Talk:Dragon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Bold textAs with all Talk pages, please add new discussions to the end and use a header with "==" "==". This will cause it to automatically appear in the table of contents.
[edit] Smaug stolen from Smok
Anyone else think Tolkien used the Polish dragon for the basis of his dragon?
-G
[edit] Vandalism
There has been some vandalism here, I don't know how to revert so I'm just gonna delete the vandalism and someone else can fix it. :) 68.207.168.171 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT: It was fixed while I typed that up. Holy...
[edit] History of Dragon mythology
I think there needs to be more on the history of dragon mythology, and theories as to why legonds of dragons have existed for so long in so many different parts of the world. One theory I've heard is that they may be the result of an instinctive fear of large reptiles that all mammals (including humans) have - dating back to the age of the dinosaurs...
Also, I think the dragon article should be significant enough in its own right that it shouldn't have to share a page with the disambig page.
--Blackcats 07:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Anne Mccaffery wrote Dragonriders of Pern, and I for one believe that it is possible that a dragon could exsist. It is not a coincedence that the nations of the world ALL have tales of dragons. The "neo-dragon" earlier is an Aztec god.
- It is indeed a coincidence. The dragons of different parts of the world a almost completely different. While what Blackcats heard is a possibility, it is extremely unlikely. And that would explain while all dragons are monstrous and evil, if indeed they were. Chinese dragons, while they are symbols of China's imperialism and hypocrisy, were generally seen as good, as was the Plumed Serpent of Aztec mythology. Dragons are present in almost all mythologies because almost everyone has known about the existence of snakes and been fascinated by them, but the Europeans were about the only ones that saw them as evil.elvenscout742 08:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Check out Dragons on the Web: Are Dragons Real? for some explanations for that phenomenon. Lectiodifficilior
I have added a further reading section. This book by Dr. Karl Shuker has many stories and examples of dragons in mythology around the world and touches briefly on the history of dragons in reality. It is very informative for those who are interested in mythology. Infoterra 11:16, May 31, 2005 (EDT)
- Actually, I would have to say that it's not really all that informative for people interested in mythology. It's main goal seems to be to try to drag up pseudo-scientific cryptozoological claims about "real" dragons. It's not very reliable at all. DreamGuy 08:19, August 2, 2005 (utc)
-
- There is an interesting explanation of dragons as composite creatures representing Nature or "The Other" in story form. The battle between the hero and the dragon thus represents the battle between Chaos versus Order, with the emergence of divine kingship and a patriarchal pantheon. There is also the suggestion that serpentine Drako were originally the guardians of granaries before the domestication of the cat.
-
- John D. Croft 05:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
In russian wikipedia there is interesting hypothesis about origin (and history) of dragon mithology:
По гипотезе некоторых учёных (А. Леруа-Гурана, В. Я. Проппа) формирование гибридного мифологического образа драконa относится примерно к тому же периоду, когда более ранние мифологические символы животных как таковыe уступили место богам, соединяющим в себе черты человека и животного. Соединение разных животных в одном мифологическом символе приводит к такому же устранению возможности отождествления мифологического символа с реальным животным. Предполагается также, что в образе драконa соединяются образы животных, первоначально воплощавших два противоположных и отличных от земного мира — верхний (птицы) и нижний (змеи), поэтому первоначально мифологический образ драконa был одним из способов представления той же пары противоположных мифологических символов, которые известны в мифе о поединке или сражении мифологических змей и птиц (индийские наги и гаруды и др.).
Тем не менее дракон может считаться дальнейшим развитием образа мифологического змея — основные признаки и мифологические мотивы, связывавшиеся с драконом, в главных чертах совпадают с теми, которые характеризовали змея (ср. например Змей Горыныч). Как и змей, дракон связывался обычно с плодородием и водной стихией, в качестве хозяина которой он выступал. Дракон считался также покровителем сокровищ, получить которые можно было только убив его (в германском мифе о Сигурде или Зигфриде и др.).
Образ драконa характерен для относительно поздней стадии развития мифологии, но представлен также в мифологиях Шумера, Египта, Угарита, Индии, Греции, Китая, Японии и Мексики), в большинстве которых хозяйство было основано на искусственном орошении (так наз. ирригационные, или гидравлические общества), благодаря чему особое значение приобретал унаследованный от более ранних времён культ водоёмов, связывавшийся с драконом.
[edit] Are they real?
Can they be real?. like at Unknown fire and jelly-like creatures live in Earth's atmosphere. Maybe all these dragon myths and everything was because people saw the dragons, but couldn't believe and take it as a fact? Maybe they were afraid of society? Who knows -Amf
you can't trust everything on the internet you know.
Seriously. But maybe they were some time ago, or maybe they may still exist today (it's possible). The Republican 02:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
KURU LOOK HERE: This unknown research team wrote a 300 page report on the existance of dragons. Sadly, their main donor stopped giving them money after he heard they were going to publish it. They wenk bankrupt (after putting it on the web) and the donor, owner of the least expensive desirable web hosting service, deleted the page. I found it in Google cache in December 2005.
tel me more about these jelly like creatures. I have this 1999 calender that lists strange events and one is that this jelly like substance fell from the sky and it dissolved in there hands when the touched it. I'm thinking that this was that creature your talking about and that they are afraid of society because our ancesters drove them out of everywhere so they toke to the skys and we can't prove they're real because they are hiding somehow in the sky or somewhere else. they probably dissolved in there hands because they have a brittle body structure and there bodys dissolve by the germs on our hands.they also had a report that some people saw a slithering reptile in the sky.--Calvinsupergenius 20:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
On animal planet there was a special on Dragons tracing their history from dinosaur times... i think it was called Dragons: fact or fiction (ChildOfMorella 18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC))
It was called "Dragon's World: A Fantasy Made Real". It was based on the fact that many cultures had myths about dragons... Cultures that could NEVER HAVE COMMUNICATED. Intruiging, eh?Scientist George 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
THEY ARE REAL!-NekoONTHERUN!!!
finally someone who agress. read dragonology, hello? it has the science of breathing fire. ITS
Yup, I also watched it, it was about some people who actually found a dragon frozen corpse and took it to some museum in England, but i'm not sure if it's actually supposed to be true http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/
I'm sorry I have the DVD and it is not real. I completely believe in Dragons nonetheless.
