for some explanations for that phenomenon. Lectiodifficilior

I have added a further reading section. This book by Dr. Karl Shuker has many stories and examples of dragons in mythology around the world and touches briefly on the history of dragons in reality. It is very informative for those who are interested in mythology. Infoterra 11:16, May 31, 2005 (EDT)

Actually, I would have to say that it's not really all that informative for people interested in mythology. It's main goal seems to be to try to drag up pseudo-scientific cryptozoological claims about "real" dragons. It's not very reliable at all. DreamGuy 08:19, August 2, 2005 (utc)

There is an interesting explanation of dragons as composite creatures representing Nature or "The Other" in story form. The battle between the hero and the dragon thus represents the battle between Chaos versus Order, with the emergence of divine kingship and a patriarchal pantheon. There is also the suggestion that serpentine Drako were originally the guardians of granaries before the domestication of the cat.

John D. Croft 05:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In russian wikipedia there is interesting hypothesis about origin (and history) of dragon mithology:

По гипотезе некоторых учёных (А. Леруа-Гурана, В. Я. Проппа) формирование гибридного мифологического образа драконa относится примерно к тому же периоду, когда более ранние мифологические символы животных как таковыe уступили место богам, соединяющим в себе черты человека и животного. Соединение разных животных в одном мифологическом символе приводит к такому же устранению возможности отождествления мифологического символа с реальным животным. Предполагается также, что в образе драконa соединяются образы животных, первоначально воплощавших два противоположных и отличных от земного мира — верхний (птицы) и нижний (змеи), поэтому первоначально мифологический образ драконa был одним из способов представления той же пары противоположных мифологических символов, которые известны в мифе о поединке или сражении мифологических змей и птиц (индийские наги и гаруды и др.).

Тем не менее дракон может считаться дальнейшим развитием образа мифологического змея — основные признаки и мифологические мотивы, связывавшиеся с драконом, в главных чертах совпадают с теми, которые характеризовали змея (ср. например Змей Горыныч). Как и змей, дракон связывался обычно с плодородием и водной стихией, в качестве хозяина которой он выступал. Дракон считался также покровителем сокровищ, получить которые можно было только убив его (в германском мифе о Сигурде или Зигфриде и др.).

Образ драконa характерен для относительно поздней стадии развития мифологии, но представлен также в мифологиях Шумера, Египта, Угарита, Индии, Греции, Китая, Японии и Мексики), в большинстве которых хозяйство было основано на искусственном орошении (так наз. ирригационные, или гидравлические общества), благодаря чему особое значение приобретал унаследованный от более ранних времён культ водоёмов, связывавшийся с драконом.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D0%2594%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD

Vague text

One example of them in religion would be some biblical references that seem to hint that the dragon is a type of archangel, one of which by the name of Lucifer, rebelled against God to become known as the seven-headed red dragon called Satan... and much more of the same. Pointless to try to improve this --Wetman 09:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's that kind of vague text that one often encounters in Wiki. It should be erased a.s.a.p. and replaced by a more specific treatment (passages cited, etc.). James 007 14:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

For Le récorde, that text that Wetman quotes above (which has finally been removed from the article as of today) was added by an anonymous user, 198.101.43.17 at 06:51, 10 May, 2005. This IP's last contribution was on the 14th of May. On the 17th of May, User:Satanael makes his first contribution as User:Satanael. James 007 01:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The quote from Revelations

Revelation 12:9 says (the New International Version, which is pretty accurate and close to the original manuscripts, which in this case were written in Greek) :

"The great dragon was hurled down---that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled down to the earth, and his angels with him."

My King James says:

"So the great dragon was cast out, the serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

---It's safe to say that the original Greek text read diabolos (translated as "devil") and Satan (translated as "Satan"). James 007 23:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken (if I am, prove it with a citation), the form "Satanael" does not even occur in canonical scripture, but in fact is found in the apocryphal Enoch II (the Slavonic Enoch), Chapter 31, where it is stated that Satan's name was formerly "Satanail" ("Satanael"). The Bogomils also knew Satan as "Satanael" in their religion. And, AFAIK, Lucifer in the Old Testament (whose actual name in the original Hebrew manuscripts is Helel; "Lucifer" is a Latin translation) is not even equated with any dragon figure. This came later by association. James 007 00:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't mean to be offensive, but there's some religions which don't think that Dragons were "made up", so i'm changing the text to "believed to be". Please do not type this kind of thing again, it's annoying when single minded people dismiss the views of others!

