Talk:Dragon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Merging this article with European dragon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What do you think about merging this article? I myself think that both refer to Dragons; just different types of folklore, so it would be easier to find out about both if they were just in one article. Danny Sepley 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree in 100% --200.126.153.25 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• STRONGLY disagree: European and East-Asian dragons are different enough to deserve their own articles, and a page concerning dragons as a whole (rather than a disambiguation page) is necessary due to commonalities and the fact that Europe and East-Asia are not the only areas with dragons in their mythology. Dragons are so enormous, diverse, and ubiquitous a part of mythology that merging can only result in (1) a page so generalized in its information as to be completely useless, (2) a page that would take a prohibitively long time to read in order to give any usefully detailed information, or (3) a list. This is a bad, bad, bad idea. --Þorstejnn 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• As the person who added the tag, a merge is definitely in order. The #1 meaning of dragons is what is currently showing at European dragons, and there's a lot of wasted overlap between the two articles. It's arguable if the other dragons ever ARE dragons, as they are largely unrelated beasts given the dragon name by westerners, but even if they should be considered dragons they are by far the lesser topic and should be handled in more depth on their own article, as they already have. 16:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - but disagree strongly with the injudicious phrase "they are by far the lesser topic"; dragons have a very major role in a lot of world cultures and are by no means a lesser topic. --Orange Mike 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge — Agree with Þorstejnn above: if there's too much overlap between the pages, move the European-specific content to that page. —Ryan McDaniel (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think the dragon title should be used to represent all types of dragons, not just the Chinese dragons, but all. There should be different articles with different titles to tell about the other types of dragons, for example, a page called something like Chinese Dragons. However, I just checked that title, and found it existed, a whole article about Chinese dragons when there was already another one. I think one of them has to go, and I would choose the Dragon page, or I would change it to something that discusses all types of dragons as there are more stuff to that topic other than Chinese dragons. So I say merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayerteez (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• i agree 100% that european dragons should be merged to the chinese dragon page because i often refer to both types and find that it would be much easier to find the information on both types. so i say merge!!

Reasons NOT to merge Above, Danny Sepley writes, "I myself think that both refer to Dragons; just different types of folklore, so it would be easier to find out about both if they were just in one article."

This is not good enough a reason to merge. It's like saying that both the mythology page and Greek mythology page refer to mythology, just different types, so it would be easier to find out about both if they were just in one article, or that both the page on cuisine and Italian cuisine refer to food, just different types, so it would be easier to find out about both if they were just in one article. That's assinine. Is the argument here that we don't need a page on European dragons because they are indistinct from other dragons? Clearly, European dragons are just as distinguished as their own cultural variety as Eastern dragons are. Is it that the generalized dragon article covers mainly European dragons? If that's the case, then much of the information here should be moved to the European dragon page; the need for a page about dragons in general should be obvious (just as is the need for a page about mythology in general, or cuisine in general). If this page over-emphasizes European dragons and both this page and the European dragon page contain much of the same information and frequently overlap, the situation need be fixed the same way we would go about fixing a page about mythology that over-emphasizes, say, Norse mythology, or a situation in which both the mythology page and the Norse mythology page were to contain frequently overlapping material, or the manner in which we'd go about fixing a page about cuisine that over-emphasizes American cuisine or a situation in which both the article on cuisine and the article on American cuisine were to contain frequently overlapping material. Both European and Eastern dragons are distinct; they both deserve their own articles apart from the general article.

A merging is NOT the answer, but a restructuring is definitely in order. The general rule here on Wikipedia is "improve, don't delete" whenever possible. I doubt anyone would seriously contest the position that the need for a separate page on European dragons is obvious, just as is the need for a page dealing with dragons in general. The problem seems to be content. Either this page is too Euro-centric, or the European dragon page is too general. These are content problems which can, and as apparently is necessary, need be fixed. But deleting one page or the other would imply that there is no need for a page dealing with that page's subject matter; either that there is no need to address the subject of European dragons in its own article, or no need to address the subject of dragons in general in its own article, and that simply can't be justified.

This is how the page on Lovecraftianism got deleted: someone filled the page with information on Lovecraftian horror, so much so that it became the main focus of the page, and the Lovecraftianism page got merged into the Lovecraftian horror page, even though Lovecraftianism and Lovecraftian horror are two completely different subjects. Now Wikipedia lacks a page dealing with Lovecraftianism (the subculture and spiritualism), and it would be a damned shame to see that happen again, here.

Additionally, many pages here on Wikipedia cover similar subjects and overlap to an even greater degree than dragons and European dragons. Consider Norse mythology and Germanic mythology, for example, or American English and British English. The need to contrast European dragons with Oriental dragons is just as great, leaving only the option to delete the page on dragons in general by merging it into the European dragon page. But that would be like getting rid of the page on mythology, or the page on English, to extend the comparison.

I say again: These are subjects that deserve individual treatment. Dragons as a whole is one subject, and European dragons is another, more specific subject. If the content of the two pages is so similar that a merge has been proposed, then answer is to rewrite the articles so that this is no longer the case. In other words, "improve, don't delete"! --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor ^talk 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. Sorry for the extensive redundancies, but given the reasons I'm seeing for the merge and the fact that it was even suggested to begin with, as well as the apparent education and comprehension level of some of the contributors I see posting on the talk page, I felt the need to explain this using as many different wordings as possible.)

• Merge - The problem with leaving the page as it is (other than it being a huge mess of OR garble) is that East Asian "dragons" aren't really dragons, but lóng. They're generally referred to as "dragons" due to both creatures being large, fantastic serpents, but otherwise, aside from some latter-day psychological theorizing, their mythologies are completely unrelated. It's like having one page for "Unicorns" and another for "Western Unicorns", with the first discussing unicorns, qilin, and any other unrelated magical horned, ungulate-like beasts that have at one time or another had the "unicorn" label stuck on them. At the very least this article should become a disambiguation page with a short explanation of how the overgrown reptile motif is found in a variety of cultures, and links to all the various legendary snake or lizard creatures that have been called "dragons" at some point or another, and whatever article discusses generalized "dragons" in modern fantasy fiction. Kotengu 小天狗 06:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)i agree but chinese/japenese dragons are more or less serpents that are reltives to th dragon if any thing the word dragon should be hyperlinked to the europen dragon if not merged because when the word dragon what pops into your head does a little dragon/serpent thing pop up? or a huge euro dragon like Merlin's dragon Drake? Europe dragon should be the main species and all other dragon things should be sub-species.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC))but they should at least be merged and cleand up so only what you can call a dragonshould remain

I'd mostly agree, except that this is the English language version of Wikipedia, and in the English language, the term "dragon" refers not just to Drakes (the stereotypical four-legged, two-winged fire-belchers), but to other western creatures like the Wyvern
yea example of sub-species --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
and the Tarasque, as well as to lóng
--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)see above sentencr by me for my thought--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
and many other supernatural reptilian creatures all over the globe. We could choose to disregard this fact and decide that this usage isn't respectful enough to the post-millennial multicultural mindset, but that would be pushing a flavor-of-the-month POV -- a particularly nasty form of POV-pushing that rages almost completely unchecked here on Wikipedia (people have a tendency not to want to admit that a flavor-of-the-month POV is even a POV at all, because it is, after all, the flavor of the month). We can't just redefine the English language to suite our sensibilities. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor ^talk 13:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - Partially for the reasons stated by Kotengu but also just for simple neatness. Where I differ is that I think it is the Dragon article, not the European Dragon article, that could be merged. Given the weight of dragons and dragon-like creatures in mythologies, I think Dragon itself could be a disambiguation page leading to more in-depth articles about the specific varieties. Onikage725 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)he has a point it sure aint neat--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

