Talk:Amphiptere

Recent Vandalism

Is there anyone out there that can protect this page? It seems to be attacked in all directions from fans of the "Dragonology" book and merchandise, which against my usual affectations I am already beginning to dislike from the incredible swaths of negative attention it's attracted here. The Dragonology book is fiction, albeit creative fictional reinventions of existing myth-themes.

While we're on works of fiction, perhaps a more astute Wikipedian could add information pertaining to representations of Amphiteres in contemporary fiction...

As for the Jaculus, merging into this article could be debated, as the Jaculus is pretty much just a snake (that exists, too), whereas the Amphitere was reputadly a dragon of dragony-proportions. --75.176.185.207 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that people should lock this place. Only asking administrators will we be able to post things up.

Cleanup

This article and its subject belong to the realm of (contemporary) fantasy-fiction, and yet it is written as if a description of actual and historical mythologies. If it's not to be deleted altogether, the fictional origins and associations at least need to be made plain.--cjllw | TALK 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Amphiteres are a part of actual mythology, however it seems that somewhere along the point of the growth of this article it has been changed around into a fantasy-fiction article. While certainly posessing a noteworthy place in fantasies, that should be a seperate part of the article as opposed to its body. I'll try my best to rewrite it, but I'm going to need lots of help. --KojiroTakenashi (I'm not logged in, its late, and all Wiki code has drained from my noggin)

Ok, I added an additional line of blank space between the Fantasy-driven part and the mythology part (although some things need to be reclaimed from a previous version, I think). Now all we need is a source or number of sources to add to the nonhistorical part and we're good to go. Actually...we kind of need sources period. --Kojiro

Urg. Looks like my nice little mythology article was completely overtaken thanks to a single fictional book. Could the Mythology and Legendary Creature tags be put back? Part of the whole point for the origin of the article was so that there could be an easily-accessable contemporary reference for an often overlooked element of mythology, not for a fictional reference. The apparently large fictional presence only reflects the need for a historical article even more. --Kojiro

Some reliable sources which treat or recognise this as a genuine element in some actual mythology would definitely be a start. I don't know about other cultural histories, but I've never seen the term amphitere used in the context of Mesoamerican mythologies. As for the fiction/fantasy sources, I'd guess it relies on books such as the Dragonology series, or perhaps also even some RPG from somewhere.--cjllw | TALK 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know it definately predates that new -ology book series (which just embelleshes folklore, mythology, and even history anyway), and RPGs pretty much do the same thing anyway. My first encounter with the term came in a mythological context anyway, in the book Greg Hildebrant's Big Book of Dragons. Great art in that one, go pick it up. I definately wouldn't consider an artbook a source - I'm sure that had to have its sources though. --Kojiro, who is too lazy to log in

That's it, after seeing how prevalent this article has become in mirrors all across the internet (let alone being the first link up in the google search for "Amphitere", I've taken it upon myself to fix this thing. I even managed to find a source after wading through all the Wikipedia mirrors...There's a related article called "Amphiptere" over at the .nl version of Wikipedia here: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphiptere

Translation of the article mentioned above:

The amphitere (pronounciation: am-fee-tehr) is a legendary creature, also called Jaculus; it is suspected to be a subspecies of the amphisbaenia. One would be able to find the creature all over the world: from Great Britain, Egypt and the Middle East to Madagascar, Mexico and Perio. It's a timid serpent with small, high wings that are attached to the back, no legs or two legs (rare), a dragon-like head, large eyes and two tongues. One tongue is normal, the other is shaped like an arrow. The withdrawn amphitere flees when people approach or throw some rocks, but is nevertheless poisonous. The creature can roll itself up and then dash off like mad.

The Quetzalcoatl is supposed to be a subspecies of the amphitere.

The amphitere guards the grandest treasures with its hypnotic eyes, and supposedly knows all the secrets in the world, except for one. It's also said that it guards incense trees in Arabia, from which etheric oil is harvested. The Henham-amphitere from Essex, England was 3 meters tall and as thick as a man's leg.

The amphitere appeared in Edward Topsell's "The History of Serpents", written in the beginning of the seventeenth century. The drawing portrayed a snake the size of a python, with bat-like wings on its back. However, the legendary creature is more often portrayed with feathered wings.