Norse Dragon

the link to "norse dragon" needs to point to the article "nidhogg" (Unsigned, but by USer:219.89.70.202)

You know you can do that right away yourself, right? If you are still around, why don't you go try, so you can see how easy it is? DreamGuy 11:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are more than one dragon in Norse mythology, so there is little to no reason why that link should lead to Nidhogg. Please remember this if an article called "Norse dragon" is to be created. 84.48.121.173 16:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Dragon references

I can't seem to find the references used to compile the dragon information on Wikipedia; is there a list somewhere that I'm missing? If not, would it be at all possible to be provided with one? Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. -Amanda.

If you're looking on good references, I'm sorry but I can't quite help you out. There is a very hodgepodge sort of thing out there, various mythologies and books in which dragons are rarely the main subject - those where they are tend to be fiction and such. I know there is a book out there called "Dragonology," that poses itself as an old textbook from about the 19th Century. My mom got me a copy for Christmas. It's good from a novel point of view ("novel" in this case meaning new and interesting - for a while - not the booky sense), and has some actual references to real dragons and actual theories about dragons, but as it seems to be merely to entertain children who like dragons, some bits should be taken with a grain of salt. -- MasterXiam 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but "Dragonology" is a kid's book. I'm specifically looking for the references to the information that makes up this article, as it has been omitted and therefore makes the "Dragons" article unreliable. - Amanda.

Confusing

"The biblical dragon carries over thirty possible references, with the fire-breathing leviathan described in Job 41. Strong's Hebrew 03882: [1], 08568, 08577, and Greek 1404. Most of these references speak of a foreboding but common animal."

I don't know what the numbers in this quote refer to. Does anyone? Could it be made more clear. Are they references to a book or a way of reading Hebrew or something? hdstubbs

Or to rephrase, is this info in any way necessary? 81.232.72.53 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

They refer to Strong's Greek and Hebrew dictionaries. 03882, 08568, 08577 and 1404 Brilliand 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Dragons

Found something but I don't think I want to read thru it all and write something here, so I will just give you the adress: http://reptile.users2.50megs.com/hist/h110599a.html

Does anyone know who put this here, and has anyone acted on it? If not, I will.Solon Olrek 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Modern dragon references

In order to keep the main article reasonably brief and to the point, and to avoid the recurring Harry Potter and videogames "in-or-out" battles, why not start a "List of dragons in contemporary culture" or whatever, with subsections for novels, videogames, films, cartoons etc ... then everyone can add their own favourites and (perhaps) stop squabbling? No doubt you'll still get a few overenthusiastic or misplaced additions to the main page, but at least there will be somewhere to suggest (diplomatically!) that they should go instead. In addition, a "List of historic dragon legends around the world" list might also be a good option (and one I'd be interested in contributing to. 213.106.248.105 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Not sure why this is anonymous — I thought I was logged in at the time! SiGarb | Talk 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A page on the differences of Dragon Personalities and Abilities?

Because of the vast number of different forms and powers that dragons have from one book to another, perhaps these differences and such are worthy of giving a page to. The vast range of dragons mentioned in fantasy is enormous. For example the Dragons from Harry Potter and uninteligent and dangerous animals, while in such books as Eragon, Dragons are as inteligent, and far wiser than humans. Dragon development, shapes, magic ability, lifestyle, and relations are vastly different in ways that fascinate me, and putting togther a page that describes the ranges that are used would be a wonderfull challenge.

--Zanthra 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

every culture

There are reports of Dragons in every culture... how did that happen since they had no contact with each other? And all the reports were fairly similair...