• Disagree. Individual dragon types are pretty distinct, it only serves to reason that we would have subarticles on 'european dragon', american 'feathered serpent' or 'asian dragon'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) that is good idea but the article should start with a common trait between all dragons then have chapters on different species and their sybolism.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Strongly agree with Thorstejnn. The debate on whether the Chinese long and other dragon-like creatures should be technically considered dragon isn't meaningful. The fact is that they are refered to as dragon, even if not completely appropriately. In this sense, dragon is really a broad category akin to, using Thorstejnn's examples, "cuisine" or "mythology". As such, it should have more emphasis on an overview and cut down on the details of the culture-specific stuff, but the separate articles should definitely be kept. o 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge just because there is plenty of room to expand both this article and European dragon that they are better off being two articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (two articles make it harder to find because not every kid knows evry type of dragon.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Dragons are some of the most talked about mythical creatures and there are a lot to talk about them. I think both articles should be separated (or, if you're merging European Dragon with this article, you should merge Eastern Dragon too).--Midasminus 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should at least be something about the european dragon on this page even if you don't merge the two pages. After all, dragons have appeared in almost every culture around the world so there must be some kind of connection between all of them. As for merging the pages, I vote yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drizzt3737 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy merge All a euro is is another species of dragon. This entire discussion is stupid. Euros should have been in here in the first place.--Gp75motorsports 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (right on motor--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose merge European dragons are distinct enough to justify their existence generally from dragons. The person who suggested this ignorantly assumes that the word dragon in english generally refers to european dragons. While that may be true, scholars have noted the difference generally between eastern in western dragons. In the east, dragons can often be considered gods, wheras in western mythology they are monsters of some sort. (not all dragons are evil. but it needs to merge evil or not--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)) I think it is a terrible academic travesty to merge these articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.252.213 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do not merge

There are clear differences between western and eastern cultural perceptions of dragons. While they are both called dragon, the European view of them is one of evil, fearful creatures with far different appearances than that of the Asian perception. Asian dragons are symbolically lucky, beneficial creatures by nature. To merge the two would be akin to merging Anchor and Anchor (climbing). The two are homonyms, and not one and the same. Danakin (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: There's enough info here that it would be detrimental to the main dragon article (by cluttering it) or you'd have to remove and compress a lot of the info contained in this article. Keep them separate. --BHC (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as is and Oppose merge: As per BHC may I remind you that wikipedia is not paper and there is enough topical information in this article to keep it as a separate entity. Is it that hard to just provide well placed links to this article? Even the Chinese, Korean and Japanese dragons have their own page. It would be both inconsistent and counterproductive to do otherwise. --Stux (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do not merge*: as per Danakin, and ANOMALY-117. All those types are differing enough to diserve their own article. However, there should be a couple of lines in this article explaining them, and then they can link to the Euro Dragon or Chinese Dragon or whatever. Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 13:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• • • DO NOT MERGE***

Both articles are completely different and people should post only things about european dragons on the european dragon sight.

I do however think that the article "Chinese Dragons" should be changed to Asian dragons to dscuss that area as a whole.

Connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.131.176 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since their are many types of dragons, couldn't you make one article about dragons in general, with links to the other more specific pages, for people who lack knowledge of what type of dragon they are looking for? -Knowledgeabletome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.125.252 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Page for chinese lóng?

If we maintain one page for western dragons in order not to clutter the main Dragon page with all the Western Dragon info, then perhaps we should make another page for Chinese lóng. Since these are very different from not only, say Welsh dragons, but most dragons from Poland to Thailand, it is the lóng which probably needs a page of its own at least as much. The arguments on both sides here are reasonable and deserve a good think, so please keep ones tone apt, not smart-ass.

IceDragon64 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Chinese dragon. Kuru ^talk 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one- could we merge the Japanese dragon and Korean dragon articles with the Chinese Dragon article under a broader heading? They are all similar in concept, and different from those discussed in the European dragon article. Onikage725 00:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Korean_dragon. Anyway, the Japanese dragon especially, but all three dragons (Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese), have enough information about them to warrant separate articles. If you're going to request merging them, then you should also be requesting merges for Slavic dragons, Chuvash dragons, and Dragons in Greek mythology into European dragon as well. It's not fair to only distinguish between the different European dragons and not the different Asian dragons. 24.14.198.8 03:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

Irrespective of the subject, the intention of the wiki needs to be kept in mind that its purpose is encyclopaedic rather than a treatise on the subject. The development of Western and Eastern dragons share enough similarities for the layperson to search for Dragons without understanding the variables that set aside the two. For the facility of the user, the single page would be best. To those who discuss the matter with an inticate knowledge on the matter, a Wiki article is probably of little use to their existing knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.225.54 (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's fine, but it's Lung, not Lóng. I read that in Dragonology. --Pumagirl7 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you were to get a different page for all the different types of dragons we would crash the internet. If we compromise and put all the different types on one page, listing general differences, and letting them do a manual search for the different dragons, it would be a litle more effeicient. For example-

Dragons of Asia- Asian dragons are called lungs, and resemble snakes with four legs. although the number of toes vary among them, they all have the same temperment and...

I think this would work. -Andromoidus

Why the deletion?

Why has the list of world dragon myths been shortened? The Taniwha is at least as much a "dragon" as the Feathered Serpent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NakedCelt (talk • contribs) 07:39, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean amphitheare? Sorry to be such a smart alec, but i like dragons too much. Also, if it is just a single dragon,(for example Niddhog) It might be mistaken for a name, not a species. I've yet to hear of the Taniwha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.125.250 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i too know that a "feathered" dragon is the amphitheare, but is it the American or the Mexican species? There is a subtle difference between the two.--Shadowfoot09 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Dragonology: Book of Dragons

Watersprout Connection

Irememeber i read somewhere that legends of oriental dragons might come from watersprouts too. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.102.115 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The greek meaning?

Is it worth mentioning, do you think, that the Greek word Drakon or Drakonta meant to guard or to watch. As it was these words that inspired the Latin word Draco or Draconis which in turn inspired our word Dragon i felt it was rather apt to explain the initial meaning of the word.

This also tells us a lot about the greek dragons characteristics or at least in part how the dragon was viewed and that perhaps they were thought of as guardians in europe, at least for a time. Much of this is speculation but the words meanings are fact.

Just a thought.

Dinosaur connection

No discussion of connections to Asians thinking dinosaur bones were dragons and thus our dragons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.22.104 (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I believe dragons were dinosaurs, living with men. Many indications from history shows men have always known about Dinosaurs. The word "dinosaur" wasn't created until the 1700s so what else would they call them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.141 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many edge theories about it, but they are just mere theories, nothing scientific. First: "men lived in the time of dinosaurs". The problem is that human genre seems to be about five million years old, and dinosaurs extincted about sixty-five million years ago. The other explanation is "somewhere some dinosaurs lived up until the ancient times". It says that a small fortunate population did not extinct, and this caused the legendary beasts. Nessy was one of them, and Hidra and every other dragon, who lives in a cave or in a lake in tales was the son of a fortunate dinosaur long ago. This theory is not exactly shit, but up until now there is no proof. So it is just a cryptozoologic theory, and nothing more.

81.183.125.137 (talk) (DJS, hu.wikipedia)

Ground-up rewrite?

This article suffers, at its core, from the bogus assumption that the word "dragon" has a central meaning in the way that "color" or "frog" does. All of the sections talk about "dragons" as if there were some ur-Dragon, some common draconality at the heart of the discussion. In fact, of course, the English language lumps creatures from all sorts of mythic traditions together under this term, with some editors more aggressive than others in dragging other culture's big-reptile myths under the umbrella. We need to think about a total re-write of this article, beginning to end, reflecting this latter reality. --Orange Mike 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just went to your talkpage to follow up on SCA (and Poul Andersen) and saw there was a conversation about dragons going on. Couldn't resist. After several minutes of "thinking out loud" I've cut most of what I wrote and posted it here. I've set up a sandbox at User:Paularblaster/Here_be_dragons to try out some radical editing and rewriting that won't be too disruptive. Haven't actually started yet. Feel free to join in everyone. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Uuum, regardless of whether a Chinese dragon has anything in common with a European dragon, the title of this article is "Dragon". That means that it must include any myth that is referred to under the word "dragon", regardless of any "common draconality" among the myths. And which "big reptile myths" have had "dragon" applied to them? Almost everything in this article is descended from either the Western dragon tradition or the Eastern dragon tradition, and everyone calls Eastern dragons "dragons". After a point, you just have to accept that English is a weird, imprecise language. Pafferguy (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Creation "science"?

i'm altering the phrase "creation scientists" in the section on christianity. to call themselves scientists becaus ethey have a science-related degree is one thing, but to call them "creation scientists" suggests that what they do is, in fact, scientific, when it most assuredly is not. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

cut out the very last sent in the pgh, too. if they want to read more of this garbage, they can follow the citation. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at The "Kent Hovind" article. His website is www.drdino.com, another good one is www.evolution-facts.org.

heard it, seen it, watched the movie. this denialism isn't new; grew up young-earth creationist, and the garbage is constantly recycled. get over it. - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at your rude comments. And Wikipedia claims to be unbiased. *Rolls eyes*--72.80.32.187 (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

'Unbiased' does not mean accepting that everything is equally true. Your eyerolling isn't evidence, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.24.218 (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Links

Hi guys

I was wondering on what your opinions about the lack of sources refferred to and likewise, the lack of links. The dragons page on Wikipedia is pretty phenominal but it cannot cover everything. There are many aspects of the dragon mythology missing. Mainly that of different viewpoints. Because mythology often boreders the unknown there is much speculation surrounding the areas where there are no facts. Therefore i think it might be worth putting in links to valid websites which deal with dragons in a responsible way.

