Talk:Chinese dragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese dragon article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese dragon article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] West Dakota Prize

A Winner of the August 2004 West Dakota Prize

This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.

[edit] Move

Should this be moved to Chinese dragon? --Brion 10:15 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

Since Japanese and Indonesian dragons by definition are not Chinese, maybe this page should be moved to Oriental dragon. "Oriental dragon" gets 36 900 hits on google ("Chinese dragon" gets 340 000 and "Japanese dragon" 153 000) so it is not a neologism. --Salleman 04:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Even in Japan, dragons have a strong connotation of Chineseness, in the past as well as present. Dragons are seldom found in native artifacts and archetecture. Among the pantheon of the Shinto and folk religion, dragons occupy only vague and minor positions. Dragon is clearly not considered by the Japanese to be very Japanese. When asked to distinguish an "oriental dragon" from a western dragon, a modern Japanese is likely to refer to it as Chinese dragon as Japanese dragon. Lastly, the Japanese wiki article for "oriental dragon" clearly states it as of Chinese origin. There's really no debate here. Uly 12:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
True, but we are not just talking about Japanese dragons. I understand the Vietnamese regard their "Rong" as being Vietnamese, not Chinese.
Bathrobe 03:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
"Oriental dragon" seems like a neologism. And the "Vietnamese dragon" is extremely similar to and clearly came from the Chinese dragon. Even the words "Rong" came from the Chinese word "Long" for the Chinese dragon.

[edit] Origin

The mythology of the Eastern [oriental] dragon is scientifically said to have come/originated from the Chinese alligator. Then, the dragon, spread across Aisa during Chinese influence. Like many other aspects of Chinese culture, examples; Chinese New Year, usage of chopsticks and the Chinese writing in North East Asia.

"Scientifically said"? Right, which science said that? Uly 12:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Han style dragon is also 3 clawed, which explains the 3 clawed dragon went to Japan in Tang or pre-Tang period.

[edit] offspring?

I read Pixiu and it says it is the 9th offspring of this dragon, but a text search finds no "offspring" or "pixiu" in this article. What is with that? DyslexicEditor 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The information about offspring of the dragon is in the Chinese dragon#Classical depictions section. I'm not sure whether "pixiu" should be in the list, or whether it is an alternative name for one of the listed forms...
Many of the dragon offpsring/children have more than one name. --Sumple (Talk) 08:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's the same as, or similar to, the bixi--the first child of the long. The link in the pixiu article uses the name "bi xie". No idea why the pixiu article says it's the ninth child. 24.14.198.8 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

[edit] Dragon, Long

For most of its existence, this article started with the name "Chinese dragon". In January 2006, the word "Long" was added as an alternative English name, without any justification being cited.

I deleted this for several reasons:

  • "Long" is not yet the normal English name for a Chinese dragon, although "Lung" can be found. One particular problem with "long" is the pin'yin spelling, which is standard for modern Chinese but is not yet common in English. The older spelling "Lung" is much more common, as a Google search will reveal. (Also, the Cantonese name, which is just as likely a source for the name "lung" as Mandarin, cannot be spelt "long").
  • The Chinese dragon is also found in other Asian cultures and the specification of Mandarin Chinese as "standard" seems problematic. Japanese, for instance, uses Ryu, and this can also be found in English-language texts (also found in Google searches).
  • The name of the dragon in a number of languages, including Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese, appears in parentheses at the start of the article. This should be enough for anyone wanting to know what the Oriental Dragon is known in the languages of countries where it is "found").

Despite the above, I appreciate that there are arguments for "Lung" or "Long" to be cited at the start of the article as a generic name for the Chinese dragon:

  • The dragon was originally a Chinese creature and is strongly identified with Chinese culture. In that sense the Chinese name may have some claim to primacy. The article itself is heavily focused on the Chinese dragon, to the exclusion of dragons in other (Oriental) cultures.
  • The name "Lung" (but not "Long") is found in English more often than the other names.

In the light of this, I would like to suggest an alternative approach for consideration, something like this:

The Chinese dragon or Oriental dragon, sometimes also called the Lung, is a mythical Chinese creature that also appears in other East Asian cultures. It is known by different names or pronunciations in the cultures in which it is found:

--Mandarin pinyin: lóng --Cantonese: lùhng --Hokkien: leng

In fact, it might even be an idea to place the various names of the Oriental dragon in a box at the side. At present, placing the names in parentheses at the start tends to clutter up the text.

What do other contributors think? Bathrobe 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good idea. Coz if you wrote "Long" in English most people would think it's long, as in lengthy.
But about "oriental dragon" - how common is that name in ordinary usage? --Sumple (Talk) 05:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Sumple, actually, there is a problem here that I hadn't realised. The whole area of Chinese/Oriental dragons is in something of a mess. There are separate articles on the Japanese dragon and the Korean dragon, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article because there are no direct links to them.

We need to decide the structure of these articles within Wikipedia. Should it be:

1. SEPARATE ARTICLES FOR EACH COUNTRY

This would involve a structure like this:

A. Central article on Oriental dragon (possibly just a disambiguation page)
B. Separate smaller articles on:
etc.

2. MAIN ARTICLE (CHINESE DRAGON/ORIENTAL DRAGON) PLUS SEPARATE SPINOFFS FOR OTHER COUNTRIES

This would involve a structure like this:

A. Central article on Chinese dragon (or Oriental dragon) -- basically the current article.
B. Spinoff articles on:
etc.

3. SINGLE UNIFIED ARTICLE ON THE ORIENTAL DRAGON

Single article on Oriental dragon, with the main section being on Chinese dragon and subsections dealing with Japanese dragon and Korean dragon.

All of this would involve a certain amount of rewriting. What do you think? (I have also noticed that there is an article called Dragon, which covers all kinds of dragon, including the European dragon and the Asian dragon. In fact, the European and Oriental dragons seem to me to be totally unrelated types. They only share the name "dragon" because early Westerners decided that the benevolent Chinese variety had something in common with their own vicious variety. Actually, I feel that Chinese dragons have more in common with the Australian Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent than they do with European dragons!)