• • (ChildOfMorella 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

I have wondered the same thing. Interestingly, Thunderbird legends could describe pterosaurs and Mokele-mbembe could also be a sauropod. The Ica stones found in the Americas show pictures of dinosaurs and most interestingly, John of Damscus wrote about dragons in a recently translated work entitled Of Dragons and Ghosts giving remarkable details on dragons. Dio Cassius also refers to a dragon attacking Regulus a Roman consulate. Coincedence, I think not? Alisyd 16:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

They are hardwired in the common regions of our DNA, those that determine neural characteristics. Notably, the optical migraine auras of humans of a variety of ancestry all resemble those "reptilian" shapes. Jclerman 17:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain that, please? 209.145.244.126 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Brain neurons excited by pressure from blood vessels, during optical migraine episodes, produce signals that are visually seen as zig-zat lines (called fortifications for their geometric similarity with medieval fortifications). During dreams, classical nightmares, and hallucinations our brains interpret the zig-zag lines as the crests of reptiles, dinosaurs, dragons, etc. Jclerman 20:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So you mean Dio Cassius and John of Damascus were dreaming when they wrote what they wrote? Alisyd 16:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't researched full descriptions, with all details, of these two cases yet and it would be difficult to interview them ;-). I did meet and interviewed somebody who saw such a beast while driving and having an intrusion of an episode of hypnagogia or classic waking dream. It was green, and appeared in front of her car and to one side of the road. She had to break no to crash on it. At that instant, the beast popped like a bursting bubble and vanished. Then she was fully alert (awake) and could safely drive off the freeway. Frequently, the subject is not aware that it is not a real o ocurrence, so real it is felt. I also met and interviewed a couple of such cases that claim the reality of an entity they saw or their own flying accross town Jclerman 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My information on John of Damascus and Dio of Cassius came from the following site: www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/dragons.asp Alisyd 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Overview (?)

We should improve the overview, it is somewhat silly, check it by yourselves (and I've already corrected some disgusting spelling). Something must be done Ciacchi 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed colour list

I removed this material; it sounds like yet more fantasy/role-play stuff. It quotes no sources. Does it have any historic basis? Does it relate to the medieval section? Does it relate to specific fantasy videogames? Or is it just fantasy, in every sense?

" Dragons differ each other from color. These are the four basic and common dragons:

*Green: Nature-loving. Often found in mountains, hills and forests. Most green dragons can fly without wings.

*Red: Fire breathers found in volcanic areas and sometimes roam around hills and plains. They are short tempered.

*Gold: Dragons that are favored by royal blood. They are extremely obedient.

*Black: Most powerful, most feared and rarest of all dragons. Their fire is intense and their carapaces are immune to magic and sorcery. Where they live is unknown.

Dragons that have neutral colors, such as brown, have no special elements whatsoever, yet have the most population. "

SiGarb | Talk 16:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Not D&D that's for sure. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Asian mytholigy either. Sounds fantasy roleplay though, especially the bit about magical imunity.

perfectblue 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt sound like anything from any video game or book I have ever read. The fellow probably made it up on the spot. --The Corsair. 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that they made it up on the spot, but rather I think that they got it from a low profile game, or a book that is not widely known. Of course it could always be the type of person who has galnced at D&D and made assumtions based on those glimpses. I think that if someone was to add a section such as that, they should say where they got the information from, and do the section completly. If I have time, I might put up one. Does anyone diagree with me on the matter?Solon Olrek 18:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Color Section Was Added

I actidentaly added the color section, im sorry...

I have a site of my own and I probably copied the non-wikipedia version from it, I removed the color section in the wikipedia version.

I got the color info from 3 sources:

1)http://www.dragnx.net/from_tail_to_snout/

2)D&D (not at a glance either)

3)Books I read a long time ago.

I am sorry for my ignorance, !Dragon 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Just remember to site your sources and if it is from D&D or some books, mention it. If you put that information in there more thouroughly and with sources, I pretty sure pepople would appreciate it.Solon Olrek 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a Dragon?

Is there a difference between a dragon and a dinosaur (latin - terrible lizard) coined aprox 1830? 76.212.225.120 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC) kn

I have big problems with this page. The main problem is deciding what is a dragon and what is not.

The word "dragon" is a Western word that originally referred to fire-breathing Western dragons. There is enough variety there to keep you going for a while.