Dragons were once real, but they have been hunted to extinction, not unlike the dodo Orange112 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you except that I think that they weren't necessarily hunted, but starved, died out from genetic defects, or a natural change in the atmosphere that made it impossible for them to survive.Solon Olrek 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they were hunted into extinction because ignorant kings feared them and thought they were demonic(as said in Dragons are real: a fantasy made real)creatures, just because they were animals they didn't understand.(I will update my user page telling a project I am hoping to fund someday)(Brandonrc2 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
I say they are real. I mean it's only logical! How in the world could everyone all over the earth know about one common thing without it being real? Even little kids find out about them at an early age. No matter where you go, you'll hardly ever find someone who doesn't know what dragons are. And I must say, Dragonology does give some very possible truths about them. I think that some may even be alive today. In China and Japan, dragons were, and still are, worshiped as gods of water and rain. This suggests that dragons (some of them) are sea creatures, as well. No one has ever been to the deepest parts of the ocean, so how can we know they aren't down there?(note that China and Japan are two of the more ancient nations in the world, so if there ever were dragons, some large number of Asian people saw them at one time, thus causing them to worship the dragons) I think dragons are much smarter than other animals, too, so I think they know where to go where humans won't find them. There are places on land that humans don't populate, so what about those places? I simply can't understand how something so well known and popular could not exist. --Christknight 00:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. I think that dragons being water creatures to an extent is very probable. What about Nesse, and the Leviathon (spelling?). They are very popular and said to live in water. Nice observation there.Solon Olrek 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Solon. I'm sure dragons like that have been seen even by more than the ancient people of Asia. Europian explorers reported to have seen "sea serpents". Modern science says they saw merely octopus or squid tenticals. But they're really only assuming that that's what they saw. Especially considering the size difference from a simple tentical to the head and neck of a dragon. I think what those explorers saw were really dragons coming up for air. Also, most everyone thinks dinosaurs are extinct; but there have been findings lately of dinosaur bodies washed up on beaches. And about Loch Ness, though I don't think it was (or is) a dragon, I think it's a plesiosaur that some how got into a lake, and I think it's still around. Now I'm not saying that dragons are at all dinos, I think it just goes to show how wrong science can be at times. --Christknight 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with your assesment on the theory of dragons coming up for air, but I have a problem about the loch-ness monster theory. You say that it might be a plesiosaur, but how would a water-based dinosaur get into a lake when they are said to be in oceans. I was under the impression that the Loch Ness lake was a freshwater body of water. Now a plesiosaur could adapt to freshwater over a peiod of time, but that still doesn't explain how it got to the lake in the first place. Not to mention that there have never been sightings of more than one creature at a time and for your theory to be true there would have to be reproduction involved. There is also the problem of the neck. Plesiosaurs had necks that they were unable to lift out of the water, therefor contridicting the pictures of nesse that are commonly shown. Now you could also aply a contridiction to my contridiction on the bases that there was more adaptation involved. Solon Olrek 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Forgive me, I didn't know plesiosaurs couldn't lift their heads above water - I know a bit more about dragons than dinosaurs. So maybe it's not a plesiosaur at all; maybe it is a dragon. If it's a dragon, maybe it is also a land creature, and it leaves the lake to mate. The best answer to how it got there, though, is the fact that Loch Ness lake drains into the Ness River which flows into the Moray Firth - an inlet of the North Sea. I don't know how deep or wide that river is, but it is the most likely way a dinosaur or even a sea dragon would get to the lake. It would also explain why we only see one: it could travel back to the ocean to reproduce. So when you think about it, we might not even be seeing the same one all the time, we could be seeing a few different ones that go back and forth from the lake to the ocean (also explaining why it is so hard to find). --Christknight 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, I had to look up plesiosaurs to find the information about their necks, so don't worry about it. Not to mention that they could have evolved to where they could raise their heaads. Now, as to your assesment that they go out to see to breed, that still wouldn't really explain why there has only been one unless the creature in question is territorial. I guess I concede to the fact that Nesse COULD be a plesiosaur, but I am still leaning toward dragon. Mainly because if the plesiosaur is still around, then where are the sightings of the other dinos?
- Now onto another discussion. What is your take on the Leviathon (spelling?) Do you think that it might be a different dino?Solon Olrek 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
About Loch Ness, I think it could be a dragon or a dino, I've only seen those blurry pictures taken by terrified onlookers as the camera shook in their hands - not to mention how foggy it is in that area. I'm sure that if I ever got the chance to see it myself, I could tell you; but until then, it remains a mystery.
And about other dino sightings - I'm a Bible believer, so my answer goes to the Bible. You know the story of the Great Flood, and how Noah took two of every animal on earth into a huge arc to save them from drowning. Well, the Bible says that all animals were created in the first six days - even dinosaurs. So what I think is that, yes Noah took the dinos with him, too, but in their extremely smaller numbers, may not have been able to survive. Thus, the only dinos able to be alive today are the sea dinos that didn't have to worry about drowning in the flood. Now, I know this strongly contradicts what you believe if you are an evolutionist, but when you think about it, that's the only way to explain how only sea dwelling dinos could be alive today.
Plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs, all dinosaurs were terrestrial-dwelling creatures; flying/swimming reptiles like pterosaurs and plesiosaurs did exist, but were not dinosaurs.I am tired of explaining this.(Brandonrc2 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
As to the Leviathan, I have absolutly no doubt that it is down there. Even the Bible mentions the Leviathan as a large creature under the ocean. It is much more likely that the Leviathan is a plesiosaur than loch ness, since the Leviathan is supposed to be a deepsea animal. However, it is also likely that it is a dragon, which the Bible also mentions. In fact, I think it is a dragon simply because it's talked about. Like, why else would the Bible, or anyone else who knows about it, point out the Leviathan if it's just like all the other plesiosaurs down there? --Christknight 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you go by what the Bible says, then there is no way it can be a plesiosaur. In Job:41, it says that "sparks of fire shoot out," and I don't think that plesiosaurs could do that. Then you have the ancient portraits of it which descibe like a lobster serpent thingy.Solon Olrek 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ah yes, I forgot about the fire part - it has been a long time since I looked it up. So, yes, I do believe it's a dragon. But I really don't think it's that crab, lobtery-looking thing like in the movie Atlantis. My guess is that the idea of it came about in anctien times because people saw crabs or lobsters, and feared walking in the water because they might get pinched by one. They do look kind of creepy, so I think it just created the ideal giant deep sea creature in peoples' minds. But like the Bible says, "sparks and fire shoot out", and crabs don't do that, either. And I don't think God would create a one of a kind thing just so people could read about it for fun. To me, it sounds like more of a warning of what people will find if they go too deep into the depths of the ocean. You know modern science: always trying to dig deeper. I don't know if it'll ever happen, but if one day we dive too deep and find the Leviathan, two things might happen: one would be actually discovering it and finding out what it is all together, now the other thing; who knows what might happen if humans were to stumble upon a creature like this? We know it's dangerous, as the Bible says, but how might it react to humans? I'm sure the divers are dead not long after they find it, but what if it became influenced to come to the surface? The outcome could be catastrophic - that is, if the Leviathan is an unfriendly dragon... I think I'm going a bit too deep into thought here. All I know is that the Bible says that the Leviathan is real, so it is. And if there is only one dragon alive today, I think the Leviathan is it. What are your thoughts about it? --Christknight 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I beleive that the Leviathon exist, but I think that it is not the only one there is. I think that the descriptions of the Leviathon are about a creature species, not just one creature. The bible doesn't say there is only one, and neither do any toher references I have found. I also beleive that there are mroe than just the leviathon that can be called dragons. There are reports of things, (animals and aleins mostly [btw, I think that aleins might exist on the basis that it is highly higly unprobable that in all of the galaxies, we are the only planet that can support life. That idea is a stuck up self-centered one in my opinion]) that could possibly be dragons. Although I don't back up that idea very much because even I am a little sceptical.Solon Olrek 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm not going to talk about aliens much because I really can't say I believe in them. True, Earth may not be the only planet suited for life, but that doesn't mean that there is other life out there - thought it is possible. Life on other planets really isn't my thing, and this is not the page to talk about that on anyway. Back to the Leviathan, I don't see how there could exist more than one. The Bible says that it rises out of the water at times; if there were more than one, one would have been spotted by now, I would think. And we know humans couldn't have killed them or hunted them down because the Bible says that it is basicly invincible. --Christknight 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't recall it saying that in the bible. I remember it saying somelthing along the lines of the depths being boiled like a cauldron. I beleive that there could be more than one and that they only have one or two offspring max throughout their life which would keep the population very small. Not to mention that it is said be I beleive Socrates to be the gaurdian to the gateway of Atlantis whichit supposedly at the bottom of the ocean which, in turn, supports the theory that they are floor-based sea creatures. And since we have just now found a live Giant Squid which was thought just to be singular or mythical, but not a varietist type of animal, it lends support to the earlier stated theory.Solon Olrek 19:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
You're right, the Bible doesn't use the word "invincible". I'll copy down the verses that lead me to believe that it is, though. They are all in Job 41, and they are: 13 "Who can strip off its hide, and who can penetrate its double layer of armor?", 15-17 "Its scales are like rows of shields tightly sealed together. They are so close together that no air can get between them. Each scale sticks tight to the next. They interlock and cannot be penetrated.", and 23-29 "Its flesh is hard and firm and cannot be penetrated. Its heart is hard as rock, hard as a millstone. When it rises, the mighty are afraid, gripped by terror. No sword can stop it, no spear, dart, or javelin. Iron is nothing but straw to that creature, and bronze is like rotten wood. Arrows cannot make it flee. Stones shot from a sling are like bits of grass. Clubs are like a blade of grass, and it laughs at the swish of javelins." (these were all taken from the New Living Translation: Second Edition version of the Bible). As you can see, the Bible says many times that humans can't kill it.
