Talk:Longevity myths/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Renaming this article?

I strongly object to the repeated moving of this article from Longevity Myths to Longevity Traditions. There is no consensus that this is justified. The use of the word Myth in the context of this article is more appropriate than Tradition which gives undue credence to many of the entries (which was the intention of the user who first attempted such a name change). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Referring to major still practiced religions as myths is going to cause problems. This entire article seems to be nothing more than one man’s desire to change that fact. I personally think this poorly written article should be restarted from scratch if not deleted entirely. The majority of its notable content can be found elsewhere and it seems to exist solely as a battleground over religious terminology. I understand the desire to stick it to the biblethumpers but the fact is this isn’t the time or place for such a childish argument. You don’t have to believe in, or agree with religion but I would say a basic amount of respect is necessary for mature relations with other human beings. PeRshGo (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, virtually NOTHING you said is correct. If a religion doesn't make a claim about LONGEVITY, then its not part of the discussion: the discussion focuses on the myths of longevity, whether they involve a "religion" or not (strike one). This article is referring to the MYTHS of LONGEVITY, not the MYTHS OF RELIGION. We're not talking about whether the holy water at Lourdes can cure ailments, as that is not directly related to the subject of extreme longevity. Also, far from "one man's article," this article began in 2004 with Mr. Louis Epstein (not myself) so that is a false claim as well (strike two). This article is in poor shape because, well, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." DUH. However, that is never a reason to delete an article. Also, most of the content here cannot be found elsewhere (strike 3). This wasn't designed to "stick it to the Bible thumpers": it was decided to educate the Wiki user as to the myths of longevity, which, as mentioned, may or may not involve religious belief. What do all of these myths have in common? By definition, all of them are scientifically false, but believed by many persons. By the way, attempting to belittle the article creators and those who favor the outside-Wikipedia name with terms such as "childish" argument is, in itself, CHILDISH....more than that, your claim to maturity is HYPOCRITICAL in the extreme.Ryoung122 10:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" is first defined as: "A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc."

According to our guidelines on words to avoid:

Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalize one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.

Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.

Therefore, we should not use the word "myth" to mean "untrue" in any article. Auntie E. (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a complete misreading of the situation. Aside from the "except in rare cases" outlet, which means that your claim of not using the word "myth" in ANY article has no foundation, it says that "informal use" of the word should be avoided, but use of the word in "scholarly works" is acceptable. Therefore, if the article quotes outside sources that are scholarly works, then the use of the word here is acceptable.

On the other hand, the term "longevity traditions" has little or no basis in the scientific literature, and is therefore "original research" and violates the Wikipedia ban on NOR (no original research).Ryoung122 10:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has suggested "List of longevity claims" which seems a much better term. I will implement it. Auntie E. (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And I self-reverted, as apparently there is another article called Longevity claims which discusses specific claims that have not been verified. This article is a disaster as it is, maybe we should delete and merge anything worth saving into that other article? Auntie E. (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It would better to return it to its original name. User:Ryoung122 is an acknowledged expert in longevity and has recently started tidying up this article to reflect its original intention. Much of the content that was added in order to justify a move to Longevity Traditions will hopefully be moved/removed. The use of the term myth in this context is appropriate, claiming that persons mentioned in relation to currently practised religions should be considered tradition rather than myth is POV and should have ebeen discussed before any change was made (the previous attempt also failed to follow correct wiki procedure leading to the current "disastrous" state of the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122 is the very individual I was talking about. Just because he is an expert in the subject doesn’t mean he is somehow above all Wikipedia policies. I do however agree that the most recent changes have caused problems for the article in general and those problems will need to be sorted out. That being said my original point remains. This entire page has become about one man’s desire reclassify major religions as myth, a POV issue that will cause problems on any article on Wikipedia. In fact the only reason this entire argument hasn’t been smashed is that this article is so barely notable that not enough people have even seen it to comment on it. I’m only here simply because I came upon it at random and realized that it was quite possibly the worst Wikipedia article I had ever read. PeRshGo (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the intention was to "reclassify major religions as myth". This article is about longevity, any assertion that a claim that a person lived to 969 years has more credence because that claim appears in the text of a major religion than a similar claim made by a "minor" religion or by a non-religious group is POV. The issue in this article is only that of longevity, not of any other aspect of any religion or the entire religion itself. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if we need a formal move discussion, if there contnues to be a move war, we will have to protect it against moving. Personally I prefer Longevity traditions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If this page is to be protected from moving it should be reverted to Longevity Myths as that was the name before this dispute arose. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you and User:Ryoung122 are friends and I respect that but though the archives have become difficult to navigate due to the constant moves take a look at them. This entire discussion has been nothing more than hate and vitriol between Ryoung122 and those who oppose him. There hasn’t been an ounce of reasonability, but in reality the argument is simple. Wikipedia’s stance is that you probably shouldn’t call refer to currently practiced religion as myth because it will invariably cause problems. Ryoung122’s stance is that as an expert on longevity he has the authority to refer to religion as myth. This has nothing to do with giving credence to religion, its all about respect. On Wikipedia no one has to agree with a topic but you do have to respect it. If anyone was really interested in making everyone happy as well as maintaining the integrity of the subject they would simply split the article into one about Religious Longevity Claims, one about Political Longevity Claims which is easily half the article, and one Longevity Lore which would encompass ways people have traditionally tried to attain advanced age or eternal youth. Not only should this appease everyone but it’s a much better way of organizing the data. PeRshGo (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly Robert Young and I are not "friends". We have and do disagree on many aspects of what should be included in wikipedia and how it should be presented. We do agree on some things and the intent and name of this article is one. Secondly "those who oppose him" initially meant one single user (and his friends) whose attitude to this article was highly disruptive and clearly aimed at removing/reducing the mythological aspect of religious (specifically Christian) entries. The current dispute, while less disruptive, seems to be for the same reasons, ie for validating a Christian POV, and ignoring whether or not "myth" is the appropriate term for those claims. I think it is. The existence of any person before written records begins cannot be confirmed and fantastical claims for them such as extreme longevity should be considered legend or myth (the distinction is not always clear and I suspect neither would be satisfactory to anyone with strong religioous views). Whether this article would be better split into seperate I'm not sure, I suspect the any Religious Longevity Claims article would play down the unrealistic aspect of such claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with either Longevity myths or Longevity traditions. I do think the article would benefit from being split, because there is a world of difference between claims made in the various scriptural traditions of antiquity and claims made in the 19th or 20th centuries. If either of these are discussed in academic literature it will be in quite different disciplines: theology vs history/geography. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For all the fundamentalist fanatics, this article has NOTHING to do with Christianity as "myth." It has to do with LONGEVITY MYTHS which are COMMON TO NEARLY ALL CULTURES, WORLDWIDE....WHETHER BUDDHIST, HINDU, CHRISTIAN, OR WHAT HAVE YOU. To try to argue that you cannot use the word "myth" because practicing religions haven't gone extinct is quite a stretch: it's like saying that you cannot write an article about any current religious belief or practice because to do so would require NPOV coverage, which of course means that, just maybe, the ideas discussed are not universally held by everyone.

To be more clear: in the Bible, King David died at 70, and in fact the ages of ALL The kings from David onward (a time of WRITTEN records) are in the range of 30-something to 70 years old...for example, Rehoboam died at 58. These ages are not only completely believable, well within the scientifically accepted range, but they may be historically accurate as well, the result of WRITTEN records. To me, it's not about because something is from the Bible. It doesn't matter if the material is in the Bible or not in the Bible. The criteria for coverage in this article is if the ages claimed are far beyond scientically verifiable ages that humans have been shown to live to (the scientific record is 122 years, but for argument's sake I go with 130, to cover the hypothetical "but what if person X lived a little bit longer and no one knew about it"). What matters is that the ages claimed, such as METHUSELAH, are fantastical (969 years). More than that, however: the ages claimed have meaning. In the Bible, Jacob says to pharaoh,

King James Bible And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

(Genesis 47:9)

In this sense, is should be clear that extreme age is associated with PATRIARCHY and with the notion/concept that one's life is lengthened due to "blessing" and shortened due to "sin." This analysis is far more deep than simply "it's not true." It's an understanding of why people claimed extreme ages in the first place. In a society where tribes were often headed by the oldest male (and even today, the Kingship of Saudi Arabia normally passes not from father to son but from oldest male elder to next-oldest male elder), a very high age was a sign of RESPECT (ooh, there's that word again). As in, Issac respected God, and lived to 180; Jacob wrestled with the Angel, and his thigh was touched (punishment) and he died at "147."

Yet as much as you might wish to believe this article is all about Christianity...it's not. For example, the early Emperors of Japan had their ages inflated in order to make a king-list genealogy extend further back in time, in order to match with a certain cycle of time (kanototori). From the book "Dawn of Japanese History" by David J. Lu:

"Again, a conscious effort is made by the MYTH-tellers to link the imperial line with the Sun Goddess in this story of Emperor Jimmu...Having this in mind the writers of the Nihon Shoki probably decided to push back the legendary beginning of Japan 1,260 years, or to 660 B.C."

To do so, the ages of the emperors were stretched to cover an additional 1,260 years, so that the genealogy of the emperor of Japan could be pushed back in time to a traditional "kanototori" year (60 times 21=1260). In short, the inflated ages of the emperors was related to calendar cycles and a belief in the emperor as connected to the Sun Goddess.

But the point is not that this is a "religion that is wrong," the point is that a traditional myth of longevity was used to "explain or rationalize." If you stopped and considered what the article is about, virtually all MYTHS of longevity involve systems of belief, whether a formal religion or not. For example, the "Fountain of Youth" myth includes the belief that a SUBSTANCE can restore one to youthful vitality. The Shangri-LA myth is the belief that a PLACE can restore one to vitality. I note that Ponce de Leon was Catholic and believed in the Fountain of Youth, yet it was a popular/common belief, not a religious tenet of Catholicism.

What do all these ideas have in common? They fit the TRADITIONAL definition of MYTH. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: myth Pronunciation: \ˈmith\ Function: noun Etymology: Greek mythos Date: 1830

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths

I note that the material, as written, isn't a "mythbusters" TV Show, where we show that an idea such as:

Demolition Derby (Apr. 8) Is movie Speed just fake film physics? Will a car dropped from 4,000 feet fall faster than a speeding car? Is the compact conundrum of a two-truck head-on collision a myth? WATCH VIDEO

Alaska Special (Apr. 15) Is Pykrete really tougher than concrete? Is it durable enough to make a boat out of? Can a V-shaped snowplow really split a car in two? WATCH VIDEO

Banana Slip/Double-Dip (Apr. 22) Can a banana peel really cause one to slip? Does double dipping cause germ warfare? And can the build team really make a homemade diamond? WATCH VIDEO

YouTube Special (Apr. 29) Can match heads alone fire a homemade cannon? Can a 7-foot ball of Legos become a rolling weapon of mass destruction? WATCH VIDEO

Swimming in Syrup (May 6) Is it possible to swim as fast in syrup as in water? Could MacGyver have blown off a cargo-ship steel door with only gun powder and a gun handle? WATCH VIDEO

Exploding Bumper (May 13) Can car bumpers become deadly and explode? Is it true that Hungarian archers got twice the penetration shooting a bow from a galloping horse? WATCH VIDEO

Seesaw Saga (May 20) Could a sky diver whose parachute failed to open hit a playground seesaw and send a small girl flying seven stories high? WATCH VIDEO

Thermite vs. Ice (May 27) See what happens when you combine thermite, a chemical that burns at almost 2,000 degrees, with ice. And can a stereo set off a rifle with its vibrations? WATCH VIDEO

Prison Escape (June 3) Is it possible to cling to the roof of a speeding, swerving car like in the movies? Can jailbirds use dental floss to cut through solid steel bars? WATCH VIDEO

Curving Bullets (June 10) Can a sonic shock wave shatter glass? Is it possible for bullets to bend around obstacles with a side arm flick of the wrist? WATCH VIDEO

Car vs. Rain (June 17) If you're out for a spin in the rain in your convertible, can you stay dry by driving faster? Can popcorn be cooked by a laser or an explosion? WATCH VIDEO

Knock Your Socks Off (Oct. 7) If one bullet is fired and another is dropped simultaneously from the same height, will they hit the ground at the same time? Is it possible to knock someone out of their socks? WATCH VIDEO

Duct Tape Hour (Oct. 14) Can duct tape really be used to lift a car in the air? Will duct tape keep your boat afloat? Can you make a boat completely out of duct tape? WATCH VIDEO

Clean Car vs. Dirty Car (Oct. 21) Does a dirty car get better gas mileage than a clean one? Is the adage, "Stick to beer you're in the clear; beer then liquor ever sicker" true? WATCH VIDEO

Greased Lightning (Oct. 28) What happens when you mix water, oil and fire? Can cheese be used as cannon fodder? Can a C-4 explosive be set off in a microwave? WATCH VIDEO

Hurricane Windows (Nov. 4) In a hurricane, would a house suffer less damage if the windows were left open? Can liquid nitrogen really shatter a head or explode a frozen tree? WATCH VIDEO

Crash and Burn (Nov. 11) Does a car always explode as it plunges off a cliff? Can a huge rocket launch a cage holding a human and would the person survive? WATCH VIDEO

Myth Evolution (Nov. 18) This fan favorites episode revisits the water-heater rocket, car-roof cling, curving bullets, liquid nitrogen and snowplow split myths. WATCH VIDEO

Involve the "common" use of the word "myth" as in, "that's not true."