Bathrobe 06:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Bathrobe. I've been away for a bit, but here are my thoughts on these issues:

1. Organisation of the various Asian dragons:

I think that they should be combined in the same article because they are all the same creature - but slightly different in representation in different contexts.
I think it's significant that, for example, the Japanese dragon's toe numbers correspond to one version of the Chinese dragon but not the most common one. Unlike Chinese dragon vs Western dragon, the Chinese dragon and Japanese dragon are the same creature, but with some variations in representation.
Having read those articles, they're not very well written (and not many people appear to be paying much attention to them) and have a lot of redundant information already contained (and in some parts, more comprehensively or accurately) in the present article.
So, I think, if we combine these articles they'll at max only add a couple of paragraphs. We can have a new section or a subsection under "depictions" that deal with variations in different countries.

2. Article name.

Oriental dragon appears to be a good name for the article. But the Chinese dragon would be the most common name for this creature in English. So I'm thinking using one of these names for the article name, but listing both at the opening (as is the case at present).

3. Chinese dragon vs Western dragon.

It's my impression that the link between the (benevolent) Chinese dragon and the (malevolent) Western dragon was established at least by the time Buddhist sutras were translated into Chinese - the evil dragons in Buddhist mythology were translated into Chinese as the Long. Thus, in the Chinese version, Buddha says unto the arhats "There shall be thirteen stupas built over my ashes, lest they be destroyed by ghosts, monsters, dragons, or evil men."
This also raises a significant question: much of the mythology surrounding dragons in Japan and China (and elsewhere probably) has become intertwined with Buddhist concepts of the evil dragon - thus there are the benevolent dragon kings, but at the same time a quite different system of evil dragons. They are both depicted in the same way (as classical oriental dragons) but the mythology give them contradictory attributes. Should such mythology be sepratted out and treated as Buddhist/Indian/Western dragon mythology, or has it become so ingrained that it now forms a part of the Oriental dragon mythology? --Sumple (Talk) 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There had been a long discussion on the naming of the article, between Oriental/Chinese/Japanese/Korean Dragon a while back. It was finally decided that the main article remains Chinese Dragon. There were many good arguements for this choice, but let me just point out what in my opinion is the strongest: in both the Korean and Japanese article for this dragon state rather clearly that it is a Chinese mythical creature. Interestingly, since both Korean and Japanese have different words for oriental and European dragon, there was no cause for great confusion. Uly 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know the relation between the Chinese dragon and the Bhutanese dragon? From a superficial look, it seems that the dragon on the Flag of Bhutan is extremely similar to the Chinese one. --Yuje 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Eastern dragon would be a better name in English. We should avoid sino-centrism. Jason Lee

[edit] Han Chinese - Descendent of the Dragon

I've never heard of read of anybody else calling themselves "Descendent of the Dragon" other than the Han Chinese. Please provide sources if editors want to change the link. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no such pure ethnic group as "Han Chinese". Hans Chinese are descendents of various ethnic groups over China's long history. All the people in China are taught to be "Descendent of the Dragon". How can you deny other non-han ethnic groups in China to be "Descendent of the Dragon"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipedia (talk • contribs)

It's true that the Han Chinese have historically had a very mixed heritage. However, that does not mean that Han Chinese is still an ethnic identity. But this discussion is in the wrong place. Please read zh:漢人 or Han Chinese.
Saying all "Chinese people" are "Descendants of the Dragon" is problematic. Firstly, Chinese people leads to an ambiguous page. Secondly, can you show us any sources to say that all ethnic minorities in China also think of themselves as "Descandants of the Dragon"? --- Hong Qi Gong 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is how the Han Chinese article reads like "Thousands of years of regionalized assimilation of various ethnic groups and tribes in China is the primary reason for this diversity within the Han. Han Chinese is a subset of the Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu). An alternate name that many Chinese people use to refer to themselves is the "Descendants of the Dragon"." Chinese people itself is an ambiguous concept. It should be connected to an ambiguous page. Edipedia 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you show a source to say that, for example, the Manchus or even the Tibetans think of themselves as "Descendants of the Dragon"? --- Hong Qi Gong 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipedia (talk • contribs)

It's ridiculous because only Han Chinese think of themselves as Descendants of the Dragon. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh don't Bhutanese identify themselves with a dragon as well? --Sumple (Talk) 05:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of the ethnic minorities in China may identify themselves as Descendants of the Dragon as well. But the problem with referring that term to Chinese people in general is that it would imply anybody with Chinese citizenship/nationality, meaning all the ethnic minorities (55 groups officially recognised) in China, refer to themselves as Descendants of the Dragon. I have a lot of doubts about that. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
One comment though. By descendants of the dragon I assume you mean 龙的传人, which doesn't have to mean "descendants" as such. It could be disciples (as in a religion or belief system), or anyone carrying on anything. --Sumple (Talk) 00:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only Han Chinese is Chinese people?

I'm a little bothered by some HongKong or Taiwan editors on this article. Chinese people refers to Zhonghua Minzu not just Han Chinese. Zhonghua Minzu is the Descendants of the Dragon Everyone agrees on this. Stop change this article back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipedia (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned above, saying Descendants of the Dragon refers to Chinese people or Zhonghua Minzu is problematic because that includes all the ethnic minorities in China. Do Tibetans do this? Do the Zhuang people do this? The Miao? The Hui? The Mongols?
It is problematic also because Overseas Chinese also may refer to themselves as such, but they are not part of Zhonghua Minzu because they don't have Chinese citizenship. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