These serpents also appear in heraldry. But they seldomly occupy a large space on the shield, and are usually accompanied by other animals. Most of them spiral around spears or are balancing on them. The symbolic meaning of the amphitere in heraldry is unknown. The amphitere is supposed to have featured on the coat of arms of the Draconis Extinctors, who went to Ireland to "fight the serpents".

This species has possibly been derived from the existing species Fandrefiala, a snake on Madascar. There are many unique animal species to be found on this island, especially snakes. The fandrefiala lets itself fall from a tree tail-first, as if it were a spear. They say that is how it stabs animals walking below it.

This article has the same in-universe plague as a previous version of our English entry, however it also offers some new information I was personally unaware of. Thoughts?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kojiro Takenashi (talk • contribs) 22 September 2006.

Hmm - it seems the nl.wiki article is even worse "dragon-cruft" fiction-as-fact than this previous version. I really don't think any of it (the nl.wiki material) stands up or could be used as a basis for any factual/mythological article. Maybe if written so it is clear this is some description of a particular notable fictional universe, but even then.... Frankly, I'm not convinced "ampithere" has any validity as a cultural/mythological entity (that does not have a basis in contemporary fiction). Leastways, there's nothing to hand to demonstrate otherwise.--cjllw | TALK 09:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem that way...however I looked up "Draconis Extinctors" on google. While I only got one hit, I also asked a friend and apparently they do have a sort of folk history going in Ireland...mostly it was the Heraldry remark that got me, as one can find dragons that match the description on shields and crests and the like. The thing about the incense trees is also part of the lore by my understanding, but I'm not willing to add or subtract anything from the existing article until I can dig up some sources. As for there not being anything on hand, are you sure about that? Meso-American deities aside, the only large serpentine dragons found outside of Asian culture are certainly either your "wyvern" or an Amphitere. The word itself is definately one of those fiddly little Middle East to Greek things. Honestly, the only "Amphithere" spellings I've seen are in fiction, and fairly recent fiction at that...The common spelling appears to be "Amphiptere", which has been shortened in modern times to Amphitere. I was incredibly alarmed when I came to check up on the article and found the in-universe tag and the Dragonology copypaste. The fact that there's too much in-universe fiction out there proves the need for a proper mythological article on the subject. Oh a,d while writing this I found some scant backup for the heraldry thing: http://www.familynamesonline.com/charges1.html My understanding is also that an Amphitere is the manner of beast that Cadmus slew, the source of the whole 'dragon's teeth' thing. More heraldry: http://glossaire.blason-armoiries.org/heraldique/a/amphistere.htm The following website also tends to treat the subject with less 'cruft' than what I've been able to dig up thus far: http://www.blackdrago.com/heraldic.htm For the source of the creature, my understanding is that it came from Arabic Mythology and somehow traveled upwards (thus the incense trees remark in the translation above - I'm lucky I know a Netherlander)

The point I'm trying to make is that it is out there, and the word is used outside of fiction. The problem is nailing it down without having to stop by a library. I don't suppose you could help me by also setting aside some library time to try to fix this mess? If only the darn thing had continued to be so ignored at LEAST until 2010. Ugh, internet. --Kojiro Takenashi 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The two separate entries Jaculus and Amphitere are alternative names for the same topic. They should be merged, although etymologically-speaking the more correct spelling would be to have the article at amphiptere (currently redirects to jaculus), which would preserve the word's greek origins of αμφις (amphis, "both" (but as in 'amphibian') and πτερυζ (ptero; "wing").

Also, and as the discussion preceding above, both of these articles in any case need more attention paid to not treat these as some pan-global mythological classification. I believe that both of these terms are mostly and originally associated with Medieval (European) heraldry. As legendary creatures this is just about as far as these terms go, and I suspect the only folkloric mentions are European and Middle Eastern. The fact that there are in other mythologies in the world legendary "winged serpent" creatures of one form or another (such as in mesoamerica & ancient egypt) does not mean these too are referred to or are examples of amphipteres/jaculi.--cjllw | TALK 04:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I could debate the lack of connection to Egypt, considering they had loads of cultural contact with Rome--75.176.185.207 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, though the (admittedly limited) research I've done does not indicate that amphiptere (as a 'classifacatory' concept) goes much further back beyond medieval heraldry, into say ancient Roman / Egyptian times. Sure, winged serpent-like creatures appear in earlier real-world mythologies, and while these presumably provide the inspiration behind the heraldic (and now reprised in the modern-day young-adult fictional/educational books like the Dragonology series) treatment of classifying "dragons", it doesn't appear the term has currency outside of these.