Now i have to admit that i have a not so hidden agenda here. I feel there are a few websites which deserve mentioning here.

The 1st and foremost i would like to put forward is the Dragon Stone by Polenth. A superb resource with a fair bit of infomation about dragons. Much of it is fact, much of it is speculation. But it does generally state which is which

I would also like to put my site forward as a link. Dragons Touch. I of course would vouch for its validity but i dont think i count due to being biased. However it is similar to Dragon stone in that it does state when reading is speculation or fact.

Just my opinion, but i feel sites like these would be a welcome addition to the Dragon wiki,

What are your opinions? Perhaps i am very mistaken?

(Dariune (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but neither of these sites meet our standards for reliable sources, nor our guidelines for external links. They are dragon fansites: venues for speculation and guesswork, with no scholarly content not better found directly elsewhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling you might reply like that and if i can i would like to ask one more question. Could you elaborate? In what respect do you mean scholarly? Are we looking for university educated researchers? In which case i currently have a paleontology professer who teaches at a university in England (i cant mention which one yet) researching a theory for the dragons anatomy with me. How is it they break the standards? I can assure you there is no guesswork on either site. Though there is much speculation, there always is with hostory or mythology.

I am not trying to be argumentative nor do i actually have any real hope of getting either site onto the page. I am partly just creating conversation and mostly genuinly interested in where the Wikipedia boys are coming from.

Thanks (Dariune (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, some of our best boys are girls, of course. More seriously: by scholarly, I mean the kind of thing that would pass peer review in a paleontological or archeological journal, as opposed to fun speculation and intellectual gameplaying of the sort that makes a good science fiction fanzine article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course i meant girls as well ;) Orange thankyou for your answer. That short reply managed to answer all of my questions. I finally understand what it is you are looking for. I dont think Dragons Touch has potential to appear on here. Especially given the projects in circulation at DT at the moment. However, you are right, Dragons Touch is not ready to appear here as it stands now. I dont know what the Dragon Stone is currently working on, but i do know much of their infomation is recipricated. Therefore is also not ready to be here.

You may well hear from me again with the same question in the future. But not until i have subjected my own work for a Peer Review. And my own work will not be complete for a short while yet. (Dariune (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

The thing you have to decide for your site is what your goal is. If it's to be recognised as an academic resource of the sort that could be in a journal, you'd have to cut most of your site. It isn't just a case of making sure the mythology sections are researched well... you'd need to cut anything speculative from the whole site. It isn't worth doing that for the sake of a link from Wikipedia. Nor would most people suggest it. Your site doesn't have to match Wikipedia's goals to be a good site. Goals like fun and encouraging speculation/debate are perfectly valid goals for a site. Polenth (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh i couldnt agree more. hello Polenth :) No, what i will suggesting be put as a link will be the work im currently doing. But that will be for another conversation. I personally feel you cannot hav a site deciated to any style of mythology with out educated speculation or even guesswork. There are some things we just dont know, especially about a creature that doesnt exist. We are infact delving into the physche of the human mind during various periods of history. That being the case you cannot claim fact %100 of the time. The only facts are the pieces of physical evidence found and even then we can but assume on their purpose. So i do not propose to change my site to get a link from Wiki nor do i feel the need to make getting a link my goal. I was merely interested in Wiki's answer.(Dariune (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

I had the same problem with Wiki, being deleted and links deleted because of make believe dragon agenda here. Then I wrote Occult Dragon, and atheist from here eventually stalked me and deleted and attacked me again. With a editor, mentor wannabe in tow they deleted me and ran away. lmvao To the point "make believe dragon agenda", Well yesterday Marines' Sea Dragon helicopter crashed at Corpus Cristie, Texas killing 3.Wuotan (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Occult dragon was deleted for CSD G1 - patent nonsense. Wikipedia is not many things, and for fictional topics that border on cultural phenomenon, it's pretty difficult to write a strong article - lots of popular support, little academic attention. I'd guess that all of the cryptozoology articles are like this. WLU (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought though, there is a DMOZ on dragons:

{{dmoz|Arts/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/Themes/Fantasy_Races_and_Creatures/Dragons/}}

Any thoughts on including it? It does include a lot of the fan sites and it means we don't have to link to a thousand of them. WLU (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

again a god damned idiot has the string on the back of his neck pulled and he insults me. Occult dragon is the truth and censorship against legitmate understanding is why it isn't here.Wuotan (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that in an article on a mythological creature you should use sources on the original myths about dragons. These are the closest thing to being "canon" that you can get. Pafferguy (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many images

This article is getting crowded with images; we already link to the Commons gallery at the bottom (and could, if needed, add our own gallery). Any thoughts on which to remove? I'll wait a reasonable period for comments. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a likely non-free image which was recently added, and may well end up deleted. There's an argument for removing Image:Ouroboros 1.jpg on the basis that it doesn't illustrate the text near which it is placed, and can be seen at the article Ouroboros which is linked in a different paragraph. There's no mention in the entire article of the dragon waterspout at Ulm Cathedral, so I'm unsure as to why Image:Germany Ulm Dragon.jpg is being used. --Sturm 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed this talk section before removing the Ouroboros and Ulm pictures, for exactly the same reason. The Naga could also go, under the same reasoning, and I'm not sure what the Peruvian artifact is illustrating, when the article makes no mention of Peru. --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you (guys working here) have done a nice image research. Congratulations.--20-dude (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Channel crap

Lately there have been several (or one that they rerun a lot) specials about dragons in which they talk about reptilian creatures that produced fire with their breath. I'm plenty aware Discovery Channel if not that good as a source of scientific cites, and I have not seen them myself (the special[s], of course :P), but several of my friends were left under the impression they were talking about creatures that really existed.

I'm not implying that we should go along with the Discovery's publication at all, stating that there might have been such creature. But it could be nice to talk about what the special mentioned and research where does its idea of such creatures came from. Something like Discovery Channel has said "this" about possibly real dragons, comming from "X" source, but "Y" top scientific/academic institution has "Z" position." You know what I mean?--20-dude (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

hey, waddya know, they might exist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.236.72 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the poll on the article merge

I've closed the poll on the article merge. It was opened all the way back in July of 2007 and there's been no clear consensus. Start a new poll if anybody wants to, I have no objection to a new poll. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragons breathe Ice

In the Spyro games, Spyro The Dragon can breathe Ice, he also can breathe lightning, so there are sources for this. The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very non-notable as related to the archetype on the whole; while yes, dragons traditionally breathed fire (and poison, incidentally, a trope which came back in D&D) I think it was D&D which really brought the "dragons breathing everything" to the forefront, and while perhaps slightly notable, I don't know that it is very important. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dragons could possibly control all elements, so there could be reality in Spyro, maybe not breathing, but manipulating. -Knowledgeabletome (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is reasonable to put ice breath under the dragon overview. The original Norse and Greek dragons were poisonous serpents, and later European myths called dragons fire-breathers along with adding wings and legs. However, the idea of dragons breathing ice was (as far as I know) not invented until modern times. With this in mind, I intend to remove the dragons breathing ice bit from the article. Pafferguy (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Because of this edit:

Most experts on mythology and folklore argue that legends of dragons are based upon ordinary snakes and similar creatures coupled with common psychological fears amongst disparate groups of humans.