A member of Zhonghua Minzu doesn't need to have a citizenship of PRC. If you don't think you belong to Zhonghua Minzu, then you are not Chinese. Edipedia 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't insert your comment in the middle of my comments. That looks confusing. Secondly, non-Han Chinese, meaning all the ethnic minorities in China, are part of Zhonghua Minzu, so yes, it does matter in this case. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Zhonghua Minzu is refered as Descendants of the Dragon. Other non-Han Chinese belongs to Zhonghua Minzu. Then they are classified as Descendants of the Dragon. Edipedia 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, please don't insert your comments in the middle of mine. And also, again, you have not provided any sources to say that all the ethnic minorities in China, in essense, all of Zhonghua Minzu, consider themselves as Desendants of the Dragon. I'm open to your edit, if you can show us some evidence. But you haven't done that yet. Do Tibetans, or Mongols, or the Zhuang, etc etc, consider themselves Desendants of the Dragon? And Zhonghua Minzu refer to those of Chinese citizenship. Another problem here is that Overseas Chinese may also consider themselves Desendants of the Dragon.
Anyway, I've exhausted my three edits for the day. So if anybody agree with me, please revert. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is how the Zhonghua Minzu article reads like "The boundaries of Zhonghua minzu are fuzzy but most Chinese use the term to include all peoples within the territorial boundaries of China along with overseas Chinese integrated as one national, political, and perhaps even ideological-moral group." You can see the English and Chinese version of Zhonghua Minzu, Han Chinese articles for source. Edipedia 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Zhonghua Minzu article also says:
The boundaries of who is or is not a member of Zhonghua minzu have always been somewhat fuzzy and rather inconsistent. For example, whether overseas Chinese are considered part of Zhonghua minzu depends on the speaker and the context.
I ran a search for 華僑 at the zh:中華民族 article and didn't find anything. At best, the English article claims the definition is fuzzy in regards to Overseas Chinese. And at any rate, we still don't have any evidence that all the ethnic minorities in China also claim to be Descendants of the Dragon. I've never read anything about Tibetans, Mongols, Zhuangs, etc etc, claiming to be Desendants of the Dragon. It would be nice if you provide some sources. Even Taiwanese aborigines are technically included in Zhonghua Minzu because 高山人 is officially recognised as an ethnic minority by the PRC, do they also consider themselves Desendants of the Dragon? --- Hong Qi Gong 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese if they don't consider themselves as member of Zhonghua Minzu. They can classify themselves as Asian. Ethnic minorities in China are definitely Chinese people. Edipedia 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I've never said that ethnic minorities in China are not Chinese people. I'm saying that they do not consider themselves Descendants of the Dragon. Only Han Chinese do this. But I'm open to the possibility that perhaps all the other ethnic groups in China also do, if you can show us some evidence for this. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Only Han Chinese and certain other minority groups, but not all. That's how I understand your argument? --Sumple (Talk) 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this really is quite confusing. I've no idea who's arguing which point anymore. But anyway, my take on this is that Zhonghua Minzu, as its article points out, is indeed a very fuzzy term. Nevertheless the idea of Zhonghua Minzu is more inclusive rather than exclusive; the term came about precisely to unify the many minor ethnicities in China. On the other hand, the logical argument that "Zhonghua Minzu = all minorities" and "Zhonghua Minzu = Descendents of the Dragon" thus "all minorities = Descendents of the Dragon" does not stand. It's a cultural concept that just cannot be disected with this kind of hard logic. The fact is that "Descendents of the Dragon" is clearly a Han concept, stemming from the myths of the Han ancestors. The fact that DotD is considered synonymous with Zhonghua Minzu only goes to show the cultural dominance of Han chinese within the people, the culture and the concept of Zhonghua Minzu. The other ethnic groups are only as DotD as they accept and are integrated with the Han culture. Uly 01:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sumple - Where I'm coming from is this: I know that Han Chinese refer to themselves as Desendants of the Dragon. There may be some ethnic minority groups in China that also do this, I'm not sure. But I'm doubting that all the ethnic minority groups in China do this. What Edipedia seeks to do is to say that all of Zhonghua Minzu consider themselves Desendants of the Dragon. In doing so, he would be including people like the Mongols, the Zhuangs, the Tibetans, even the Russian and Uyghur minorities in China, because they are all included in Zhonghua Minzu. There are 55 ethnic minority groups in China. I'm open to the idea that Edipedia may be correct in his assertion, but it's a claim that's going to need some evidence. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Subjects of the Dragon (Emperor)

Dragon is the symbol of Chinese emperor. The true meaning of "龍的傳人" is subjects of the Dragon (Emperor). More elegantly, we use "Descendant of the Dragon". Genghis Khan, Kangxi, Qianlong and many other Chinese emperors are considered to be "真龙天子". But they are not Han Chinese. All the ethnic groups in China are subjects of verious Chinese emperors (Han Chinese emperor or other ethnic emperors). So all the ethnics in China are "Descendants of the Dragon". Beside all the ethnic groups participated in the formation of Han Chinese. They're entitled to be "Descendant of the Dragon" if they like to. It is just stupid to say that "漢族是龍的傳人。". At least, nobody say so in China.

There are historic reasons to say that Zhonghua Minzu is the "Descendant of the Dragon", not just Han Chinese. These are indicated in the Chinese version of 汉族的主体zh: 华夏族

公元前2700年夏族领袖黄帝东进，战胜华族领袖炎帝，两族达成联盟并将蚩尤灭掉，占据整个中原，华夏二族逐渐融合成华夏族。后来华夏族融合了藏缅族、吐火罗人、东夷、通古斯族、西戎、祝融氏、蚩尤后代、匈奴、鲜卑等。西汉时期，一个以华夏族为基础的新民族：汉族产生了。汉代汉族是由华夏族与东夷族、楚族融合而成的，也有部分羌族的血液。

