Talk:List of mythological places

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Religion (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Religious places[edit]

Should places religious people believe to exist be considered "mythical"?

What if I said I believed Hades existed, or Asgard, or Coruscant? Would you humour me? No, or at least I hope not. Why should the mythology of established religion be held to a lower standard of evidence than that of extinct religion or self-declared fiction? 2.121.221.45 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so--plus they're not physical places believed to exist on the earth like the other examples...--Romulus (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Religious non-physical places (Heaven, Hell, etc.) seem mythological rather then not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't say no because you don't have any evidence they aren't real. If Wikipedia is trying to be neutral, it should take a neutral POV on things like Heaven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.231 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • There's no evidence that Valhalla isn't real either, but in cases like this, the burden of proof is on the faithful, not the objective observer; one can't prove something doesn't exist, only that it does. Nowhere in the article does it say that 'mythology' is synonymous with 'fictional'. The entry literally says "This is a list of mythological places which appear in mythological tales, folklore, and varying religious texts." 74.209.24.73 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Include them if and only if the heading is reworded...[edit]

That's my suggestion. A "large portion of the populace" does believe Paradisic and Perditional states of being to exist, so perhaps "thought not to exist by some, or in some cases even by most" would work better. Are there any thoughts on this rewording? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WHY?[edit]

why does this have to be so complicated?

Avalon[edit]

Can we have a quote please (from King Arthur's French odyssey: Avallon in Burgundy By Marilyn Floyde) to support the insertion of France And can we also have some evidence that this is an authoritative source. A web search indicates an author who promotes Burgundy and who has no academic background in history.--Snowded TALK 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Second source is also a controversial one and you (triton) need to show how it is authoritative. If I remember it aright it is all about Brittany which was then in effect one with Wales and Cornwall so its misleading to call it France anyway . Again - if you want to use this please provide the quote and also establish the authority of the source. Found an on line version as I am not at home at the moment - as I thought this is dubious. The authors are a Outdoor education centre Chief INstructor and a former administrator with an Electricity Board. Sorry its not authoritative. --Snowded TALK 14:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

But the sources the books quote are authoritative ... and the statements are in essence non-controversial. The Arthur legends extend across the British Isles; England, Wales, IoM, Ireland etc . We are talking about legend here, not science or reality. The statements mirror others in the related topics.
Let us face it, this is nothing but the type of POV trolling Snowded has attempted on me before, in an attempt to provoke a situation where another editor is blocked in order to benefit his POV.
The references are as good as most on the Wikipedia and better than many. I am not claiming they are true, just that they say what they say. --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither book it written by a recognisable historian or arthurian scholar. One is by someone promoting tourism to the area concerned, the other is by two amateurs. Arthurian legends relate to the romano-celtic group (Wales, Cornwall and Brittany) and to a lesser extend Ireland. They are taken up in a wider British context at the time of the Tudors and then later. Please address content issues rather than speculating on editors motives (you inevitably get it wrong) and follow WP:BRD, WP:NPA and WP:RS. You do not make a case above you simply state that in your opinion the sources are authoritative. I have made a specific argument as to why they are not, please try and deal with that. --Snowded TALK 17:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Which all just goes on to show how much you don't know ... and that you have not read the references.
Floyde's book comes with a supporting foreword from one of the world's leading Arthurians, Geoffrey Ashe. The author has an MA and so is reliable enough.
The inclusion of France, well Gaul actually comes supported by Geoffrey Ashe in 'The Discovery of King Arthur' (2005) and, indeed, by Geoffrey of Monmouth in 'The History of the Kings of Britain' (1136) and 'Vita Merlini' (1152).
Ashe is one of the leading proponents of the legends of King Arthur in the world today. Monmouth was the earliest. The references are fine. --Triton Rocker (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
So give me a quote from Ashe which says he has changed his mind and supports the Burgundy option and I'll happily consider it. As I remember it the contention of Ashe is that Arthur conquered Gaul, not that Avalon was located there. --Snowded TALK 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Geoffrey Ashe, The Discovery of King Arthur, Guild Publishing, London, 1985. Page 95: "In Welsh it is Ynys Avallach. Geoffrey's Latin equivalent is Insula Avallonis. But this is not really equivalent, since it doesn't correspond to the Welsh. It has been influenced by the spelling of a real place called Avallon. Avallon is a Gaulish name with the same meaning, and the real Avallon is in Burgundy - where Arthur's Gallic career ends. Again we glimpse an earlier and different passing of Arthur, on the Continent and not in Britain." AJRG (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks AJRG (And Triton, please note the original request was simply for the quote, its a common request on Wikipedia). OK so that is the Riothamus hypothesis (that he was Arthur not Ambrosius). It is controversial and I would have thought the material was better at Avalon. If it is going to be included then the Ashe quote is the relevant one. My inclination would be to say that for this article it would best to remove location altogether and have the more complete description at the main article. If other editors think the physical location is key (and most of the names don't have it) then lets use the Ashe reference --Snowded TALK 13:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Any concept of location is based on assumptions that need to be explained, so best to leave it out of this article entirely. See, for example, here. AJRG (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Concur --Snowded TALK 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Bjmullan (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. AJRG (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Triton Rocker can you be more specific with the reference from "Journey to Avalon: The Final Discovery of King Arthur by Chris Barber, David Pykitt". A page number and the quote that makes the link between BI & A would be great. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The list should be broken up.[edit]