The discussion of longevity myths goes far beyond whether what is discussed is true or not; it gets to the rationale, the essence, of where the beliefs in extreme longevity come from. At the end of the day, you are free to believe whatever you want. Please don't turn this page into a "evolution versus creationism" type controversy.Ryoung122 11:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of vitriol being dashed against various editors, yet no one who has supported the word "myth" has mentioned a policy reason like I did. (I don't even know this Young editor.) I think we should not go against the words to avoid guidelines that this article previously did by implying that the word "myth" means "untrue." It has nothing to do with a POV against religion which I do not have. I just like the right words to be used and not misused. Auntie E. (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "No Original Research"? This article should reflect what outside sources say, not what one's own personal biases and beliefs are. Further, as I pointed out, you misinterpreted the meaning, purpose, and intent of both this article and the use of the word "myth." The use of the word "myth" here deals with the traditional sense of the term. This is no "mythbusters" attempt to prove why these age claims aren't true...we already have that at longevity claims and extreme longevity tracking. In fact, longevity myths deals with claims to extreme age that come from societies and cultures where not enough evidence exists to disprove them (if we "know" they are false, it is because of the principle of reproducibility: if something cannot be reproduced in observation, then we must question whether it ever happened; so claims to 130+ are so far outside the realm of documented, established proof that they must be seen for what they are).

The stories covered, from the Fountain of Youth to Shangri-La to patriarchal myths of longevity, involve many or most of the commonly-accepted traditional definition of the word "myth":

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory

The story of the early Japanese emperors is tradtional, ostensibility historical, and has a purpose rooted in far more than simply "Let's claim to be 125 to be famous." No, it's about the idea that a notion of ancientness confers a sense of legitimacy. In the same way that the genealogy of China is extended to 2205 B.S. (Emperor Yu) of that of Japan to 660BC, so the Hebrew scriptures extended the "history" of the Jewish people to a time far before actual historical events (i.e., the building of the temple by King Solomon is a historical event; Moses parting the Red Sea is not). But for the Christian fundamentalists, consider this: in ancient Babylon, claims to ages as high as 43,000 years old have been made:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap7.html

Shortly after 2500 B.C., a chronology of rulers known as the Sumerian King List cataloged kings who reigned before and after the great flood.Reigns of tremendous length (43,000 to 18,000 years) were ascribed to the eight antediluvian monarchs, a familiar literary device by which "history" is extended into the distant past and vast periods of time encompassed by simply listing names (cf. Gen. 5). The flood is reported next, after which kingship was again established at Kish. At first, post-diluvian dynasties embrace vast periods of time (24,510 years), but as the period in which the writing was composed is approached, more reasonable figures begin to appear (100, 99, 491, 25 years).

Is that "myth" enough for you? This story involves a "dead" religion (of ancient Sumeria). The only reason why the Christian Bible stories were used is people in the English-speaking world are generally more familiar with characters from the Bible than characters from the Epic of Gilgamesh.Ryoung122 12:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Other 131+ age claims

• Amm Atwa Moussa
• Talib Somejo
• Ali Mohammed Hussein
• Habib Miyan
• Nasir Al Hajry
• Eulalia Pérez de Guillén Mariné
• Omar Abas
• Elener Skundor
• Halime Olcay
• Jon Andersson
• Moloko Temo
• Henry Francisco
• Sarhat Rashidova
• Turinah Masih Sehat
• Christian Drakenberg

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Zaro Aga's age debunked

Robert Young found a source saying that he was only 97 when he died. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11890

Why the word "traditions" is NOT appropriate here

Greetings,

The reason the word "traditions" is NOT appropriate here is because its use is ambiguous at best. For example, the line quoted from a book (a "reference" I deleted) made NO mention of any specific age. Quantitatively, scientists cannot analyze claims that do not involve specificity. Also, the word is most-often used in a sense of "good practices." For example, if I ate healthy meals and everyone in my family did, I could say that "we have a tradition of eating healthily in this family." If I come from a family where a lot of relatives live to 85 or older, I could say "we have a tradition of longevity in this family." However, that certainly does NOT imply that what I am talking about had anything to do with ages beyond scientific proof. The whole point of this article, when founded by Louis Epstein in 2004, was to cover the idea, prevalent in the gerontologic literature, of the "longevity myth" as cultural story of longevity exaggeration, especially when that exaggeration far-exceeds the known scientific boundary of proven longevity. Summaries of longevity myths generally involve WHY these myths exist. We already know the ages are false: that point is made in their exclusion from the proven/scientific records. A discussion of myths usually involves an understanding of how the idea evolved into its current form, or at the least how it existed in the past.Ryoung122 09:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that this page is dedicated to opinions on why these myths exist? PeRshGo (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Opinions are just that: untested ideas. FACTS are ideas that have been tested. Even if the explanations given by experts are "opinions," however, according to Wiki policies, Wiki articles should follow the outside sources. I note that the "campaign" to rename this article has been mainly by religious fundamentalists who "actually believe" that Methuselah lived to 969. Well guess what? Those same people normally have no problem with putting down similar ideas of other cultures. That's called hypocrisy.

Ryoung122 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have, and the problem that I seem to find whether it is due to the original content or the way it has been picked apart and revised the article lacks any cohesion. It just seems to be a compilation of random instances though where people have claimed to have lived past 130. Some myths get a huge amount of attention while others are given in a list. Sometimes there is an explanation for the myth sometimes there isn’t. Sometimes the explanations represent a scientific consensus on the issue and sometimes they appear to be random opinions by whoever wrote the article. Formatting as a whole is painfully inconsistent. And more than anything the reason for this article’s existence doesn’t even appear clear. I’m not here out of religious zealotry or militant atheism. I just found this article linked to another page was reading and thought “Wow this is easily one of the worst pages I’ve ever seen.” I’m not an expert on gerontology, or religion but I know a bad article when I see it. If I was an expert I would have done it my self but honestly I don’t know where the garbage ends and the decent information begins. If I did have to wage a personal opinion I would have to say that this article only exists now as a battleground of beliefs and any hope of salvaging it is long gone. PeRshGo (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of the problem with this article is down to its wholesale disruption by a pro-religious editor who refused to await consensus for the huge number of changes he made. These were so extensive that it was impossible to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant let alone bring the article back up to a reasonable standard. To do so would require considerable effort and I suspect it is not actually a high priority at the moment. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

139 year old claimant

Eulalia Pérez de Guillén Mariné of California claimed to have been 139 when she died in 1878 if you read under her photo. Although she was 112, of course she isn't authenticated. It is a junk case. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that she claimed to have been 140 when she died. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Halim Olcay

What about this one: [1] ? Or is this something for the Claims-page? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Age "125" is still within theoretical possibility, according to scientists, so I suggest that only claims to 131+ be included in the "myths" page.Ryoung122 16:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

She is on the Longevity claims list already. Her name is different on the claims list. It is Halim Solmaz. Anyone know why? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that I can not watch this video. But I was told that an age of 135 years is claimed in this video. And it is true that there are lots of parallels to Halim Solmaz. In fact the only difference is the name and a 10 year gap in age with exact the same birthday. I don't know what to do. Thats why I asked here. Is this an irrelevant case? Same person as Solmaz? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

She claims 135, but some records say she was born 10 years earlier. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So do you think that Halim Solmaz and Halim Olcay are the same persons? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So do you now think they are the same person or don't you. Please speak out clear! --Dangermouse600 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Even more claimants

On the WOP site, I found a whole list of longevity myths not on the page by Stefan Jamin (sounds like Stefan Jameson). See here: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/13690 --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FN Egerton III's arithmetic is wrong

There is a statement attributed to FN Egerton III, in the Journal of the History of Ideas article "The Longevity of the Patriarchs: A Topic in the History of Demography", that Methuselah's age would have taken him 14 years beyond the flood. I have no intention of paying the $12 asking price to get the full article in order to verify for myself that he did make the claim. I am willing to accept the editor's word on this.

However, anyone doing a bit of simple arithmetic can see that this claim is untrue.

The bible states that Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, was 187 years old when Lamech was born(Genesis 5:25). Lamech, Noah's father, was 182 years old when Noah was born thus making Methuselah 369 when he became a grandfather (Genesis 5:28–29). Noah is recorded as being 600 years old when the floodwaters came on the earth (Genesis 7:6). Simple arithmetic tells me that 600 + 369 = 969, exactly the age attributed to Methuselah.

Now, I know that this can be deemed original research, therefore I am hesitant to change the text but I feel obliged to point out that the claim is incorrect. --LittleOldMe (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your arithmetic of 600 + 182 + 187 = 969 is correct based on numbers from the Hebrew Masoretic Text commonly used for English translations of Genesis 5. But Egerton was using Genesis 5 numbers from the Lucianic Greek Septuagint Text that uses a different chronology 600 + 188 + 167 = 955 and 969 - 955 = 14 which has Methuselah living 14 years beyond the flood. Greensburger (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me.

I hope no-one will object if I revise the statement to include the information you have supplied. --LittleOldMe (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided to remove the statement after discovering that the date calculations are fully covered in the Methuselah article. The statement, in the context that it is used in this article, seems to push a POV that the biblical text is contradictory. It is also not contextual to the discussion in the paragraph. --LittleOldMe (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible claim?

I've heard that there is a certain woman from Syria, named Watfa al-Ghanem, who allegedly was born in 1880, making her claimed age 128 or 129 years as of 2009 (assuming she is still alive). I was unable to find any more info on her, but I thought it'd be worth mentioning her in here, in case somebody might want to add her under Politicial claims. User:218.186.12.235, 0:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Myth review

For those who haven't seen the rapidly accumulating archive, WP:WTA#Myth and legend specifies that "myth" has a formal use ("context of sociology or mythology") and an informal use ("unreal or imaginary story"), and that "informal use of the word should be avoided". I have now reviewed all sources brought forward in talk to advance the claim that "myth" in its formal sense is used in reliable sources. They are as follows. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Asahi News 1987, "expert on aging" Toshihisa Matsuzaki, re Vilcabamba. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Quackery Watch (HealthWatcher.net) n.d., Eva Briggs MD, re Hunza and "remote populations". JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Clinic All-round 2004, Oya Yusuke (Univ. Ryukyus), re Okinawa. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Clinic All-round 2003, Shibati Hiroshi (Obirin Univ.), re alchemy, immortality, medicine. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endocrinological Investigation 2005, Kim MJ, Morley JE, re hormones. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Biological Sciences 2004, Herman T Blumenthal, re Morley's work. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• AARP/EFE 2007, Susana Madera (reporter), re Vilcabamba. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• New Scientist 1973, D Davies, re Ecuador. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unknown n.d., Jean-Marie Robine et al., re 1701-1814. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

These sources have the following in common. (1) They each make only passing reference to the word "myth"; this is not a disqualifier, because a collection of passing references can be notable, but it does indicate that the word "myth" is not the plain subject of any of them. (2) They are all written by biologists and gerontologists (except for the news piece carried by AARP), not mythologists or sociologists. (3) They each refer the word "myth" to a specific case or cases rather than to a sociological field of study. (4) While some constitute abstracts, no source constitutes a full available journal article, or sizable relevant quotation from one, which fails WP:V hands down. (5) Appropriate to the prior observations, they each demonstrably use the word "myth" in the informal sense of "unreal or imaginary [false] story", not in the formal sense, which is outside their disciplines. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Accordingly, I submit that no source supports the lead claim that this page is about "myths (in the sociological sense)" (my compromise-attempt words), or any similar lead claim. Further, this violation of WP:WTA has been challenged on and off for several years, and has remained unaddressed by Ryoung122 after two months of intense requests. Another voluminous contributor holds that all that is necessary to comply with WP:WTA is a quotation on the formal definition of myth (but has not added one); but his objections are all answered by the fact that, if no source speaks of longevity sociologically, any mention of the formal definition would be WP:UNDUE weight, WP:COATRACKing, and/or misleading, because the formal definition is not what this article is supposed to be about, as shown by the sources. In short, Ryoung122's idea that the "mythology of longevity" is a notable topic for WP has gone for two months of scrutiny without any evidence. However, it is certainly possible that some content here is appropriate for the Lucian Boia article. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to argue that "creationism should be taught in schools" as well? Your own source citations show that the term "longevity myth" is quite commonly used in the scientific literature. You also fail to understand the entire point of this article: to explain why many cultures and peoples tend to inflate/exaggerate age claims. Did you realize that there are other articles on topics such as 'longevity'? If the longevous ages claimed are verifiable, they can be included in articles such as Oldest people. If you want to believe Buddhism, there's an article there, too. I find it highly unacceptable what you have been attempting to do.Ryoung122 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look "cultural" to you?

http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/23_folder/23_articles/23_centenarians.html

Ryoung122 09:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't say "cultural", nor does your article say "myth", both indicating that you are still regarding two different things as one. You can write an article on your "entire point", "Reasons cultures inflate age claims", if you like (in fact, you did so in 2005 with a nonpareil passel of WP:OR); but the reasons and motivations you see so clearly without secondary sources are not the same as the traditions themselves that do appear in secondary sources, which fail the WP:WTA guideline for use of the word "myth" (now moved to WP:RNPOV). The entire point of a WP article is to speak encyclopedically about the topic defined by its title, and the title "Longevity myths" is both imbalanced and barren of sources. I have enfolded your sources whenever possible, and I will continue to do so without enfolding OR. JJB 20:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bible itself uses the word "MYTH"

<< 1 Timothy 1:4 >>

New International Version (©1984) nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.

<< Titus 1:14 >>

New International Version (©1984) and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.

