Talk:Oriental dragon

Redirect
Should this page just redirect to Chinese dragon? « Amina. skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 19:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be useful, as the Chinese type seems to be the most prominent. --Stratadrake 07:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With the proliferation of East Asian "national dragons," this page should serve at least as a list page with some basic info tying the dragons together. As it stands now with 4 national dragons, the implication to the uninitiated reader is that they are quite different beasts when, in fact, they are quite similar (and even carry the same name, pronounced according to local rules). —   AjaxSmack   05:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a long long discussion several years back at Chinese dragon which established that in Asian nations at least, there were no separate "Chinese" "Japanese", "Korean" or "Burmese" dragons - it was all the same creature referred to in different languages by different names. Furthermore, whether in Korea or Japan, this creature was seen as more or less "Chinese" - and in all cases there was certainly not a separate nationally unique dragon in the respective cultures.

Personally, my view is that these pages on Japanese dragons and whatnot are nationalistic responses from editors who do not wish to see something more or less pan-East Asian labelled as Chinese. Sadly, that is the state of the English language, and my view is that all the "national" East Asian dragon articles should be merged and/or redirected.

While the articles stand however, I don't think this separate article is a good idea to disambiguate between the dragons. I've re-directed it to Chinese dragon, and will add text to that article to disambiguate to the various "national" articles. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This "Oriental dragon" redirect may have been too hasty. PalaceGuard008, would you please answer two questions? First, where's the Talk page discussion establishing that "there were no separate "Chinese" "Japanese", "Korean" or "Burmese" dragons"? I found discussion about trans-cultural diffusionist Asian dragon mergers, most recently this 2007 proposal, but the consensus was that the "Japanese dragon" and "Korean dragon" were not "the Chinese dragon". Second, I'm afraid I don't understand the sense in which you describe Japanese dragon myths, etc. as "national" or "nationalistic" rather than "cultural". Thanks. Keahapana (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One, evidence was supplied at the section you pointed at and at Talk:Chinese dragon. Note that the point I sought to take out of the discussion was not that the Chinese dragon is "Chinese", but rather that there is but one creature, which is most commonly called "Chinese dragon" in English but may perhaps be better named "Oriental dragon".
 * Two, I did not say that the dragon myths were national or nationalistic. I said that the articles are national or nationalistic. It is fairly clear that in none of the Asian cultures or languages involved is there a separate conception of a "Chinese", "Japanese", or "Korean" dragon. Equally, it was fairly well established that the term corresponding to the concept of that mythical animal in the English language is "Chinese dragon".
 * In order to understand the motivations behind the creation of articles such as "Japanese dragon", therefore, I conjectured that the original creators acted to a more or less extent and consciously or subconsciously out of national or nationalistic motives. It is mere specualtion on my part. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)