You may be right (above) about jaculi being differentiable from amphipteres, tho' a couple of the heraldic sources I'd checked treated these interchangeably. At some point I may attempt a more appropriate rewrite here, but it is not high on my to-do list at the moment.--cjllw | TALK 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disregarding the Dragonology book, I have seen Amphipteres discussed in both art books and mythology books. I can locate other sources, but right now I can remember that the Amphiptere does exist in Edward Topsell's A HIstory of Serpents or some such title, which was originally published in the late 1400s/early 1500s. I have also seen Amphipteres in another reliable, more modern, printed source: Dragons: A Natural History by Dr. Karl Shuker (1995). Shuker is a reliable source as he treats the subject with objectivity, as a mythological creature only and not a realistic or fantasy fiction creature; he also has dozens of print sources in the bibliography. Anyway, to my knowledge, the Amphiptere and the Jaculus are separate entities. The Amphiptere is a winged snake with alleged medicinal properties, while the Jaculus is a snake (without a dragon head or any wings, unlike the Amphiptere) which craves wine and drops from trees on anyone carrying caskets of wine--thus it's other name, the Javelin Snake. I believe Carol Rose's Encylopedia of Giants, Dragons, and Monsters discusses the two creatures as well.67.167.26.239 05:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

OK Chris G., fair enough, and if you have the references handy then by all means feel free to add them in and expand the entry here. Just so long as the fictional is well-distinguished from any genuine real-word mythological mentions. Re jaculus, I'm satisfied it can be maintained separately, so am removing the {merge} tag.--cjllw | TALK 23:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Amphitere Image

The image in question is this one: [1]

I've removed it because I don't believe it was ever intended to be an amphitere. In Edward Topsell's books the picture is clearly labelled as a cockatrice. I've seen a modern book call it a amphitere ('Dragons - A Natural History' by Karl Shuker), but no citations are given for this claim... other than Topsell, who as stated, calls it a cockatrice.

I think we need to be careful not to just use any picture of a winged serpent/dragon and call it an amphitere. It's better to have no picture than to have a picture of the wrong thing. Polenth 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent revert by Sol Pacificus

I believe the recent revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amphiptere&action=historysubmit&diff=586754213&oldid=586650513 is in error. The edit summary is "(I already minimized the info as much as possible for your stated reason but I believe a more accurate mention was necessary. Stating that they are "treated as a real species is rather redundant considering that that's the whole point of the books.)"

I don't think this makes a lot of sense. Saying that they are "treated as a real species" is not redundant because the reader of this page is not necessarily familiar with the books. Previous activity on the talk page has been strongly resistant to filling the page up with fancruft about Dragonology (which appears to be of extremely limited notability); it seems best to restrict ourselves to the most basic facts. That they treated as a real species is in some tenuous sense a fact about the real world; that they are allegedly natives of Mesoamerica is purely a fact about a fictional universe, with as much relation to reality as the colour of Captain Kirk's socks.