Interestingly, in 1 Timothy 1:4 the Old Testament genealogies are considered MYTHS in the NEW Testament. So, are you showing respect to the Christian religion by ignoring the Bible's own words and admonishings?Ryoung122 11:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You aren't exactly defending your point there. The Bible uses the word myth to describe things that specifically aren't true. As someone who is trying to make the point that myth doesn't implicitly mean untrue you just gave the biblethumpers ammo. Scroll up, and read my plan. I think it will make everyone happy. I thought about doing it myself but given the current state of the article I don’t know where the decent stuff begins and the garbage ends. PeRshGo (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the word myth cannot be used to imply "things that aren't true." Re-reading the "words to avoid" material, it is clear that it is referring to such usages as politics, propaganda, and colloquial uses (such as on "mythbusters"). It should be clear to everyone that all myths, including those whose use is considered "traditional", are not true, scientifically speaking.

To me, this is like a "creationism versus evolution" argument. Solution? I say: let the creationists have their own page, and let the scientists have their own page. If someone doesn't want to read this page, they don't have to. 76.17.118.157 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding an accurate source that actually uses the word mythos this time! However, your reading of the phrase "myths and endless genealogies" is known as eisegesis. By basic logic, first, "endless" does not refer to the OT genealogies (which are not endless but very telic), but to the temporally limitless (disproven steady state) universe seen also in 2 Peter 3:4; second, it does not call (any) genealogies myths, but, with the word "and", classes those in view as separate but related to myths; third, the Greek word mythos (related also to "mystery") means initiation or secret teaching, without speaking of its falsity. JJB 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase, why don't we find a secondary science source that says "nobody has ever lived beyond 130" and use that? I already long ago found science sources that say "no upper limit can be reasonably set"! JJB 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Longevity "myths" and "legends"

Greetings, This French government report uses the words "legends" and "myths" to describe stories of extreme longevity:

http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_publication/27/publi_pdf2_pop_and_soc_english_365.pdf

More than just a citation of words, however, this 2001 report predates my 2005 essay, and it includes a first page which does a good job of summarizing the idea of extreme longevity as a near-universal myth of humans. I suggest that any editor wishing to help fix this article consult this and other sources.Ryoung122 09:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Now this demographics institute might be a good starter source; but when the first paragraph glosses the Bible as "Enoch died at 965" (two strikes) and "Abraham ... 275" (a third), it rather belies claims of reliability. It uses the word "myth" only once, of Stalin, and makes its claims of "Of course" and "we now know" impossibility without scientific sources such as this article would demand. Where are the textual critics demonstrating how false the records are and the scientific demonstrations of that 130-year upper limit you, er, invent? Then they could be properly rebutted and we'd be done. JJB 20:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A well-meaning editor changed the quotes above, but I restored them because they are actually what the source said. My point is that not only did the source misread 365 as 965 and misread 275 as 175, but they misread a text not about dying (Enoch) as a text about dying. The point is not whether either the Bible or its glosser was correct, the point is that a source that misrepresents obvious Biblical citation so badly is very suspect. JJB 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

More reason why my sources are more reliable than those that came before.

Do you still believe that Noah lived to 950? Don't forget, the meaning of "myth" is a story that is made to explain something and widely believed to be culturally true, but for which the facts contradict it. The principle of uniformitarianism suggests that there's no reason to believe that humans currently, or in the past lived to, extreme ages (such as 150+). Even ages of 130-149 are well beyond proven observation. Moreover, explanations often revolve around believe...which is fine, so long as you recognize it as such.Ryoung122 09:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert, that was your source that made those errors. Now, please cite a source demonstrating why the informal meaning of "myth" that you cite should continue to flout policy that states, "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words [e.g., 'mythology'] only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." Please cite a source demonstrating that uniformitarianism applies (I've already cited sources to the contrary), and please cite a source drawing the conclusion from uniformitarianism that you have drawn. Please cite a source stating that 130 and 150 are meaningful boundaries rather than merely round guesses, i.e., to the nearest 10 years (the methodology you trumpeted in Pakistan IIRC). The original source of your demographic calculations would also be nice. Failure to cite sources will be understood as acknowledgment that the uncited beliefs need not affect this article. JJB 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm asserting for the formal meaning of myth, not just the colloquial report you see like this:

Debunking travel myths In this age of instant -- and often inaccurate -- wiki-information, urban myths live large. Canada.com - 26 minutes ago

The 7 deadly investment myths SUBSCRIBING to investment myths can cause investors to either lose money or miss out on opportunities. Understanding some of these myths and their pitfalls can result in better investment decisions. Here are seven investment myths to be wary about. AsiaOne - Sep 14 02:11am

Myths about car insurance Car insurance premiums are climbing at their fastest rate ever, according to the AA's latest Insurance Price Index. Related Stories L-Drivers be warned, the test is getting harder Review: Skoda Superb TDi range Review: Nissan NOTE range Review: Smart fortwo gb-10 Surge in second-hand car complaints Belfast Telegraph - Sep 15 12:34am

Vaccination Myths Strain Flu Prevention in Alaska Editor's Note: For this year’s flu season, Alaska’s health officials are not worried about vaccine shortage, but they find vaccination myths in ethnic communities very challenging. New York-based NAM editor Anthony D. Advincula reports. ANCHORAGE, Alaska — While health officials... New America Media - Sep 14 01:54am

9 credit score myths do more harm than good In todays economy, a good credit score is more valuable than ever, but not all advice is good advice. These nine credit score myths that can do more harm than good FOX Business - Sep 15 06:40am

That meaning of "myth", from wordIQ.com, does a better service:

DA myth is often thought to be a lesson in story form which has deep explanatory or symbolic resonance for preliterate cultures, who preserve and cherish the wisdom of their elders through oral traditions by the use of skilled story tellers. Its truth is larger than the advent of critical history which may, or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story" (Preliterate oral traditions vanish as the written word becomes "the story" and the literate become "the authority"). However, as Lucian Lévi-Bruhl puts it, "The primitive mentality is a condition of the human mind, and not a stage in its historical development." (Mâche 1992, p.8) Myth is simultaneously true at more than one level, for those who tell it, hear and delight in it, and understand it within their culture.

Claims to extreme age better-fit the idea of a story that has deep explanatory or symbolic resonance, who cherish the wisdom of their elders.

For example, MOSES. Moses's age of "120" represents the idea that he lived three generations (and the Bible says that a generation is 40 years...40*3=120). Aaron was said to be "123" to make the priesthood older. These are myths, not in the sense that they are widely believed to be true but are false, but in the sense that the people that created these stories believed them, and the reasons they had for believing them are associated with basic, normal human desires and fears...such as the fear of death and the desire for eternal life.

Jesus said "the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives Life."

My approach to this entire issue is to place these stories in their proper context. If you choose to use the lens of religious faith, by all means believe these stories. But if you choose to use the lens of scientific evidence, that's the wrong lens for stories that predate modern systems of recordkeeping. And while I must admit that age "120" is possible, age 950 is not.

Wikipedia is not a church, it is a place for secular knowledge. Critical, skeptical approaches are needed, especially if the articles are about the question of what does science consider the maximum life span.Ryoung122 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I quoted scientists saying there is no maximum life span. Please source a mythologist or sociologist who uses the word "myth" technically in relation to longevity. You might also source your ideas about "the" "meaning" of Moses's and Aaron's ages, along with (say) the "meaning" of Jared's age given as 962 or Kalibum's as 960. Please also source the "scientific evidence" for your ideas about why certain ages are possible (please define) or not. Sources for your demographic tables would be handy here, along with sources for the total number of humans who have walked the earth in however many years, so we have a sample size for calculating possibility. The lack of sources for the cutoffs of 131, 113, and 2 (for limbo) are particularly glaring. Failure to cite sources will be understood as acknowledgment that the uncited beliefs need not affect this article. JJB 19:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You misquoted scientists for whom you don't understand the issue at all. They are suggesting that there is no magic number (say, 125) at which everyone who reaches that number will drop dead. Not only that, but the article quoted is a kind of "activist" argument...that means it is arguing against the mainstream scientific consensus, which is that there IS a maximum life span:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/16/1345

Even those activists who claim that there is no maximum life span are, in fact, arguing that humans are living longer today than in the past:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5488/2366?ijkey=26d451ebea1099d1b0532f59eb3da56be8fc0936

How can evidence that humans didn't live as long in the 1860s be considered a reason to believe that ancient humans lived a lot longer? Moreover, these articles make it clear that the increase in maximum OBSERVED lifespan is due to improvements made since 1860, NOT to underlying changes in the human genome.

So, the bottom line is, the sources you quote HARM your argument, because they are arguing that there is no evidence that past human lifespan was as high as it is now.

In other words, Jeanne Calment reaching 120 in 1995 is NOT proof that Moses could have lived to 120 in 1500 B.C.

Get it?Ryoung122 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're so fixated on "proof" of the WP:TRUTH about how long Moses lived (or if he did, for that matter). Wikipedia, as you may not have realized, is about finding out what sources say about how long Moses lived, not about righting the WP:GREATWRONGS that may be inherent in his age reports. Sources. You provided some good sources just now, so I added them. JJB

Misinterpretation of the article "Longevity myth in Okinawa-the Past and Present"

I think the above mentioned article has been used to debunk the longevity typically attributed to the traditional lifestyle and diet in Okinawa when the article is not denying any possible relation between such traditional lifestyle and longevity. The only clear result is that longevity in Okinawa has decreased, specially among the men, but there's no evidence that this decrease has not been coupled to a change in the lifestyle of Okinawa's population in the last years.
This is the text of the abstract:

They were proud of the longevity for both men and women in Okinawa Prefecture before, however, in the average life span in 2000 in statistics by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the ranking of men was lowered greatly from the 4th place in 1995 to the 26th place, though the ranking of woman kept the 1st place in Japan. This seems to relate to the fact that the traditional life style in Okinawa suitable for the longevity has been lost.

And this is the interpretation given in the Wikipedia article:

The Okinawa diet has some reputation of linkage to exceptionally high ages.[43] The tradition of Okinawan lifestyle being suitable to longevity has been lost lately, as demonstrated by comparison of 1995 and 2000 statistics; in a journal article, this tradition of lifestyle was called both "myth" and "fact".[4]

The only way to debunk such reputation would be to put a different population on the same diet and physical routines and statistically verify that there is no lifespan increase when compared with a control group with the same ethnic (genetic) background. Heathmoor (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that was my edit, and you can see where the interpretation arises directly from the abstract. I thought I was saying that the decrease was coupled to a change in lifestyle as the abstract states. I'm open to any differences. JJB 20:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

JJBulten and anti-science fundamentalism

Greetings,

JJBulten, an editor for an ideological website (AlterNetDaily) and someone who is a Christian fundamentalist apologist who has stated that he believes that Noah really did live to be 950 years old because the Bible says so, has been pushing an original-research, UNsourced campaign to change "longevity myths" to "longevity narratives" or "longevity traditions," eliminating any sense that these claims are false or that there are reasons not to believe them. Aside from the fact that all his editing...by a non-expert in the field who might have some expertism, instead, in the field of Christian apologetics, is clearly a threat to what Wikipedia stands for. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to proselytize. His editing has been UNconstructive and he is more than 90% of the reason this and similar articles are in poor shape.

(ec) Sorry, several flaws. I have admitted my COI (which does not relate directly to longevity): what has your COI (which does) gotten you in the past at WP? Next, I have never stated this belief about Noah in this context and you have never sourced your claim about my belief. You have never pointed out why it is OR to follow WP:RNPOV, and any specific concerns you have cited are promptly addressed. WP is not about the sense that claims are false, per the first sentence of the core of the core policy, WP:V. A WP:SELFCITING expert has no special advantage over a non, especially when the expert flouts policy for 5 years. Finally, have you read WP:NPA lately? JJB 18:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably most-disturbing is Bulten's attempts to use the divisions of arts and sciences to create chaos. Work does not have to emanate from "sociologist" or "mythologist" sites. Anyone who works in the field of gerontology knows that it is interdisciplinary...there are sociological gerontologists, biogerontologists, demographic gerontologists. An article about longevity is most-appropriately cited by sources from GERONTOLOGY. To claim that only sources from sociology can be used is false division and an attempt to invalidate an entire field of research.

Again, Bulten's edits reflect his opinions, not his sources.

Ryoung122 18:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But according to policy, description of "myth" must only be in such a way as not to make judgments about truth or falsity, and your scientists have never used the word "myth" that way, and I've asked you for those sources for 1.5 years. The gerontologist may be relied upon for dates and documents but not for defining what is and what is not myth in an area where he is clearly an amateur. Have you even read the RNPOV and V policy? JJB 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarafication

Both Robert Young and JJB have good points and express their views clearly, but heres my views, I agree with JJB that the patriarchs reallty did live as long as the Bible says, but heres were Robert Young is right, we have to draw the line somewhere, if we accept the Bible as verification for age, then other religions will think we have double standards and are hipocrits, I think its reasonable that people have to submit documents before validation. Longevitydude (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, but I never said the patriarchs necessarily lived as long as the Bible says. Whether the sources are true is intended to be left solely to the reader's discretion as it is outside WP's scope to make such complex judgments. What we are to do is only to report what the sources say, which is a simpler judgment that WP is equipped to make. Thus if a patriarch has one uncontroverted death age, or two different attestations of death age, or particular additional analysis (as Methuselah, Adam, Enoch, Moses in particular), that's what we report and leave the judgments to the reader. Editors of this article who don't understand this yet about how WP works need to stop thinking this article should tell people which claims are "obviously false" and which claims are "obviously false but not proven so yet". JJB 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the 3-Revert Rule NOT apply to JJBulten?