I've added the weasel words tag. X Marks The Spot (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are still many weasel words used in this article, especially in the Overview section. I am adding the weasel words tag back. Bourgeoisdude (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of the same picture

The carving in the Hopperstad church appears twice in the same section with slightly different captions. If someone has a good replacement image for one of these, that would be excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thee darcy (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Naga

Since when are Nagas dragons? The word Naga is more associated with serpents & giant serpents. (Because under the definition of this article, than a anaconda would be a "dragon") In fact the word is used, generically, to refer to serpents. Furthered by the fact that Nagas have human attributes, something dragons lack. Xuchilbara (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Toes

• It says on this page that Chinese Dragons have 4 claws on each foot, but it says on the Chinese Dragon page that it has 5 claws on each foot. Would somebody please find the right information and correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.224.134 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• The number of toes on Chinese dragons depends on the social rank of the man who is displaying the image. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Isn't there something about in what direction it is walking? --Knowledgeabletome (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Eragon Note

It was Morzan not Murtagh who was evil, Murtagh was his son. Megancara (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Murtgh was forced into serving evil. -Knowledgeabletome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.125.252 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern Literature

This whole section is poorly written and in rather bad taste if you ask me. Why has it survived so many edits? 24.65.181.254 (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Dragon

You got the white dragon representing the Saxons right, but the Red dragon is wrong. Why would a King Arthur related character predict the Welsh winning the war with the Saxons, the Welsh as such were not around at the time? Note; Merlin and King Arthur are part of English folk stories. Its the symbol of the English (or rather the Celts, however they were the "english" people as such at the time). At the time they were fighting with the Saxons over the right to England after the Romans had long left. The red dragon beating the white symbolised the English were going to push back and defeat the invaders, the Saxons, which we all know never happened.

I don't know the reason why the welsh ended up with the red dragon unfortunately. All I know is they did. I was once saw a documentry based on the question "How did the Dragon of the English become the symbol of Wales?" on it but never saw the ending of the program that explained it. --92.232.91.192 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the Celtic Britons collectively who wished to combat the Saxon menace. Centuries later, the idea was that the Welsh would use this old symbol of hope to repel the English, which we all know never happened. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Welsh are descended from the Britons who lived in the area. The Welsh did manage to stop the Anglo-Saxons from overrunning Wales and changing its language and place names to Anglo-Saxon. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant ultimately, i.e. Wales is now part of the UK, and was actually annexed into England itself for a while. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, could someone change the reference to Welsh Dragons in the European Dragons list to indicate that the Red dragon is originally a Celtish symbol and that Merlin's prophecy was that of the Celtic victory over the Saxons, not the English (English being the term used to describe the people of England which includes Celts, Angles, Saxons, Normans, and many others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WyrmUK (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong title included.

In the article, the reference to J.K Rowlings first book in the Harry Potter series is improperly titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". Could someone please correct it to read "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone".

Biggardener (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was only called that in the States because the concept of the Philosopher's Stone was regarded as a wee bit too difficult for the Americans.Janeinhouse (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image suggestion

I found this image on commons and thought that it was good enough to merit inclusion in this article, but I don't want to disrupt the article's organisation. Could a resident author include it? Dhatfield (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Other notes on dragons

Dragons in general have become symbols of great power. Modern dragons are typically much larger than humans, fly, and have somekind of breath weapon. These three attributes are closely aligned with maleness, interestingly the first dragon mentioned was the Bablonian Bahemut said to be the mother, not father, of all evil. Bahemut was slain and her corpse became the world.

Magic: the Gathering (CCG), Talisman (board game), as well as Dungeons and Dragons (Roleplaying game) portray dragons as a great and brutal power although some do possess some intellectual-based power. Dragons are associated with rage and single-minded destruction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Teslon (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oriental dragons do not have wings for the fact that they fly via magic. Oriental dragons also gave the chinese their number system from the symbols on their back.

It is also said that the organs of dragons are usefull. Such as the heart that, once eaten can enable you to talk to animals. And the teeth that if you spread them out on the grond an army of skeletons or an army of some sort will arise and will obey youre every command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawk guy8 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In Babylonian mythology, it's Tiamat, not Bahamut. And she was distinctly female. 75.35.115.198 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Real Dragons

The name dragon is often given to animals. These animals bare no genetic relationship to each other, they just have some trait that makes them look like dragons. Some are listed below:

Lizards

Komodo Dragons, Dragon lizards

Snakes

Chinese water dragon, Australian water dragon

Fish

Leafy sea dragon, Weedy sea dragon, Dragonfish

Insects

Dragonfly

But komodo dragons are supposed to be evolved from dragons. And they do bare genetic relationships to dragons. The poison that is secreted from their mouths helps them to track their prey. They are the most similar in aspects of genetics, apart from the wings ofcourse. Assyria hightower (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cham dragon

Why is the makara listed as a "Cham dragon"? First of all the makara isn't a dragon either in appearance or concept. It's a hybrid creature from Hindu mythology and the Hindu dragon is called a naga. Which brings me to the next point being that makara are not unique to the Chams at all. Being of Hindu origin, the makara comes from India and is the vahana of the god Varuna. Not just Chams but all Hindus believed in the makara legend.He believes that Dragons where once walking around, where we stand today and there are still some roaming around today."We just don't see them."He said. Morinae (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing symbols

I miss some other symbolic meaning of the dragon, such as "earth spirit" (especially in Asian mythology) and the phallic explanations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.125.137 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Types of Dragons

I noticed that the table including the different dragon types across the globe has at least one error: Siberian Dragons isn't in the normal scheme but instead, is sticking off to the side and filling in three columns not existant on any other rows within the table. JourneyV (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Formatting error. It's been fixed. Arsonal (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Dragon

I entered the Albanian Dragon as it was missing from the table.The Albanian dragon(dragua) is mentioned in the "Tales of LLogora".It is described as an animal many times bigger than the horse and with strange powers,different than other animals.It cannot be killed by humans and the only one to kill that is the spirit of the forest (Oret).Humans cannot see that unless it unveils itself.It can live up to 100 years but not longer than that.It has a horn and big ears while his eyes are very powerful.It can see much more than the eagle does and he is more clever than a crow or the oldest wolf of the forest.It speaks in the human language.This is a short description I found in hte book overview.User:Nicholson1989 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC). I do not get this place? can u help me pepole

Zmey Gorynych has three heads, but the picture shows at least four

The article reads "Zmey Gorynych, the dragon of the Slavic mythology. Its name is translated as "Snake son-of-mountain", it has three heads, wings, and it spits fire (20th century painting)." But the painting there shows at least four clearly recognizable heads, and a few other bits which might be heads also. I thought that a bit odd. Dream Focus (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an authority on dragons, but I am a Hungarian, and our folk-tails have a large ammount of slavic influence... In Hungarian folk-tails dragons have seven heads, and I've never heared them mentioned with any less... Szekely janos (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mirrors

The note by 24.117.49.103 that dragons always hate mirrors begs citation (diff here[1]). Ghits show it's a feature of video game story so maybe it should be put that way and located differently? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dragons always hate mirrors"? Why has this not been cut entirely? 82.35.56.65 (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Dragons

Is it too naive to consider the possibility that the mythology of Dragons began with early discoveries of dinosaur bones? Dinosaur bones can be found in many places around the world, and are impressive enough that no culture would be able to ignore them. Some prehistoric Asian, European, Greek, or whomever is looking for food in the mountains, rock slide, big dinosaur skull peeks out at him. Guy freaks out, runs back to his village, tells the story, and the mythology of giant lizards is born. Myth gets expanded on over time because giant lizards obviously capture the human imagination quite well. Seems like a good Occam's Razor argument to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.221.174 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't use Occam's Razor in an article, we'd need a good source. And we in fact have a very good one and I keep meaning to use it, Adrienne Mayor, who has written a whole book on it. See this for a flavour of what she says: [2] dougweller (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Babylon dragons

There are many Dragons in the ishtar gate which was constructed in about 575 BC by order of King Nebuchadnezzar II on the north side of the Babylon city.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Pergamonmuseum_Ishtartor_02.jpg/800px-Pergamonmuseum_Ishtartor_02.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayad71 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly a horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.121.125 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course. All horses have scales, forked tongues and clawed feet. It's so obvious. 68.205.68.57 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction to Biblical Translation

I speak fluent Hebrew, and the translation in both Isiah and Job refer to the sperpent not as a flying one, but as a serpent. And in Genesis, Chapter 1, Verse 22, G-d creates "sea monsters", meaning all animals that live in the water, not any type of mythical beast.--ARDelaney (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Koi fish turn into dragons.