The article should confine itself to facts which could be cited from independent sources. I accept that the fact that Dragonology pretends its subjects are real is such a fact; but if this Mesoamerica cruft remains in the article I intend to tag it "citation needed" and remove it if no independent citation - remembering that the books themselves and fansites for same are not independent - is forthcoming. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate you bringing this disagreement to the discussion page as I did indeed find that the amount of characters allowed by the edit summary was insufficient for a detailed explanation, so I hope you forgive me for having been vague. It is admittedly difficult for me to describe why I believe that it is redundant to mention that the species is treated as a real species, so I shall use an analogy, though in the end you may find that there is no right answer to this, and it is a more a matter of perspective. As a hypothetical example, to mention that they are "treated as a real species" is as if to mention on the article "Hippogriff," "the hippogriff is a fictional species in the Harry Potter series." Though not every last person in the world will be familiar with the Harry Potter series as well-known as it is (and consequently may not realize that it is a fictional work of literature), would you not agree it seems rather superfluous to have to mention that hippogriffs are fictional in a fictional series of books? It is redundant if it is explicitly mentioned on every mythological creatures' page. "This species is fictional in this [fictional series]." I think I will have probably lost you there, considering the fact that the situation is slightly different here. But in the same way that Harry Potter is a fictional series of books with a fictional story, Dragonology is a fictional series of books that pretends that it's speaking fact, so I find it low-quality to say "this creature is treated as a real species in this book [that is a fictional book that treats dragons as real species in general]. I would not have thought the same had amphipteres been the only species in the books treated as real, or if the book itself was in fact meant to be a real encyclopedia of sort (and not a work of fiction) because then the error in claiming that these creatures are real would be significant enough to mention. But as it is, stating that they are "treated as a real species" is not in any way a significant detail, esp. if you have read the books, for it reeks of stating that "elves are fictional in Lord of the Rings as well as Harry Potter and RuneScape, etc." It reeks of adding a line stating that slaves are real in the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Such details are obvious, and even if not everyone may be familiar with the fictional or non-fictional status of a particular work, it is still not a significant detail to add whether a subject is real or not in that work. I know that you likely still may not understand my perspective, as in this case, there is a twist in that Dragonology is a fictional work that disguises itself as non-fictional, but the principle is the same. It is not necessary to mention the (non-)fictional status of a character, object, species in said object or species or character's own article when it is obvious if one were to go to the article of the work itself which would clearly state whether it is fictional, non-fictional, or fictional but pretends to be non-fictional.

Now, I do not claim that I am correct because I caution you that in the case with this line, there is no correct answer. It's almost absolutely a matter of perspective, but I strongly felt that the way it was originally written was low-quality. And it is for this reason that I sought to at least improve upon what is written.

When you mention that it is best to restrict ourselves to the most basic facts, that is exactly what my intentions were when I made the edit. The fact is that amphipteres originated from European culture and mythology. The fact is that despite this fact, Dragonology, a fictional series of books, does not present amphipteres as European but rather as Mesoamerican. The reason why I included this information was not to promote "fancruft" as you say, but because I think that this contradiction is worthy of mentioning. To use perhaps a more appropriate analogy than the one above, consider that to say that "amphipteres are depicted as Mesoamerican dragons" is the same as mentioning that "Cao Cao is portrayed as a young female character in the Koihime Musō franchise." The line isn't "fancruft" of the Koihime Muso franchise and merely explains that Cao Cao is present in the franchise as a female character, which may be worth mentioning in the article because Cao Cao was a male. Or for another example, "In the Assassin's Creed series, Edison is portrayed as a member of the Knights Templar and one the founders of the Abstergo Industries, attempting to discredit Nikola Tesla, an ally of the Assassins Order." No, Thomas Edison wasn't an actual Knights Templar in history, but that is how he is portrayed in the Assassin's Creed franchise. Is it "fancruft" to merely mention that Thomas Edison is a Knights Templar in Assassin's Creed and nothing else? I think not at all, but perhaps you may disagree.

I'm not sure if you understand my point, which is simply that when I wrote that "amphipteres in the books are presented as natives to Mesoamerica" it is the equivalent of making a small mention of how a character is portrayed in a fictional franchise. It is not "fancruft." All it's doing is making a brief and curt mention of how it is portrayed in that respective franchise. And thus, I am rather confused by your assertion that it needs a "citation needed" tag. The information as written does not present it as fact. I did not intend for it to be treated as a fact. It does not claim that amphipteres are Mesoamerican. The sentence states that the book portrays them as Mesoamerican in the same way that Thomas Edison is portrayed as a Knights Templar in Assassin's Creed despite not having been one in real-life, in the same way that Cao Cao is depicted as female in Koihime Muso despite the fact that he ws male in real-life. Perhaps it is my mistake for not having written it clearer.