到了现代,大陆也有很多学者，媒体称汉族和其他少数民族等中华民族为“华夏民族”。

There is nothing in zh: 华夏族 that says all of Zhonghua Minzu consider themselves Desendants of the Dragon. It just says that several different ethnic groups together make up Huaxia. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the wording. They're entitled to be "Descendant of the Dragon" if they like to. You can't exclude those who like to. Edipedia 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where it says that ethnic groups like the Uyghur, or the Russians, or Koreans, etc etc, consider themselves Descendants of the Dragon. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Since these ethnic group are citizens of China. They are considered subjects of the Dragon. They of course have the previledge to be of Russian of Korean descent. Edipedia 18:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, it would help if you show us some sources for evidence. I have yet to see anything that says that groups like Uyghurs, or the Russians minorities, for example, consider themselves Descendants of the Dragon. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again. You can't exclude these people from being Descendants of the Dragon, if they like to. They are Chinese citizens. What do you argue about? Edipedia 18:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence that they consider themselves Descendants of the Dragon. There's no question they belong to Zhonghua Minzu. But there's no evidence that everybody in Zhonghua Minzu consider themselves Desendants of the Dragon. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you provide sources that prove ethnic minorities are not willing to be elligible to be referred as Descendants of the Dragon. Edipedia 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

龍的傳人 does not mean subjects of the dragon. 傳人 means passing on - e.g. DNA in the case of "descendants" --Sumple (Talk) 22:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not have to prove that. You are the one that's trying to make a claim here. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 乾隆是龍

Dragon is not for Han Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipedia (talk • contribs) 2006-08-01

The article does not say that only Han Chinese consider themselves "Descendants of the Dragon". Your revert is unjustified and illogical. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Manchus, mongols and many other ethnics claim they are "Descendants of the Dragon", because their ancestors ruled China and became the "dragon"(emperor). Dragon is a symbol for Manchu's Qing dynasty. It is quite absurd for you to claim that only Han Chinese consider themselves as "Descendants of the Dragon". Edipedia 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming only Han Chinese refer to themselves as "Descendants of the Dragon", and the article does not claim that either. I'm questioning that the label can be used for other ethnic groups like Russians, Koreans, Uyghurs, Tibetans, etc etc. You have not provided any evidence to show that. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the current version which seems to imply only Han ppl think they're "DotD". If you want accuracy, then, according to the HongQiGong POV, perhaps it should read "Some Chinese peoples, especially the Han Chinese, consider themselves ..." Notice the "s" on people. --Sumple (Talk) 11:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Story

Yellow Emperor is depicted as a human being. Nüwa and Fuxi are said to have snake/dragon bodies. Edipedia 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia, the story about the totems of the tribes of Huaxia is a well known theory. It was the orthodox theory, in fact, in the People's Republic of China for a time. This section does not say that Yellow Emperor is a dragon. And Nuwa and Fuxi are half snakes, not dragons. Please see totem for more information. --Sumple (Talk) 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the accuracy of the statement "Yellow Emperor used a snake for his coat of arms. Every time he conquered another tribe, he incorporated his defeated enemy's emblem into his own. That explains why the dragon appears to have features of various animals.". Please provide source. Edipedia 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia, please stop removing that paragraph without discussion. I am restoring the text for the last time. Please be aware of 3RR. The story is well known. If you haven't heard of it, that is no excuse to remove stuff from articles. I never knew there was place called Madadzi. Does that justify me to blank that article? I don't think so.
Deleting things without discussion is not the right way to deal with things you don't agree with. Simply posting a message that says you don't agree with it is not discussion. Here are some external links that talk about the mythical link between the dragon and the Yellow Emperor:

[1], [2], [3]. --Sumple (Talk) 00:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

207.118.10.241 00:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National animal and Dragon disrespect?

Can someone cite me a source to the Panda being the national animal of China over the Dragon?

Also Dragons are killed all the time in MMORPGs, which are all the rage in parts of China. Would this not show a much greater disrespect than a Nike commercial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.10.241 (talk) 2006-08-25 20:24:53

Dragon not Chinese dragon? --Sumple (Talk) 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's the traditional video game western type dragon. Besides, it's not our role to decide what is or is not "disrespectful" here. If someone can find a notable source to say that Chinese MMORPG players are disrespecting Chinese dragons, I'd be more than willing to support inserting that in the article. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Dragon Types

Is Tun-Mi-Lung (Typhoon Dragon) & Yu-Lung (Carp Dragon) exist, or are they just game creations? Thanks, CarpD 8/27/06
Yu Lung is the carp that transforms into a dragon by swimming up the Dragon's Gate. It is also a good luck charm for successful exams. 24.14.198.8 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

[edit] Manchus consider themselves descendents of the dragon too

Some Han Chinese consider themselves descendents of the phoenix. This is a pointless debate. Just say "Many Chinese consider themselves descendents of the dragon." Problem solved. --128.135.60.87 09:51, 30 November 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 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozg (talk • contribs)

Err... but "龍" is translated as "dragon"... Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what he is calling a mistake. Ashibaka tock 23:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See also http://www.loong.us/ - it is an informed opinion, but I'm not sure if the page should reflect it as the real facts, or stick with the widely recognized term "Chinese dragon." Ashibaka tock 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think we should just stick with the Chinese dictionary, which does translate 龍 as "dragon". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. That and very few people in the English speaking world know or calls "Chinese Dragon" as "loong".Sjschen 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote on the topic of mistranslation on my user page at User:Kowloonese#use_of_Chinese_and_Japanese_words_in_the_English_language_and_Wikipedia, several other wikipedians gave their opinions too on the associated talk page at User_talk:Kowloonese#Re:_use_of_Chinese_and_Japanese_words_in_the_English_language_and_Wikipedia. Kowloonese 00:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely agree that 龍 and the western concept of "dragon" are very different, if not completely opposite. But for the purposes of WP, we should stick with the most reputable translation, which is that 龍 translates to "dragon". Having said that, however, what does everybody think of adding a section to explain that there are people who think this translation is a mistake? There was actually an English-language BBC article about this[4], and although I'm definitely opposed to renaming the article, I think that shows it deserves attention. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Dragon's nine likenesses

龍之九似:

(1）龍頭似駝 (Head like camel) (2）龍角似鹿角 (Antler like stag) （3）龍睛似蝦目 (Eyes like lobster) （4）龍口似牛 (mouth like bull) （5）龍身似蛇 (Trunk like serpent) (6）龍鰭似火焰 (fin like fire) (7）龍髮似獅鬃 (hair/mane like lion) (8）龍鱗似鯉魚 (Scales like carp) （9）龍爪似鷹 (Talons like eagle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.215.111 (talk)