Then, when Westerners went to the Orient, they encountered the Chinese "lung" ("long") and its Japanese, Korean, etc. counterparts, to which they assigned the word "dragon" from their own language. These originally had no connection with Western dragons, so what is the objective reason for including them? The completely concidental conventional naming?

Since Oriental dragons are conventionally called dragons, I can understand that one to some extent. But someone appears to have got quite 'trigger-happy' and decided to include "dragons" from all around the world. For instance, the Quetzalcoatl is included as a "dragon", although it's not totally clear on what grounds. Who started calling the Quetzalcoatl a "dragon" -- the conquistadors? Or some person who thought it would be cool to throw them in the list? It would be nice if a citation could be provided.

In the meantime, several creatures with features similar to dragons are not included at all. One is the Indian Naga (mythology), another is the Australian Rainbow Serpent. The nagas were actually identified by the Chinese as "long" when translating Buddhist texts.

But before someone gets excited and adds two more "dragons" to the list, I suggest that a proper framework should be developed, noting the original Western "dragons" and the way that creatures from other cultures have been identified that share some features (giving specific grounds, e.g., "snake-like creatures").

Another point: the section on Symbolism refers almost exclusively to European dragons -- why isn't it in that article instead of this one?

All in all, this is a very poorly focused and badly reasoned article that confuses more than it enlightens. My suggestion is that a lot of it should be jettisonned or moved somewhere else, leaving only the bare bones (what dragons are, what creatures have traditionally been considered dragons or are thought to be related to dragons), and perhaps a section on the role of dragons in modern culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.171.239 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 April 2006

yes, you are my hero, or heroine. please unveil yor username.--Divya da animal lvr 22:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian research into dragons

User:NekoKattCatNyeowMiaouMeow has added the following section into the main article: "Another hypothesis by a canadian research team states that dragons may actually exist. It specifically suggests that all cultures have had dragons in their mythology. Another fact that supports this evidence is that due to "dragonslayers", dragons completely despise humans, and want to remain transparent. Sadly, if dragons ever did exist, this report states, they must be extinct due to no evidence from field studies in the last 200 years. If they are real, they say, they will probably ignore us and be passive until we start attacking them. Then, the problems will start."

I'm politely assuming good faith, but there are no cites and no factual basis for any of this. Please understand that I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but we have a policy of absolute verifiability for our articles. If anyone else can provide insight, it would be appriciated. Kuru ^talk 13:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jared Diamond and Bred Fear

Could anyone provide the exact reference for Diamond's assertion that fear can be bred into a populace? I do not recall such being presented in the reference listed.

I Have Reasons

--Divya da animal lvr 22:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) look, read dragonology. it has the science behind dragon's fire and flight. hardly any magic there, non-believers, and don't worry, believers like myself, there are secrets bhind other dragon phenomona.--Divya da animal lvr 22:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Bloomsbury: London, 2000. p. 306

"Dragon Origin Occult"

Am I the only one who thinks this entire section has no place in this article? It is barely coherent, to the point that it's difficult to understand what the author is trying to say -- it appears to relate a few factoids about certain ancient Egyptian and Greek dragons? -- and in any case doesn't contain anything relevant to what an encyclopedia article about dragons should have, i.e. objective, verifiable information. Wuotan, if you disagree, please justify this section's inclusion here. YBeayf 04:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are the only one thinking that way; Well, I will talk about it here, however if you delete I will repost to last edit that includes it and continue working on it. I have source material that I intend to list and everything said is verifiable in mythology and relgion referred to, and consistant with much of the other sections. What encyclopedia are you comparing to? Wuotan 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wuotan, the text in your section is not really comprehensible at this point in time, nor is it sourced or verifiable. Perhaps creating a sandbox page for you to experiment with and have complete control over would help you develop the section before adding it? If you're interested, let me know and I'll create one for you or show you how! Kuru ^talk 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Applicable text:

Dragon illustration seen as exoteric expression aetherial cause, elemental (earth, air, fire, water) phenomenon; the concept that spiritual entity may activate with material features of climate. Origins theory, Gr. Orphic has very ancient Typhoeus and much later contrast significantly with Typhon. Borne at civilization infernal tartarus, the always moving Typhoeus, feathered and taller than the tallest mountain from his shoulders 100 dragon heads and from his thighs innumerable vipers, is the unmastered element system in the first ages of the world.