Now about the offspring being only two max, I believe that that is a very possibly true answer. It makes perfect sense sinse that means there would only be enough to make just another two with each generation, and the cycle would continue like that. Good thinking!
With the guardian of Atlantis thing, I can't say I believe that. The Bible never mentions it being the guardian of a sunken city, and I don't believe in Atlantis at all, really. You see, for a city to survive sinking to the bottom of the ocean, it would require either super technology(which doesn't make any sense at all), or some really strong magic. I can't say that I beleive in magic either. There are freakish things happening even in modern times that people call "magic", and they really are some kind of supernatural force. However, according the Bible, anything you find on earth that people call magic (or even witchcraft) is not magic, it is the power of Satan(however this is not the page to discuss magic anyways). So if it's not technology(no sense), and it's not magic(not real unless a power of evil), then I don't see the idea of a city at the bottom of the ocean making any sense at all.
So back to the Leviathan, I still think it's down there. And maybe there are two of them? --Christknight 07:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I need to find the verses in Job 41 that talk about the Leviathon breathing fire, because I don't know the exact verses. (About Atlantis, I don't really beleive in it, I was just using it as an example as to the Leviathon being a deep sea creature. I have a few veiws on how it might have a possibility of existing if you want to go itno discussion on another page.)
- I think there would be somewhere around 10 to 20, because if one were to die, or one have just one child, the leviathon wouldn't be able to reproduce and would die out because of that. I also think that there might be a rare thrid offspring (Like a ratio of maybe 1/80) to make up for the killed offspring, or death of a mature Leviathon. I don't know if that would be very plausable, but I thought that I would throw it out there.Solon Olrek 19:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Do you mean 10 to 20 Leviathans? I think that's too many. The Bible mentions in Job 41:25 "When it rises..." and also a little later on it mentions the trail it leaves as it moves through the mud. This must mean that it isn't an ocean floor only creature; so if there were 10 to 20 of them, there would almost definitely be sightings of them. However, I agree with you that it is probable that more than two were born every once in a while in order to make up for deaths. I said before that I don't think humans could kill one, but I do think that all the toxic waste that is poured out into the ocean could mess up their breeding cycle somewhat. --Christknight 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good point about the sightings. I also think that the toxic waste is a good idea. When I mentioned them dying, I was refering to accidental miscarries or parent killing offsring, parent killing parent. That kind of stuff.Solon Olrek 19:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean 10 to 20 Leviathans? I think that's too many. The Bible mentions in Job 41:25 "When it rises..." and also a little later on it mentions the trail it leaves as it moves through the mud. This must mean that it isn't an ocean floor only creature; so if there were 10 to 20 of them, there would almost definitely be sightings of them. However, I agree with you that it is probable that more than two were born every once in a while in order to make up for deaths. I said before that I don't think humans could kill one, but I do think that all the toxic waste that is poured out into the ocean could mess up their breeding cycle somewhat. --Christknight 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Good point, miscarries are a possibilty. However, I think that in their small numbers, their instincts would tell them not to eat each other. So, as to the question way up there, "Are they real?", I still think they are. They must be, like I said before. And the Bible even has a chapter about one. I say there's no doubting it, the logical answer (what I think) would be, "Yes, dragons are real." --Christknight 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am in total agreement. Shall we meet on the talk page of another topic? Say, Bible, Yu-i-Oh, or Magic?Solon Olrek 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good point, miscarries are a possibilty. However, I think that in their small numbers, their instincts would tell them not to eat each other. So, as to the question way up there, "Are they real?", I still think they are. They must be, like I said before. And the Bible even has a chapter about one. I say there's no doubting it, the logical answer (what I think) would be, "Yes, dragons are real." --Christknight 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
According to a recent 'vandal':
"they were real p.s. i love pie"
I can only assume this vandal was a dragon (in a past life), but has since reformed and become fond of pie.
Good on ya, pie-dragon. Theavatar3 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you under the impression that dragons actually can reincarnate into humans, or was that a joke toward the "vandal"?Solon Olrek 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
How dragons would function if they were real? It's a fairly debatable and interesting point - since it's SO debatable, I'm not sure it's worth putting in the article but it's worth a thought. If they do exist, as some hope, how would a creature that large function? Would it be able to really fly? I know most fo you instantly think of flying dinasaurs, but they looked like scaly, scary birds - their shapes were very similar, but conventional 4 legged 2 winged dragons are not. I have no idea about aerodynamics but I'm guessing it's not just a matter of scaling up from a birds wings. It's annoying in movies when huge dragons dive off cliffs and DON'T end up as a big splat on the ground. I read in the Usborne book of dragons (when I was little) a story of how the chinese dragon was able to fly - he tricked the cockrel and stole his horns, since that was what allowed him to do so (though this probably wasn't based on legend at all, since I'm fairly sure chinese dragons, or loongs, have deer horns...)
And how, if at all, do they flame? Reign of fire debated about a sac of gas that fed to the sides of the mouth (I can't remember how it was ignited?) whereas others, such as Dragonheart, seem to have it stored in their belly ready to be breathed out. And why do they flame? (No I havnt' read dragonology yet, I know I must!) Can they not eat raw food? Is it to immobilise and kill their prey? Who started that peice of information? Is that global fact for all dragons (minus leviathans) or just european? I'm presuming it's because fire connotates demons and hell and brimstone etc, and so the religious thinking of dragons=evil. This is just a bit of thinking aloud and I know it's quite rambling, but any thoughts? Freaky dragonlady 01:11, 11 Dec 2006
- My, you have a lot of unanswered questions. 1. No, I'm quite sure dragons can't turn into humans. There are places on earth that people don't live, and dragons live most commonly in mountains that would be uninhabitable by humans, anyway. 2. They can fly because they have wings. Now, some people would argue that they are too big for their wings to carry them. But bees are the same way, right? They fly very well, but scientists say they are actually too heavy for their wings. I've never heard that story about the cockrel, but trust me, dragons with horns that look like deer horns did not take them from other animals. So about those dragons that fly without wings, I could only guess that they have some kind of gas inside them that helps them float(maybe helium?). 3. There are many hypothosies about how they breath fire. Rein of Fire could have it right. Or, like Dragonology says, they may have a place in their mouths to store something like flint that causes a spark, then they breath a gas that causes the fire; maybe the same gas that helps them float...? I myself have wondered if maybe their saliva has something flamable in it (like alchohol) that can catch fire when they bring their breath up to high heat. 4. They breath fire, most likely, to first kill their prey, then cook it. I don't think they need to eat their food cooked, but cooked meat is always healthier than raw meat, sinse raw meat can carry diseases(that goes for humans as well as dragons). As I said many times above, I think dragons are much, much smarter than most all the other animals on earth. 5. Leviathans breath fire, too. Check Job 41 in the Bible. It's a very short chapter, and it says there that it breaths "sparks and flames". 6. Talk of dragons breathing fire started thousands of years ago when people were first seeing them do it. It wasn't religious thinking that caused people to think thay breath fire; it was the other way around. It was dragons breathing fire that got religious people thinking they were evil. Even though I'm a Christian, I don't think they're evil. Just because they have a coat of scale armor and breath fire, making it difficult for humans to overpower them, doesn't mean they are evil. Christknight 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I am certain they are real and, though I'm new here, I think we should set up a page on figuring out species of dragons using mythology and the bible(when I say mythology, I mean accounts where people have slain dragons and(in the case of southern Asia) worshipped a few.-(Brandonrc2 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Vague text
One example of them in religion would be some biblical references that seem to hint that the dragon is a type of archangel, one of which by the name of Lucifer, rebelled against God to become known as the seven-headed red dragon called Satan... and much more of the same. Pointless to try to improve this --Wetman 09:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, it's that kind of vague text that one often encounters in Wiki. It should be erased a.s.a.p. and replaced by a more specific treatment (passages cited, etc.). James 007 14:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- For Le récorde, that text that Wetman quotes above (which has finally been removed from the article as of today) was added by an anonymous user, 198.101.43.17 at 06:51, 10 May, 2005. This IP's last contribution was on the 14th of May. On the 17th of May, User:Satanael makes his first contribution as User:Satanael. James 007 01:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The quote from Revelations
- Revelation 12:9 says (the New International Version, which is pretty accurate and close to the original manuscripts, which in this case were written in Greek) :
-
- "The great dragon was hurled down---that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled down to the earth, and his angels with him."
