Talk:Dragon/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Vague text

message: :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)
thread_title: The quote from [[Book of Revelation|Revelations]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Norse Dragon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dragon references 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Celtic Dragons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern dragon references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A page on the differences of Dragon Personalities and Abilities? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  every culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overview (?) 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed colour list 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why Color Section Was Added

message: 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)
thread_title: What is a Dragon?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canadian research into dragons 

message: --Divya da animal lvr 22:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Have Reasons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Dragon Origin Occult" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LOTR 

message: 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)
replies: text: Dragons are included in hundreds and hundreds upon hundreds of videogames, we cant name them all.--The Corsair. 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, not hundreds upon hundreds, but alot. ;) --The Corsair. 03:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Game Fable: The Lost Chapters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New subheading 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree.  Jerdwyer 02:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of paragraphs in this article are better removed than mended. 160.94.120.152 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing Uncited Paragraphs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The "How..." section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dragon always a dragon? part 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chinese Dragon is a mistake of translation 

message: Citation number 2 "#
# ^ 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)
thread_title:  Possible invalid citation 

message: 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)
replies: text: I second this. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism from anons