Hecatoncheires - L. Centimanes (hundred handed) of Oceanus (only titan with gods') is noted, also cyclops, as companion to the phantom Hephaestus - L. Vulcan; elemental mastery indicated is why it is different than Typhoeus. Adding weight to this conclusion is Typhoeus end at Sicily Volcano Etna.

Hecatoncheires have three forms: Cottus (furious), Gyges (big limbed) and Briareus (vigorous). In meteorology these are wind-front deluge, tornadoes, and Briareus is flamable conditions. Occult concept that climate sometimes is at phantom companion with dragon (aetherial cause elemental) includes Arges (thunderbolt) point exhibit of cyclops (hurricane etc.).

Gr. Typhon "scourge of mankind" - Egypt Set is automaton mass for dragon directive. Bible eg. Pharaoh v. Moses. Conclusion on Typhon is civilization decay toward tartarus (thrall, slave, infernal define symbolism v. aetherial).

Characteristic dragon as seen in the History and Myth sections, has feature indices in Egyptian religion remaining consistant with what is said thus far occult origin and perspective to the popular image. Sebec is depicted as a man with crocodile head or as crocodile. It is recounted that a lock of gods' hair healed Geb (physical foundation of the world), later that lock was plunged into lake of At Nub for purification it became crocodile. Thousands of years before (2000 b.c. Abraham), a crocodile headed shapeshifter heals Geb.

Crocodile head typify dragon; more reliability activatable entity of climate at pyramid text: Sebec,son of Neith (delta queen god of Sais). Egypt Neith - Gr. Athena (goddess) at pinnacle civilization with co-operation of nature, as her inscription (Plutarch tells us) "I am all that has been, that is, and that will be. No mortal has yet been able to lift the veil which covers me." Later Buto, winged serpent, is red crown of north, delta Egypt. The legend is she helped Isis protect osirian Horus (hidden god) from Set - Typhon. Dragon serpent-tail has knot, indication about magic knot of Isis "tat".

At Ombos (Nile 500 miles south from Sais), Khons Hor (Khensu) with falcon and royal hair lock, is the third of the Sebec triad. Khons triad at Thebes (Nile 100 miles north of Ombos) with Amon and Mut...cont.

I concur that this is not ready to be added to the article and has been "under construction" for a long time now. Let's discuss it here before re-adding. Kuru ^talk 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Misc

I added a mention of Bahamut in the "noteable dragons" section, as he is spoken of amongst many fans of various fantasy genres. Rhysis 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

dragons are real, well used to be. think im crazy? just think about it. how can so many cultures know about dragons and even when they haven't meet. now do you think im crazy? email me at dragons_rul@hotmail.com for more info

Or it's possible that they found the bones of dinosaurs and their imaginations got the best of them. I've even heard it suggested that the dragon's form comes from combining all three of the predators our primitive ancestors had to worry about (large snakes, jungle cats and raptors or birds of prey). However there are Cathlic religions that do beleive in the dragon.

LOTR

I realise we shouldn't be listing every dragon book by an author here, but I made an exception in the case of JRR Tolkien because "The Hobbit" is his first book with a dragon, but many people who have not read any Tolkien only know of "The Lord of the Rings". -- Bignose

I removed LotR because the plot doesn't deal with dragons in any major sense (or hardly at all). If people don't know stuff about JRRT, they should klick the JRRT link, not get an extra explanation here. --Pinkunicorn

This is true, on reflection. Would an acceptable compromise be: ("The Hobbit", "The Simarillion" and related works) ...? -- Bignose

That sounds good. Though I only recall dragons in the "The Silmarillion" and "The Hobbit" (and maybe "The Book of Lost Tales," which was merely an early version of "The Silmarillion" anyway.) -- MasterXiam 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He also wrote a short story containing a dragon named "Farmer Giles Of Ham," although this isn't concerning the LoTR books (this book is in a compolition with a story named "the smith of wooton minor"). -Guest