I have recently heard that in Japanese mythology the dragon comes from the Koi fish. Hence their similarities with the wiskers and whatnot. In order to accomplish this the Koi fish has to swim up a certain waterfall at a ertain point in time in order to accomplish "Dragonhood." Based on this, people say Koi fish sybolize pushing forward in life. Or trying to acheivesomething, and even perseverance. Also from this it is said that Dragons symbolize an acheived level of maturity, accomplishment and wisdom. If anyone has further information on this please add it to the wikipedia page under "Dragons." Or simply reply. THX —Preceding unsigned comment added by JONQUINTANA (talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a start here on google[3] and the story ranges from 360 carp who tried and one who made it at the Dragon Gate, from all Koi having special qualities of character. Don't have tiime to pursue it, but you can improve the article if the references are more than a blog (unless the blog gives great references). :) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reality of dragons.

The article discusses dragons as being purely mythological, yet in Europe until early modern times dragons were regarded as real creatures,on the basis of many supposedly dependable accounts. The guy who ultimately killed off dragons was Linnaeus in the 18th century, with his ambitious project of cataloging all living things: when his collectors spread out all over the world and came back with samples, skins etc., their findings did not include any dragons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.208 (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rahab link points to incorrect page

In section 2.7 (last sentence) the link is meant to point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahab_(demon) but instead it currently points to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahab. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.58.26 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

American (Pre-Columbian) Dragons

This should include "american" dragons, such as Pre-Columbian's Quetzalcoatl or Ojibwe's Mishipizheu, both of which—although considered deities—are "mythological" beasts (Feathered serpent and Underwater panther, respectively). Barroba (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Chinese dragons can also develop wings over a life span of 3,500 years.

That sounds quite out of context? --Echosmoke (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed it, next time feel free to remove something like that yourself, but thanks for the tip. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Drakes

• And Dragons are two different things. I'd fix it myself but I do not know how to undo a redirect.

MacGvyer (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Drake" is another word for "Dragon". Just because some fantasy series and the like use the two words for different things, doesn't change the meaning of either word. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• To most people, at least here in England, "drake" first means an adult male duck. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, yeah, of course; but this new editor was trying to create a distinction between the dragon and other mythological wyrms called drakes, apparently based on a gaming system or fantasy universe where such a distinction is made. Given that these are just two Englishings of the Latin draco, I was not supportive. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Indian Dragon?

Naga is not indian version of dragon - atleast not considered so, unless one generalizes the features of a dragon try to fit in the available figures which is not a good idea since it just considers the characteristics but not the legend/mythology associated. In hindu religion many animals are given human form - garuda, narasimha, varaha, kurma, matsya and lot more!! Naga is one such - snake+human. Also Adi-shesha is a snake(cobra) god.

However, I have seen various statues in many temples that has more features of a dragon. Though I don't know what they are called, I wonder if naga can be catogorised as dragon. Naga is a human form of snake (and name of the snake god sometimes). The meaning of Naga is well understood by everyone in india (In few languages it's synonymous to snake. Many indians are named Naga or names prefixed with Naga - nagamani, nagashree, nagaraj, et.al . In tamil language, "nagam" means cobra. in kannada it's nagara haavu) . I think it is not appropriate to call Naga a dragon.

There are definitely many other hindu mythological creatures which resemble dragon more than a "cobra" does!! Also please check Naja

--VP (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time this problem has been mentioned; see the topic headers above this at Talk:Dragon#Naga and Talk:Dragon#Ground-up rewrite?. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Orange Mike. I just wanted to make a clear statement and let people object before I make changes. Also I think many refer to Naga as a serpent since it's used in such contexts in many western stories and comic books and movies... Nagini in harry potter for example (while Nagini in indian tradition is the female counterpart of Naga. Also it's common to see people named after Nagini). I just wanted to clarify the original usage of this term. --VP (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Origin and etymology

I guess I'm not awesome enough to change it, but you should really delete the info about Proto-Indo-European root for 'dragon.' Historical linguistics is suspect at best, and citing it as fact detracts enough from the article's credibility that I gonked, reset my password since I never edit Wikipedia, and came here. --Dietcoupon (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Should "Origin and etymology" and "Overview" articles be merged?Babassu (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Serpents are generally considered reptiles. The first sentence, "A dragon is a legendary creature, typically with serpentine or reptilian traits, that feature in the myths of many cultures." could be reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.173.27 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Babylonian and Canaanite dragons? Dragons are found on the Ishtar gate of Babylon. John D. Croft (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"A dragon-like creature(also known as a Cleo and Ouiser) with two front legs is known to ordinary humans as a dog." This can be misleading. Although there may be some images with no front legs, the predominent image of a wyvern is of a creature with a dragon's body (including front legs) and a serpent's tail. --Herneshound (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• That depends on whether you say that a wyvern is missing its front legs or missing its back legs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Two Legs or four

Following discovery of how pterosaurs walked on the ground, some dragons have been portrayed without front legs and using the wings as front legs pterosaur-fashion when on the ground, as in the movie Reign of Fire."

'Saint George and the Dragon' painted about 1470, by Paolo Uccello features a two-legged dragon long before pterosaurs were known about. Link to British National Gallery.

Suggest this should simply therefore read:

Some dragons have been portrayed without front legs, some using the wings as front legs pterosaur-fashion when on the ground, as in the movie Reign of Fire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.237.236 (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

St George pierces a two-legged dragon in the head with his lance while an anorexic Maid stands helpless.--Felix folio secundus 23:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• But were 2-legged dragons shown or described as using their wings as front legs before pterosaurs were discovered? (2-legged dragons were correctly called wyverns.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

European dragons has a long history of depiction. Ancient Greek paintings show a "bearded snake". The Roman dragon too was snakelike, with no limbs. Early medieval dragons often had wings, but no legs (a "wyrm", or front legs only. In the early Renaissance dragons was usually given four legs as well as wings. Modern depictions, drawing freely from all historical sources, vari quite a bit. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It should also be acknowledged that many medieval bestiaries depicted dragons (and wyverns) with feathered wings like birds. The sweeping statement to the effect that "all medieval dragons have bat-like wings" is inaccurate. 71.200.140.13 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There were several species of dragon some of which had 2 legs (wyverns) asn some had 4. Thus Spake Lee Tru. 15:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that dragons have 4 legs plus the two wings, two legs plus wings makes the said creature a wyvern, this is matter of fact in modern day nomenclature, and this is easily forgotten. In ancient days those boundaries aren't set in stone, and often those definitions vary throughout the ages. Source: oxford dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC) ] But there may be one salution to this problem ... maybe some dragons walked on two and some deferent dragon breeds might have walked on four.

Where the Myth of Dragons Came from According to the History Channel

According to the History Channel, it happened like this.

Since our Australopithecine ancestors were about half our size, it was that much easier for crocodiles or anacondas to eat them. Back then, there were also hawk-like birds large enough to carry away an animal half what is now the size of a human.

As cultural memories of these predators passed from Australopithecines to humans, they melted together over the millions of years. This resulted in a mythical animal with the head of a crocodile, the neck of a snake, and the wings and claws of a large predatory bird. (If the History Channel holds any water at all, this makes dragons by far the oldest mythical monsters.) Since they were combined in the mind to be perfect predators, dragons are large enough to swallow humans whole, and in a fair number of stories that include them as characters, they do so.

As humans spread from Africa to inhabit most of the world, it came to pass that basically every culture has some type of dragon in its mythology.