That information should be included. The Chinese Dragon is a massive creature, just like the number nine conveys an overwhelming feeling, the Loong conveys a sense of great power and thus is associated with nine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Is already at Chinese dragon#The dragon as mythical creature, complete with bad translation. --Sumple (Talk) 04:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does the "eyes like a lobster" come in? I've always heard "eyes like a demon" or "eyes like a cow", or even "eyes like a hare". Also, a "belly like a clam" and "paws/legs like a tiger". At least, that's the description listed in The Enchanted World: Dragons referencing (supposedly) the Pan Ts'ao Kang Mu. 24.14.198.8 17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

[edit] Dragon toes

The entire section on dragon toes has been tagged for not having any references for months now. If no references show up in the next day or so, I'll be deleting the entire section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 Types of Dragons

How come there isn't clear cut about Type's of dragon's? Specfically (at least) the five general types of dragons (becuase I'm sure there's just more than 5 the more you look into it.) Here's a link To the 5 types od Chinese Dragons. And Another one! Here --199.227.86.10 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the article again. The first four of those dragons are exactly the same as the first four in the list of dragon types in the Wikipedia article. The Imperial Dragon is discussed under the "dragon toes" section. Also, next time find websites or books that list sources; it's more helpful to have reliable sources than websites with no citations. my only concern with the article is that D&D made up the list of nine dragon types. I don't believe that the Monster Manuals were the first ever books to give that list of dragon types. The earliest D&D books always got their information from somewhere else. 24.14.198.8 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

[edit] Merger proposal

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

I've proposed to merge Japanese and Korean dragon articles to this article. There are many arguments for this that can be found on this talk page, let me just pick the few that are the most important:
1. From past to present, dragons always carry strong Chinese connotation in Japan and Korea, and dragon appear relatively rarely in native myths. To be sure, dragon entered Japanese and Korean cultures a long time ago, and there are distinguishing features in their mythology. Nevertheless, dragons as something Chinese largely overshadow their roles in native lores. Even today, dragons are seen as somewhat exotic and are frequently used to symbolise/characaturize Chineseness in J/K.
2. Both of the article for "Chinese dragon" in Japanese and Korean state clearly in the opening sentence that the dragon is a Chinese creature, and there is no separate articles for C/J/K dragons. (And no one is upset about that!)
3. J/K dragon articles are somewhat isolated and neglected; I think moving them into sections under this article would improve the info available for J/K dragons. A good deal of info in those articles overlap the Chinese dragon article anyway, and the unavoidable comparisons to Chinese dragon in the J/K articles are made more relavent if placed within this article.
I personally don't know enough about Vietnamese culture to propose a merge with that article as well, but I suspect the reasons may apply there as well. To reflect the post-merge content, this article could be renamed "East Asian dragon". (I think "Oriental dragon" as proposed before was somewhat vague and sounds Eurocentric.) I hope we can discuss this without national bias. o 23:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I originally proposed some kind of restructuring of the articles on dragons (including a possible merger) last year. I don't think "Oriental dragon" is a problem and I don't see why it is Eurocentric. The problem with "East Asian dragon" is that it's not a very common or widely accepted term.
Bathrobe 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would prefer this article to stay at "Chinese dragon" because it is by far the most common name and it is Chinese in origin anyway. As for the other articles, I'm not sure how much oppositions you'll have, but another option is to rename those other articles. For example, "Japanese dragon" -> "Chinese dragons in Japanese culture" or "Dragons in Japanese culture" or something similar. Hong Qi Gong (Talk -
  • coment:I also think that the Viatnamese, Japanese, and Korean Dragon be merged with the Chinese Dragon because they are similar in appearance and in cultural significance.