At the very least it should be divided between "Ethereal", non-physical (as in you can only get there by dying or something) and "physical" locations. Just my two cents worth. Although if there were enough, I'd also divide it by "Supposed Location" like El Dorado under South America.Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Heaven[edit]

An anonymous editor has repeatedly removed the Heaven entry, for reasons explained in this edit. He or she is currently blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation, however I have agreed to unblock this editor if he or she is willing to refrain from editing the article and discussing the matter here until consensus is reached. I thought I would kick off the discussion. My own view is that Heaven is as relevant to the list as Valhalla or Thuvaraiyam Pathi, in that it is a place described solely in a religious, theological, or philosophical context. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed -- it's essentially a mythological place, existence neither provable nor disprovable, even though a large percentage of English-speakers reading Wikipedia may find that difficult to accept. Leaving it out would seem to be itself a POV violation since we'd be privileging this particular afterlife belief over those of other non-English-speaking cultures, present and past. Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Until a place is proven to exist, it remains in the realm of "myth". That doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist, but that we don't or can't know. So far heaven has usually been defined in unfalsifiable terms, so it's a metaphysical concept and outside the realm of science. The IP's edit summary/argument is two-fold:
  • "Including Heaven in a list of mythological places is offensive to many religions and religious peoples. Since its existence cannot be disproved, is should not be listed."[1]
The first part is irrelevant since "offensive" is totally meaningless as a reason for not including something here. It's not a policy here. On the contrary! If it's part of human knowledge or experience (as documented in RS), we cover it. That's the goal of Wikipedia. The second part is illogical and turns the burden of proof on its head by asking us to prove a negative. In actuality the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove that it "does" exist. Until then, the skeptic remains agnostic and is under no obligation to believe the claims. See Marcello Truzzi#Pseudoskepticism.
  • "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell
Brangifer (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It fits. Leave Heaven in the list. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this, why is Hell not in the list? Also, the Greek underworld while we're at it. -- Fyrefly (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Each religion's afterlife should be added. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Garden of Eden would also be a good candidate. -- Fyrefly (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Agreed. All good candidates, BUT...we've got a nice list with no sourcing at all! We need at least one quality RS (which should also be used in the parent article) describing the subject as a myth (or some synonym). -- Brangifer (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Svartalfheim[edit]

How about Svartalfheim or Vanaheim in the Norse section?

You seem to have already added this. What is your question? -- Fyrefly (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"Garden of Eden," "Heaven," "Hell," "Kolob"[edit]

Hi, I'm removing the above entries from the list because it would be more accurate to refer to them not as "mythological" places but as "religious" places, which would be an entirely different list. I see the inclusion of these places as a singular attack on Christianity; if modern-day religions can be equated with extinct mythologies, then why not include Brahmapura from Hinduism, Yomi (Shinto), Barzakh (Islam), etc.? Until this list is renamed "List of religious and mythological places" and it is balanced out by including places from every religion, please don't single out one religion as "myth" by re-adding the entries I deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.201.254 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that 'Kolob' is restricted to one religion, the others aren't. See for instance Heaven and Hell. I'm pretty sure that the Garden of Eden is first mentioned in a Jewish text. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The list does include places from countless religions. That's the whole point of the list. If it's incomplete, then add to it. The only editor giving "singular" treatment to one religion (or a handful of related ones) is the one who cherry-picked the places he believes are real and removed only them. His argument is nonsensical. My describing something as "mythical" we aren't saying it does not exist. We are only saying that it is described in myths, and has not been proven to exist. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)