Game Fable: The Lost Chapters

They deleted the reference about the game Fable: The Lost Chapters, why novel are considered to being mentioned but not videogames? I see here clearly prejudices about videogames, they are deeply infravalued and considered less cultural stuff, but they can be as cultural as a literary stuff, the problem is the initial market and most people influenceable without own criterion (they are bored when cultural stuff appears and need to use their minds for complex stuff, only want action stuff, sex and violence). I consider doing the article bigger and mentioning different uses of Dragon mythology in the culture (videogames, movies, books, music...), instead only saying the "minimal", this is an encyclopedia, not an article for a magazine, so please being more detailled information -- Anonymous

No kidding, that's great idea and point. 66.205.108.8 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dragons are included in hundreds and hundreds upon hundreds of videogames, we cant name them all.--The Corsair. 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, not hundreds upon hundreds, but alot. ;) --The Corsair. 03:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutly agree with you one hundred percent. I think that poeple who think that games do not belong in articles, or convorsations for that matter, are close-minded to the full veiws of the facts about the conversation. Someone who deletes part of an article just because it is not what they want to talk about shouldn't be allowed near a editing situation. If the topic is related to the article in some way and has verifiable sources, it should be allowed. If they don't want to read about that, then they can scroll down farther with their eyes closed.Solon Olrek 18:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Description/Illustration

According to the Webster dictionary, dragons are serpents or saurians. However, the dragons dipicted by western illustrations do not fit the description well. Anyone knows why?

Dragons have not been illustrated, or even described, consistently *at all* throughout most of Western literature and mythology. Anne McCaffrey wrote a book (I currently forget the title) that was basically an excuse to showcase a bunch of artists' dragon pieces, but the story tying them together has the author discussing the history of dragon lore, and the conflicting descriptions therein.

The Dragon Riders of Pern, was that it?

A google search turns up http://www.draconian.com/whatis/ which goes into a fair amount of detail; we probably can't use the content directly though. -- Bignose

Why the Quetezcoatal is a 'neo dragon' is beyond me. Dave McKee

Beyond me too. I mean, it goes back about as far as many other dragons, so it's not really that new, comparatively. -- MasterXiam 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But you see Quetzalcoatl was never called a dragon but a god and was described as a winged serpent. There is no writing of Quetzalcoatl breathing fire (Unless you beleive Godzilla the Series)and he was said to be a good being who helped the Aztecs build and craft. Never is Quetzalcoatl been called a dragon but the resemblance is astonishing.\

New subheading

I've added a new heading "As an emblem" because the stuff about Ljubljana's dragons didn't really fit in where it had been added, or elsewhere. SiGarb | Talk 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So what type of things do you expect to show up under this title?Solon Olrek 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A few other similar examples, perhaps? It's not a great title, but the Ljubljana stuff is inappropriate under all the other headings. SiGarb | Talk 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Miss Know It All 08:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I belive that dragons do exist- regardless of what people say. I mean, it is possible. I have watched a movie once that stated the simalarity between all the diferent dragons around the world, and how strange it is that the religions had no contact for hundreds of years and yet they all have one creature in common that they belive in- the dragon. It's impossible for all those religions to have made up the same type of creature without contact with the actual thing. It's kind of freaky- don't you think? And scientists have proved that it is possible for them to once have existed. Watch the movie Dragon World and you'll know what I mean.

I am in total agreement about your opinion on the existance of dragons. I beleive that they still exist today, just not in great numbers and not around civilization. I myself belong to a certain religion that mainly focuses on the dragon, so my opinion is probably a little biest. As for Dragon World, I will have to watch that movie. It sounds very interesting.Solon Olrek 17:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Replacing Uncited Paragraphs

This relates to the part in History and origins of dragons that starts with 'Apart from the Australian Aboriginal tales' and ends at 'rescuing the maiden from being sacrificed to the dragon.' (two paragraphs)

It is not accurate to say that only grain growing cultures have dragon myths. Nor did house serpents (which it seems to be talking about) get displaced by cats. The two traditions overlap. How cats appearing suddenly makes people dislike snakes is also rather woolly. The lack of citations make it particularly suspicious, as I've not found this in any other dragon book or website. If this theory was published somewhere, it was very quietly done.