My King James says:
-
- "So the great dragon was cast out, the serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
---It's safe to say that the original Greek text read diabolos (translated as "devil") and Satan (translated as "Satan"). James 007 23:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken (if I am, prove it with a citation), the form "Satanael" does not even occur in canonical scripture, but in fact is found in the apocryphal Enoch II (the Slavonic Enoch), Chapter 31, where it is stated that Satan's name was formerly "Satanail" ("Satanael"). The Bogomils also knew Satan as "Satanael" in their religion. And, AFAIK, Lucifer in the Old Testament (whose actual name in the original Hebrew manuscripts is Helel; "Lucifer" is a Latin translation) is not even equated with any dragon figure. This came later by association. James 007 00:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't mean to be offensive, but there's some religions which don't think that Dragons were "made up", so i'm changing the text to "believed to be". Please do not type this kind of thing again, it's annoying when single minded people dismiss the views of others!
[edit] Norse Dragon
the link to "norse dragon" needs to point to the article "nidhogg" (Unsigned, but by USer:219.89.70.202)
- You know you can do that right away yourself, right? If you are still around, why don't you go try, so you can see how easy it is? DreamGuy 11:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
-
- There are more than one dragon in Norse mythology, so there is little to no reason why that link should lead to Nidhogg. Please remember this if an article called "Norse dragon" is to be created. 84.48.121.173 16:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dragon references
I can't seem to find the references used to compile the dragon information on Wikipedia; is there a list somewhere that I'm missing? If not, would it be at all possible to be provided with one? Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. -Amanda.
- If you're looking on good references, I'm sorry but I can't quite help you out. There is a very hodgepodge sort of thing out there, various mythologies and books in which dragons are rarely the main subject - those where they are tend to be fiction and such. I know there is a book out there called "Dragonology," that poses itself as an old textbook from about the 19th Century. My mom got me a copy for Christmas. It's good from a novel point of view ("novel" in this case meaning new and interesting - for a while - not the booky sense), and has some actual references to real dragons and actual theories about dragons, but as it seems to be merely to entertain children who like dragons, some bits should be taken with a grain of salt. -- MasterXiam 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, but "Dragonology" is a kid's book. I'm specifically looking for the references to the information that makes up this article, as it has been omitted and therefore makes the "Dragons" article unreliable. - Amanda.
[edit] Confusing
"The biblical dragon carries over thirty possible references, with the fire-breathing leviathan described in Job 41. Strong's Hebrew 03882: [1], 08568, 08577, and Greek 1404. Most of these references speak of a foreboding but common animal."
I don't know what the numbers in this quote refer to. Does anyone? Could it be made more clear. Are they references to a book or a way of reading Hebrew or something? hdstubbs
- Or to rephrase, is this info in any way necessary? 81.232.72.53 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- They refer to Strong's Greek and Hebrew dictionaries. 03882, 08568, 08577 and 1404 Brilliand 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Celtic Dragons
Found something but I don't think I want to read thru it all and write something here, so I will just give you the adress: http://reptile.users2.50megs.com/hist/h110599a.html
- Does anyone know who put this here, and has anyone acted on it? If not, I will.Solon Olrek 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Modern dragon references
In order to keep the main article reasonably brief and to the point, and to avoid the recurring Harry Potter and videogames "in-or-out" battles, why not start a "List of dragons in contemporary culture" or whatever, with subsections for novels, videogames, films, cartoons etc ... then everyone can add their own favourites and (perhaps) stop squabbling? No doubt you'll still get a few overenthusiastic or misplaced additions to the main page, but at least there will be somewhere to suggest (diplomatically!) that they should go instead. In addition, a "List of historic dragon legends around the world" list might also be a good option (and one I'd be interested in contributing to. 213.106.248.105 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Not sure why this is anonymous — I thought I was logged in at the time! SiGarb | Talk 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A page on the differences of Dragon Personalities and Abilities?
Because of the vast number of different forms and powers that dragons have from one book to another, perhaps these differences and such are worthy of giving a page to. The vast range of dragons mentioned in fantasy is enormous. For example the Dragons from Harry Potter and uninteligent and dangerous animals, while in such books as Eragon, Dragons are as inteligent, and far wiser than humans. Dragon development, shapes, magic ability, lifestyle, and relations are vastly different in ways that fascinate me, and putting togther a page that describes the ranges that are used would be a wonderfull challenge.
--Zanthra 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] every culture
There are reports of Dragons in every culture... how did that happen since they had no contact with each other? And all the reports were fairly similair...
-
- (ChildOfMorella 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC))
I have wondered the same thing. Interestingly, Thunderbird legends could describe pterosaurs and Mokele-mbembe could also be a sauropod. The Ica stones found in the Americas show pictures of dinosaurs and most interestingly, John of Damscus wrote about dragons in a recently translated work entitled Of Dragons and Ghosts giving remarkable details on dragons. Dio Cassius also refers to a dragon attacking Regulus a Roman consulate. Coincedence, I think not? Alisyd 16:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- They are hardwired in the common regions of our DNA, those that determine neural characteristics. Notably, the optical migraine auras of humans of a variety of ancestry all resemble those "reptilian" shapes. Jclerman 17:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain that, please? 209.145.244.126 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Brain neurons excited by pressure from blood vessels, during optical migraine episodes, produce signals that are visually seen as zig-zat lines (called fortifications for their geometric similarity with medieval fortifications). During dreams, classical nightmares, and hallucinations our brains interpret the zig-zag lines as the crests of reptiles, dinosaurs, dragons, etc. Jclerman 20:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
So you mean Dio Cassius and John of Damascus were dreaming when they wrote what they wrote? Alisyd 16:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't researched full descriptions, with all details, of these two cases yet and it would be difficult to interview them ;-). I did meet and interviewed somebody who saw such a beast while driving and having an intrusion of an episode of hypnagogia or classic waking dream. It was green, and appeared in front of her car and to one side of the road. She had to break no to crash on it. At that instant, the beast popped like a bursting bubble and vanished. Then she was fully alert (awake) and could safely drive off the freeway. Frequently, the subject is not aware that it is not a real o ocurrence, so real it is felt. I also met and interviewed a couple of such cases that claim the reality of an entity they saw or their own flying accross town Jclerman 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
My information on John of Damascus and Dio of Cassius came from the following site: www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/dragons.asp Alisyd 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overview (?)
