Jump to content

Talk:Dragon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changes to lead

[edit]

A week or so ago, TheUnit 72 expanded the lead. I agree that it probably should have been a bit longer, and thank you for adding several new sources. I do have a few concerns, though. The newly added second paragraph addresses some of the cultures or traditions already covered by the third: In East Asian traditions overlaps with In East Asia, and In modern popular culture and Western traditions since the High Middle Ages overlaps with In the Western tradition and In modern literature and popular culture. The information in the previous lead was in the same order as that in the body, and progressed roughly in chronological order: it started with Mesopotamia; moved to East Asia, including China; then to ancient Greece; to the Western tradition; and then to modern popular culture. The new lead starts out its discussion of dragons in various cultures and traditions with In modern popular culture and Western traditions since the High Middle Ages. I also think the description of features that East Asian dragons borrow from various animals is excessively detailed for the lead: including a camel’s head, a snake's neck, rabbit-like or demonic eyes, a stag’s antlers, a tiger’s paws, a carp’s scales, a frog or clam’s belly, and the claws of an eagle. In addition, it would be ideal to have page numbers for citations to full books (eg. Jones 2000, Shuker 1995), though this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback; it was very helpful.
My intention in adding the second paragraph was to give readers a clear description of the two most widely recognised and visually distinct dragon variations (Western and East Asian), since these tend to shape modern expectations. I actually thought of the second paragraph as an extension of the first, but split it because of the length and grouped content.
However, I understand your concern about overlap and ordering. The third paragraph, which contains a structurally accurate and now-redundant overview of the article, was only edited lightly for consistency. I agree that the lead should flow cleanly and better reflect the structure of the article.
That said, I perceived the third paragraph as an overview of the article's "cultural representations" section, which I've thought about maybe reorganising to put all the regions under one header. What would mean it would be different from the common appearance, which is why I largely kept in the third paragraph.
On the features of the East Asian Dragon: my intent was to accurately convey the traditional 9 physical features of the East Asian dragon, which were originally used in China, but with the features themselves generally being found across the board. I wanted to give a quick, precise overview of these features, similar to the features of the Western Dragon, so that the reader could immediately visualise them. Nevertheless, I am willing to condense this into a more general description if you wish, although I'd need your confirmation that you still hold this position.
Regarding page numbers, I agree completely. Those citations were added without specific pages due to limited access to the texts at the time, and I intend to update them with precise references when or if I am able to obtain them, or replace them entirely, if necessary. And on the topic of replacing sources, I'm also thinking about replacing the sources of the East Asian Dragon description with more specific sources or traditional texts, as they are currently vague. In fact, they're the same sources used in the first paragraph, without page numbers.
I appreciate you raising these issues. I'm actively working on refining the lead and the article, and I'll keep these points in mind. My apologies for the late response. TheUnit 72 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TheUnit 72: Thank you for taking the suggestions on board. A good idea might be to restructure the lead so that information about each particular culture or tradition is in one place. For example, it would probably be preferable to have a single part of the lead that covers dragons in the Western tradition, incorporating information currently in the second and third paragraphs, rather than having that information split between the two. This will require some reallocation of material across paragraphs; if possible, I would try to make the lead's structure mirror that of the article. I see what you were going for with the description of the traditional 9 physical features of the East Asian dragon, but I think that such a list is probably overly detailed for the lead, and might work better in the body. Keep in mind that, per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarise the most important information already present in the rest of the article. I would also consider moving the part about dragons being powerful and awe-inspiring back to the first paragraph, so it isn't situated between discussions of specific traditions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Aurel: Thank you for your suggestions yet again.
Your ideas to restructure the lead are good. A substantial reason I included those parts on physical characteristics in the lead is that I intend to add a new section to the body: Appearances. This section would follow my reorganisation of the article, which combines the many draconic occurrences across different regions under a new general header, Cultural Representations. In line with a recent categorisation and my approach of synthesis over examples, I would create Appearances, which outlines the inclusion criteria for dragons across cultures (i.e. how each culture defines its “dragon”), common physical traits and stereotypes, and the symbolism of dragons. It may also include a short subsection on heraldry under symbolism. The Appearances section would correspond to the body material related to the second paragraph of the lead.
The Appearances section is also where those nine traits would be placed. However, I do agree that this level of detail may be excessive for the lead. I originally included it to be specific and to contrast with the more generalised description of the Western/modern dragon. In my next edit, I plan to trim the list to something closer to: “…often benevolent creatures composed of features drawn from a diversity of local animals.”
