Talk:Dragonesque brooch


 * 9611 views! Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The wordings appear to rest on the assumption that dragons are real.
Lede: 'The name comes from a supposed resemblance to a dragon, but Catherine Johns suggests that if any real animal was intended to be represented, the hare may be the most likely candidate.'

DYK hook: 'if the double-headed Romano-British dragonesque brooch type (example pictured) represents any real animal, it may be hares rather than dragons'.

Both sentences, and especially the second one, are formulated in a way that presupposes that dragons are real animals. The first sentence implies that there is a contradiction between the traditional identification as a dragon and Johns' opinion that if it's a real animal, it's a hare. But there is no logical contradiction between the two statements - it's perfectly possible to believe that (1) if it's not a real animal, it's a dragon; (2) if it is a real animal, it's a hare. Compare: 'Richard is supposed to have grown up in an African country, but Mary suggests that if he grew up in a European country, it was most likely France.' It's a bit puzzling why Mary even entertains the possibility that he was born in a European country, given that the general assumption is that he was born in an African one. The second sentence implies that a real animal could in theory be either a hare or a dragon, but that it just happens to be a hare in this specific instance. Compare the problem with the sentence: 'If George has been to any European country, it is most likely France rather than Malaysia.' 62.73.69.121 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree. The DYK ran yesterday, so that's gone & I think the article text is fine. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)