Contents

Talk:Fotu Cheng

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China High‑importance 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Buddhism Low‑importance 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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Life data

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should he not be listed as a missionary, and added to the category of Buddhist missionaries, alongside such luminaries as An Shigao?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.146.64 (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His name, transcribed in pinyin, should be Fotucheng, surely? Tooironic (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fotudeng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508035159/http://www12.canvas.ne.jp/horai/masters-index.htmtohttp://www12.canvas.ne.jp/horai/masters-index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]