We should improve the overview, it is somewhat silly, check it by yourselves (and I've already corrected some disgusting spelling). Something must be done Ciacchi 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed colour list
I removed this material; it sounds like yet more fantasy/role-play stuff. It quotes no sources. Does it have any historic basis? Does it relate to the medieval section? Does it relate to specific fantasy videogames? Or is it just fantasy, in every sense?
- " Dragons differ each other from color. These are the four basic and common dragons:
-
- *Green: Nature-loving. Often found in mountains, hills and forests. Most green dragons can fly without wings.
- *Red: Fire breathers found in volcanic areas and sometimes roam around hills and plains. They are short tempered.
- *Gold: Dragons that are favored by royal blood. They are extremely obedient.
- *Black: Most powerful, most feared and rarest of all dragons. Their fire is intense and their carapaces are immune to magic and sorcery. Where they live is unknown.
- Dragons that have neutral colors, such as brown, have no special elements whatsoever, yet have the most population. "
SiGarb | Talk 16:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Not Asian mytholigy either. Sounds fantasy roleplay though, especially the bit about magical imunity.
perfectblue 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Doesnt sound like anything from any video game or book I have ever read. The fellow probably made it up on the spot. --The Corsair. 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't necessarily think that they made it up on the spot, but rather I think that they got it from a low profile game, or a book that is not widely known. Of course it could always be the type of person who has galnced at D&D and made assumtions based on those glimpses. I think that if someone was to add a section such as that, they should say where they got the information from, and do the section completly. If I have time, I might put up one. Does anyone diagree with me on the matter?Solon Olrek 18:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Color Section Was Added
-
- I actidentaly added the color section, im sorry...
- I actidentaly added the color section, im sorry...
I have a site of my own and I probably copied the non-wikipedia version from it, I removed the color section in the wikipedia version.
I got the color info from 3 sources:
1)http://www.dragnx.net/from_tail_to_snout/
2)D&D (not at a glance either)
3)Books I read a long time ago.
I am sorry for my ignorance, !Dragon 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- No prob. Just remember to site your sources and if it is from D&D or some books, mention it. If you put that information in there more thouroughly and with sources, I pretty sure pepople would appreciate it.Solon Olrek 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In popular culture
Nandesuka, I understand the list is a little long, and should probably be "culled", as you put it, but I don't think leaving just two D&D references is an accurate representation of "dragons in popular culture." Surely the continued use of dragons as major characters in stories has value---from recent movies like Reign of Fire or Dragonheart to older, more literary dragons like Smaug, or back even further into the past. Dungeons & Dragons is not the only example worth mentioning. —Ryan McDaniel 19:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- My general feeling is that if one can't even be bothered to add a few sentences, in context, about a given example, then it is not worth including. Laundry lists add little, if anything, to an encyclopedia, and they tend to grow over time as everyone insists that their insignificant examples are just as important as, say, Smaug. I'll propose that someone nuke the laundry list entirely and rewrite it as text. If no one gets around to it in the next week or so, I'll make an effort to do it. Nandesuka 20:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed that laundry lists are bad, but I don't think the solution is to delete this one entirely. I suggest the list be changed to something more like this (not in table form, I'm just using this to explain why to keep these dragons):
Dragons remain fixtures in fantasy books.
|
Smaug is a classic and The Hobbit is definitely a well-read book. Anne McCaffrey's books are a major (both as in "long running" and as in "widely read") sci-fi/fantasy series prominently featuring dragons. |
Dragons have been portrayed in several movies of the past few decades, and in many different forms.
|
Discussing the way dragons have been portrayed seems relevant and not too "laundry-listy". |
| Dragons are common (especially as non-player characters) in Dungeons & Dragons and other fantasy role-playing games | Probably worth keeping to point out that people still like playing with dragons |
| Puff the Magic Dragon was first a poem, later a song made famous by Peter, Paul and Mary, that has become a pop-culture mainstay. The poem tells of an ageless dragon who befriends a young boy, only to be abandoned as the boy grows up. | "Puff" is (or at least was) a popular, widespread song with which many readers will be familiar. |
-
- Does this work for you? —Ryan McDaniel 23:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Making the change —Ryan McDaniel 21:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Does this work for you? —Ryan McDaniel 23:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This is a big step forward. Thanks. Nandesuka 21:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Welcome. Let me know if you need help doing something similar elsewhere. —Ryan McDaniel 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Nandesuka, thanks for the move to paragraphs. Listcruft, indeed! If we're going to lockdown "notable dragons", are there any others we should think about including? —Ryan McDaniel 13:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure we've left some important ones out. How about we brainstorm here? Nandesuka 15:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, from a literature standpoint, we've included examples terrible, destructive dragons (Smaug) and useful, workhorse dragons (Pern). That would seem to leave an opening for portrayals of benevolent dragons; any notable books out there for this? The Illuminatus trilogy, maybe? (Haven't read it, myself.)
- Also, we've only listed Western books and movies. Are there any major Eastern ones worth considering? I have to confess that apart from some of the artistic films that have across lately, I really know very little about Chinese or Japanese movies, and can't recall ever having seen any with dragons. —Ryan McDaniel 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also, both those works are very recent. There are older portrayals of dragons. for example, Beowulf. Nandesuka 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- True, but the section is title "modern" culture. Beowulf could go under "Notable dragons of myth and legend". —Ryan McDaniel 18:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the last two paragraphs to this section (Harry Potter and Yu-Gi-Oh references). This is not an exhaustive list---it's an attempt to show the different ways in which dragons have been portrayed in popular culture. Smaug is more-or-less the canonical "bad guy" dragon in modern Western literature---what do the Harry Potter dragons add to that? If someone wants to incorporate Yu-Gi-Oh references into the RPG paragraph, that might make more sense, but it's not worth a standalone paragraph. —Ryan McDaniel 14:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- They're both already in List of dragons, which looks like it was created with the specific intent of keeping this article on topic. Dressing them up there is probably a better place. Kuru talk 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is a Dragon?
I have big problems with this page. The main problem is deciding what is a dragon and what is not.
The word "dragon" is a Western word that originally referred to fire-breathing Western dragons. There is enough variety there to keep you going for a while.
Then, when Westerners went to the Orient, they encountered the Chinese "lung" ("long") and its Japanese, Korean, etc. counterparts, to which they assigned the word "dragon" from their own language. These originally had no connection with Western dragons, so what is the objective reason for including them? The completely concidental conventional naming?
Since Oriental dragons are conventionally called dragons, I can understand that one to some extent. But someone appears to have got quite 'trigger-happy' and decided to include "dragons" from all around the world. For instance, the Quetzalcoatl is included as a "dragon", although it's not totally clear on what grounds. Who started calling the Quetzalcoatl a "dragon" -- the conquistadors? Or some person who thought it would be cool to throw them in the list? It would be nice if a citation could be provided.
In the meantime, several creatures with features similar to dragons are not included at all. One is the Indian Naga (mythology), another is the Australian Rainbow Serpent. The nagas were actually identified by the Chinese as "long" when translating Buddhist texts.