1. (cur | prev) 18:36, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (Undid revision 386588496 by Ryoung122 (talk) You will be blocked next time. This is your final warning on this article.) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 18:33, 23 September 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs) (47,880 bytes) (Undid revision 386588157 by John J. Bulten (talk)this is an improvement) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 18:31, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (Undid revision 386586515 by Ryoung122 (talk) Don't grandstand, you could lose a lot.) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 18:23, 23 September 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs) (47,880 bytes) (Undid revision 386585514 by John J. Bulten (talk)undid God-complex edits) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 18:18, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (As I told you last year, wholesale reversion to the likes of 10:45, 18 September 2010 DerbyCountyinNZ is not how WP runs. State what concerns you see.) (undo)

Looking above, it's actually John J Bulten that violated the 3-revert rule, and should be blocked. I will refer this to an admin.Ryoung122 20:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you neglected your own third revert, just below this list, as described in my 18:18 edit summary. But the rule on 3RR is don't do it the fourth time. Especially if you have a history. Anyway, NickOrnstein did your fourth revert for you (congrats), which I've appealed. JJB 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is a complete mess and complete re-write is an option

It seems to me that the article (both "versions") is at a point that nuking the whole thing down to a stub and starting fresh might be the best option. Is there anyone who feels the encyclopedia is served at all by having edit wars over the current mess of an article? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We are in mediation and truce. However, virtually everything in "my" version (which was almost the complete rewrite) is sourced, and much of that new sourcing was reverted 4 times today, and I only get 3 reverts in 24 hours. Anyway, please feel free to do what you can to help. JJB 21:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't "get" any reverts as such. Edit warring is not an entitlement.

Why not open up this debate from the two or three participants by using an RfC and posting notices at relevant WikiProjects? I'm not sure that mediation between uers who have been at loggerheads for months in going to be fruitful. My tuppenceworth is that "Longevity myths" should be about religious and other traditional stories about longevity, and Longevity claims should be about disputed historical claims (they're not "myths", they're just wrong). Fences&Windows 21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that nuking this article and starting again would be the best option. This article has been a mess for far too long and it appears that there is nothing constructive being achieved in the present situation. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My material won a National Award and was published in a book. John J Bulten has confused "church" and "encyclopedia." You are free to believe what you want at "church." However, Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect outside reliable sources, not what you believe or do not believe.Ryoung122 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following:

1. Freeze the article; 2. Have a two-week request for comment; 3. Make a "new" article; 4. Vote on which one is better. 62.235.131.49 (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Heres an idea for a comprimise

change the name to either Longevity Myths and Traditions or Longevity Myths and Longevity Traditions. feel free to comment. Longevitydude (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea! The problem though is that the word "myth" is not used here in the technical, nonjudgmental sense, as it should be in accord with WP:RNPOV. Can you find disciplinary sources (i.e., sociologists or mythologists) who study "longevity myths" per se and in the technical sense? JJB 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is John J Bulten's judgmental opinion, not reflective of outside sources. Please tell me how myths of patriarchy, which relate to the beginnings of society, are not myths in the technical sense? Who is really doing the judging here?Ryoung122 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

From my part i think a myth must STAY a myth no matter he/it is coming or not from a religion...because i never see or heard that somebody lived to 400-900 years. Comments here from J.Bulten are unconstructive because they only has been put out from some refered books;without other depth-in researchs that supported it. Researchs from the GRG are based on real facts not fictional or religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarface1812 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Four Definitions of MYTHS, not Two

Greetings,

There are FOUR definitions of MYTH, not TWO:

myth (mth) n. 1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth. 2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia. 3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. 4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

Source:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/myth

Note that the article Longevity MYTHS is plural.

Myths such as the "Patriarchal Myth" would fit definition 1.

Myths such as that of Thomas Parr fit definition 2. He became a cultural icon.

Myths such as the claim that William Coates was 114 (he turned out to be 92) fit defintion 4 (a fictitious story, person, or thing). The difference here is that, unlike Thomas Parr, he did not become a cultural icon.

John J Bulten objects to definition 3, the "colloquial" use of the word such as "that's a myth."

Thus, Bulten is misunderstanding the definitions and the fact that there are multiple meanings.

He also misunderstands the article. The first purpose of the article is to explain how cultures developed ideas of extreme longevity. The second purpose of the article is to suggest that such ideas of longevity do not pass scientific muster. The use of the word "myth" is thus a double entendre, a double meaning. I think it is the most useful and appropriate. There is no scientific evidence that humans ever lived even 150, let alone 950, years.

Ryoung122 16:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

John J Bulten objects—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs)

"Do not pass scientific muster" is just a fancy way of saying that these ideas are incorrect. That's not an appropriate statement for a WP discussion -- obviously JJB doesn't agree with it, so the only way for you two to move forward is to discuss what particular sources say, and summarize the appropriate statements neutrally in the article. The article should limit itself to reporting what sources say (and to a certain extent to presenting things as if verifiable sources were "true," where "verifiable" has a specific policy definition).

I think the idea of presenting what's in the bible as if it were verifiable is obviously wrong (by WP's policy). At the same time, I think that the idea of "debunking" any particular myth (religious or secular) is simply outside the scope of wikipedia; if you want to link to a reliable source that "debunks" whatever you're unhappy with and note that respected expert so-and-so said this-and-this then that's fine, but it's not WP's job to report the "correct" resolution to any disagreement (regardless of how strongly each individual person may feel about which side of the controversy is correct).

I think in the modern day there's overwhelming agreement by academic sources that the bible is not literally true, but it's still not WP's job to "suggest" that that conclusion is the correct one.

To add fuel to the fire :-), I don't see any reason at all to split "longevity traditions" or "longevity myths" any further -- I think that will likely lead to more arguing (over what belongs in which category) with no useful result. I actually think they should be combined to forestall arguing over whether a particular story is a "tradition" (i.e. potentially true from the arguer's POV) or a "myth" (i.e. obviously false from the arguer's POV). I think that "longevity myths" would be a fine name for the combined category, since definition (1) in Ryoung122's list pretty clearly encompasses "longevity traditions."

Subverdor (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other 131+ age claims

• Amm Atwa Moussa
• Talib Somejo
• Ali Mohammed Hussein
• Habib Miyan
• Nasir Al Hajry
• Eulalia Pérez de Guillén Mariné
• Omar Abas
• Elener Skundor
• Halime Olcay
• Jon Andersson
• Moloko Temo
• Henry Francisco
• Sarhat Rashidova
• Turinah Masih Sehat
• Christian Drakenberg

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:N, WP:NAME and WP:NOR

I've come here from the FT/N. How does this entry pass muster in terms of naming conventions and notability? How is the current entry not a violation of the policy against "original research?" It strikes me that ...

1. The topic fails WP:NAME in both recognizability and precision. "Longevity myths" is not recognizable in any scholarly sense, and the content that might be called "myth" in a more colloquial or skeptical sense is not commonly referred to by this name -- thus that material would fail WP:UCN. This material also fails precision because "myth" does have a technical meaning, and it is not "falsehood".
2. The topic fails WP:N because there is no significant coverage addressing "the subject directly in detail". And how could there be when there is no uniformly recognized subject matter here?
3. What we are left with is a violation of WP:NOR, because what remains in the entry is a synthesis of reliable sources to advance a position.

I was struck when I started to look through the entry that the three sources used in the lead refer to the Taoist "longevity tradition" and not "longevity myth". A very telling introduction to the problem. If reliable sources cannot be produced to justify the existence of the entry on grounds that abide by current policies it is my opinion that the entry needs to be deleted. Sourced information here might have more appropriate homes elsewhere and splitting and merging would of course be available to those who want to save it. Those are my 2 cents.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My good man, I've been on this topic and its competing scopes a long time. The Taoist cite is mine of course in anticipation of a successful move to "longevity traditions", a better-sourced name, although former moves to that name have failed due to entrenched group protection of the "myths" name. IMHO the topic, like longevity claims, is a subset of a list of claims to being 110 or older (supercentenarianism), which is generally considered notable enough for individuals to merit list inclusion. At the FT/N I proposed that if this scope is agreed, we can then agree on whether the claims should be divided into "traditional" and "modern" (I proposed an objective criterion), and this would solve the basic OR problems. However, moves and deletes should not be proposed rashly, because when the defender Group (represented by WP:WOP) wakes up, there is great risk of drama. Thank you for your consideration.

I must also revert, under WP:BRD, the deletion of the many sourced "more modern" cases by Itsmejudith (not reverting a lot of other stuff). She is operating from the flawed title, while if the scope is recognized to be different from the current flawed title of "myths", these cases should stand, or move (after consensus) to a different article. But, as I've said, my policy-based proposals for handling this data have been in line for awhile for addressing the core problems, although they've been waiting on (first) group obstructionism and (then) slow mediation. Looking forward to "new consensus". JJB 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to object to BRD applying, but I really don't see how informative a single article can be if it tries to cover genealogies thousands of years old, with kings reigning for hundreds of years, interpretation of terms clearly being an issue, as well as claims made in the 19th or 20th century of people living to 120. The disciplines involved, the research questions, the methodologies are so different. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Judith. The article appears to cover a wealth of different subjects that are brought together under one umbrella because of the peculiar interests of "supercentarianism" hobbyists, a group I can't imagine as all too large. The entry title is atrocious, and the contents are, by our standards, original research.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are either of you saying it's OR to do objective reporting of claims and traditions because you believe (presumably due to sourcing?) there has been a change in discipline, research or methodology? So far there has been no sourcing showing that collection by Lucian or Albrecht von Haller is significantly different from that by William Thoms or Guinness World Records; the only difference is that GWR has a tighter documentation standard, but that is already handled by my proposal for separation of traditional v. modern claims. It is possible this topic might be split, but please provide a source that shows there is a split rather than build what might be an argument from silence, thanks. Further, GWR sales, and its placement of this category almost at the very front of its book, indicate there is a wealth of interest in comparing these historical claims. Again, collecting such data tertiarily for comparison is a perfect WP niche. Please review my revision and see if you can tell the difference between what I've worked for on this article and the original research I've been fighting to cut back, against significant reversions. I've been carrying the torch for N, NAME, and NOR all this time. JJB 18:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Pulling together disparate single reports of people who lived an unusually long time under the umbrella that they are "longevity myths" is in the realm of WP:SYN. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed if we call it myths. No syn if we call it reports of people who lived an unusually long time or the like. JJB 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC) BTW, is this your entire "listcruft" objection, or would you like to start a new talk section for it? I am assuming, of course, that all secondarily-reported claims of sufficient old age are notable, and that 110 (supercentenarianism) is sufficiently old; if you follow these two points, the objection seems to vanish, and if you don't, I'd be happy to know what would be more reasonable. JJB 01:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Random lists of people who claimed/verified as being old is just a random list of people verified or claiming to be old and not an encyclopedic article that provides context about "Longevity myths" or whatever the consensus determines to be the appropriate subject of the article. just because something can be verified in a source, does not mean that it is appropriate content for a particular (or any) encyclopedia article.Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What this article is about

Please correct me if I'm wrong but just to get things straight this article is about longevity claims where the person in question is claimed to have aged past current scientific consensus on absolute human longevity. PeRshGo (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No. First there is no consensus age as the sources already show. Second, some editors want 131 as an arbitrary consensus age, so if you mean its about claims over 131, some editors think that; but it's also about claims that are not verified in some way as well.

My proposal was that, first, this article is a subset of all unverified longevity claims; second, that the subset should be determined by objective standards; and, third, that the simplest way to accommodate the current editors' sentiments is to define it as claims where the last update occurred prior to fall 1955 (the GWR era) AND where full birthdate and deathdate are not supplied. I will also add "AND where the claim is not controverted by reliable sources", if the merge of the controverted cases is successful to list of disputed supercentenarian claimants. But there is nobody arguing (if they ever did) that this is for all claims over 131 and those only, or any other age. JJB 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Suppose a claim is on the list of disputed supercentenarian claimants, and later the claim is "controverted by reliable sources". The claim should NOT be dropped from the list, because others will put it back on the list. The claim should remain on the list with a reference to the reliable source that controverted it (by comparing census records for example). Greensburger (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree. If the claim's on the disputed list, it should already have been controverted by reliable (primary or secondary) sources, because if it isn't, then how can WP say it's disputed? (E.g., Temo 134 may be disbelieved by some people, but it's not controverted by any source, they all say 134. "Disputed" does not apply to the POV of "odds in the trillions" because those odds are poorly sourced and often OR, and that is a generic POV dispute not related to witness testimony; although I've proposed ways to enfold the odds if sourcing ever turns up.) And the dispute should stay a dispute unless there is later such source agreement on one POV that another POV would be "tiny" and removable (but that would be very odd). Or, more likely, unless there is an explicit, objective standard, something like saying that claims with only a year or two of difference can be counted as methodologically undisputed on their lowest age. But this requires resolving the contradiction between the "claims/proximate" and "disputeds/varying" sections that I tagged in those two articles. JJB 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

But is my description what this article is supposed to be about? Because right now that isn't very clear. PeRshGo (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, because that would require us to engage in original research about what "absolute human longevity" means and what is consensus about it, and because there is not consensus for lumping all unverified claims together if they pass any age cutoff.