Contribs) 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think everyone would agree that the origin of the dragon in Asia is from the continent. I don't know if there are dragons in India or Siberia, but I have no opposition to "Oriental Dragon" or "Dragon (Oriental)" as the merged title. It's just that some people may have a complex against the word "Oriental" because of it being used to describe the yellow skinned race, but in this case, we are using it as the opposite of Occidental, or Western. If merged, "Chinese Dragon" would be inappropriate, as the article would be spanning many nations. If the dragon was a real-life animal, the J/K dragons would not be "Chinese Dragons" as they would have different anatomy and traits (like frogs and toads). So if merged, "Chinese" should be dropped. -- Emana 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is primarily about the long, which is the best-known Chinese dragon, perhaps even "the Chinese dragon", but clearly not "the Oriental dragon" (which smacks of Orientalism) or "the East Asian dragon" (whatever that is, the LTBA article in note 7 lists over one hundred Chinese dragon names).
1. The respective articles already mention the connections between Chinese long, Japanese ryū and Korean ryong, but they're not identical. For example, Japanese dragon mentions the Yamata no Orochi. Can we claim it carries a "strong Chinese connotation" or appears "relatively rarely in native myths"?
2. I could be misreading these opening sentences, but which one states clearly "the dragon is a Chinese creature"? They currently say the Japanese dragon is "closely related to the Chinese lóng" and the Korean dragon is "culture-specific" and "generally comparable to its Chinese counterpart".
3. You're correct that the Japanese and Korean dragon articles are "isolated and neglected"; yet that seems like a reason to improve and link them – not to merge them. I agree that this long Chinese dragon article needs to be restructured, and would be glad to help. Keahapana 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • He's talking about the articles on Japanese WP and Korean WP. Neither Japanese WP or Korean WP have seperate articles for the so-called "Japanese dragon" or "Korean dragon". Granted, those articles are also not named "Chinese dragon" either. They're simply named 竜 and 용, both of which would just translate as "dragon", and both articles are about the Chinese dragon. But both the articles state that the dragon is a creature from China. From reading the kanji on the Japanese article, it says that the dragon is a Chinese mythological creature/animal (中国の伝説上の生物). And the Korean article says that it is a holy creature from China (중국에서는 신성한 동물). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Relevant seperate discussion - Just FYI, there is a discussion and poll over at Talk:Dragon about merging European dragon into Dragon. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks for the clarification Hong Qi Gong, I was indeed referring to the "dragon" articles in the Japanese and Korean language Wiki. I have to say it's frustrating to see that nobody there has any problem with the fact that dragons are Chinese, but in the English Wiki, such suggestions are often met with backlash and national indignition.
I agree that "East Asian dragon" sounds a bit neologism-ish, but it is at least accurate; covering at least Japan, Korea, China and Vietnam. I oppose the term "oriental dragon" because it is too vague and Eurocentric: The Crecent and Indus cultures have their own dragons, or at least what's translated as dragons in the west anyway.
As for Japan's Orochi, calling it a dragon is really a classification a posteriori. Orochi is doubtlessly native to Japanese mythology, and from both its name and description, it is very distinct from the *ahem* East Asian dragon. Personally I think calling Orochi a dragon is somewhat sino-centric. There are dragons in Japanese legends, but they are never confused with Orochi, and they all date after the cultural contact with China and indeed the import of the Chinese dragon. o 10:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there might not be a problem with calling it the Chinese dragon. Despite acknowledgement that the dragons of Japan, Korea, etc. are originally from China, my feeling is that they are also woven into these cultures in a way that defies the simple categorisation as "Chinese". Like many other institutions of Chinese culture, they have been adopted and nativised to varying degrees (for example, the celebration of the Lunar New Year in Vietnam, Korea, and Mongolia, and the celebration of the Dragon Boat Festival in China as opposed to its modern-day celebration in Japan as Kodomo no hi.
Bathrobe 10:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Japan, Korea and Vietnam, among others, have adopted aspects of Chinese culture and integrated with their own, creating something new and original. That is only par for the course of all cultural exchanges, just as (Han) Chinese have incorporated many cultural elements of their neighbours. But the difference between, for example, Dragon Boat Festival / Kodomo no hi / Dano and the Chinese dragon is that whereas Kodomo no hi and Dano have shed almost completely their Chinese connotation and are celebrated without any reference to their Chinese origin, the ryu and ryong was never completely "naturalized" and, as I mentioned, carries strong association with China to date. That said, I'm not arguing for or against the title "Chinese dragon", I think East Asian dragon is an acceptable, if imperfect, alternative. o 11:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, just on the strength of the fact that the "Japanese Dragon" and "Korean Dragon" articles can really be expanded quite a bit, I'm not sure a merge is the best idea. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I skeptical of just how much the J/K dragon articles could really be expanded. Again, looking at the articles and their Japanese and Korean language Wiki counterparts, there really isn't too much there that isn't applicable to all East Asian dragons. Of course, the J/K language articles could probably be expanded as well, but personally, I could hardly think of anything else I can say about J/K dragon that's unique to the respective culture. Well, it could just be me, but without making them all-inclusive trivia articles, I think the potential for the J/K articles are quite finite.
Looking at the other dragons page (European, Slavic, etc.) I got the distinct feeling that separating the EA dragons are really knit-picky. Dragons in these broad culture groups are just as, if not more varied in their artistic, literary and mythological depiction, yet it seems perfectly natural group these "dragons" under a wide, regional culture sphere, and then discuss the internal differences within the culture sphere. Why should Chinese/East Asian dragon be treated differently? o 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, in reality, Korean dragon and Japanese dragon are articles about the role of Chinese dragon in Korean and Japanese cultures. I'm not convinced that they cannot be expanded much more. They hardly offer any information about the dragon's origins in both cultures, and almost zero discussion about how the dragon was borrowed into Korean and Japanese cultures from Chinese culture. And did the dragon's symbolism in both cultures ever changed throughout history? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do think the other two articles might be expanded but I am hesitant to suggest all three be merged together. I think each culture has various nuances that the others don't. If they were to be merged, I think a robust section on the Dragon in Chinese culture should be included.Petercoyl 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you like, you can put almost all wikipedia articles in one article. That's just not the way it should be. I removed the Eastern Dragon from the article, because there are also other eastern dragons in addition to Chinese dragon. I'll suggest put a redirect on the top for Korean and Japanese dragons. Wheielapn 03:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no concepts of "Chinese dragon" or "Korean dragon" in its original countries (although we do have Loong in china or Korean style Loong). I use Loong in stead of dragon because Loong is an animal has no connection to western "Dragon" at all - Loong is good lucky animal but dragon is bad evil; Loong has slim long body without wings, Dragon has big belly with big wings. However it is same animal in C/J/K culture. It can be different types such as water Loong, fire Loong; or can be Japanese Loong but they all have same name - Loong in all cultures. This can be simply proved by its pronuncation in Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese, and its character in Chinese and Japanese. I suggest that we have a main topic "Loong", and different sections or linked topics for Loong in China, Loong in Japan etc. To compare with, Tiger is a good example. Wikipedia also has Bengal Tiger, Indochinese tiger , South China Tiger. Fenghuang is also a famous animal in myth as we always talk Fenghuang and Loong together in palaces, Wedding and Chinese new year. But we don't have such a topic Chinese Fenghuang or Japanese Fenghuang. flywhc 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, tiger isn't the best example since it's an actual animal. But I think you pointed out a important argument that should support the merge: the fact that a C/J/K person will most likely see the dragon as the same creature regardless if it is depicted in C, J or K art. The differences in each culture's depiction amounts only to relatively minor variations that exist for most mythological entities. An example would be Saint George; he appears in many different cultures with many different depiction, but no one would argue for separate articles for "English Saint George", "Russian Saint George", "Greek Saint George" and such. o 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I see "Chinese dragon" as simply the name most commonly used in English for that creature which originated from China and also became part of Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese culture. For example, a Korean person would not see a "Korean dragon" as a distinct creature from the "Chinese dragon", merely the different cultural practices relating to the dragon in China vs Korea. The question of the name of the merged article is debatable. I support "Chinese dragon" because that is the most common English name. There should not be any nationalistic issues on the Japanese or Korean sides - as Bathrode argues - since the dragon is seen as Chinese in both those countries anyway. We just need to be careful to be sensitive in our treatment of their cultural practices in the merged article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I just found an another argument: if you click on links to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese version of Chinese dragon, you would see a similar page about this creature; if you click on links in those langugages to Japanese dragon Korean dragon Vietnamese dragon, you would either see same page as Chinese dragon or no link at all! If there is no "Korean Dragon" in Korean language, why we should create one in English? flywhc 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That is just an unfair comparison. A quarter of the population of this world speaks Chinese. Although there is no reliable source for the number of Chinese speaking people on the Internet v.s. Japanese, Korean, etc., the lack of presence of an article in another language does not decide the notability of an English article. -- Emana (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support and rename, there are few fundamental differences between the above dragons that can't be summarized in their own country-specific sections. Also, the name would have to be changed. Maybe "Dragon (Asia)", or "Dragon (East Asia)" if being that specific is necessary. Axem Titanium 01:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just an additional comment: one analogy to Oriental dragon or Chinese dragon that I can think of is Confucian temple. This is an essentially Chinese institution, but is also found in the other countries of Asia. The Wikipedia structure for this subject is to have a single article on Confucian temples, with the main article about Chinese Confucian temples, and specific sections on Confucian temples in other Asian countries. Specific temples (including temples in China, Japan, Vietnam, and Indonesia) have their own articles.
Bathrobe 01:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think a seperate article of Dragons in Asia should instead be created to include all the dragons that are different but share similarities in Asia. There are quite a lot contents about each of these dragons already. They should have their own individual articles in addition to an article about Asian dragons. Coasilve (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The disagreements on the merger should be proof enough that IF the three articles are merged into one, there would be an edit war. To promote the nature of "free contribution" on Wikipedia, the articles should remain separate. It's almost been three months since we started this discussion. -- Emana (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the one who made the original merger proposal. I do not think the disagreements here predict an edit war should the merger go through. Rather, I think the disagreement stems from the fact that, admittedly, my initial proposal was not very well conceived. After seeing the many opinions here, I realize that there are two main issues at stake here: whether the articles should be merged and what to call this article. Looking at the comments above, I think there is a general agreement that Chinese dragon, Japanese dragon, Korean dragon and Vietnamese dragon all essentially describe the same creature. The real disagreement seems to stem from what this creature should properly be called. However, the difficulty of finding a good article title is a poor reason for keeping separate articles; there are plenty of articles with controversial titles, but we should confront this question rather than ignoring it.
At this point, unfortunately, the two issues seem to be muddled and the concensus hard to see. I am not sure what we should do at this point. Should we start the discussion anew, clearly separating the merger and naming issues, asking each participant to vote on each issue? Or perhaps we should continue this debate and work through the merger process and deal with the naming later? o (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The main disagreement in the naming stems from the Chinese "ownz-itude" - although I'd say, they DO ownz it. The most organized compromise would be to merge all Asian dragon articles into one Dragons in Asia article, then have sub-sections branch off into Dragons in China, Dragons in Japan, Dragons in Korea, Dragons in Vietnam using the {{main}} template. Thus, the numbers of articles will not change. We would add only the content we all agree on to the Dragons in Asia article, and if there are any cultural deviation, add those contents to each of the branched articles. The most important thing is that WE ALL AGREE NOT TO DISAGREE with the content of the branch articles that is different from the main Dragons in Asia article. The DIFFERENCES are what makes each culture unique. -- Emana (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The separate articles about the Chinese dragon, the Japanese dragon, etc., are all about essentially the same creature and should all be merged into the article "Chinese dragon". The argument that "this title is incorrect because these dragons are used in non-Chinese cultures" does not hold water because the creature is called a "Chinese dragon" because it originated in China, not because it does not appear in the myths of other countries. "Asian dragon" is bad because it implies that the dragon applies to all of Asia, which it does not (the Middle East and India, for instance, don't have this type of dragon in their cultures). "East Asian dragon" is a neologism. Thus, "Chinese dragon" is the only name that makes sense. —Lowellian (reply) 13:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I see, then shouldn't we add all dragons in Asia to the Asian dragon article to solve one of your problem? -- Emana (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose From a distance, I look at something like this and observe that the topic needs a better taxonomy that identifies these mythologies in other than nationalistic terms (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.). Often, it is the taxonomy structure itself that creates or reinforces a "POV" in favor of one form or another, and we need to be careful not to do this. While understanding that people of Chinese origin may feel a strong 'pride of ownership' here, I do NOT believe that sole fact that the earliest dragon myths originated somewhere on the asian continent in a place that was later known to humans as the nation of China (a VERY, VERY big place btw) should dictate that Wikipedia's "dragon myth taxonomy" should be thus derived. See here. If there MUST be a merge (not sure why we need to merge in the first place), then I would support a new page, maybe Dragon Mythology, and then include all of the various culturally significant representations there, including a "Dragon myth genealogy". Also, I seem to recall Joseph Campbell having researched this with Carl Jung and finding that the "dragon myth" is somehow hard wired into human consciousness independently of any geographical considerations, as "dragons" have emerged in one form or another in every mythology on the planet. Until we have a better taxonomy, I wouldn't want to see Wikipedia effectively present dragons as "primarily and originally Chinese" (even if this is the predominant view) via the taxonomy. riverguy42 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - is it time to close this poll as no concensus? It's been literally months and discussion has died off. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed - No consensus -- Emana (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Poll closed