I say we should include this tale in a section on "Origins of the myth." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, to say the least. Sounds like mere television twit speculation, of the unsupported kind whose peer or better will be found among any batch of college freshmen in late-night dorm gabfests. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it not a reliable source, the science behind this is a bit shaky. Th eterm "genetic memory" is entirely unscientific. One might argue for instincts, but for instance the "giant hawk" mentioned lived in Argentina, and would not have bothered Australopithecus. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dragons of Probability

Do we really need this section. It seems to be a rant about a certain book rather than any true scientific research. It does seem to strech completley off topic similar to having an entire section devoted to a dragon such as Smaug. It really adds little to the article and even if we wanted to keep it in could be made not into an entire section but a couple sentences claiming that in some books Dragons are statistical creature that live outside of reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.69.184 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe merge it or reduce it?173.8.11.157 (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unicode pictographs

When 6.0 goes final, we might want to mention 🐉 and 🐲. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unicode Version 6.1 is now final, let alone 6.0, so feel free to show us what you were talking about there. :-) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

'May' have separate origins?

"The two traditions may have evolved separately" -- as far as I know there is no serious doubt that they did evolve entirely independently. 165.91.166.236 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dragons in the Bible

References to Dragons appears at least 34 times in the Bible: Job 40 thru 41 Jeremiah 51:37 Job 30:29 Revelation 12:7 Deuteronomy 32:33 Psalm 148:7 Malahi 1:3 Revelation 20:2 Psalm 44:19 Psalm 74:13 Psalm 91:13 Isaiah 13:22 Isaiah 34:13 Isaiah 35:7 Isaiah 43:20 Jeremiah 9:11 Jeremiah 10:22 Jeremiah 14:6 Jeremiah 49:33 Micah 1:8 Revelation 12:3 Revelation 12:13 Revelation 12:16 Revelation 12:17 Revelation 13:4 Revelation 13:11 Revelation 16:13 Nehemiah 2:13 Isaiah 27:1 Isaiah 51:9 Revelation 12:4 Revelation 12:9 Revelation 13:2 Jeremiah 51:34 Ezekiel 29:3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.210.151 (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the English word "dinosaur" was not coined until 1842 which was after the major translation of the Bible into English. Prior to 1842 the word "dragon" used instead of "dinosaur". Therefore, the use of the word "dragon" in the Bible should not be used to authenticate dragons as being something distinct from dinosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But there is no reason to believe any of these are dinosaurs. For one thing, NO ONE in Biblical times would use any of the words translated dragon (tanniyn, drakon) to mean the dinosaur-like winged quadruped we mean by 'dragon'; that image/concept did not exist until the Middle Ages, and even then the 'dragon = huge snake' identification was more common for most of the Middle Ages [and anyway its resemblance to real dinosaurs is superficial - having six limbs!]. More specifically: OT tanniyn is very vague, it can be sea monster (in the older sense of 'any big sea creature', not necessarily an unknown creature or freak -- whales etc. would be included), serpent (or 'dragon' in the ancient sense of 'huge serpent') etc. -- some translations even say 'jackals' or 'wild beasts'. NT drakon, as in Revelation is more specific -- but does not include anything dinosaur-like in antiquity; drakon (as Latin draco) is a huge snake, serpent. Furthermore, the Revelation dragon (a) has seven heads, unlike any dinosaur (or any other animal!); and (b) anyway is explicitly identified as "the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan" (Rev 20:2, NIV) -- not a dinosaur. Revelation is vague enough without discarding the few explicit identifications we get! Vultur (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 05:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah well how can you prove that the dragon portrayed in revelation as the "devil/satan" is not like the greek hydra and how are you so sure that the biblical word drakon can not be interpreted Dragon! Nordikrage (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it IS 'like the Greek hydra' in that it's a many-headed serpent, I suppose; but it's explicitly Satan.

How can I be sure that drakon can't mean dragon (in the modern sense)? Because that concept didn't exist until the later Middle Ages. There's a definite relationship between the ancient classical drakones and the modern dragon, however. Vultur (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Traditional mainstream explanation"?

"The traditional mainstream explanation to the folklore dragons does however not rely on human instinct, but on the assumption that fossil remains of dinosaurs gave rise to similar speculations all over the world." Is this REALLY the mainstream explanation? It is certainly not the explanation shown by evidence. The European dragon tradition originated with mythified snakes/serpents -- in classical times drakon (Greek) and draco (Latin) mean primarily 'huge snake' and are not necessarily mythic -- a python or other big constrictor for example would have been called drakon or draco. In classical Greek/Roman myth 'dragons' might have wings or multiple heads, but remained essentially serpents though winged (or multi-headed). The modern four legs/wings/bulky body dragon appears to have developed largely in art and heraldry, possibly through conflation with Chimera and griffins, and quite late. (Medieval bestiarists' tendency to 'decorate' snakes with legs and wings may play a part too -- in a 12th century bestiary translated by T. H. White the 'dragon' is described in the text as an enormous constricting snake, but in the art unaccountably has wings and legs; many of the snakes in the book have got wings in the pictures, though this is not suggested in the text!)Vultur (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bluntguy1234, 23 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to edit the section "Modern Depictions". There needs to be at least a sentence about "How To Train Your Dragon" by Cressidia Cowell and the film adaption.

-Request from Bluntguy 1234.

We also should have something about Eragon and eldest and brsinger Nordikrage (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluntguy1234 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: sorry, that whole section looks like a repository for useless junk right now. Adding another unsourced item that happens to have a dragon in it won't help. — Bility (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 27 April 2011

The topic header "Creationists' assertions" ought to be properly capitalized (if not rebranded entirely). The title itself carries a negative connotation, pairing this with poor grammar may fuel an otherwise unnecessary irritant.

75.121.255.87 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks, but as described in this section of Wikipedia's manual of style, Wikipedia uses sentence case for article and section titles. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 10 July 2012

There is a contradiction in the "Animals that may have inspired dragons" section of this article. In the first paragraph is stated "... or the 4 tonne monitor lizard Varanus priscus (formerly Megalania prisca) a giant carnivorous goanna that might have grown to 7 metres, and weighed up to 1,940 kilograms ..." which states the weight as both 4 tonne and up to 1940 kilograms. The megalania page states that there is controversy about the actual weight of the lizard, but gives no examples over 1940 kilograms.

Done

Christianity

I think there should be a section on dragons in Christianity. The European dragons overlap a bit, with the dragon and St. George and the dragon and St. Margaret the Virgin.. but dragons are also mentioned many times in the Bible.. They can be found in Daniel (Bel and the Dragon), Esther (Mordecai's Dream), Job, Revelation, Genesis, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Nehemiah, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Malachi, and Micah. Sometimes the dragon is used to describe Satan, but other times it is reffering to a type on animal or beast. Should there be a section included? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove "The Hobbit" spoiler

Yes, I know spoilers are allowed, but I believe the emphasized sentence in the following excerpt serves no encyclopedic purpose in this article:

In the 1937 fantasy novel The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien, the major antagonist is a dragon named Smaug. Smaug hoards a great treasure but is ultimately shot down with an arrow by an archer who was told about a soft patch in Smaug's underbelly armor.