Controverted claims would all move to the disputed article, I think. But there is still unresolved scope overlap between this article and "claims", caused by some editors' insistence on retaining a distinction that speaks to "myth" (meaning falsehood) or to trustworthiness or believability in some other sense. This is contrary to the first sentence of WP:V of course. I have proposed, and then for the most part implemented, the objective cutoffs that (a) if a claim was last updated after fall 1955, OR if it is older but contains complete birthdate and deathdate, it's a "claim"; and (b) if it was last updated before fall 1955, AND if it doesn't contain complete birthdate and deathdate, it's a "tradition" ("myth" breaks WP:RNPOV). These are objective factors distinguishing the claim (fall 1955 is the beginning of constant GWR monitoring, which was not done with the same degree of thoroughness by any scholar prior). So the detailed but objective scope I've now defined twice is technically the current scope on the ground, but consensus has mostly been silent so far and Ryoung122 has not weighed in significantly this month. Why don't I try saying that explicitly in the articles and see if anyone reverts for discussion? JJB 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Per Chris Amos above if it can be shown that there is a scholarly literature on "longevity" as a motif in "myths", "folklore", religion, etc. then I would gladly support a separate entry with an appropriate title dealing with that subject matter. However, what I do not currently support and would not support in the future is simply lumping together all the material here in the same entry because it all involves impossibly long ages from time periods before medical verification was possible or at least utilized, and using scholarly terms inappropriately because non-experts are using them in that way. And yes, a medical expert on human longevity is a non-expert when it comes to myth unless, in the rare occasion, they have qualifications in both subjects.Griswaldo (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That last thought is a direct hit. Your other point is close, in that there are some distinctions possible between eras, but they are subjective; and the sources are sparse to nil on longevity motifs, but abundant on historical longevity reports and/or modern longevity mythos (ambiguity is deliberate). Since you are taking some time today, please take a bit more to answer the questions in the next section and we may be able to set a baseline to build from for others to join us in going forward. JJB 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In one sentence what is the inclusion criteria for information in this article?

PeRshGo (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In one sentence, there is none yet.

In one sentence about what I think, it should be a particular subset of all unverified uncontroverted supercentenarian claims, including only claims prior to fall 1955 with incomplete birthdate or deathdate, as a compromise to some WP:WOP editors.

In one sentence about what it is now, that's also essentially it, plus some controverted claims that I would move to another article, and some scope determination discussions in progress.

In one sentence about what Ryoung122 thought 2005-9, it was "the history of the mythology of longevity, as well as an explanation of the longevity myth phenomenon", which fails notability criteria and is very subjective.

In one sentence about what article creator Louis Epstein thought 2003+, it was "unsupported claims and why the burden of proof must rest on them, along with a list of those that have failed to meet it", which is now more the scope of this article plus claims plus disputeds. JJB 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay allow me to make myself clear. If this question cannot be answered I'm throwing this thing over to AFD because right now the article looks like a garbage pile of any time someone has said they’re older than what the Guinness Book lists as the oldest person. PeRshGo (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, please don't fault me for representing all POVs above: I did answer your question with one sentence about what I think it should be, my answer is well-defined and objective, and it does appear to be gaining consensus because there have been no serious arguments over this scope in the last couple of weeks, which is actually a surprise for me on this topic. The scope is simply all unverified but uncontroverted supercentenary claims that are pre-Guinness and incompletely formed. But the basic issue is: a list of unverified supercentenarian claims is notable, in that many sources have made such lists throughout history; and it is appropriate to break down such a list into objective subset articles, namely the three articles on "traditions", "claims", and "disputeds". My insertion of that exact scope into all the articles has also met surprisingly little challenge. AFD would be a premature cold shower on this budding consensus, and would also preempt the ongoing merge discussions, which preempted what started out as a good mediation. I recognize there are objections to the article, but I don't understand how they arise from foundations in policy or logic, as I've repeated the logic a few times and nobody has interacted with it. Please tell me why you imply I didn't answer your question or what may be unclear about my statement of scope, and please tell me what is wrong with the logic I just provided that a well-sourced list of unverified claims over 110 is appropriate. Thank you! JJB 13:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Now we're getting at the nub of what is wrong with the article and what will continue to be wrong with the article. Thank you for contributing succinctly what you think the article should cover: "all unverified but uncontroverted supercentenary claims that are pre-Guinness and incompletely formed". This phrase specifies five criteria. 1. -verified 2. -controverted 3. >=110 years 4. <1955 5. -completely formed. This is far too complex. When I need to draw Venn diagrams simply to work out what is in an article, it's time to go back to the drawing board. It would be completely impossible to find a simple name for such an article, whether it is "longevity myths", "longevity narratives" or anything. Also, no independent source is likely to cover this exact specification. There is an assumption on various sides that we will continue to have a whole suite of articles on longevity, as in the template. That's not a correct assumption. There's going to have to be a thorough cull of longevity-cruft. Individuals need to be notable to be included in lists. Topics need to be notable - as topics. Guinness can carry on doing its job in its own way and in Wikipedia we will do our job in our way. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this well-expressed concern. As I just told Griswaldo above, the parent class is simply "unverified supercentenarian claims" (2 criteria), a quantified version of "unverified old-age claims". The source list I provided him shows that lists of unverified old-age claims go back several centuries continuously and have significant earlier historic testimony, so the topic "unverified old-age claims" is notable in itself. The other 3 criteria arise solely as a result of subdividing unverifieds into WP-size articles according to WP:SUMMARY style, and in an attempt to create objective criteria that are also acceptable to WP:WOP editors. These subcategory criteria can be improved if you like and only exist to break the article up manageably. There is a policy somewhere that articles like "alphabetical list of so-and-so's (A-D)", "(E-K)", and so on are perfectly valid even though the subdividing criteria are not sourced per se, becuase the criteria are objective. One option, for instance, is that we could sell WP:WOP on dropping the "incomplete" one and just using 1955 (although that might get reverted if someone perceives an applecart as being overturned). I have no problem culling, and as I've said would join your argument in many AFDs (Where are they? List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians should merge), but can we please not start with this well-sourced article? Your view that individual notability is required for list inclusion is not actually policy; some lists use it, but per WP:NNC (notability not content), list inclusion is generally based on proper weight considerations, not notability. If you'd like to propose individual notability be demonstrated for list inclusion in this case, that's fine if you can get it past WP:WOP; I've been working on proposals that will work with them, and so far this year I'm doing well. I have nothing to do with how Guinness does its job, this is all about doing this article the WP way. In short, while the compromise complexity might be an ongoing problem, it is within policy and acceptable to the "older" editors; but what is on your drawing board please? I am wide open to policy- and source-based improvements, but I don't hear them! JJB 15:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The only improvement you can add to this article is reverting all the changes you have done.Japf (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What's on my drawing board is that we need an article on longevity. It should include what is scientifically known about the human lifespan (1 para); Jeanne Calment and the current longest lived person (1 para); claims that have turned out to be untrue, such as the Soviet claims referenced to Zhores Medvedev (1 para); long lifespans in ancient genealogies, king lists, the Bible and Taoism (1 para). We need a separate article on life expectancy - haven't looked at that and hoping it's untouched by the cruft. We need a list of long-lived people (verified only). And a category for individuals like Old Tom Parr where the claims were either disproved or couldn't be verified. That's all I can see we absolutely need. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that as a good working POV among those POVs that contribute to the topic. I think we have most of that in Longevity, Life expectancy, List of the verified oldest people (cf. possible redundancy with Oldest people and Supercentenarian), and Category:Longevity traditions. Plus, by your admitting the category, you are not taking the position that a "list [or cat] of unverified old-age claims" is completely forbidden, thanks. However, the classic category/list/navbox distinction indicates that this article's data is not suitable for categorization alone, because so many individual-case notes are required, so that seems a nonstarter for AFD (see "disadvantages of categories" and "advantages of lists" there). But based on your constructive statement, Judith, would you mind just picking anything in Template:Longevity other than this article, and start AFD or shears or TNT, and you'll get a relatively supportive !vote from me (probably the bivote "merge or delete")? Why not back me up on merging list of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians into its redundant coverage in longevity claims, e.g.? Why not delete List of centenarians (that title only) as redundant with Template:Longevity, which is almost the same argument as I was told on a related question? Why not pick a sparsely populated country article or war article, or all of them, and making a bold "modest" proposal? Just as a measure of good faith, could you temporarily back down from the compulsion to start this whole process with this one well-sourced article? I have been working on removing bad behavior from this topic area for a long time, here and elsewhere, and I'm disappointed that the one-man cleanup crew is being confused with the litterers when he's trying to point you to a spare broom. Anyway, metaphors aside, we can absolutely move forward with taking your POV in conjunction with the others here and working together on individual questions. JJB 18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I only just found out that that the Brazilian supercentenarians article existed.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I find these things out slow too. And I really don't complain about them that much, if you believe it. JJB 19:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION

Whys is JJB completly changing the text, and in fact messing myths with claims, as these nonsense changes are being discussed at the moment? Has he reached an agreement with himself, and the opinions of other people don't matter? I just don't want to start a edition war, since JJB is above that rule and I'm not.Japf (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Answers: WP:RNPOV and WP:BRD. If interested, please give specific objections and support with sources. JJB 18:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe english wikipedia contributors are not so polite as in other wikipedias. In the portuguese language wikipedia the text is not changed while a main subject is discussed. The WP:RNPOV works only if some one wants to put some sense in this article. When you impose your religious thoughts to a scientific text you call it freedom of speech and impartial representation of all currents of thinking (I don't know what kind of WP:XYZCDF you use). You are wrong whichever argument you give.Japf (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No one even has a clear idea of what this article is supposed to be about yet. When a clear inclusion criteria is laid down maybe you can argue whether or not the POV is too religious or not. PeRshGo (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So, if "no one has a clear idea" (Me and Robert young have and unfourtunately JJB too) why does changes are permitted during the discussion? The present article is a completly mess, and if an uninformed person looks at it he/she would perfectly agree that this abnormality may be merged with longevity claims, because the merge has already happened disregarding what is being discussed.Japf (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion. I see a bunch of people saying what they are going to do without reason or a solid plan. PeRshGo (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. None of the problems with this entry are either being addressed through editing or discussion. All I see is a lot of complaining and hostility towards those who think this entry is unencyclopedic and have outlined, via policy, why they think so.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

PeRshGo and Griswaldo, I started bringing reason and plan to this article 18 months ago; I resumed about a month ago and my plans have worked better than expected at building consensus with the regular WP:WOP editors. (OTOH, someone talking about AFD while several other processes are ongoing would IMHO be "saying what one is going to do", and I would hope that the reason and plan would be discussed before that happened.) But I trust that Griswaldo can testify that I've not been hostile and have not complained other than about the sorry state of the original article history and the sometime entrenchedness of certain editors. The fact that those editors have now "awakened" and are responding with what G sees as complaining and hostility is not a reason to punish them by deleting the article I've been working to rescue. As I told G, there are a lot more unencyclopedic articles on this topic than this one; how about list of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians, which is mostly redundant and mergeable with longevity claims?

Anyway, Griswaldo, please illuminate me. Please provide me a source that backs up what I hear as your basic contention but one that I can never quantify to myself reasonably: the idea that listing all supercentenary claims, regardless of antiquity, is somehow lumping together apples with oranges instead of demonstrating a continuum of human habit of cataloguing unverified claims. If there is no distinction between ancient and modern to be found in sources (other than the 1955 cutoff I've used), there is no reason for charges of synthesis (what point would I be synthesizing?). Instead, for centuries, sources simply report whatever cases are at hand, with whatever verification evidence is at hand, and without making significant categorical distinctions. But G, please continue interacting toward consensus-building, and do not take the canvassed influx to heart as a sign of the future of this topic. JJB 14:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What "human habit of cataloging unverified claims"? "[F]or centuries, sources simply report whatever cases are at hand, with whatever verification evidence is at hand." That's absurd. What ancient sources do you have that catalog unverified claims? What Medieval European sources do have for this? Hindu sources? Chinese sources? You think that ancient people scientifically verified the ages of the old biblical patriarchs? Really? This is a "modern" human habit I'm afraid. To be frank JJB, I am not sure I think you're being constructive on this page at all. At every turn you put up walls of text and keep on arguing that you've been trying to fix the page for months now and no one will listen. Well we all listened and you didn't convince us. Sorry, but if you want real help here you'll have to listen to others ... maybe even more of them. Start another RfC, or do something else to get more third party opinions in here, but if you do please be prepared to listen. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Sumerian King List, genealogies of Genesis, and Shahnameh arise in the mythos period; then Lucian (Macrobii, which includes Chinese lore) and Pliny the Elder compiled lists of data available to them; then, given the extreme circulation of unverified individual claims (generally not lists) through the medieval period, further attempts to collect these arcana were performed by Albrecht von Haller, Russian annals on an ongoing basis since at least 1815, Charles Hulbert 1825, James Prichard 1836, Robley Dunglison 1851, Notes and Queries (William Thoms), Kirby's Wonderful Museum, Ebenezer Cobham Brewer's Dictionary 1905, Orison Swett Marden 1921, Robert L. Ripley in the mid-20th century, Guinness World Records since 1955, Arthur Custance 1976, A. Ross Eckler, Jr., in the 70s and 80s, Witness Lee 1987, Geoffrey Wright 1996, Bernard Jeune 1999, and finally Max-Planck-Gesellschaft and the Gerontology Research Group, and that's not to mention a large group of more credulous lists and many individual case reports that go into great detail. There are also journal articles and monographs on the topic (unverified supercentenary claims) from Lundström 2000, Wilmoth 2000, Faig 2002, Gavrilov 2004, Yusuke 2004; and that's just the sources I came across randomly while validating the claims already in the article when I found it, there are good odds of many more being out there waiting for discovery.