I've closed the poll on a possible merger. It was started months ago and discussion has died down, with none of the original editors in the discussion even participating anymore. If any editors still want to propose a merger, please start a new discussion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the suggestion for merging three articles. In fact, Japanese dragon and Korean dragon are not accurate term because they(?) are almost identical and "Chinese dragon" is counterpart to dragon in Western culture. However, the mythical creature has taken important roles in the cultures respectively, so there are more rooms to expand in the articles. In addition, Chinese article itself seems almost complete to me. I think it would be good that the articles exist as they are except changing the titles like Chinese dragon in Japanese culture, Chinese dragon in Korean culture or Long in Japanese/Korean culture. Because as everyone said above, the dragon indeed originated from China. Besides, there are so many things named after Japanese something even though they're not indigenous to Japan in Wikipedia. But why wouldn't Chinese thing have a similar case? --Appletrees (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is mostly a linguistic one. As stated before, in Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese language Wikipedias, there is no such problem with overlapping articles, because the word for "C/J/K/V dragon" in the respective languages simply mean "dragon". Many mistake the "C/J/K/V" in the name "C/J/K/V dragon" implies some kind of nationalistic ownership, whereas in reality it's just a term of convenience; to differentiate it from the European dragon, among others. Again, there is clearly only one kind of "East Asian dragon". And yes, "East Asian dragon" is a neologism, but so is "Japanese dragon", "Korean dragon", etc. if translated back into the respective languages. Having four separate articles with four different names implies that these are distinct creatures, which is simply false. This is why I remain convinced that the articles should eventually be merged.