But before someone gets excited and adds two more "dragons" to the list, I suggest that a proper framework should be developed, noting the original Western "dragons" and the way that creatures from other cultures have been identified that share some features (giving specific grounds, e.g., "snake-like creatures").
Another point: the section on Symbolism refers almost exclusively to European dragons -- why isn't it in that article instead of this one?
All in all, this is a very poorly focused and badly reasoned article that confuses more than it enlightens. My suggestion is that a lot of it should be jettisonned or moved somewhere else, leaving only the bare bones (what dragons are, what creatures have traditionally been considered dragons or are thought to be related to dragons), and perhaps a section on the role of dragons in modern culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.175.171.239 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
yes, you are my hero, or heroine. please unveil yor username.--Divya da animal lvr 22:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canadian research into dragons
User:NekoKattCatNyeowMiaouMeow has added the following section into the main article: "Another hypothesis by a canadian research team states that dragons may actually exist. It specifically suggests that all cultures have had dragons in their mythology. Another fact that supports this evidence is that due to "dragonslayers", dragons completely despise humans, and want to remain transparent. Sadly, if dragons ever did exist, this report states, they must be extinct due to no evidence from field studies in the last 200 years. If they are real, they say, they will probably ignore us and be passive until we start attacking them. Then, the problems will start."
I'm politely assuming good faith, but there are no cites and no factual basis for any of this. Please understand that I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but we have a policy of absolute verifiability for our articles. If anyone else can provide insight, it would be appriciated. Kuru talk 13:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jared Diamond and Bred Fear
Could anyone provide the exact reference for Diamond's assertion that fear can be bred into a populace? I do not recall such being presented in the reference listed.
[edit] I Have Reasons
--Divya da animal lvr 22:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) look, read dragonology. it has the science behind dragon's fire and flight. hardly any magic there, non-believers, and don't worry, believers like myself, there are secrets bhind other dragon phenomona.--Divya da animal lvr 22:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Bloomsbury: London, 2000. p. 306
[edit] "Dragon Origin Occult"
Am I the only one who thinks this entire section has no place in this article? It is barely coherent, to the point that it's difficult to understand what the author is trying to say -- it appears to relate a few factoids about certain ancient Egyptian and Greek dragons? -- and in any case doesn't contain anything relevant to what an encyclopedia article about dragons should have, i.e. objective, verifiable information. Wuotan, if you disagree, please justify this section's inclusion here. YBeayf 04:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are the only one thinking that way; Well, I will talk about it here, however if you delete I will repost to last edit that includes it and continue working on it. I have source material that I intend to list and everything said is verifiable in mythology and relgion referred to, and consistant with much of the other sections. What encyclopedia are you comparing to? Wuotan 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wuotan, the text in your section is not really comprehensible at this point in time, nor is it sourced or verifiable. Perhaps creating a sandbox page for you to experiment with and have complete control over would help you develop the section before adding it? If you're interested, let me know and I'll create one for you or show you how! Kuru talk 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Applicable text:
Dragon illustration seen as exoteric expression aetherial cause, elemental (earth, air, fire, water) phenomenon; the concept that spiritual entity may activate with material features of climate. Origins theory, Gr. Orphic has very ancient Typhoeus and much later contrast significantly with Typhon. Borne at civilization infernal tartarus, the always moving Typhoeus, feathered and taller than the tallest mountain from his shoulders 100 dragon heads and from his thighs innumerable vipers, is the unmastered element system in the first ages of the world. Hecatoncheires - L. Centimanes (hundred handed) of Oceanus (only titan with gods') is noted, also cyclops, as companion to the phantom Hephaestus - L. Vulcan; elemental mastery indicated is why it is different than Typhoeus. Adding weight to this conclusion is Typhoeus end at Sicily Volcano Etna. Hecatoncheires have three forms: Cottus (furious), Gyges (big limbed) and Briareus (vigorous). In meteorology these are wind-front deluge, tornadoes, and Briareus is flamable conditions. Occult concept that climate sometimes is at phantom companion with dragon (aetherial cause elemental) includes Arges (thunderbolt) point exhibit of cyclops (hurricane etc.). Gr. Typhon "scourge of mankind" - Egypt Set is automaton mass for dragon directive. Bible eg. Pharaoh v. Moses. Conclusion on Typhon is civilization decay toward tartarus (thrall, slave, infernal define symbolism v. aetherial). Characteristic dragon as seen in the History and Myth sections, has feature indices in Egyptian religion remaining consistant with what is said thus far occult origin and perspective to the popular image. Sebec is depicted as a man with crocodile head or as crocodile. It is recounted that a lock of gods' hair healed Geb (physical foundation of the world), later that lock was plunged into lake of At Nub for purification it became crocodile. Thousands of years before (2000 b.c. Abraham), a crocodile headed shapeshifter heals Geb. Crocodile head typify dragon; more reliability activatable entity of climate at pyramid text: Sebec,son of Neith (delta queen god of Sais). Egypt Neith - Gr. Athena (goddess) at pinnacle civilization with co-operation of nature, as her inscription (Plutarch tells us) "I am all that has been, that is, and that will be. No mortal has yet been able to lift the veil which covers me." Later Buto, winged serpent, is red crown of north, delta Egypt. The legend is she helped Isis protect osirian Horus (hidden god) from Set - Typhon. Dragon serpent-tail has knot, indication about magic knot of Isis "tat". At Ombos (Nile 500 miles south from Sais), Khons Hor (Khensu) with falcon and royal hair lock, is the third of the Sebec triad. Khons triad at Thebes (Nile 100 miles north of Ombos) with Amon and Mut...cont.
I concur that this is not ready to be added to the article and has been "under construction" for a long time now. Let's discuss it here before re-adding. Kuru talk 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misc
I added a mention of Bahamut in the "noteable dragons" section, as he is spoken of amongst many fans of various fantasy genres. Rhysis 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
dragons are real, well used to be. think im crazy? just think about it. how can so many cultures know about dragons and even when they haven't meet. now do you think im crazy? email me at dragons_rul@hotmail.com for more info
Or it's possible that they found the bones of dinosaurs and their imaginations got the best of them. I've even heard it suggested that the dragon's form comes from combining all three of the predators our primitive ancestors had to worry about (large snakes, jungle cats and raptors or birds of prey). However there are Cathlic religions that do beleive in the dragon.
[edit] LOTR
I realise we shouldn't be listing every dragon book by an author here, but I made an exception in the case of JRR Tolkien because "The Hobbit" is his first book with a dragon, but many people who have not read any Tolkien only know of "The Lord of the Rings". -- Bignose
I removed LotR because the plot doesn't deal with dragons in any major sense (or hardly at all). If people don't know stuff about JRRT, they should klick the JRRT link, not get an extra explanation here. --Pinkunicorn
This is true, on reflection. Would an acceptable compromise be: ("The Hobbit", "The Simarillion" and related works) ...? -- Bignose
- That sounds good. Though I only recall dragons in the "The Silmarillion" and "The Hobbit" (and maybe "The Book of Lost Tales," which was merely an early version of "The Silmarillion" anyway.) -- MasterXiam 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Game Fable: The Lost Chapters
They deleted the reference about the game Fable: The Lost Chapters, why novel are considered to being mentioned but not videogames? I see here clearly prejudices about videogames, they are deeply infravalued and considered less cultural stuff, but they can be as cultural as a literary stuff, the problem is the initial market and most people influenceable without own criterion (they are bored when cultural stuff appears and need to use their minds for complex stuff, only want action stuff, sex and violence). I consider doing the article bigger and mentioning different uses of Dragon mythology in the culture (videogames, movies, books, music...), instead only saying the "minimal", this is an encyclopedia, not an article for a magazine, so please being more detailled information -- Anonymous
No kidding, that's great idea and point. 66.205.108.8 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dragons are included in hundreds and hundreds upon hundreds of videogames, we cant name them all.--The Corsair. 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, actually, not hundreds upon hundreds, but alot. ;) --The Corsair. 03:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I absolutly agree with you one hundred percent. I think that poeple who think that games do not belong in articles, or convorsations for that matter, are close-minded to the full veiws of the facts about the conversation. Someone who deletes part of an article just because it is not what they want to talk about shouldn't be allowed near a editing situation. If the topic is related to the article in some way and has verifiable sources, it should be allowed. If they don't want to read about that, then they can scroll down farther with their eyes closed.Solon Olrek 18:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Description/Illustration
According to the Webster dictionary, dragons are serpents or saurians. However, the dragons dipicted by western illustrations do not fit the description well. Anyone knows why?
