Talk:Fotudeng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Fotudeng, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Life data[edit]

Not buying it. At all. See here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal beliefs of Wikipedia editors are not relevant in matters such as this. If you have a reliable source for his lifespan, then cite it. If you don't, though, your views are merely WP:OR. Tengu800 05:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Have you noticed that you are on a talk page? WP:OR does not apply here.
More completely "OR" observations: The lifespan is uncited in the article. The external link gives different years. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the topic, including personal incredulity. They are places for discussion among editors on how to improve articles. Tengu800 10:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm doing, man! If I have to read it out to you slowly again: The article could be improved by citing or else removing the lifespan (which I herewith challenge as implausible – Fotudeng would have been older than Jiroemon Kimura, FFS! – and therefore highly Template:Dubious), as the only possible source in the article gives a different (and at least marginally more plausible) lifespan. (OK, I see you have already done that, so I consider the issue at least formally solved.)
I wonder how egregious implausibilities and contradictions must be to count for you to accept doubts as relevant. Is challenging a hypothetical lifespan 231–1349 and suspecting a typo or legend also mere personal incredulity in your world? Editing Wikipedia doesn't mean you should leave your brain at the door and copy sources mindlessly like a robot. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
As I've stated before, I don't view personal doubts as being very relevant. Many other figures are said to have had a long lifespan of over one hundred years. For example, Hsu Yun is said to have lived to 119, and Silabhadra to 116. If reliable sources do not present the lifespan as dubious, then I don't see any particular reason why a Wikipedia article on the same subject would not follow scholarship. Tengu800 01:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
These lifespans are extremely unlikely from a scientific (gerontological) point of view, especially so for antiquity. That the people in question are venerated religious personalities, roughly the Buddhist counterpart to Christian saints, arouses additional suspicion. Have you ever heard of the principle "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"? The burden of proof is on those who make the claims, not on those who doubt them. Longevity experts have very strict standards for this very reason.
Wikipedia should not present legend as fact. While Śīlabhadra reports the lifespan factually, the more recent case Hsu Yun is introduced with appropriate caution and notably listed on Longevity claims as unconfirmed. Zhang Daoling is also included in the list, so people who lived in antiquity are not treated more credulously as a rule. Thank you for making my case for me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on scholarship and reliable sources for these individuals. Your claim that these lifespans are "legend" is original research. If you have reliable sources that call into question these specific individuals, then feel free to cite them, but don't try to put together some convoluted argument that is supposed to trump Wikipedia editorial policy. Tengu800 02:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)