Regarding your final point about dragons being powerful and awe-inspiring, I had intended this under the broader category of symbolism, within Appearances.
I am not finished with the lead, and I already have a revised version prepared that splits the third paragraph into two clearer, higher-quality sections based on its internal structure. In that draft, I also reword “In the Western tradition, dragons were often depicted as fire-breathing monsters associated with evil and death” to “In premodern European traditions, dragons were frequently depicted as fire-breathing monsters associated with destruction, evil, and death.” The term premodern is intended to distinguish this from the earlier mention of dragons in modern popular culture and in Western tradition since the High Middle Ages.
Thank you for these further refinements and your second response. As I stated earlier, I am still actively working on refining the lead and the article. My next refinement should be published soon. TheUnit 72 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll await those changes to the lead. Regarding your broader plans for the article's structure, I see what you're going for, but I do have some queries: what will the "Appearances" section cover that is distinct from the discussion of individual cultural traditions? I would imagine that sections on those cultural traditions would still need to touch on the appearance of dragons, and that the "Appearances" section would need to reference specific traditions. In general, a good approach is to roughly mirror the structures used in reliable sources about the topic. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I notice you state on your userpage that you intend to bring the article up to FA status. That's certainly an admirable goal, given the importance and broadness of the topic. I'm a semi-regular at FAC, so let me know if you'd like someone to cast their eyes over the article once you think it's in pretty good shape (before or after WP:GAN, assuming you plan on going through that process). – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your queries:
  • The Appearances section specifically covers cross-cultural appearances and the overall "image" of the dragon throughout the ages, including modern times. Under the main header, the inclusion criteria and an introduction are provided. Under Common Traits and Stereotypes, it outlines recurring ideas associated with dragons. Under Symbolism, it examines what dragons represent in different cultures (and incorporates Heraldry, which is otherwise somewhat displaced). Cultural representations would, in the edited version, emphasize depictions of dragons, functioning as a record of specific ideas, traditions, stories, and characters, while only briefly summarizing dragons within each culture and leaving detailed explanation and citation to the Appearances section. This allows for modularity and a more structured article, rather than presenting all information simultaneously.
  • Specifically regarding your question about tradition versus appearance, as noted above, each section would include brief contextual overlap where necessary. The Appearances section would summarize traditions (particularly in Common Traits and Stereotypes), while Cultural representations would include a summary of appearance, primarily at the beginning of the section. However, the primary focus of each remains distinct; Appearances synthesizes patterns across cultures, while Cultural representations presents those traits within specific traditions. Each serves as context rather than as the primary location for detailed facts and citations, for which a reader may refer to the relevant section.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to post the edits I previously mentioned, as I did not want to create perceived instability or risk having them reverted prematurely. These edits include two new paragraphs to replace the existing one, highlighting Cultural representations and Modern depictions respectively; an additional expansion to Modern depictions to support material in the lead; and two new sources. I plan on working on Etymology next while continuing development of Appearances.
Coincidentally, as I was editing this response, I noticed your message mentioning my project page outlining my plans and goals. That was a very considerate offer—thank you for the advice. I am not yet certain whether to pursue the GA process, as I do not necessarily intend to retain the article at that status and it appears to be somewhat time-consuming. I will need to consider that further. My largest challenge when editing a page like Dragon is sourcing, as many of the most useful academic materials are behind separate paywalls, and I aim to rely on the highest-quality sources available. If you wish, you can still access my blueprint page below:
ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤProceed
That makes sense. I'm not sure I'm totally convinced that this structure is the ideal one, but I might need to see how you execute things to come to a proper judgement. As long as the changes you have in mind don't alter the part of the lead which is in dispute below, I don't see an issue with you going ahead with them (assuming, of course, that they're properly sourced and all the rest). As to the GA process: yes, it can be quite slow. A common approach is to take an article through WP:GAN in preparation for WP:FAC, because the latter process is generally very rigorous and intensive. Another pre-FAC option is WP:Peer review (adding the page to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar as you go), though PRs can sometimes struggle to garner detailed comments. Once your account is six months old and has 500 edits, you'll be able to access WP:The Wikipedia Library, which gives you access to materials from various publishers and online collections. If there's a source you can't find after some considerable searching, the WP:Resource exchange can be very helpful. If there are particular sources you're hoping to use, feel free to shoot me a message (here or on my talk page) and there's a good chance I'll be able to send them to you; for me to send PDFs, though, you'll first need to link your Wikipedia account to an email address (this can be done in "Preferences", under "User profile"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Cited Content