I would also caution not to jump to the assumption that every minor detail one includes from Dragonology is "fancruft" just because of the history of low-quality edits originating from the book. I did not mention that in Dragonology amphitheres are specifically 45ft. long, 5-10 ft high, of green color, and attack with flaming breath, tail lashing, and constriction, and typically feast on llamas. My only intention was to improve on the statement of how they are portrayed in the books.

Hope this clears things up! Though admittedly I am doubtful that I did, not because I doubt your intelligence, but because I understand that I likely did not explain this clearly. Sol Pacificus (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that makes a lot of sense. Works of fiction are an ordinary thing; works of fact are an ordinary thing. Works of fiction that purport to be factual reference texts are unusual; that is what makes it worth mentioning.

As for the other; I've tagged it "citation needed". If an independent source has seen fit to notice it, it stays; otherwise, it goes. (In the example above, I imagine you would not find it hard to find a review of the videogame which mentions these details.) Pinkbeast (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning if it were not for the fact that the work itself mentions it in its own article. Because it is not an isolated incident in the book itself. It would be noteworthy if the amphiptere is the only subject in the book to be presented as a real species. Take for example, if the article on Hanno the Elephant had this line "Hanno had a trunk and two tusks." It is redundant because all elephants have a trunk and two tusks, and thus the introduction sentence "Hanno was the pet white elephant" technically already includes this detail. This detail would be worth mentioning if elephants do not regularly have trunks and two tusks. It is thus redundant. In the same sense, by adding that "amphipteres are treated as real species in Dragonology" it is redundant because Dragonology is in itself a fictional book that feigns to be non-fictional. By mentioning that it is Dragonology that detail is technically already included in the same way that the detail that Hanno has a trunk and two tusks is already included in the description that he is an elephant. Now, you may or may not argue that whereas the appearance of elephants is general knowledge, the content of Dragonology is not, but such an argument fails to be impartial. To summarize my point in a different way: if A = has trait B + trait C. And D is the subject of the article, and the sentence reads, "D is an example of A" or "D = A" or if a book "D is present in A," then it would be unnecessary to write "D is an example of A. D has traits B & C." Following by your logic, it would be necessary to mention in every article of an individual that that person has two eyes, one nose, one mouth, etc. It is redundant, it is unnecessary because humans regularly have two eyes, one nose, and one mouth. In the same way, Dragonology pretends that everything it says is real fact. It is thus not noteworthy to mention that the amphiptere is treated as a real species, that detail is included in the statement that it is in Dragonology the same way that the detail an individual has two eyes is included in the statement that that individual is a "human." Sol Pacificus (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why it would need a citation tag? I'm not quite sure you understand. The sources for these information would be the source itself. By adding a citation tag, you are claiming that the assertion that "Amphipteres are portrayed as Mesoamerican" needs to be sourced or proven. What you are asking to be proven is that "amphipteres are portrayed that way in the book" not "amphipteres are Mesoamerican." You are asking for the source that "Dragonology describes amphipteres are Mesoamerican" not "Amphipteres are Mesoamerican." The source that proves that Dragonology does describe amphipteres as Mesoamerican in its own book is Dragonology itself. Sol Pacificus (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. It needs a citation as evidence that it is a notable fact; that an independent source has seen fit to report on it. This isn't Memory Alpha; the idea is not to record every piece of minituae about fictional universes. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The average user knows what an elephant is. If they didn't, it would be entirely reasonable to say "Hanno had a trunk and two tusks". Would you prefer that it made it clear that this is typical of the book? Pinkbeast (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am allowed to "necro" a thread from years back here because some wikis require that a new section be created instead to revisit an old topic—something I personally consider to be disorganized—so pardon me if I really should have created a new section. However, I just recalled this case, and there were many points that I neglected to bring up at the time because I did not wish to bother with it anymore.

The first is that, my reasoning for the edit is simply as a matter of good quality writing. While I recognize that our guideline on notability is invaluable to this encyclopedia, in this case, I find it obstructive to quality writing. The reason is because I strongly believe that whenever a subject is mentioned, brief context should be provided as to that subject. Rather than simply stating something appears in a media, context should be given as to how it appears. For it to not be fancruft, it should be kept to a minimum, no more than a single, concise line or clause summarizing this context. That this context should not be given because it is not notably provided in some third-party source comes across as puritanical to me, and I do not think it makes sense. I don't think it is an issue if a single clause is given to make a statement clearer and more informative even if it wasn't strictly mentioned in a third-party source. It is not original research, it is providing clarity to the sentence already given.