- Dragons have not been illustrated, or even described, consistently *at all* throughout most of Western literature and mythology. Anne McCaffrey wrote a book (I currently forget the title) that was basically an excuse to showcase a bunch of artists' dragon pieces, but the story tying them together has the author discussing the history of dragon lore, and the conflicting descriptions therein.
The Dragon Riders of Pern, was that it?
- A google search turns up http://www.draconian.com/whatis/ which goes into a fair amount of detail; we probably can't use the content directly though. -- Bignose
-
- Why the Quetezcoatal is a 'neo dragon' is beyond me. Dave McKee
-
-
- Beyond me too. I mean, it goes back about as far as many other dragons, so it's not really that new, comparatively. -- MasterXiam 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- But you see Quetzalcoatl was never called a dragon but a god and was described as a winged serpent. There is no writing of Quetzalcoatl breathing fire (Unless you beleive Godzilla the Series)and he was said to be a good being who helped the Aztecs build and craft. Never is Quetzalcoatl been called a dragon but the resemblance is astonishing.\
-
-
[edit] Christian Science
I put a small mention in the article once before that some Christian scientist believe that dragons are possibly remnants from folklore depicting dinosaurs (it being the Judeao-Christian belief that men and dinosaurs did co-exist). Despite what anyone might think it is a relevant entry. Im going to adjust it and add it back in the article. I have a website I could site if it would help I suppose.
I saw a dragon once... MULBURY MYSTERY!!!
It isn't the Judeo-Christian belief that men and dinosaurs co-existed. Rather, the common thought is that the creatures spoken of in the Bible, fitting of what's been common through all of history, are something on the lines of demons; the thought that they're dinosaurs is a reinterpretation that only few people care to make.
I won't remove the piece, though, but I felt it'd be proper to remain consistent in pointing out what's considered pseudoscience. -- ______
Where did you see the dragon at? Solon Olrek 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- yes, please provide the website. A principle of Wikipedia is to always cite sources. Jerdwyer 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I was just curious as to where he/she saw a dragon, but I agree with Jerdwyer. Solon Olrek 17:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I need to correct something an anon (66.68.176.213 I think) said about Christian beliefs. He argued that Christians don't believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. That's not true. The Bible says in the very beginning that God created all things in the first six days - that means even dinosaurs and dragons. Christknight 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New subheading
I've added a new heading "As an emblem" because the stuff about Ljubljana's dragons didn't really fit in where it had been added, or elsewhere. SiGarb | Talk 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
So what type of things do you expect to show up under this title?Solon Olrek 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- A few other similar examples, perhaps? It's not a great title, but the Ljubljana stuff is inappropriate under all the other headings. SiGarb | Talk 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Miss Know It All 08:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I belive that dragons do exist- regardless of what people say. I mean, it is possible. I have watched a movie once that stated the simalarity between all the diferent dragons around the world, and how strange it is that the religions had no contact for hundreds of years and yet they all have one creature in common that they belive in- the dragon. It's impossible for all those religions to have made up the same type of creature without contact with the actual thing. It's kind of freaky- don't you think? And scientists have proved that it is possible for them to once have existed. Watch the movie Dragon World and you'll know what I mean.
-
- I am in total agreement about your opinion on the existance of dragons. I beleive that they still exist today, just not in great numbers and not around civilization. I myself belong to a certain religion that mainly focuses on the dragon, so my opinion is probably a little biest. As for Dragon World, I will have to watch that movie. It sounds very interesting.Solon Olrek 17:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Replacing Uncited Paragraphs
This relates to the part in History and origins of dragons that starts with 'Apart from the Australian Aboriginal tales' and ends at 'rescuing the maiden from being sacrificed to the dragon.' (two paragraphs)
It is not accurate to say that only grain growing cultures have dragon myths. Nor did house serpents (which it seems to be talking about) get displaced by cats. The two traditions overlap. How cats appearing suddenly makes people dislike snakes is also rather woolly. The lack of citations make it particularly suspicious, as I've not found this in any other dragon book or website. If this theory was published somewhere, it was very quietly done.
Would there be objections for changing it for a basic description of house serpents and how they have inspired dragon myths, removing the speculation parts? Unless someone has a source for this grain/snake/cat theory? Polenth 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Jerdwyer 02:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- A lot of paragraphs in this article are better removed than mended. 160.94.120.152 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The "How..." section
Most of the contents in that section are straight copypastes from the source cited underneath the paragraphs. The source is also cited three times, using the URL instead of a link to footnotes. Moreover, the tone and style don't suit for an encyclopaedia article. I think the whole section should be removed from the article, and the link should be left in the "External links" section. 200.1.22.22 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Something to keep in mind is that it is the author's theory (as in the original site author)... one of many such theories. If we are going to have a section like that, it really should be called something like 'Dragon psuedoscience theories' and compare various theories, rather than siding with one person's ideas. External links are a slightly different issue. I've always been a supporter that the Dragon article should have a few external links, but that might need more discussion? There's been a trend to remove them, so without some sort of consensus on which sites to link to, we may just end up in link editing wars. Polenth 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would support moving all of the musings about 'how dragons could work if they existed' to a separate article. As it is, the additions in the 'how to' section are simply original research with a link to a fanpage. I'm going to remove it for now, but will support an internal link to another article on the topic if a way can be found to document the theories in an encyclopedic manner. Possibly combine material from that Discovery channel "documentary". Kuru talk 14:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dragon always a dragon?