But I realize that simply making another proposal may not be helpful, so I'm considering a two-step approach. Since the problem lies in the (mis)name, I propose to first rename all four articles to "Lóng (dragon)", "Ryū (dragon)", "Ryong (dragon)", and "Rồng (dragon)". Once that is done, it should be easier to see that these different names are one and the same thing and that the articles belong together. The eventually merged articles could be called "Lóng (dragon)", which hopefully would provoke less nationalistic indignation than any name that wrongly imply ownership. The different names, of course, will be listed in the opening paragraph if not the opening sentence, just like many other mythical creature with many names.

Before I go ahead with the proposal, though, I'd like to get some feedback first. So what do you think? o (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have one main article entitled "Long (Chinese dragon)" (etc., mutatis mutandis) that covers lóng and its corresponding Sinospheric ryū, ryong, and rồng dragon loan-words and loan-myths. However, I don't think this creature can accurately be called "the Chinese dragon" or "the East Asian dragon". I'm not familiar with either Korean or Vietnamese dragon lore, but the lóng is one of many Chinese dragons (admittedly the best-known one) and the ryū is one of many Japanese dragons. How about this compromise? The lumpers can consolidate the long-related dragons under one central article and the splitters can expand the four existing ones into more general treatments on "Chinese dragons", "Japanese dragons", "Korean dragons", and "Vietnamese dragons", each of which Wikilinks the main article. Wouldn't this be simpler than two steps and multiple moves? Keahapana (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree with any process that results in merged articles going under the name "Lóng (dragon)". The Chinese name may have some kind of primacy, but it certainly shouldn't be the title of the article. Besides which, this would be an innovation on the part of Wikipedia. The word lóng is not in widespread use in English.
I would like Keahapana to elaborate a little on the different types of dragon. I realise that there are a number of Chinese creatures that go under the name of 'dragon' (the English term) which are not called lóng. Are these regarded as separate from the lóng, or subordinate to it (that is, as different creatures altogether, or as subtypes of the lóng)? This is actually a fairly specialised field, that is, the field of Chinese mythological creatures. It would be useful if we had a good idea up front what we are going in to.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I am against renaming this article. The term "Chinese dragon" is the most common term used to describe what a 龍 is, and that should take priority over most other concerns. But as far as the other articles are concerned, I'm pretty neutral to their renaming or whether they should be merged to this article or not. I do believe there's enough information for an article to exist for each culture where the Chinese dragon appears. If editors feel strongly that those articles be renamed, I suggest considering, for example, Dragons in Japanese culture. This avoids any implications of "national ownership". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bathrobe. Gantuya eng (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the discomfort with renaming this article, and I had initially held the same view. Admittedly, a large part of my proposing the title lóng is simply for expediency's sake; to avoid implication of national ownership. But on the other hand, it's not anything new to Wikipedia as Bathrobe stated. Take the Jiaozi article for example. The name jiaozi is little known, dumpling or even Chinese ravioli is more common by far in English. The Japanese gyōza redirects to jiaozi as well, even though arguably the gyōza has developed a more uniquely Japanese identity than, say, "Japanese dragon". SO no, naming the article lóng won't be setting any new precedent.

In principle, I don't disagree with Hong Qi Gong's suggestion on titles like "Dragons in Japanese culture", except for the fact that, if you do read the J/K dragon article, as well as their J/K language wiki counterparts, there is actually very little information that is unique to J/K. All of these dragon pages describe overwhelmingly the same features shared by all versions, and the differences are no more than what could be gathered in one section. (The Vietnamese dragon page is an exception here, due to its inclusion of a brief art history of dragon depictions. Which, while an interesting read, may be considered overly in depth for a Wiki article. I can't read Vietnamese, so I can't comment on the Vietnamese wiki article either.) o (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truly ancient origin for dragon/phoenix mythology?

It is stunning to consider the similarity between, say, the Mexican flag and the Greek and Roman standard, both of which are based on the conflict of the eagle and the serpent. In the Mayan/Aztec case, Quetzlcoatl is often termed a dragon and has been compared to the Chinese system.[5] Likewise there apparently is a Jewish story, where the phoenix is the one animal not ejected from the garden of Eden (due to the dragon/serpent...); the Christians embraced the phoenix as a symbol of salvation/rebirth while seeing the dragon as a demonic symbol. All told we have a huge range of cultures with the same symbols. It could be quite interesting to see how much information can be pulled together charting the extent of these symbols, because I'm starting to wonder if these legends might actually date back to a common origin of all these cultures, before the original migration of people to North America at the end of the last Ice Age. 70.15.114.2 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unaccurate Pictures

Some of the pictures on this page depicts the Chinese dragon with only four claws. Would somebody please find a picture of a Chinese dragon with five? 71.194.224.134 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)