The second is that, in accordance with assuming good faith, I made a conscious decision to refrain from expressing my perception that I will express now because it can very well be a flawed judgement. However, I think for the purposes of explaining my perspective on this, it is important to be open about the concern I have. I genuinely thought that Pinkbeast had an over-obsessive preoccupation with combating fancruft, to the point where he was eyeing it almost like in a witch hunt, for lack of a better word. This impression of mine in turn stems from the fact that my initial edits were constantly called "fancruft" again and again which I personally felt constituted a failure to assume that my edits were in good faith. In other words, I was of the opinion that my reasons for writing it—that I genuinely believe that it improves the quality of writing—were not even being addressed merely because he was constantly assuming that my intention behind it had to be out of wanting to incorporate fanboy material into the article. My impression here was reinforced by his assumption that merely clarifying the context in which the subject amounts to "recordp[ing] every piece of minituae about fictional universes", which in my honest perspective, is a gross exaggeration and overreaction. Specific, minute information on the subject in the source material, such as its diet, habitat, lifespan, eggs, etc. wasn't incorporated into the article at all, merely its appearance in the media and the context of this appearance to improve writing quality.

Finally, I also could not help but think that Pinkbeast's insistence on clarifying that the book pretends to be a non-fictional work stems from that same attitude of obsessing over hunting down "fancruft". Again, I took issue with only again because it is poor quality writing. This detail is not relevant to the actual topic, amphipteres, unlike my line clarifying the context of the appearance of amphipteres in the book. Instead, this line is relevant if the book as a whole is the topic, not amphipteres. It should be sufficient to only specify that the work is fictional for concise writing.

I apologize if this somehow came across strongly, especially over what should be a minor change, but I was of the perception that there was an overreaction against what should not have been an issue. I recognize that I could entirely be wrong in my belief in the subconscious biases of the aforementioned user, just as I felt that he mistakenly assumed ill intent on my part to push forth "fancruft" when I was only trying to improve writing quality. Sol Pacificus (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a huge wall of text, but nothing has changed. Stick to things that relate to reality, don't describe elements of a fictional universe. This (still) isn't Memory Alpha, and you (still) don't have any independent cite for the material you want to insert. If it isn't cited, it doesn't go in.

Note that you appear to admit above that the notability "guideline" - which is in fact one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia - would rule out your edit. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notability guideline which mandates an independent citation applies specifically to the creation of an article, not each and every last bit of the content within it, which instead defers to due weight. The fact of the matter is that one simple clause giving clarity to a statement to improve writing is not the same as adding superfluous information outside of an independent source. "Nothing has changed" from your perspective because you refuse to address my arguments and engage in appropriate discussion about it. I will concede to compromising by removing both my addition and yours since the latter, as I said before, can be concisely summarized by the word fictional. Sol Pacificus (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, I called it a "guideline" because that is how it is technically classified and categorized according to the Wikipedia help pages. Also, I would ask that if you have any further dispute to the compromise offered, that you please simply take it to the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war about it. I only reverted it once again the other day to draw attention to it once more after five years and to check if it was still in dispute while taking initiative as a matter of efficiency. Sol Pacificus (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up and write "While I recognize that our guideline on notability is invaluable to this encyclopedia, in this case, I find it obstructive to quality writing"? What you mean is that the requirement for notability is obstructive to what you want to write. Therefore, you shouldn't write it.

Your current version is not a compromise but even worse. You removed cited content and replaced it with an assertion that Dragonology is fictional (it is a work of fiction, but what you wrote implies that it was invented in some other work of fiction), and caused the article to have two near-identical sentences following each other.