So Europeans had something called a dragon and they see something with scales in China and the decide to call it a Dragon. That doesn't mean it's the same thing. --Gbleem 11:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was always under the impression that the seperate cultures all called them dragons (or something that translates to that) in their own languages, but that way you word your statement makes it look like you think that the English came up with the creature.Solon Olrek 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Don't forget, like with other animals, there are many different species of dragon. If you check Dragonology, there are maps and lists of the different types; and I think they could be quite accurate according to the old dragon lore of those areas. --Christknight 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Point well said! I wasn't thinking along those lines whenever I put my comment there. Do you know a website where I can look up what I want to know about dragons? I have been looking for a long time and have yet to find one that doesn't require a monthly subscription.Solon Olrek 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The only website I know of would be http://www.howstuffworks.com/. I've learned most of what I know about dragons from books. But if that site doesn't have what you're looking for, I'd suggest useing http://www.google.com/. Google finds literally everything for you, as I have found from my own experience. --Christknight 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Dragonology is a fiction book, so don't rely on it for mythological information. Searching for 'dragon mythology' will bring up some useful sites on the first two pages on Google. Gbleem is probably talking about a few authors that believe that Europeans named other things 'dragon' that they shouldn't have done. Therefore Chinese lung are lung, but not dragons. I won't go into my opinions on it in depth, but I think that topic would be hard to do in an encyclopedic way. It's more of a debate/original research topic. Polenth 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- True, Dragonology is a fiction book, but "mythology" isn't any truer than a fiction book because it is only "myth". When I look at dragons, I don't view them as mythological beings, but as real creatures. What Dragonology is is really a compilation of different types of dragons known around the world, and what is said about them. It's only fictional because not enough people really believe in dragons in the first place to call it fact. And what's this about lung not being dragons? A lung is a different species of dragon. Even if you don't want to rely on what Dragonology says, rely on fact - there are many, many different species of every animal on earth. It's common sense. Just because a lung doesn't look like a western dragon, doesn't mean it's not a dragon. Does a Horned Lizard from Arizona look ANYTHING like a Komodo Dragon from Komodo Island? No, but they are both lizards, nonetheless. --Christknight 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think you misunderstood me... the issue is not what anyone here believes. You can believe a modern fiction book, but in an encyclopedia, you're going to keep that seperate from mythology. I'm not stating I agree or disagree with the theory about dragons/lung. What I'm saying is that it is a real theory that does appear in published books. The issue is whether we wish to include it in some form in the article, or whether it isn't that relevant. This discussion page is about what appears in the article rather than what we think about dragons. Polenth 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I understand what you mean, in that we shouldn't put what Dragonology says into the article because it is a fiction book. But, then, why did you say Chinese lung aren't dragons? --Christknight 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As I said, you misunderstood me. I described the theory. I did not say it was my theory or that I believed it. I don't have to believe something to describe it. You can ask me on my talk page if the difference is still unclear.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Back on topic, I found a citation for anyone that wants to follow it up. I still think it'd be tricky to add in a neutral way, but someone might be more creative with it than I am: Dr. Ong Hean-Tatt 'Legend of the Chinese Lung - The Chinese "Dragon"', Eastern Dragon Press, 1996 Polenth 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Now you misunderstand. I knew what Gbleem meant, he said he doesn't think European dragons and lung dragons are both dragons. I responded by saying that there are many different species of draogn(the lung being one of them). My question to you is simply, "Why are you bringing it back up after I already answered it?" --Christknight 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Dragon always a dragon? part 2
Gee you folks really know how to get off the topic. When Europeans saw an animal in Tasmania that looked kind of like an African tiger they called it a Tasmanian Tiger. Of course we know it is not related to a tiger from a taxonomic perspective. The Panda Bear is not a bear. The American Bison is not a Buffalo. Just because Europeans went around equating "dragon" with various words for various mythical animals in a bunch of different languages does not mean that the description of these animals cames from the same source. If you think you can find proof of the existance of dragons that is cool with me but this linguistic equivalence cannot part of the proof. --Gbleem 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand - Europeans named many animals after animals they are not, like the horned lizard which is often called the horned toad. It's not really a toad, but it got that name because of the round shape of it's body. However, what I'm saying is that the lung really is a dragon, just a different specie of dragon that looks different. It's like the legless lizard; when people first see one, they think, "That can't be a lizard, it has no legs! It must be a snake." But this is wrong - the legless lizard really is a lizard, just as the lung dragon really is a dragon. --Christknight 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think dragons are awsome and r like totally real and stuff ya know. signed: Blade116
-
-
- The lung is considered a dragon because that's what westerners call it, of course, so it would have to be included here, otherwise people would get confused. Of course if you could prove dragons were real, the cave dwelling, easily killed bear sized European dragons probably wouldn't have much genetically in common with the winding, flying, mountain dwelling dragons elsewhere. I don't mean to hurt anyone's credibility, but the Panda is in fact a member of Urisidae. Red Pandas are not though. What are we getting at? 160.94.120.152 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- All I've been trying to say is that lung really are dragons despite their looking so different; they aren't dragons just because westerners say so. It's like what I said above about the legless lizard. Christknight 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Chinese Dragon is a mistake of translation
There is no Dragon in Chinese culture at all. So called "Chinese Dragon" should be Loong. This is a totally different kind of animal from Dragon. Loong is a symbol of benevolence auspicious, luck and dignity.
It is the representation of Chinese God. So called "Chinese Dragon" is something like angel in western culture. Loong is the right name for this animal, and this name has already been widely used around the world. Do not say dragon again, Loong has nothing in common with Dragon.
- I think it is admirable that you feel like standing up for the Loong animal, but there is a right way, and a wrong way of going about it. Telling someone that they are flat-out wrong and that they are not allowed to say it again is, in essence, trying to establish a parental control over them, and since this is a discussion page for dragons, people have a right to talk baout what they beleive to be a dragon really is. If you do not agree with the person, than either have a civilized debate, or keep you trap closed. This is a website meant for discussion between people genuinely interested in certain topics, not a website for wanna-be know-it-alls to try and establish authority over poeple when they have no right to do so. If you TRULY have a problem with the thought of a "Chinese Dragon" then bring fact an a moderate tone, not you opinion and attitude. That is all I have to say.Solon Olrek 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Solon Olrek is right: you have no facts to back up what you are saying, and you aren't allowed to tell other editors what they can and cannot say. Christknight 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible invalid citation
Citation number 2 "#
- ^ Rouster, Lourella. (1997). The Footprints of Dragons. http://www.rae.org/dragons.html"
appears to be from a self published source. Self published articles by an interest group, or by anyone are not valid sources, dated and volume numbered though they may be. 160.94.120.152 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism from anons
I think we should have this article Semi-protected so anons can't edit. The only real edits this article gets are from users. It seems that anons only vandalize this page. Christknight 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I second this. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
Sorry to be a bore, but I'm a little confused as to what that infobox is adding to the page. First, you've removed a historical image and replaced it with some sort of conceptual emblem that has no source. Second, you've added nonsensical information to the fields in the box (last sighted is present day? first reported in the 1890's?). Could you possibly elaborate on your purpose before re-adding this information?
Could you also please add some actual source to the 'In Legend and Myth' section - I'm afraid if you want to present some of the fascinating stories as fact, you'll need some actual reliable sources. A section specifically devoted to cryptozoology and labeled as such might be interesting, but let's not turn the entire mythological article into a cryto page. Thanks! Kuru talk 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a very helpful page.
[edit] Purported origins of dragons
I wrote a (very long) report on dragons back in high school, and the general consensus of the sources I read suggested that Eastern and Western dragons had similar but seperate origins. It was alleged that the legends came from what amounted to descriptions of real-world animals, then made more and more legendary and divergent over time. Ironically, it was generally seen that the Western dragon was actually derived from a mixing of stories about snakes. Though this is fairly obvious in the form of Worms or Wurms, dragonesque creatures which were basically giant snakes, there was the more subtle allusions to it. Many dragons were described as having poisonous breath, and the fire was theorized to have arisen from the same source; e.g. it was a metaphor for poison. Meanwhile, the Eastern dragon was said to have originally derived from the Chinese Alligator, hence its affinity for water. While all of this was quite logical, I have long since lost my research and hence, the sources I cited. The current section on speculation is absolutely terrible. It repeats the myth that dinosaur fossils were mistaken for those of dragons or were the source of the myths; indeed, this was rare and generally it was actually mammilian fossils which were seen as being the bones of such beasts, as they are much more common and easily obtained, whereas dinosaur fossils are rarer and less accessable. Moreover, it is unlikely that the legends began in this way; indeed, it is much liklier the bones were ascribed to the beasts rather than the beasts being manufactured from the bones. Titanium Dragon 09:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism, March 22 2007
I arrived at this page to find it had been vandalized, with just the word "poo". Tankmaster46 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit: I did a revert to the previous version. Someone make sure this guy doesn't go unpunished. Tankmaster46 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
