Talk:The Flight of Dragons (book)

The article relies just about entirely on commercial statements by the book or film publishers.
This article badly needs better sources, especially to point out that the book's thesis is entirely fictional and implausible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this article is excessively full of statements that, regardless of my personal agreement, seem to be either unfootnoted, or personal research. They are presented by the article as if they are contained in the book itself and take up most of the article; it is very unprofessional and inappropriate.
 * We need a separate section for reactions to the book's thesis and footnotes for the arguments against it, assuming that they should be included at all (which I do). Including them directly in the summary of the book is the worst sort of poor scholarship. 71.235.31.212 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal Research/Opinion disguised as Summary;Major Content Edits disguised as Languge Edits.
To make myself clear: while I do not question the validity of the points raised, I feel strongly that personal, unsourced criticism of the subject is directly against Wikipedia policy. It sets a horrifying precedent; we would not allow refutation of a Richard Dawkins book from a Creationist viewpoint to masquerade as part of the book's résumé! Not even concerning points the wikieditor believes to be self-evident or necessary reactions to the subject's claims. I loathe to mark such biased commentary as vandalism, as I assume good intent, but marking these major revisions as minor languge standardizations and removal of superfluous links makes such an assumption difficult. The summary of the book's content is no place to present personal debate against the book! Certainly removal of information about the book in exchange for such a refutation is a grave error. Perhaps the previous text should be restored and the problematic nature of the book's claims be discussed in a new section. I doubt anyone would find fault with leaving the new section temporarily marked as needing citation, while sources are found.71.235.31.212 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The long-standing problem with this article was treating a made-up story for children as though the book that is the subject of the article was based on science fact. I found the appropriate template to tag an article with this problem just now, and I hope that prevents future instances of fully grown adults (!) treating this book as it it were a science fact book, which it surely is not. (I became aware of this article just before the first edit I made here because of an online discussion in which someone naively mentioned this article as a source of "facts" about flying, fire-breathing dinosaurs. Nope.) One problem with this article in general is the meager supply of reliable, secondary sources independent of the article's subject that are available for further improvement of the article--I've been looking for those throughout the time I've been aware of this article, and I note with interest that no one else has found any meanwhile either. There are a lot of problems with this article as an entry in an encyclopedia for grown-ups trying to learn facts about the world. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that this article has been well written
I think the notices are outdated at this point.

I haven't checked the sources yet, but the language seems fine to me. Louister41 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)