Would there be objections for changing it for a basic description of house serpents and how they have inspired dragon myths, removing the speculation parts? Unless someone has a source for this grain/snake/cat theory? Polenth 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jerdwyer 02:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of paragraphs in this article are better removed than mended. 160.94.120.152 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The "How..." section

Most of the contents in that section are straight copypastes from the source cited underneath the paragraphs. The source is also cited three times, using the URL instead of a link to footnotes. Moreover, the tone and style don't suit for an encyclopaedia article. I think the whole section should be removed from the article, and the link should be left in the "External links" section. 200.1.22.22 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that it is the author's theory (as in the original site author)... one of many such theories. If we are going to have a section like that, it really should be called something like 'Dragon psuedoscience theories' and compare various theories, rather than siding with one person's ideas. External links are a slightly different issue. I've always been a supporter that the Dragon article should have a few external links, but that might need more discussion? There's been a trend to remove them, so without some sort of consensus on which sites to link to, we may just end up in link editing wars. Polenth 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support moving all of the musings about 'how dragons could work if they existed' to a separate article. As it is, the additions in the 'how to' section are simply original research with a link to a fanpage. I'm going to remove it for now, but will support an internal link to another article on the topic if a way can be found to document the theories in an encyclopedic manner. Possibly combine material from that Discovery channel "documentary". Kuru ^talk 14:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dragon always a dragon?

So Europeans had something called a dragon and they see something with scales in China and the decide to call it a Dragon. That doesn't mean it's the same thing. --Gbleem 11:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that the seperate cultures all called them dragons (or something that translates to that) in their own languages, but that way you word your statement makes it look like you think that the English came up with the creature.Solon Olrek 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, like with other animals, there are many different species of dragon. If you check Dragonology, there are maps and lists of the different types; and I think they could be quite accurate according to the old dragon lore of those areas. --Christknight 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Point well said! I wasn't thinking along those lines whenever I put my comment there. Do you know a website where I can look up what I want to know about dragons? I have been looking for a long time and have yet to find one that doesn't require a monthly subscription.Solon Olrek 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The only website I know of would be http://www.howstuffworks.com/. I've learned most of what I know about dragons from books. But if that site doesn't have what you're looking for, I'd suggest useing http://www.google.com/. Google finds literally everything for you, as I have found from my own experience. --Christknight 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dragonology is a fiction book, so don't rely on it for mythological information. Searching for 'dragon mythology' will bring up some useful sites on the first two pages on Google. Gbleem is probably talking about a few authors that believe that Europeans named other things 'dragon' that they shouldn't have done. Therefore Chinese lung are lung, but not dragons. I won't go into my opinions on it in depth, but I think that topic would be hard to do in an encyclopedic way. It's more of a debate/original research topic. Polenth 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

True, Dragonology is a fiction book, but "mythology" isn't any truer than a fiction book because it is only "myth". When I look at dragons, I don't view them as mythological beings, but as real creatures. What Dragonology is is really a compilation of different types of dragons known around the world, and what is said about them. It's only fictional because not enough people really believe in dragons in the first place to call it fact. And what's this about lung not being dragons? A lung is a different species of dragon. Even if you don't want to rely on what Dragonology says, rely on fact - there are many, many different species of every animal on earth. It's common sense. Just because a lung doesn't look like a western dragon, doesn't mean it's not a dragon. Does a Horned Lizard from Arizona look ANYTHING like a Komodo Dragon from Komodo Island? No, but they are both lizards, nonetheless. --Christknight 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me... the issue is not what anyone here believes. You can believe a modern fiction book, but in an encyclopedia, you're going to keep that seperate from mythology. I'm not stating I agree or disagree with the theory about dragons/lung. What I'm saying is that it is a real theory that does appear in published books. The issue is whether we wish to include it in some form in the article, or whether it isn't that relevant. This discussion page is about what appears in the article rather than what we think about dragons. Polenth 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, in that we shouldn't put what Dragonology says into the article because it is a fiction book. But, then, why did you say Chinese lung aren't dragons? --Christknight 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you misunderstood me. I described the theory. I did not say it was my theory or that I believed it. I don't have to believe something to describe it. You can ask me on my talk page if the difference is still unclear.

