Talk:Fountain of Youth
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
could somebody please read Herodotus?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the fountain of youth just restored peoples' youth, not made them permanently young... --Dfndoe 23:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious and would like to read some of the older versions of this myth. Does anyone know of a link online?
Twice on the 22nd I've attempted to add in a very small article in 'Fountain of Youth', plus a single external link. Both times the edits stayed put for about half an hour. After about an hour they completely disappeared. The entry was under the headline 'The Revelatorium'. The Revelatorium is a pubslished book by Commoners Press and has been online as a website since 1999. Who do I need to talk to about not removing the edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CliffR (talk • contribs)
- I removed your edits because they violated some Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:No original research. There's a Help button on the navigation panel to the left if you need more.--Cúchullain t c 19:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC.
Can you specify the violations instead of me trying to figure out a lot of policy. Either I will be able to appease the terms and condions, or I won't, and will stop trying to post. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CliffR (talk • contribs)
Two things. First as you might gather, I'm brand new at submitting to the Wikipedia, so where is my 'Talk Page'?
Two, I've noticed the following quote on your Cuchullain page: "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the more ridiculous and/or awesomer one is to be preferred." Hancock's Razor, named for 20th/21st century alternative historian Graham Hancock.
On the one hand you seem to be embracing new and original ideas. On the other you seem to be excluding the two comments I posted under 'Fountain of Youth' and 'Holy Grail' for the specific and stated reason that they were new and original ideas. Wild and wooly ideas I can understand being bounced and agree with you 100%. But these two offered new approaches to the subjects which were both logical and not dependant on supernatural magics, such as are the idea that sic, a supposed tin cup somewhere ever fills with magic drink that will make you live forever, or sic that a supposed fountain springs forth water somewhere in Florida? that will magically make you young again. You see what I mean. If Jesus Christ were teaching his disciples, which of the two interpretations, these or the ones in the Revelatorium, do you think are more likely for him to be teaching. You see what I mean.
By denying new ideas out of hand you cut off the very right hand of the Wikipedea. Which should be to bring new ideas to the fore so your readers have the old and the new to counter balance each other and stimulate new thinking and ideas of their own. That's how society evolves. Every idea known to science, since the very beginning, has eventually yeilded to a greater understanding. Itis on an ongoing basis and will ever contiue. I am willing to bet that a good percentage of your readers come to the Wikipdia specifically hoping to see if there's something new about a subject rather than just for the same old same old.
What you are doing here with the Wikipedia is equivalent to the great Library at Alexandria, and is by many tens of thousands of times greater. It is now one of the now foremost validators of the power of the Internet in existence. Yet its greatest potentially is in being able to juxtatose old ideas with the new in a potentially intelligent and clear cut format. Let new ideas in if they make sense or make good counterfoil to the existing scholarships and endless regurgitations. Then let the readers decide, or steer them into debate with the authors. Yet even more grist for the mill. After all, you already have a policy in place where the reader can voice a complaint about a submission. At the bottom line you still have the right to edit if it becomes necessary. Thanks. ((CliffR)).
Cuchullain - My appologies for forcing you to do extra work. I have found my CliffR page and followed the links. The policy of excluding unverifiable work, etc. is of course no different than any bookshelf encyclopedia. So again my appologies.
To allow the fact of new and original materials I would propose something like an 'Alternate Views'link immediately under the last article on any page. The page would be identical in every respect to the normal Wikipedia page except it would contain postings which are outside the normal qualifications but which aren't patent nonsense. Over time the Alternate Views section of the Wikipedia would become almost like a parallel Wikipedia, easily accessed. The Question of course is would the directors want to go into this extra purpose. Thanks, CliffR.
It should be noted that the Fountain of Youth plays a major storyline in the Microsoft game Age of Empires III. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Climie.ca (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
ok im a litte pissed off cuz i was reading the article and out of no where the ending of pirates3 at worlds end is given. I have not seen it yet and you totaly just fucked me over. Sorry about the language but i am upset.
- Sorry, but wikipedia contains spoilers. I don't know how relevant that particular fact is, but we don't leave out relevant material simply because it spoils a movie for someone.--Cúchullain t/c 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Appearances in other media
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that there may be a lot of "popular culture" references to the subject missing here. John Carter 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"nor was it un healing waters date to at least the time "
I always saw in the maps and diagrams that the Fountain of youth was either near Cuba or closer to Miami. Where would Florida come in? Please respond on my talk page, User:IaM7DeadlySins —Preceding comment was added at 18:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Water of Life
- "Water of Life" is another name for the "water of youth", "fountain of youth", etc. Now that there are more articles of that title it might behoove us to move the disambiguation page to water of life.--Cúchullain t/c 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. The term water of youth  has no page and may also need to be clarified. Should it redirect here or....? There are various streams etc. named that way it seems, but I have not researched them. But water of youth has almost no theological element to it, unlike Water of Life, and may do with a redirect here, with a suitable expansion, etc. So let us wait to see what other people say and if no objection in a day or two we will make a disambig page for Water of Life and do something about water of youth. Are there spammers who sell water of youth in bottles? History2007 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Water of Life is aqua vitae (i.e. liquor). It's a totally different animal. Dab or just redirect there, not here. — LlywelynII 06:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Water of youth
I tried to figure out what the Water of youth page should be and there are just too many possibilities. It also has various corporate uses, from a company in Bellville, TX to one in Wanganui, New Zealand. I am actually going to put that on hold for now until there are better ideas as to what it should be. But this may be the most solid use (pun intended) and it would lead it here to this page, as stated above. Other ideas? History2007 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is no real common English name. Tree of Life, Water of Life, Fountain of Youth... 'Water of Youth' should be about one of those corporate uses, but if they can't take the time to meet notability and make their own page, there's no reason you should provide free labor. — LlywelynII 06:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Free labor? I thought we were all going to get paid at the end of next week... But as a note, Tree of Life, Water of Life and Book of Life do have Book of Revelation contexts, not related to here. Those corporations are not, however, anywhere near Fortune 1000, else I would have made a page. The corporations may not be there next year, but the streams mentioned above may be, so may deserve a page. History2007 (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ponce de Leon story not "apocryphal"
As the word is generally construed. The source concedes PdL might have known about the myths that were subsequently jumbled around the same Beniny that shows up on PdL's commission; and they were so popular chroniclers were writing to the pope to complain. We should note his points about the natives' Bimini (Maya), de Solis's Boinca (Honduras), and the lack of primary evidence in PdL's logs, absolutely. But we should avoid unsupported POVy language that implies they were simply subsequent fabrications. — LlywelynII 06:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)