[edit]

@Tpolehinke1994, I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for your edits and your insight on the situation.

Regarding the removal of sourced content in the lead: I acknowledge that not all dragons have the ability to manipulate magical elements, but that many do. Words like "often," "commonly," and "typically" all refer to something that happens a lot, but not universally. The ability to "manipulate natural elements" (from the East Asian dragon to many modern Western stereotypes involving magic) is not universal, but it occurs enough to be fundamental. The aim of the lead is to introduce and prepare the reader for the article, and the article includes many references to natural elements and magic.

Regarding the word use of predatory: Yes, things like claws and wings, in the context of dragons, are commonly associated with predatory traits. That descriptive word use is meant to show how they are not neutral features, but ones fitted for a predator. Note that many non-listed draconic features are also predatory.

I would like to say that I have only reverted your edits once, as I believed the removal was unconstructive, since no reason was given and it removed important sourced content. It is also worth saying that content decisions should be based on reliable sources and consensus rather than individual preference. As this trait is commonly found in dragons and supported by reliable sources, it is appropriate to include it. Sourced edits should not be removed without thorough explanation.

It would be helpful to discuss significant changes on the talk page before removing core content, unless you are editing it and intend to include it elsewhere or in a different style. This is to prevent removing information prematurely and edit wars. Thank you for your attention. TheUnit 72 (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Number 1: Please don't tell me youre sorry for the inconvenience.
Number 2: Dragons aren't magical, like wizards of spellcasters are. Not every dragon is the same either, so it's not as if they all "manipulate" natural elements. Just because a being's got powers, doesnt mean they doing something magical or with the occult. Stop thinking everything thst is supernatural has to do with magic. Plus, there's other words to describe dragons than the word predatory.
Number 3: You didnt revert the edits once, so don't say you only reverted the edits once, and the removal wasnt unconstructive, either. I dont need to give you a reason why either, you're a stranger on the internet who thinks dragons profuce magic. Tpolehinke1994 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tpolehinke1994, I apologise that I was unable to clearly communicate the reason behind my words. Here is a list explaining why I chose the words I did:
  • "Manipulating natural elements" was chosen as it could quickly and accurately convey:
ㅤㅤ- Fire-breathing in Western cultures
ㅤㅤ- Water influence and supernatural/divine integration in East Asian dragons
ㅤㅤ- Magical influence in some modern archetypes
ㅤㅤ- Manipulation of archetypal elements other than fire (e.g., ice, lightning, poison, etc.) in some modern archetypes
  • "Intelligence" was chosen because many draconic archetypes across cultures and time periods have portrayed dragons as having a higher intelligence, especially in modern and East Asian cultures, though the intelligence doesn't have to be strictly benevolent.
  • "Predatory" was used to highlight the many powerful, physical, and yes, predatory aspects of a dragon, and how they are particularly composed of specific traits suited for a predator. They are often shown across cultures as being predatory, especially when malevolent.
TheUnit 72 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
It could be worded differently. Instead of saying 'manipulating natural elements' we can word it as saying there are dragons that breathe fire, like Drogon from Game of Thrones. And stop saying dragons are magical please, they're not wizards or spellcasters.
Wizards produce magic, so stop going out of your way to make it sound as if dragons and wizards are somehow the same thing. Tpolehinke1994 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tpolehinke1994, To resolve the terminology dispute in the lead, I am anchoring the description in these three peer-reviewed surveys:
  • On Elements: The Dragon and the Rainbow (2023, pp. 1–10) discusses cross-cultural associations between dragons and natural elements such as fire and water.
  • On Intelligence: Fee (2011, pp. 7–10) describes dragons in several traditions, especially in Germanic contexts, as increasingly associated with intelligence and cleverness in later interpretations.
  • On Predatory: Jones (2000, p. 162; see also pp. 140–165) defines dragons as a "super-predator" composed of several apex, evolutionary predatory traits.
If there are Reliable Sources (WP:RS) that provide a different perspective, I would be open to revising the wording accordingly.
I also note that dragons, unlike wizards, typically are not presented as using learned magic. There may be a misunderstanding here regarding the interpretation of "manipulating natural elements" or "magic" as referring to such learned magic, which is not the intended meaning. As well, I should mention that wizards are not the only beings in mythology and folklore to possess magical capabilities, and neither are they expected to be; the same applies to dragons. Magic is a supernatural concept at heart, not strictly a system of spells. Unless there are Reliable Sources (WP:RS) that explicitly state dragons cannot be described as 'magical' or 'elemental,' insisting on a definition that equates all magic with "wizards" would likely fall under Original Research (WP:OR).
As well, "fire-breathing" is characteristically a Western-European and modern dragon trait. The reason "manipulating natural elements" was used was because it is more globally inclusive and has broader applicability, which is typically expected for a lead paragraph. It encompasses fire-breathing in Western contexts, water influence and divine integration in East Asian contexts, magical abilities in some modern archetypes, and non-traditional associations with elements beyond fire. The aim of the lead, especially the lead paragraph, is to summarize the body of the article. Fire-breathing is simply one aspect, while elemental associations are found in cultures worldwide, even beyond the examples given.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any additional sources or perspectives you may have. TheUnit 72 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please stop. You keep reversing the edits as if there were something wrong. There wasn't anything wrong with what was said, and you choose to reverse what was said...? Plus, the reliable sources line, that's bullshit. Dragons aren't sorcerers (theyre two different things), so they're not magical.
Stop trying to be right all the time becaus you're behind a screen. I'm also not gonna sit and argue with you, thank you. Stop implying dragons are magical as well, and I don't need you thanking me (as if that's supposed to indoctrinate me into listening to everything you say). Enough.Tpolehinke1994 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to alter the lead's wording, you'll need to supply reliable secondary sources to support your position. Restating that dragons are not magical and declining to address the sources and explanations that your interlocutor has presented doesn't constitute a compelling case.
TheUnit 72, it might be helpful to provide quotations (from the cited sources) that unambiguously support the statements in the version of the article you restored. I had a cursory look through the sources, and it wasn't immediately clear to me which parts verified the cited information. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how many times will we go thru this? And who are you to tell me I need to supply reliable secondary sources? What's unreliable about what was said before, about dragons being able to breathe fire?