Back on topic, I found a citation for anyone that wants to follow it up. I still think it'd be tricky to add in a neutral way, but someone might be more creative with it than I am: Dr. Ong Hean-Tatt 'Legend of the Chinese Lung - The Chinese "Dragon"', Eastern Dragon Press, 1996 Polenth 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you misunderstand. I knew what Gbleem meant, he said he doesn't think European dragons and lung dragons are both dragons. I responded by saying that there are many different species of draogn(the lung being one of them). My question to you is simply, "Why are you bringing it back up after I already answered it?" --Christknight 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dragon always a dragon? part 2

Gee you folks really know how to get off the topic. When Europeans saw an animal in Tasmania that looked kind of like an African tiger they called it a Tasmanian Tiger. Of course we know it is not related to a tiger from a taxonomic perspective. The Panda Bear is not a bear. The American Bison is not a Buffalo. Just because Europeans went around equating "dragon" with various words for various mythical animals in a bunch of different languages does not mean that the description of these animals cames from the same source. If you think you can find proof of the existance of dragons that is cool with me but this linguistic equivalence cannot part of the proof. --Gbleem 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand - Europeans named many animals after animals they are not, like the horned lizard which is often called the horned toad. It's not really a toad, but it got that name because of the round shape of it's body. However, what I'm saying is that the lung really is a dragon, just a different specie of dragon that looks different. It's like the legless lizard; when people first see one, they think, "That can't be a lizard, it has no legs! It must be a snake." But this is wrong - the legless lizard really is a lizard, just as the lung dragon really is a dragon. --Christknight 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think dragons are awsome and r like totally real and stuff ya know. signed: Blade116

The lung is considered a dragon because that's what westerners call it, of course, so it would have to be included here, otherwise people would get confused. Of course if you could prove dragons were real, the cave dwelling, easily killed bear sized European dragons probably wouldn't have much genetically in common with the winding, flying, mountain dwelling dragons elsewhere. I don't mean to hurt anyone's credibility, but the Panda is in fact a member of Urisidae. Red Pandas are not though. What are we getting at? 160.94.120.152 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All I've been trying to say is that lung really are dragons despite their looking so different; they aren't dragons just because westerners say so. It's like what I said above about the legless lizard. Christknight 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Dragon is a mistake of translation

There is no Dragon in Chinese culture at all. So called "Chinese Dragon" should be Loong. This is a totally different kind of animal from Dragon. Loong is a symbol of benevolence auspicious, luck and dignity.

It is the representation of Chinese God. So called "Chinese Dragon" is something like angel in western culture. Loong is the right name for this animal, and this name has already been widely used around the world. Do not say dragon again, Loong has nothing in common with Dragon.

I think it is admirable that you feel like standing up for the Loong animal, but there is a right way, and a wrong way of going about it. Telling someone that they are flat-out wrong and that they are not allowed to say it again is, in essence, trying to establish a parental control over them, and since this is a discussion page for dragons, people have a right to talk baout what they beleive to be a dragon really is. If you do not agree with the person, than either have a civilized debate, or keep you trap closed. This is a website meant for discussion between people genuinely interested in certain topics, not a website for wanna-be know-it-alls to try and establish authority over poeple when they have no right to do so. If you TRULY have a problem with the thought of a "Chinese Dragon" then bring fact an a moderate tone, not you opinion and attitude. That is all I have to say.Solon Olrek 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Solon Olrek is right: you have no facts to back up what you are saying, and you aren't allowed to tell other editors what they can and cannot say. Christknight 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible invalid citation

Citation number 2 "#

1. ^ Rouster, Lourella. (1997). The Footprints of Dragons. http://www.rae.org/dragons.html"

appears to be from a self published source. Self published articles by an interest group, or by anyone are not valid sources, dated and volume numbered though they may be. 160.94.120.152 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from anons

I think we should have this article Semi-protected so anons can't edit. The only real edits this article gets are from users. It seems that anons only vandalize this page. Christknight 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I second this. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)