Of course the verified claims are a modern habit, this article isn't about claims verified to modern standards; I don't know why you think I'm saying the ancients verified to modern standards, unless you are proposing a criterion that "scientifically verified" be a notability cutoff. I'm sorry we seem to be talking past each other. I'm doing my best to listen, to try to understand your concern, and I still don't find its connection to policy or sources. I think this source list shows that "lists of unverified old-age claims" is eminently notable, the only question is what to include. I've done my best to reach out to you; I'm not conflicted, I've been advocating for policy all along; so I hope you won't conclude discussion on the note "you didn't convince us". I also hope you're not offended by my standard removal (under WP:BRD) of your syn tag for discussion, as such a procedure has nothing to do with disruption: I simply don't know where the synthesis appears. What do you believe is being synthesized please? That should be an easy enough question to answer despite my wordiness! JJB 15:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

None of your re-modern sources are "cataloging unverified claims". These are just ancient sources that catalog genealogies. That these exist is beyond doubt. At issue here is not the existence of ancient genealogies but the notion that if such genealogies also have characters/people listed in them that are over the oldest possible human age that they are meaningfully jumbled together into one entry on Wikipedia based on the age premise. There has not been any, and I mean ANY, reliable sourcing to suggest that doing this isn't simply the original work of Wikipedia editors. It is clearly an original synthesis. Oh and after you listed the ancient genealogies you made an unsourced claim about the Medieval period then start listing modern sources, none of which proves me wrong. I'm done John. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, it appears then that your charges rely on a similar assumption to those I've controverted repeatedly, namely that there is an "oldest possible human age". All we have is an oldest documented human age (122) among people with findable birth certificates prior to 1888, which is a very small relative sample. On the contrary, the scientists quoted in the article have said, "There is no fixed upper limit to human longevity," and this view is not contradicted (and usually supported) by any other sources provided to me by anyone. I don't know what you mean by "re-modern" because I have only 1 genealogy set and 2 king lists, and the rest from Lucian and Pliny on are all scholars and arcana collectors of their eras, "cataloging unverified claims". My statement about medieval sources is a summary of the many sources here in the article. The only answer to my question that I can infer from your statement is that, either I don't admit your POV about "oldest possible human age" (please source), and/or "jumbling together" ancient genealogies with modern sources (I can quote these sources to show that that is not OR). Let me review the sources already mentioned on it to remember where I saw them doing this kind of "jumbling together", which will probably be later today. I can also try including to quote as an attempt to deal with your syn concerns, which I hope will be a successful attempt. Please accept that I have no intent to cause you the frustration indicated by such comments as "I'm done". JJB 18:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo and Itsmejudith, if this insertion of two sources alleviates your concern about synthesis, I'd appreciate it if one of you removes the tag, as I think it's dead-on to answering your concern. If it doesn't, please explain particularly what thought or implication a user might synthesize inappropriately. Thanks! JJB 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are not in any way discussing a topic that could be called "longevity myth", "longevity tradition", etc. Are you being serious? The first source is a speculative fringe science piece, and the second mentions stories in which the characters lived to a very old age in an anecdotal manner. Neither discuss the hypothetical subject matter that we are claiming is a synthesis. If you disagree with this please explain here on the talk page with examples from the texts.Griswaldo (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Custance is no use at all as a source. The French demography piece does not show that we need a "longevity myths" article covering all the residual "unverified claims". First to note is that it is a brief overview for a popular audience. It is useful to have it available, because it indicates what mainstream scientists are thinking. See what they actually do. In their first paragraphs they rapidly dismiss all the ancient material as "of course legends". Then they rapidly cover the in-between period, discussing how people gradually came to adopt a more careful and systematic attitude to longevity. After that they get downn to the main business of their paper, to lay out the current state of scientific knowledge about longevity. What that article actually does is indicate the good sense of merging all this back into a parent article on longevity and getting rid of all the cruft. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you mean the title is synthesis, of course it is! I've said that for 18 months! But if a changed title supports the scope being simply a subset of unverified old-age claims, the sources both demonstrate that the mythoi and the modern reports can be listed together while discussing unverified old-age claims, and that they agree on this presentation regardless of POV, and that's all I have them saying. Now I've specifically asked where is the synthesis, in that G added a tag that this article may convey "ideas not attributable to the original sources". What specific idea is being conveyed? Please? If it's only the idea "longevity myths exist", then it's move time (also, if so, the syn tag is redundant with my NPOV tag placed for exactly and only that reason). If it's something else, I don't see G saying any more than that, and G has the minimum burden of stating what idea is being synthesized.

Judith, discounting these 2 sources (I disagree, but then they were only presented to support a subpoint that G may or may not be disputing) does not remove the fact that the whole set of ~15 sources already uncovered, with hints of many more, shows that listing unverified old-age claims is notable. You say it's only category-notable, and my response is WP:CLN guides strongly otherwise. I'm concerned that when you described your merge-to-category it includes a deletion of much sourced data, and your reasons for doing so do not pass AFD muster (if it really is category-notable, how could it not be list-notable per WP:CLN?). I'm also concerned that your propensity for shears (deleting the science section again) might tempt you to a premature AFD where the unsettled scope issues would complicate a rational discussion on whether the "should" article would be deleted as opposed to the "is". If you can answer my question about WP:CLN, and G can state where the synthesis lies, I think that would be the next step. (Also, Judith, if you see the source describing shifting attitudes about longevity, why that's a fine statement to add to the article for explanation; I've generally avoided adding such myself because such statements are touchier, but we need them sooner or later.) JJB 16:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 edits

Ryoung122 deleted the hatnotes with "see discussion page" but did not comment here, so I am restoring them as useful disambiguators for whatever title the article will wind up with; also, they are there because they have been added equally to 4 different articles in a group: the 3 base unverified articles (traditions, claims, disputed), and the base verified article (list of oldest people). Without them, users would have a much harder time realizing that each article is scoped to a different set of claims, and that all claims can logically be referred to one of them (or to one of the subarticles of oldest people, the deaths and living lists). He also deleted, as POV and pejorative, the listcruft tag placed by ActiveBanana, whose concerns are not yet addressed; this is inappropriate without discussion of those concerns, so it too is being reverted. He removed sourced data from the lead and restored an old scope of his own that has been disputed for years: "Longevity myths are narratives or traditions that seek to explain why a few individuals or cultures allegedly reach ages beyond scientific likelihood (generally age 130+)." The narratives do not seek to explain why for the most part; that's what Young's OR does, rather. The "WP:ALLEGEDly" is a word to avoid. The statement of scientific likelihood is unsourced and even if it were sourced to Olshansky's offhand comment, which has been abused in the past, there would be a dozen other views for balance, including Gavrilov's, which has been a longtime consensus sourced summary for this article (until Itsmejudith removed it on a scope rationale and the scope question remains unresolved). And, as always, the phrase "longevity myth" is not sourced anywhere in the sense permitted by WP:RNPOV. Other editors are doubting they even exist: and it is all I can do to convince them that there is a true scope for this article without going into Robert's unsustainable scope again. With reservations, I have retained this with a tag and "reportedly" for "allegedly". Robert's objection to the phrase "Guinness-validated" I can agree with, and change it to "validated by modern standards". I hope Ryoung122 wishes to dialog about these edits and join the dialog above about the scope, rather than to make a recurring content issue of his POV about the scope. JJB 04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions to Griswaldo

1. When does an old person become line-item notable for being old? I say age 110, a standard long-established by A. Ross Eckler, Jr., and others, and agreed as a valid distinction point by everybody. Calment is agreed by all to be notable for being 122. I presume that everyone agrees that a 100th-birthday news report is not line-item notable in itself. So you see there is a natural answer available. Several WOP editors use 113 and 115 varyingly based on their beliefs about claim trustworthiness, contrary to WP:V, which is a view I have disagreed with since discovering it 18 months ago. It is possible to use more than one age if there is a clear, objective, policy-compliant distinction between them, but I think that unnecessarily complicated. Many WP lists admit anyone to add new entries if they appear in one reliable source and meet basic objective inclusion criteria. (Others may comment but:) Do you, Griswaldo, think that it is valid to set an age at which secondarily-reported cases can be added to lists as "inherently notable" based on a single reliable source: if so, what age or ages, and if not, how else could individual cases be judged for their notability without undue weighting and subjective bias? JJB 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB, your question above is not only frivilous but your response is biased and unrational. Age "110" is the age at which someone becomes a "supercentenarian" by definition, but whether that person is notable depends on several factors, such as whether the person is of first rank (i.e., oldest veteran, oldest American) or of an age that is extremely rare (i.e., 114). As for claims of trustworthiness, your comment is POV because you fail to consider outside sources. With no experience or actual research in the field, you then throw accusations at those who are doing far more than "hobbies." However, this article is mainly not about individual cases, except when those cases have become mythologized (i.e., Old Tom Parr).Ryoung122 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly interested in questions like this. If you ask me much of what you find at Category:Supercentenarians is unencyclopedic trivia. If you can't find more than one source to establish a precedent for a notable old age then its more than likely that there is no such thing as an age at which point someone becomes inherently notable. Hobbyists obsessed with age clearly disagree, and they are welcome to have their own personal interests but this is an encyclopedia folks, not a blog or yahoo group.Griswaldo (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That actually does help. If you inform me of AFD discussions on this category's elements, I'm likely to vote with you and against notability of more than line-item status; but see WP:NNC. The POV against inherent notability, and in favor of judging on a case-by-case basis, is not antipolicy or inconsistent, it's only much more subjective and time-consuming. But my point is that we need some agreed criterion for when a report becomes line-item notable (the other cases I mentioned use one reliable report as typical, but if you can convince others for two, I don't mind too much). Can you agree with that, even if the criterion is case-by-case (anti-inherence)? There is a side question: do you believe any list of unverified claims is unencyclopedic? It seems to be a recurring topic among arcana references (such as WP is) for centuries. It seems if you hold that such a topic is nonnotable as an article, that criticism would also apply toward deleting the claims and disputeds articles, and it would also give undue weight to the verifying body or bodies (because there are really only two entities out there verifying, as a GRGWR duopoly). If you agree that some list of unverifieds is encyclopedic, and some agreed inclusion criteria should be formed, why that resolves our existential problem and brings us into what to call it and whether to split it. If not, I'm interested in your POV. JJB 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

2. How should reports of notable old-age claims be grouped? This asks you to state an objective distinction informing your perception of modern and historic claims as differing. Once we agree on an age limit and separate out the GWR-verified cases to focus on unverified cases only, we need to group them based on objective criteria. I say we first group them into controverted and uncontroverted, and then (as an attempt to build consensus with WOP editors) I propose an objective criterion for distinguishing the uncontroverted cases between modern "claims" and historic "traditions". I basically said they're all claims, and they're all traditions, but for listing purposes it is more proper to list them in "claims" (tabularly) if they are complete birthdate-deathdate claims OR if they are after the GWR epoch (fall 1955); and it is more proper to list them in "traditions" (narratively) if they are incomplete and pre-1955. (This distinction was the simplest way to accommodate the existing fuzzy tradition/claim divide, and, in fact, when I implemented it, I have had very little objection to the distinction as such, much less than I expected! So it seems to work well as I'd hoped. I must also mention the contradiction tags I added to claims and disputeds, because without that issue resolved the diff between controverted and non is not yet objectively determined, but I'm assuming that will be resolved.) Now as to these unverified cases, we discover that there is a natural continuum of collection, starting with the mythoi themselves, then reflections by Lucian, then a long long period of folklore, then in the last few centuries we see continuing attempts to quantify the question through Haller, other arcana collectors, Thoms, Bowerman, GWR, and finally GRG. This continuum does not admit of neat distinctions of when and how medical verification became standardized (nowadays it's almost all documentary and not medical anyway), except for the distinction that from fall 1955 there has been a continuous but developing standard for verifying claims (no, Thoms didn't maintain one like GWR did, but his adhoc reviews got the ball rolling). So do you, Griswaldo, agree that my division point is both objective and an appropriate attempt to enfold the concerns of WP:WOP; or do you have a different way of distinguishing (or not) modern from historical unverified claims, among those claims meeting whatever notability cutoff you'd choose in question 1? JJB 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that an outsider making a reasonable judgment on these points would succeed in building the previously elusive consensus. JJB 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Again I'm not interested in this category more generally and find it less than trivial for the most part. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Entries that just list things based on the interests of a small group of hobbyists do not belong in an encyclopedia. That's my view. I should mention this a second time as well, the current entry is basically a list and seems to violate WP:SINGULAR rather blatantly.Griswaldo (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with policy and, not having recognized the application of WP:SINGULAR before, I will happily and immediately switch my preferred move target from "longevity traditions" to either "list of longevity traditions" or "longevity folklore" (and extend this move to "list of longevity claims"). Naturally GWR's coverage shows they find this topic a very high demand of readers of their bestselling reference, and virtually all of the most reliable newspapers agree that an unverified claim, presented as such, is appropriate regular news content, so I don't think the hobbyist designation will fly. I believe those sources indicate that a "list of longevity traditions" is appropriate and this topic has only suffered from 7 years of nonpolicy treatment of systemic failure to come to agreement on scopes. But the consensus I seek with you is the agreement that some list of reliably sourced but not officially "verified" claims is appropriate. If you would dispute a list, you're disputing line-item notability for all except the GRG-verified, and you'd logically also need to dispute the article status of every unverified supercentenarian without some other notability. Have you seen Katherine FitzGerald, Countess of Desmond or Old Tom Parr? Lots of big historic names felt compelled to comment on FitzGerald's age rumor, and many sources include Parr, and nobody questions their notability even if it's on disputed supercentenary claims only. So why wouldn't we have a list article that includes such cases? You see why I'm hopeful that your reasonability might get us above critical mass? JJB 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

One other point @Griswaldo to Ryoung122 "your insistence in lumping together a large amount of historical and cross-cultural information in this entry appears to be done to give more legitimacy to your profession": I think I did most of the lumping, though. Here is how I found the article, which starts with brief mention of Sumer Jimmu Patriarchs Lucian, then veers through an amazing swath of OR and emerges with several turgid sections of modern claims. Most of the historical claims you now see were added by me (the two templates, the Shahnameh, the specific religious and medieval claims), just as I found them without commentary, simply because I don't believe in leaving any scoped source out. Either way, I hope that link makes it clearer what Ryoung122 intended this page to promulgate. By comparison, the current article does not IMHO draw any synthetic conclusions about the relationship between various historical or cultural claims (except maybe for the compromise outline and subheads still needing a bit of work). But my primary point is that any explanation you can give to what might be perceived as OR or SYN would be very helpful and cheerfully rebalanced. Hope you can comment further. JJB 05:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Custance

I can't see why he would be a suitable source. Proposing to remove material referenced to him. Comments? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove Custance. The recently added source appears to be entirely fringe to me.Griswaldo (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is not a 2-on-1 discussion, this is a consensus-building discussion. Especially when the source represents a large segement of the population (Biblical literalists), it is basic NPOV to mention their POV in balance with others as I have done. This was also done more specifically with literalists and minimalists in the section on Bible itself. Custance is cited on two different points, and you seem now to be objecting to one of those two, his analyzing the Biblical and modern cases together (as the French source also does), because you don't believe it's a proper sourced synthesis. The second point is that he is accurately passing on Prichard's data and other news reports. If you believe that Custance cannot be trusted to pass on mathematical reports accurately (the French source didn't, it messed up two Biblical ages it was attempting to quote) and that an observation of how he groups cases together without even mentioning his POV directly cannot be trusted either, you are saying sources can be labeled fringe and then censored for any applicability, and I don't think that's a helpful direction to go.

