This is the other way around. There are some who want to push back the definition of "bird" to include more dinosaurs via earlier divergence. There are even a few that argue that certain conventially non-avian dinosaurs are actually from the agreed bird lineage but converged back on a bipedal dinosaur shape.

Is it not the other way around? Birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.

You do see it sometimes, where people complain that dinosaurs are no longer fearsome giant lizards because we found out that they might have feathers and aren't SUV height, on social media and places.

It generally becomes obvious that they have never met a goose, chicken, or been at risk of swooping before.

I know of such a man. Makes a convincing argument too, that I'll be wholly unable to properly articulate, but my dumbed down understanding is that (in addition to other things) the "feathers" could be decomposed collagenous fibers from the skin of dinosaurs rather than true feathers, and we're not actually sure even though feathers are the pushed theory. And he also doesn't believe in flight evolving ground up, but rather trees down, basically not from creatures jumping away from predators but from them gliding away to another tree. His theory being that one actually works well to get you away from predators while the other would be less likely to be successful and more likely to get eaten before passing on the genes. Also something about the Yi qi.

Idk if he's right, but tbf idk if the other people are either, who knows.

.