I would like to remove it. Are there any objections? — Itai (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article - I hope no one objects. — Itai (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerical error

clerical error, general: no reference to Native American dragons, seem to have been completely overlooked. Would like to see a more comprehensive overview of such, as related and opposed to european and/or asian dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.65.174 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "dragon" is European in origin and meaning. Any effort to bring Native American creatures such as the Uktena under this article would constitute a pretty blatant bit of cultural misappropriation. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

nile crocodiles was...

for some reason I can't edit this, but I feel the need to ask somebody to please correct that part, it should read "Nile crocodiles, today very restricted in range, were in ancient times occasionally found in Southern Europe..." thanks. I hope I don't come off as annoying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.200.37.126 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Not at all annoying, cheers, Cold Season (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Christian mythology"

That's actually quite offensive and the term (mythology) should be expunged. It says, "The Chaoskampf motif entered Greek mythology and ultimately Christian mythology". There is no such thing as Christian mythology. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 05:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is, why else would we have the article Christian mythology? Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Christians do, in fact have mythology. Myths are simply moral stories that are not necessarily based on any actual event in history, which is mostly what Christian stories are centered around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may, it is fun to see how christians dismiss greek mitology without problems of sort. And to quote the few lines above mine this is quite ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Toy dragons.jpg listed for deletion

File:Toy dragons.jpg has been listed for deletion on Commons, where the file is hosted/ You can view the rationale for deletion and comment/discuss on the nomination page, which you can find here. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dragons in Modern Mediums

I looked, but could not find anything directly addressing this with appropriate detail; if I missed it, I apologize. Is there a reason that things like Dragons in Video Games don't exist on the page? If its too long, would a link to a properly sourced wiki page specifically about those dragons be more appropriate? Its a pretty big chunk of information to leave out, but if theres already been reasons for this omission, that's fine. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's not talked about meaningfully in reliable sources, by definition it has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Toy dragons.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Toy dragons.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge-in of Javanese Dragon

Y'all want this? =)

Spotted the above article on New Pages Patrol a little bit ago. Not worded well (I'm lead to believe that the author doesn't speak English all that well), but as they say elsewhere on the internet, "seems legit". This aside, there isn't much info for a separate article at this point in time.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

etymology

I lost count while reading this article of the number of times it asserts that the word dragon derives from a Greek verb for seeing clearly. To me this appears to be someone's personal WP:fringe theory? This impression is strengthened by the way that the article contains numerous off-hand attempts to explain why there would be such a connection. I note that the first mention of the theory does give a source, an ancient Greek dictionary, but the source does not mention this theory. I suggest that at the very least, most mentions of this theory should be removed, and if no source can be found, all mentions should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Name connections - please add

It's important to add, for e.g. after "as in the other Slavic folklores, a dragon is also called smok (смок, цмок, smok)", something like this: "Smok name in opposition to dragon is not from "drag", ancient Greece original drakon "sharp-eyed" or connection with the snake(Nordic Wyrm, Orm, Eastern змей), but it is quite unique creation on the former and current Polish grounds(e.g. Belarus was a part of Poland&Lithuania in the past) "to swallow" (unused too much in Polish "smoktnąć", or currently in little other meaning "cmoknąć").

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Vacation^nine 03:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Slavic цмок

... romanizes to English as tsmok, not smok. 83.253.228.202 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The article text lists cmok, цmok and smok as Slavic variant forms. It does not state цmok = smok. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but all but that – and Wikipedia is for ordinary readers, not semantic hairsplitters. The sentence as it stands right now: "Exclusively in Polish and Belarusian folklore, as well as in the other Slavic folklores, a dragon is also called smok (смок, цмок, smok)." 83.253.228.202 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I reworded the sentence slightly to put them all on equal footing and clarify that these are all variant Slavic forms. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 10:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Christianity - Bel and the Dragon

In Bel and the Dragon, it is said that Babylonians worshiped the dragon. It is an Apocryphal book, so would it fall under the sub-section of Christian Mythology, or be provided its own section? Twillisjr (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed, under animals that may have inspired dragons

This sentence in particular, third paragraph: "Other authors have suggested that especially under the influence of drugs or in dreams, this instinct may give rise to fantasies about dragons, snakes, spiders, etc., which would explain why these symbols are popular in drug culture." 50.113.13.118 (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mythological?

Should dragons really be listed as mythological? Many types of living reptiles are called dragons, such as the Komodo Dragon, the Bearded Dragon, and the Flying Dragon. In my opinion, dragons are real, just not the ones we usually imagine when we hear the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the actual winged dragons of the Draco (genus) a.k.a. Flying Dragons. Basilisk is also real, called the Jesus Christ lizard cause it runs on water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.114.222 (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to throw the other side of the coin out there for this one. The article is about the mythical/legendary dragon - so while the naming conventions are similar, as near as I can tell, the reptiles you mentioned were so named after this particular creature due to resemblance. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This is like pygmy vs. pygmy, or python vs. python. The reptiles are named after the mythological creature. This doesn't make the original template any less mythological. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dragons as intended in this article are mithological creatures, your opinion has some funaments of truth, but here we are talking about mithogical dragons, by no means a komodo dragon can be seen as a dragon of european folklore, those are simply different things, and no personal opinion can change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Starting Pictures?

The first picture people see for this article just looks like a mass of curly metal. The second picture people see is of a Mesoamerican plumed serpent, which is like a dragon, but not a dragon.

Really? There are really no better pictures to open an article on dragons than curly metal and not-dragons?

Here's a good one, on the Dragon (zodiac) page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_dragon,_Chinese_school,_19th_Century.jpg . It's way better than what we have right now. If the page weren't locked I'd edit it in myself. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No file by this name exists. New worl (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the metal sign represents a wyvern, it isn't a dragon in modern definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibility of fire-breathing creatures living during the Cretaceous

um? I don't think this is what talk pages are for (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 00:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have found this impressively coherent explanation for fire-breathing reptiles. Maybe we can include it in the page as one particularly believable theory: Roughly 160 million years ago, one group of tree-dwelling proto-Daemovesperans inhabiting the tropical islands of what would eventually become Europe, developed the fire-breathing trait. It began when this lineage evolved a symbiotic relationship with several species of bacteria in their gut. This relationship first developed due to the selective pressures associated with eating heavily armored tree-dwelling reptiles. There were many species of thickly armored, arboreal lizards that made their residence in the pre-European island chain. The plates on the outsides of these creatures were too tough to digest for the early dragons, but since the armored animals were plentiful, any creature that could successfully eat them would have a significant evolutionary edge. So, it was a mutant offshoot of the tree-dragon line that had a close association with bacteria in a special pouch at the front of its digestive tract that received this boost. The bacteria produced sulfuric acid, which, combined with the specially adapted stomach lining of the dragon, made digestion of these armored reptiles possible. Over time, it was this subgroup that supplanted the rest of their relatives on the islands. One by-product of this symbiotic relationship was the production of hydrogen gas as waste. For millions of years, it was likely belched out harmlessly throughout the day. However, one group that began deviating away from the exclusive diet of tough, plated reptiles began co-opting this special waste product for its own use. Many species in this particular group were very small, gracile creatures, and were often food for their larger relatives. As a means of deterring and startling predators, they evolved a reinforced sac (evidenced in the fossil record by ossified struts extending from neck vertebrae) from the bacterial pouch that connected to the esophagus via a stout valve. This organ, housing the precious bacterial culture, produced and housed large amounts of pressurized hydrogen gas, which would be rapidly expelled from the mouth in the event of a threat. This giant, deafening burp, possibly combined with brightly-colored skin flaps around the mouth, was usually enough to confuse a predator long enough for the attacked to escape. It wasn’t long for subgroups of this ‘gas dragon’ group to start using the hydrogen organ (also known as a ‘tank’) in creative ways. The most important development came in the ingestion of inorganic platinum from cliff-side rocks which were chewed up and swallowed. We can see this in the fossil record through the presence of platinum-rich deposits in the skulls of these animals, as well as tough, wear-resistant teeth, often also capped with platinum deposits. The combination of the sulfuric acid from the tank, and the hydrochloric acid in the stomach, gave the digestive system of dragons an enhanced punch; the combination of these acids, a mild form of ‘aqua regia’, was capable of dissolving many types of metals, including gold and platinum. This metallic platinum was distilled in the gut from chewed up rocks, and incorporated into an ossified sheath surrounding cartilaginous projections off the back of the mandible. These projections, capped with a bony shell, were formerly used in communication in more social, intelligent species; screeching or roaring could accidentally expel precious hydrogen, but the clicking of the ‘clackers’ in the back of the throat could be used as vocal communication quite easily. When a platinum layer was infused on the surface of these clackers, they could be rubbed together with great force, and the friction could produce a spark. In the presence of a jet of hydrogen gas expelled from the tank, that spark, catalyzed by platinum and hydrogen’s special chemical relationship, would produce a hot flame plume, the mechanism working similarly to a flint lighter and a Bunsen burner. This new tool was incredibly useful for defense against larger tree-dragons, as well as for sniping and roasting animals from across the tree branches (which also incidentally caused wide-spread forest fires; it is thought that the evolution of fire-breathing dragons served as one of the first selective pressures for fire-adapted vegetation). As fire-breathing dragons rose in dominance, and other tree dragons went extinct, the islands of Europe began coalescing, and these animals started diversifying as their environments changed from coastal forest, to variable landscapes of mountains and deserts. Many of the species that congregated around exposed cliffs to ingest platinum began to fit into an even more intense climbing lifestyle, and never left the sides of the cliffs. Some are thought to have even evolved large bits of webbed skin that stretched between their front limbs and their flanks. This would have allowed them to effortlessly glide on the wind between cliffs. Over millions of years, in some lineages, this transitioned into full-sized wings developed from the front limbs. By the start of the Cretaceous, the face of the dragon was one with powered flight and the ability to scorch the earth at will. For the next 80 million years, dragons proliferated as they filled the skies and left their forming European subcontinent, spreading to almost every corner of the globe. They grew in size, and their tank organs became even more specialized and hardy, increasing in size to fill the entire gullet of these animals. Because of this expansion of the hydrogen tank, dragons became especially vulnerable to lightning strike; a bolt of lightning to hit a dragon would invariably kill it, as the hydrogen tank would ignite and the beast would explode in a fiery ball of intestines and bone. Dragons openly competed with many of the now highly-specialized dinosaur groups, and some were even large enough to hunt and kill various dinosaurian species. They became the largest animals of the skies, and over tens of millions of years, dramatically reduced the diversity of the pterosaurs sharing the skies with them. Sdelandtsheer (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC) dragons are actually real and are found in the most remote places of the world, places not yet dicovered by man. Do you believe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.33.228 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC) References