"Restating that dragons are not magical and declining to address sources and explanations that your interlocutor's presented doesn't constitute a compelling case". Thats what YOU think.

I've got other things to do than to argue endlessly with strangers online.Tpolehinke1994 (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As we have been unable to resolve this dispute, I have requested a Third Opinion (3O) to provide an external perspective.
@Michael Aurel, thank you for the suggestion. I was aiming to provide a concise summary of the citations given, as I understood that to be helpful for clarity. I’ve updated the descriptions of the citations above to reflect the sources more specifically, in line with the points they support. TheUnit 72 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are we honestly still dragging this conversation? Go and touch grass or something. Tpolehinke1994 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TheUnit 72, please read WP:LLMTALK. InfernoHues (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Procedural decline. There are more than two editors involved in this dispute. 3O is generally for requesting a third opinion. Editors are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old lead

[edit]

There has been no activity here for roughly two weeks, and the lead still has the issues related to structure, detail, and repetition that I highlighted above. It's also not clear to me that the newly added information is verified by the provided sources. This is partly because page numbers are absent for some full books (eg. Jones, Shuker), and in other cases the page ranges are large (eg. 25 pages for Jones, 9 pages for Blust). I also have concerns about the parts that are cited with appropriately specific page ranges; for example, I've checked the sources cited to the first sentence of the second paragraph (Honegger, Williamson, and West) and I don't see how they support the claim in the article. Given this, I have restored the old lead, which I wrote a few months ago. Material can of course be reinstated if the issues I've outlined here and above are addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the inactivity. Since you mentioned it to me, I have been editing other pages in an attempt to reach 500 edits and access the Wikipedia Library, at which point editing would resume. This is because I wish to access higher quality sources and exact page numbers, as I also believe the current sources are vague and inadequate. I am now only 30 edits away, and should resume my project shortly. I had also been waiting for the coals to well and truly settle after the previous conflict, as releasing article overhauls with an edit war looming over oneself is not my cup of tea. Therefore, my queued fixes and my planned second half of the lead have been waiting in a document, unrealized. However, I will attempt to implement your fixes in-draft. I do have one question: Do you have any problems with the structure, detail, or repetition that you have not already mentioned, to avoid any future impurities? TheUnit 72 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I have any issues with what I've seen of the proposed lead beyond the points raised in the comment from around a month ago and the sourcing concerns. If you're asking about your broader plans for the article, I probably don't have a good enough idea of what they are to make that judgement. While seeking to improve an important article is of course something that ought to be encouraged, noticing citations that don't support the relevant text is (as I'm sure you can appreciate) cause for some disconcertment. It's worth noting that, on Wikipedia, a source "verifying" a claim means "the source explicitly says the same thing as the article, but in different words" (cf. this note at WP:V). Spot checks are also a compulsory part of GA reviews and of a nominator's first FA review. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand this, and I believe my intent was to acknowledge that the sourcing was not as precise as it should have been. In several cases I was unable to provide sufficiently specific citations or page references, which I now intend to correct. I apologise for the previous mistakes and for any miscommunication that may have taken place. Your point regarding verification and explicit support in the sources is well taken, and I will keep that standard more firmly in mind going forward. TheUnit 72 (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon&oldid=1354134835"