I suggest you seek a third opinion if you're not happy. I will abide by the outcome of that process - but I don't think it will recommend the removal of cited content, the insertion of duplicate sentences (something you have now done twice - it might be better to take a little time to review your edits rather than to write endless screeds here), or the inclusion of fancruft from the book. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The duplication of that sentence was an accident because I was making the edit quickly after midnight, so I do apologize for that, but I think you should've noticed that it was more likely an accident rather than intentional. Secondly, everyone who knows me knows that it is my habit to write a lot in my responses to people in any work I undertake; it is simply my style to be thorough in such a way, and while you yourself may find it annoying or unnecessary, I will ask that you not be rude about it by commenting on it off-hand again and again. Some colleagues respect that, some feel overwhelmed, but it is normal for me. Third of all, I find your repeated use of the word fancruft where I have already discussed the subjectivity of its usage here to be a breach of assuming good faith and to be disrespectful conduct. Regardless of the fact you are convinced that my original was fancruft, you must recognize that that usage here is in dispute and to constantly home-in on it is not helpful to discussion especially since I have agreed with you that fancruft is not appropriate but the contention is that I insist that that was not fancruft in the slightest.

Finally, in regards to my removal of your sentence, once again, my reason for doing so is because the topic at hand is amphiptere not Dragonology. Hence, I find it poor writing to then go into an explanation into what Dragonology is; it comes across as off-topic to me. It may be cited, but so is "the volume examines the different dragon species and their behavior, using fold-out flaps, patches of textured 'skin' or 'membranes'". That information can be cited doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included if it's not altogether immediately relevant to the topic. I have given thought of how to retain the meaning of your sentence while making it more natural, such as by writing instead "Amphitheres feature in Dragonology series of books where it is presented as a real dragon" but here I find that the latter detail comes across as unnecessary and superfluous for conciseness. I hope though, by this example, you can better see that my point of contention with these edits is not that I wish to include fancruft, a point which you keep dismissing, but because the topic in the sentence or paragraph is amphiptere, not Dragonology. Hence, the sentence you wish to add seems extraneous to me. In fact, my insistence on clarifying that the book presents them as Mesoamerica is merely because I was trying to make a sentence such as "Amphitheres feature in Dragonology series of books where it is presented as a real dragon [in Mesoamerica]" sound more significant. Without that prepositional phrase, for example, the added information comes across as trivial, but with the prepositional phrase, it makes the sentence feel a bit more meaningful (because it contradicts the real-life European origins of the creature). The page on the notability guideline specifies that, as a guideline, it is best treated with common sense and moreover that the guideline does not apply to content within the article which instead defers to the principle of due weight. In this case, I think this is a matter of such common sense, where a simple prepositional phrase "in Mesoamerica" should be accepted if it is to improve the quality of a sentence.

Going forward, if you wish to keep reverting it—I understand that in the last case you had to correct the erroneous duplication of the sentence—I would strongly advise that rather than undoing outright, you take the time to try to reword the edit to see if you can find one that fits in accordance with both our arguments. Sol Pacificus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You did manage to duplicate it twice running, a frustrating lack of attention to detail.

That said, this subclause about the books is the result of me stripping out a bunch of miscellaneous stuff here, and while I left that in because it's about the real world, I appreciate your argument that it's not really about amphipteres; remove it altogether if you like.

I don't agree that we should include any uncited information about the presentation in the books. If no independent source mentions it, it doesn't merit inclusion.

I note your citation tag on "Appearance" and will try to address that this week; see below. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Appearance" section contradicts itself

The "Appearance" section begins by describing the amphiptere as "generally" resembling a lindworm, and concludes by stating that the amphiptere is "rarely" depicted with legs. The lede for the lindworm article describes the lindworm as a bipedal dragon. An amphiptere cannot by any sort of logic be "generally" bipedal but "rarely" have legs. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. It says that they are generally described as having a body resembling that of a lindworm (only, we assume, without legs attached). Pinkbeast (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As Sol Pacificus has spotted, the entire Appearance section is uncited. A quick Google Books-ing suggests everyone else cites their material on amphipteres to Rose Carol's book (which Google won't show me the text of). There is a copy in the library, and I'll try and go and look at it soon; I have some other Wikipedia book searches to do so the trip will be worthwhile. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Related to the Winged Serpents?

THE OPHIS PTEROTOS (Winged Serpent) more specifically as mentioned in Theoi Project, I was wondering if this Amphiptere is the one and the same? Suggesting it goes further back than its appearance in Heraldry. If this is perhaps incorrect then disregard this comment. 74.124.162.10 (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)