Dragons in India

There is a dragon called Shaleda in Indian mythology. It says that people who buried tons of treasure, they do not donate even when they are very old. Those people become a shaleda after their death. A shaleda is a cobra with a human head. But while the dragon attacks its head turns into a cobra head. It is said to be very poisonous. It can poison though bite or by sending poison gas in the air. It's poison kills at night. It's brain is like a human brain. They can turn into gold and back into their real body.

It is said to have been encountered by treasure hunters in a village. They saw tons of gold and notes but when they touched it many shaledas appeared and bit them. They all died at night.

It is also said that in a treasure chamber in a temple there are shaledas who send poison gas in the air when anyone enter it.

Shaleda is said to be a pure veg creature. And it likes milk a lot.

Shaleda and all cobras are respected by the people and they call them "Mayadhari Baba".

One another Indian dragon is a cobra with multiple heads.

Please consider adding the following: In South Indian temples, sculptures of Yazhi, a mythical animal which resembles dragons are commonly seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.93.160.20 (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Real Creatures on Which Mythology is Based

Although it is probably true that dragons have been "embellished" over the years, there is no concrete reason to believe that they are primarily mythological. "Dragon" and "dinosaur" were initially interchangeable terms. Pages like this one: have done an excellent job of summarizing some of the many real-life records of reptilian creatures known as "dragons" and described in terms that sound remarkably like accepted dinosaur species. (I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so not certain how best to go about finding the direct references found on pages such as that one.) So does .

Stating that "dragons are mythological creatures" and offering only examples such as crocodiles as indications of where the myths might have been derived makes the page far less neutral than it could be/should be, in my opinion. Information regarding other "dragon sightings" - which are more abundant, and more recent, even, than most people realize - would enable the page to be more balanced. A2jc4life (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Neither Cooper nor Genesis Park is a reliable source. They hold to extreme fringe theories which have no place in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference for morphology distinction between a dragon and a wyvern

Is there some reference concerning the differing morphology (1 pair of legs vs 2 pairs of legs) between dragons and wyverns ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.186.209 (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Indented line It's a fantasy staple stemming from Dungeons and Dragons, but it doesn't belong in this article. All sorts of creatures have been described as "dragon". --145.53.119.228 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Those clear definitions appear only in relatively modern days, in ancient times those boundaries weren't set in stone, and they varied much throughout the ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Dragon blood in beowulf is not acidic

From the article, the following is uncited: "The blood of the dragon in Beowulf has acidic qualities, allowing it to seep through iron."

It is uncited for good reason: The dragon's blood is not acidic in Beowulf. He breathed fire and had a venomous bite, but it was the fire that melted Beowulf's weapon. The dragon is describe as an attor-sceatha (Klaeber ed line 2839 "venomous enemy")--literal trans a "snake-scather." It is very much a serpent, a big snake that also breathed fire.

The original author perhaps mistook this scene with the one with Grendel's mother. In this scene, his original sword cannot pierce her skin, so he relies on a runed sword. After killing her with this weapon and beheading her, the sword melts from her blood--though our modern concept of "acid" is relatively new, it is the heat of her blood that does this (chickering trans. line 1615 "Already the sword had melted away / its blade had burned up; too hot the blood / of the poisonous spirit who had died within"). Note that it is her spirit that is poisonous (aettren ellor-gast "poisonous alien-spirit")

Grendel and her mother are not dragons, but descendants of Cain and human (or humanoid). The contrast is likely intentional but up to debate: Grendel and his mother are inherently evil creatures, but the dragon is more animalistic and destructive.

Either way, the dragon's blood is not acidic. It is his bite that is toxic, not his blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.60.199 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014

Please remove the image of the mosaic which has the caption, "Ancient Greek mosaic from Caulonia, Italy." It's not a dragon, and was never called by a dragon by the ancients (to my knowledge). It's called a Cetus.

Another request is regarding the following text from the article:

In 217 AD, Flavius Philostratus (Greek: Φλάβιος Φιλόστρατος)[5] discussed dragons (δράκων, drákōn) in India in The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (II,17 and III,6–8). The Loeb Classical Library translation (by F.C. Conybeare) mentions (III,7) that "In most respects the tusks resemble the largest swine's, but they are slighter in build and twisted, and have a point as unabraded as sharks' teeth."

Whoever wrote this wrongly interpreted Flavius' words as describing the tusks of a dragon, but in reality, a careful reading of the text makes it obvious that the tusks being described are those of the elephant (Duh!). For example, the text is describing a fight between a dragon and an elephant, and says that the tusks are like those of a boar. Obviously referring to the elephant's tusks... GarretKadeDupre (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Partly done: I clarified the caption to indicate the mosaic refers to a cetus, but according to my research a cetus is considered a type of dragon—specifically a sea-dragon.

As for the reference to tusks, the translation of The Life of Apollonius which I read suggests that Philostratus was indeed referring to dragon tusks rather than elephant tusks. The full passage is as follows:

And the dragons along the foothills and the mountain crests make their way into the plains after their quarry, and get the better all round of those in the marshes; for indeed they reach a greater length, and move faster than the swiftest rivers, so that nothing escapes them. These actually have a crest, of moderate extent and height when they are young; but as they reach their full size, it grows with them and extends to a considerable height, at which time also they turn red and get serrated backs. This kind also have beards, and lift their necks on high, while their scales glitter like silver; and the pupils of their eyes consist of a fiery stone, and they say that this has an uncanny power for many secret purposes. The plain specimen falls the prize of the hunters whenever it draws into its folds an elephant; for the destruction of both creatures is the result, and those who capture the dragons are rewarded by getting the eyes and skin and teeth. In most respects the tusks resemble the largest swine's, but they are slighter in build and twisted, and have a point as unabraded as sharks' teeth.

References

Philosophy, Occultism, & Metaphorical Interpretations

There are plenty of references to dragons in mythology, but why not in philosophical or sociological terms to draw correlations? I'm sure there are references out there that attempt to do this.

From my own observation & opinion, it seems that in the West, we value Dragon-Slayers & Individualism, with a tendency to promote Linear Structure in basically all the pillars of civilization. Whereas in the East, they value Dragons & Collectivism, with a tendency to promote Circular Structure in all their pillars of civilization.

Why is it that no one even begins to mention the context in which people are caused to believe in the reality of dragons & dragon-slaying?

My take is that Dragon-Slaying is akin to a Linear-Minimalist perspective & Rationalism (to ration out thought & processes), which is the basis for the Scientific Method.

Dragons & their "Lords" on the other-hand seem to represent these ultimate entities of deception, domination, & destruction, which do so by confusing, ensnaring & devouring their prey...sortof like meglo-maniac authority figures.

Does anyone even remotely see what I am seeing??? I'm not necessarily anti-religion...since it justifies the existence of mythology/scriptures. Also, science & politics themselves have their own dragons...so to speak.

71.35.223.41 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)