Before you take such action, seeing that I provided the source in answer to your objection of the synthesis being original and unsourced, and that we've both commented on it, let's speak hypothetically of what would constitute a sourced synthesis that would demonstrate the validity of listing all unverified old-age claims together. If you can conceive of such a valid synthesis, I'll run with it and we'll see what sources say or controvert. But if you find yourselves unable to conceive of any valid synthesis that would support the article even if sourced, I think that would be an indicator of misplaced focus. You didn't directly answer my question above about what specific idea a reader might synthesize from this article that's not in it. If I picked the right one, the only question is better sources, not whether we should delete sources that we believe are less reliable on the points on which they are cited. I'm open to consensus-building on this, but not to unilateral action. Thank you. JJB 12:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB, this source is not addressing "longevity myths" or "longevity traditions", but instead is applying fringe science to pre-modern claims of longevity. This would be like adding sources by creation scientists into the article about "creation myths". If there is a fringe science here then create an article about it, but even the mainstream science of longevity has little to no relevance in this article. Those claims belong at longevity, and other articles. Per WP:FRINGE Custance wouldn't even belong there. I will no longer engage you regarding the WP:SYNTH violation because you appear not to hear me on that. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

G, I'm doing my best to hear you and put myself in your shoes. When I make syn accusations at someone, I state specifically what synthesis I believe is implied; I don't see that you have done that (you can diff me otherwise). Look, there are many more sources, Boia 2004 in the ref section is an entire book on "Cultural History of Longevity from Antiquity to the Present" for a third source on the same point (that old-age traditions have an organic history from Sumer to today), I just haven't gotten a copy myself yet, but I might get more sources added this weekend. I think that refusing to engage discussion while prosecuting challenges is not dispute resolution, but show me if I'm wrong. JJB 16:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Religious myths of longevity

I believe discussion of these myths is appropriate to the article, but that the bulk of the material would probably more appropriately fit in other, more focused, articles. This would include some of the allegations of extreme age of saints, as well as those specifically mentioned in religious texts and elsewhere. Perhaps, they could be spun out into a separate article or list on Longevity claims in religion, which itself, if required, might be broken into one or more additional articles, depending on the frequency of claims in that religion. I thought there were more claims of longevity in Hinduism than I see listed here myself, but I may have been mistaken there. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been saying that for a while. But I think for political reasons certian editors like it all grouped together. And you are correct about Hinduism. PeRshGo (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

John, thanks for coming over. Do you see the article as crossing the border into synthesis? (I think you are saying no, but would like to check.) Do you have a problem with the title "myths"? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks, please make sure to glance at the other articles that aggregate UNverified longevity traditions, namely, longevity claims, list of disputed supercentenarian claimants, and the second half of list of living supercentenarians. Also please let us know of any objective criteria for article divisions, such as how to defeat wiggle room between "religious" and "nonreligious", and any sourcing ideas. JJB 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I would myself drop the word "myths", and replace it with "claims". The word "prehistoric" generally refers to that part of history before what is now considered reliable independent historical records existed, and might conceivably be used. Maybe. Having said that, I do think that many or most of those included in this page do qualify as "myths" of either a directly religious or cultural-religion kind; there is a difference between the two, but it isn't that major a one. I think the most reliable objective criteria would be whether there are, in fact, any real independent sources which can be found or believe to have been found which address these claims. If there are no such documents, they would probably belong here, whatever title the article eventually has. In the case of the Bible claimants, for instance, there is a serious question whether the writers of the books had any reliable written records to review for accuracy. But, finally, having said all that, maybe the best way to handle this complicated matter would be an RfC, with links to it at various relevant project, noticeboard, and other pages. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the Fountain of youth fit somewhere in this new scheme? As probably the most widespred "longevity myth" it would be weird if it got left out of the discussion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that this actuarial book actually uses both terms separately:

[BOOK] Living to 100 and Beyond T Harris - 2009 - books.google.com ... 4B.....61 Chapter 5 Longevity Claims: Fact or Fiction 5.1 Introduction.....63 5.2 Longevity Myths.....64 5.2 ... Related articles - Find It @ GSU - Library Search - All 2 versions

Yes, it should be clear to all that Arthur Custance is "fringe science," much the same as some anti-gay religous freaks claim to be "scientific" (like George Rekers) or creationists claim to be scientists (like the "vapor canopy 'theory'", which is actually a rationalization, not a theory).

Let me be quite clear and concise about this:

1. The article, "longevity myths," existed first.

2. later, "longevity claims" was added to deal with the fact that many cases fall into a grey area (i.e., not myths and have a chance of being true, even while lacking adequate proof).

With this divide, the longevity myths article has focused on being a narrative, explaining the ideas regarding mythical longevity. The article "longevity claims" has focused, on the other hand, on individual claims to longevity that are possible but unlikely to be true. For example:

http://www.mmtimes.com/2010/news/540/news013.html

A case like this, statistically, is very unlikely to be true, but it's still possible.

But more than that, there is a difference. "Longevity claims" focuses on collecting into one place the claims out there that are unproven, extreme, but possible.

Longevity myths focuses on the ideas that lead to claims of extreme longevity. For example, the above claim could be said to be a "village elder myth." Note her ID card dates only to 2007, suggesting that this case is a myth created to fulfill a need to honor and venerate an extreme aged member of the village society.

While "myth" might be taken to mean "not true," it can also be used, instead, as its original meaning, to describe the ideas in their own context. Thus, Moses living to 120 is a myth, as he is a symbol of living "three generations" and the Bible said that each generation is 40 years (thus, 40 years in Egypt; 40 in Midian; 40 in the Wilderness). That Moses was a symbol of longevity goes along with the saying that when he died, his eyes were not dimmed, nor his natural force abated. Moses in this case was a "patriarchal figure" and is thus an example of a patriarchal myth.

Even though it's technically possible for a man to live to be 120, his age is given as allegorical meaning, not technical fact. There is no mention of Moses's birthdate, or deathdate. Indeed, written records for the Israelites likely only began about 500 years later under King David.

Finally, I would like to mention that no subject can be totally incontrovertible. The idea of the singularity finds that even Einsteinian relativity does not apply in the first 300,000 years of the Universe's existence. No "unified field theory" has been located.

If there are overlaps and exceptions, they do NOT make a difference as that is NOT the general trend.

In general, the longevity myths article deals with the idea of longevity as myth (true or not), whereas longevity claims deals with individual cases which are not "verified" but have a possibility of being true and of being investigated for more information.

In a sense, "longevity claims" is closer to the lists of verified people than "longevity myths" is.

This whole article should be quite useful. If it's not, I can think of ONE person, JJBulten, who has made it not useful. That's because he is coming in with an ideological religous agenda, for the purpose of suppressing scientific thought. That should be more than clear with the Custance citations.Ryoung122 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you just drop the attacks on JJB. It's possible to disagree with him completely without having to mount a vendetta. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Propose merge. The article is a rag-bag and doesn't contain anything that would not be better covered in the generic parent article. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge. Relevant information belongs elsewhere. This is not an article on a viable topic as it currently titled and organized. It violates WP:SYNTH.Griswaldo (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. An editor removed the merge tag in good faith. I've reverted that, as I feel it's far better to let this discussion take its course, and to allow all interested parties to comment. Removing the tag served (inadvertently, I'm sure) to "hide" this discussion, which I don't believe is the best approach. TFOWR 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: although in ordinary cases removing the tag would be inappropriate, it is also appropriate in ordinary cases to wait to revert until the editor finishes his rationale at talk. TFOWR's good-faith reinstatement does not point to this discussion as per below, thus does not "fix" the alleged "hiding" of the discussion, and neglects this basic talk courtesy.)

• Oppose merge to longevity on several counts. First, the proposal was malformed, in that it was not made at longevity also contrary to WP:MM#Proposing, and discussion was not pointed to this section but to the top of the page. Second, it fails all the criteria at WP:MERGE#Rationale. Third, it meets the nonmerge criteria of resulting in a clunky, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT target page, and being better organized as a split-out, with a WP:SUMMARY at "longevity" (I think this page is much longer than longevity and so a merge would essentially recast that title as a WP:COATRACK). Fourth, the concerns of the proposer and seconder, who both joined the discussion from WP:FTN#Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths, are correctly addressed by move rather than merge, with a new title such as "longevity traditions" or "longevity folklore"; this was basically suggested since 2004 but never successfully completed due to opposition by the regular editors. Fifth, merge contradicts the entire consensus all this time, which has never ever discussed combining this topic back into its summary at longevity, but has considered and soundly rejected the idea of merge to a much more similar article, longevity claims (here is a sample comment that agrees on this point). Sixth, this article has been singled out by WP:FTN, when there are several other articles that would need merging to "longevity" on exactly the same grounds, viz., longevity claims, list of disputed supercentenarian claimants, the second half of list of living supercentenarians, all of which contain unverified longevity claims without any clear scopes that distinguish one article from another and without input yet from WP:WOP editors as to how to resolve the scope issues (not to mention dozens of articles on verified supercentenarians). Seventh, the summary grafs at longevity, you may have noticed, are thoroughly WP:OR of the type I listed (and both these editors noted) here: rather than merge into (or over) that text, these editors should recognize the substantial difference between that unsupported, original summary (which represents the actual state of the article before I arrived) and the substantial sourcing I added to this article; after my scope proposal for this article is replied to by other regular editors, the longevity summary should be made a true summary of these contents, but this hasn't happened yet. Eighth, the merge was proposed while the pending mediation case on the very fate of this article remains open and lapsed due to no input for a week except mine, so merge discussion would improperly preempt that extant process page.

I have accordingly undone the malformed request and would kindly ask the editors to get behind a move to a neutral title that properly describes the scope as has been asked for since 2004. The fact is that throughout history (I cited Haller 18th c., Hulbert 1825, Prichard 1836, Brewer 1905, Custance 1976, Wright 1996, Faig 2002, not to mention the historical sources like Lucian) it has been normative for people to list and compare claims of advanced old age, whether or not the collaters believed them to be true or not. There has never been debate on this page as to whether a topic comparing such lists is notable. The debate has been over what to call them, due to an entrenched belief by several involved editors that they are "myths" in the nontechnical sense ("false stories"), which is the policy breaker. Please support a move to "traditions" or "folklore", or "narratives" or "stories". JJB 13:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all the above is an unnecessarily long wall of text -- if the request is technically malformed then fix it or help to fix it. You are also contradicting yourself on a royal scale here. You claim that this idea is against consensus but admit that you all have "never ever discussed combining this topic back into its summary at longevity". We're discussing it now. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As to "walls", it seems one or two valid reasons never work around here without a backup army. As to the discussion template, I would fix it if it were not a preemption of a mediation already in process, a complete failure to recognize the limited agreement between editor views that has already been achieved, and a Band-Aid solution to "the wrong wound" that leaves the mass of longevity articles in worse shape than before. As to the silent consensus (not a contradiction), and the explicit consensus against merging to a much closer topic, since other editors I expected to see are currently not contributing, I'll agree I don't want this to be a case where I become percieved as a sole defender of an abandoned old guard against a "new guard". If a "new consensus", however fleeting, should find against all the policy reasons I proposed, in favor of a stopgap merge (when the WP:RNPOV failure is properly addressed by move instead), I'm not going to claim this silent consensus remains. But see the next section.

• Support This isn't even a genuine topic of study, and the article is a complete mess beyond any hope of reasonable inclusion criteria. PeRshGo (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: We work a lot about longevity and longevity claims and there different types of claims: Some with doubts, some looking to be true and some are clearly false because the claimed age is to high - the last one is a myth. If you look an the longevity claimants and debunked caises and compere with the myth articel you will see that this articels are different in a lot of points because an believeble or doubted claim and a myth are not the same. --Statistician (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• What you describe is not a myth, it is simply an impossible claim. But the nature of these claims is completely different as well. Comparing the supposed ages of characters in ancient myths to actual claims of old age made in more modern periods is completely ridiculous. That's the problem with the present article. Inventing a term, "longevity myths" to encompass both "myth" as in a story which is not true, and "myth" as ancient sacred narrative doesn't make it any better.Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: These are distinct subjects. One is factual, the other memetic. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Would you care to expound upon that a little? This article already merges multiple distinct subjects under an invented nomenclature.Griswaldo (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: The answer of michael Price is shortest answer and as far the best one. We cannot merge two completely different things. Can we merge the Old Testament and the History of Israel?

Other ridiculous aspect is the so-called "name of the article problem" -Wikipedians CANNOT change nomenclature. If some thing is defined as "Longevity miths" by the specialists on the matter, no discussion on wikipedia can change it.

The third subject is the animosity against Robert Young, which is a specialist on the subject. How can you explain this? He just could let you do what tou want (just likes the others), but do you thing this article would be better without the contribution of one of the world top specialists on the subject?Japf (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you are claiming WP:UCN supports "longevity myths" would you care to support that with reliable sources from "experts on the subject"? Regarding "animosity towards Robert Young", with the exception of JJB perhaps during some past discussions I'm not aware of, I don't see it. IMJ started a merge discussion and Ryoung122 showed up to call it "aggressive" and "bullshit". If you ask me that's where the animosity is coming from.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Note - It may be of interest to note that Robert Young is canvassing this discussion (which he refers to as a "Wiki War") here on his personal, external site. It requires membership to access but, after making his argument in the post, he writes "So, I would urge ALL 964 members that if you have a Wikipedia account, or even edit anonymously, to chime in here." 96.52.5.187 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that you, Canadian Paul? Shouldn't you be signing in? Or is this the "spy report"?Ryoung122 15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Btw.: Someone deleted some comments... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.95.135 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT

The new editors may not realize that I tried to rescue this article, starting 18 months ago, from its significant problems at the hands of what I considered unprecedented original research. Until the return of the party who has considered himself one of the two "article creators", the present version represents the removal of an incredible amount of WP:OR. Here is how I found it (note the TOC please and my notes), and here it is after I fact-tagged about 75 unsupported sentences, most of which were invented by one editor in a single edit set in 2005. By contrast, in the present article, all significant claims of any kind are sourced except for about 6 remaining points that would be significant if their original inserters found sources, with invisible tags. Now, given my concern with preserving a significant amount of recherche encyclopedic material and the right to continue adding similar material, permit me to review the presumptive concerns of the merge team toward a real consensus.

1. Title does not match scope. But this was said back in 2004. Answer: we should move it, I would've tried moving it for the fourth time except that I did not want to interrupt the mediation by inserting another process (cough, cough), and with this merge proposal it would be interrupting two processes without a move consensus developing above.
2. Scope not encyclopedic. That's because of unresolved agreement over scope, which then makes the unencyclopedic lead scope bias editors against the whole concept. I have continuously proposed an objective scope of making this a defined subset of unverified supercentenarian claims, on the grounds that all secondary-source supercentenarian claims are notable as line-items in lists, and so this subset of unverifieds (as opposed to other unverifieds, and all verifieds) is automatically a well-defined and encyclopedic scope. However, other editors believe the scope is to make this a catchall for claims that they believe are false. Not only does this break the first paragraph of WP:V, this is a completely subjective criterion. Answer: fix it by obtaining consensus agreement on the scope. But per FTN, the merge team demurred on answering the scope question I posed there. So here's another chance. What name would properly encompass the encyclopedic scope described by the abundant sources from Lucian to Gerontology Research Group?
3. Not all very old people are line-item notable? The problem here is that 122-year-old Jeanne Calment is obviously full-article notable, and a list of the world's oldest people is obviously notable (as tertiary source Guinness World Records shows), and there needs to be a cutoff somewhere. If this position really holds that sourced reliable information about a 115-year-old as such should not go anywhere in WP, that is a deletionist argument best handled by the wikigroup, WP:WOP, which has said yes it should remain.
4. Notability should be at a higher age than 110? This does not appear to be anyone's argument, but if it is, it should be supported by sources that use another cutoff date for notability, as 110 is a longtime standard.
5. The article organization is poor and undocumented and thus WP:SYN. I think probably so, because the current TOC is a compromise with that same holdout editor again, and I have some new questions to run by him that would put the current TOC in jeopardy. However, it is fully based on GWR, Bowerman, and Kohn, as opposed to the original TOC, which was invented by one editor in 2005; so it's not SYN or OR. But this is yet another fixit.

In short, if you think there is still OR going on, please be specific and let's remove it together. But none of this is a merge argument nor overcoming the significant arguments above. JJB 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this "merge" proposal. An article on "longevity" has as its focus ideas (presumption of truthfulness) that are totally different from "longevity myths" (whose purpose is to explore the fantasies of the human psyche as it relates to long life.

I'm going to say this: PerSeGo's comment is INVALID. This is a legitimate topic of inquiry.

It seems totally ridiculous that Wikipedia can have an article on every player who ever played in a major league sport, but an in-depth discussion of longevity myths isn't worthy of an article? Bullsh!t. And there's no reason to merge because the main purpose of each article is totally different. This is almost like advocating merging an article on bats with one on vampires.Ryoung122 06:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest on this. From your user page you are employed by Guiness World Records to evaluate claims of longevity. Your views are of interest, but it is completely inappropriate for you to try and keep articles in any particular shape. You should re-read WP:COI and WP:FRINGE with great care. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Judith, there's also that, but it's been going on so long I forget about it. :D JJB 15:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to Judith. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has an anti-expert bias. Let's be honest, editing positions on Wikipedia are UNpaid and thus dominated by hobbyists. Too often, proposals to merge, rename, delete, etc. are viewed by only a very small token of the Wikipedia community, much less the wider general public. Guess what? This means that proposals to "merge" an article which has been in existence on Wikipedia for 6+ years have legs, even if there is no logical reason for it and it's NOT best idea.

Wikipedia is NOT PAPER, yet it's often best to have an article on a particular subject. I note that Francis Fukuyama's book "the End of History and the Last Man" has its own article, as does Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations." Let's get real: if Wikipedia has articles on individual books, you can't seriously consider an article which is itself a summary article of mini-articles to be a candidate for merging. The very large number of edits done, the article length, etc. all point to real interest in the topic.

And while it's true that some lay editors have made the article less than it should be ideally, that's no excuse for merging.

By the way, your comments about COI and FRINGE sound like red-herring threats. Such aggression distracts from the reality that, one, your merge proposal is NOT the best solution here, and, TWO, you are not well-informed on the subject. Ryoung122 05:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't aggression but a simple reminder about policy. I will post on the conflict of interest noticeboard to get some more opinions about it. Well, maybe my merge proposal isn't the best solution, and I'm clearly not as well informed on the subject as you are. All I'm saying is that that article as it stands makes no sense. It's original synthesis. I proposed merge in order to get a discussion going about the best solution. If I had applied the Sofixit principle I would have gone ahead and merged without a discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I did post on WP:COIN. I hope it leads to a resolution that will move the article forward. We want to be able to draw on Ryoung's expertise, but the endpoint also has to be usable articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122, no amount of expertise on the subject of current supercentinarians or the history of claims of such old age can magically make "longevity myths" into a notable subject matter that fits Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. You claim expertise in the subject matter of this page but I think sadly that you are quite mistaken. You clearly have expertise on "longevity claims" but are you a folklorist, a scholar of myth, a scholar of religion or anthropologist even? Correct me if I'm wrong but the answers to all those questions is "no". And btw, to anyone with a modicum of expertise in any of those scholarly fields that answer is also obvious given what you're arguing for. Human longevity is at most a motif or recurring theme in folklore/myth, and even if the motif is notable in scholarship, (which I've yet to discover myself) it does not mean that "longevity myth" is a type of myth. I do not agree with JJB either, btw, because even "longevity tradition" is a serious stretch for a term to encompass what has been crammed into this entry. I can also sympathize with your reaction to what you see as an attempt to scrub "myth" from entries associated with Christianity and Judaism. I agree with you that should not be allowed, but only when the use of myth is legitimate in the first place. The stories in the Hebrew Bible that involve supercentenarian characters are clearly "myths", they just aren't "longevity myths", because such a thing doesn't exist. I also agree wholeheartedly with IMJ regarding your COI. Your expertise in this subject matter comes through working with a commercial entity, and your insistence in lumping together a large amount of historical and cross-cultural information in this entry appears to be done to give more legitimacy to your profession. I'm not sure how clearcut this is, but you're not simply an "expert" on a related subject matter.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo, your argument loses steam when use misuse the word "magically." You also misspelled "supercentenarians." Checking your talk page, we see an interest in Judeo-Christian religious discussions including the Biblical Flood and the "Flood myth."

You are wrong on most counts. I agree with you in regards to using myths is OK for the ancient Biblical stories. However:

1. You believe that the ancient and recent history are separate. That's false. Just as fundamentalists today might believe that Noah really did get all the animals in the Ark, so many people today believe (with no scientific evidence) that you can live to 150. They just have different reasons to believe. Some believe that people that live in the Caucasus live longer, in part because they are from the "original stock" of Adam and thus closer to God. Such a belief is a MYTH.

2. You are trying to divide everything into separate, walled disciplines, but that ignores the interdisciplinary character of both science and the humanities. In fact, if you read Immanuel Wallerstein's "World Systems Analysis" he explains why these divisions came about, why they are incomplete, and why we need an interdisciplinary approach to science and history.

I note that William Thoms, who coined the term "folklore," also had an interest in supercentenarians, and in fact began the idea of age verification of supercentenarians in the 1870s. He noticed the disconnect between the ages recorded in life insurance policies and the ages claimed in folklore. Thus, the idea of "longevity myths" dates to at least the 1870s.

3. I find it incredulous that you say the term "longevity myths" doesn't exist, or "longevity myths" don't exist. In fact, they do. I wouldn't even be here if people on Wikipedia would do a little research before forming their opinions. The below article was written in 1986, when I was 12.

Age structure of Soviet population in the Caucasus: facts and myths ZA Medvedev - The Biology of human ageing, 1986 - books.google.com ... Very little effort is necessary to show this. And yet, very few scientists are really interested in challenging the myths about longevity and super-longevity. The general public likes and easily believes the stories about longevity and super-longevity. ...

And BEFORE WIKIPEDIA EXISTED.

4. Longevity myths is plural. That's because there are more than one. Some of them are traditional myths, and some are less-traditional. However, they can fit together in one category with subheadings.

5. My areas of expertise: in fact gerontology is an interdisciplinary approach, so I have studied religion and anthropology quite extensively.

Have a nice day.Ryoung122 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually we see wide use of the words "longevity" and "myth." The previous quote was from Russia. This is from Japan:

Myth in terms of areas of super-longevity H SHIBATA - Clinic, 2003 - sciencelinks.jp Abstract;The humans have challenged to the impossible dream through alchemy in the West and immortality in the East. In search of the medicine for perennial youth and long life, the first Qin Emperor sent Johuku to Japan by his ship. Though there are no evidence of his ... Cached

The above is also using the word myth in the classical, not colloquial, sense.

One could argue that we could call this "myths of longevity" instead of "longevity myths," but that is a Lilliputian point: which end of the egg should be broken? Ryoung122 15:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your comment about "magically" is not apropos here. Yes I used "magically" in a way other than how "magic" is discussed in relevant scholarship, but it was used for the purpose of a discussion with another editor and not in an entry itself. In other words I'm not advocating for this use of "magically" in article content, though is completely comprehensible in common parlance. Should you use "myth" in our discussion to mean untrue I'd clearly understand what you are saying, but that doesn't mean you ought to push this term into an entry title or entry content based upon that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. 1) You claim that the ancient stories and contemporary stories are to be treated the same way, and then justify this by applying the use of the term "myth" meaning a story which isn't true. These stories clearly cannot be compared on the basis of categories used by those who actually study folklore and myth, only through your non-scholarly use of the term myth. In other words I see no basis in scholarship for this comparison. If there is one can you provide it?

2) I'm not even sure how to respond to this comment because it is based your own rather odd original thought. Neither, Thoms nor any of the early folklorists ever wrote about "longevity myths" and if they did please provide a source for this. Your own OR connections between Thoms' interests and this entry have no bearing on this discussion.

3) I do not dispute the idea that there are medical or biological scientists who have used the non-precise and popular term "myth" (as in untrue) in their writings on this subject. In fact they may even have done what you do and incorrectly conflated this usage with the precise scholarly use. But as I have already pointed out these individuals are not experts on myth or folklore. This is like a folklorist writing about the use of ancient medicine in traditional stories and misappropriating current medical terminology. No amount of generalization about the interdisciplinary nature of the academy explains this away.

4)Plural? I'm not sure what you are getting at here. You do realize that plural titles go against WP:NAME, specifically WP:SINGULAR? Usually plural titles, like this one, are good indication of the fact that we're not covering a legitimate, and singular subject matter, which is what our entries are meant to do.

5)You have a solid background in anthropology? Really? Medical anthropology or cultural anthropology? Either way must have slept through anthropology 101 on the days that they covered myth and folklore.

One of the problems I see here is that we have a group of people interested in human longevity. That's great, but because of this interest your confusing ways of categorizing myth based upon the main thematic or plot elements of those myths, and less consequential elements like the age of one or more characters (which you happen to be interested in personally). Just because a story contains a person who is too old doesn't mean that scholars who study these stories have discussed that particular pattern as a meaningful one.Griswaldo (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Griswaldo, now you see what happens when you respond to him with reasoned argument, and next you will see what he does with point-by-point rebuttal, and my experience has been it's not worth the time, but it may be worth it this time so that you can compare your experience with mine. At any rate since you are taking an interest and recognizing the basic policy applications I am very hopeful that in a new section I will add below (rather than a full RFC due to the canvassing) at least you and I might forge an agreement that can be sold to others as a consensus. Please look for it and take a moment to respond, thanks. JJB 17:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.