![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What sorts of records are accepted as adequate documentation ("demonstrated records") ? When did people start using those sorts of records ? Did those sorts of records exist over 300 years ago ? -- DavidCary 21:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"When were you born?" "It must have been a hundred years ago." "Can you prove it?" "Are you calling me a liar?!" DS 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Moved from article because much of the text is copied verbatim from the printed Guinness Book of Records . See http://207.178.248.67/editorial/boston/0801/080601.html for an example of a rewritten version of the same information.
Longevity myths have been around for as long as human records. As the Guinness Book of World Records stated in numerous editions from the 1960s to 1980s, "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity."
At the time those words were written Guinness had never acknowledged anyone as having reached the age of 114, but longevity has increased in recent years. The first three people to be acknowledged by Guinness as reaching 114 have all been subjected to doubt by others,and the first two people Guinness accepted as reaching 113 (both male though the 113-plus age bracket has since been shown on the order of 90% female) are both no longer regarded as having done so.
Even today with Jeanne Calment the recordholder at an indisputable age of 122, the facts remain clear:
Fewer than fifty people in human history have been documented as reaching the age of 114.
Fewer than twenty of those people who reached 114 have reached the age of 115.
Yet in the face of the ages that can be validated by investigation,we are still confronted with claims that the observed extremes have been far exceeded - longevity myths.
Leaving aside claims in mythology of lives into the thousands of years, and biblical claims like Methuselah, there have been reports for centuries that persist today of people decades, even generations, older than have ever been shown authentic.
A National Geographic article in 1973 treated with respect some claims subsequently disproven and retracted, including the notorious Vilcabamba valley in Ecuador, where locals pointed to ancestors' baptismal records as their own. Also in that article were reports of very aged people in Hunza, a mountain region of Pakistan, without documentary evidence being cited.
It is typical that extreme longevity claims come from remote areas where recordkeeping is poor, but generally observed life expectancy is rather lower than in the areas where genuine claims are typically found. The Caribbean island nation of Dominica was lately promoting the allegedly 128-year-old Elizabeth Israel (1875??-2003) but has a smaller population and lower life expectancy than Iceland, where the documentation is very good and the longevity record is 108.
The Caucasus mountain region of Abkhazia was the subject of extreme claims for decades, inspired by the desire of Stalin to believe that he would live a very long time, the most extreme claim there being that of Shirali Mislimov ( 1805??- 1973). An earlier claim of similar lifespan from South America was for Javier Pereira (said to have been determined to be 167 years old by a dentist looking at his teeth!). There have likewise been a scattering of extreme claims from Africa, the most recent being Namibia's Anna Visser, who died in January 2004 at an alleged 125 or 126.
The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in 1933 that a Chinese man, Li Chung-yun, born in 1680, had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original).
In prior centuries there have been other claims, one of the best-known being Thomas Parr, introduced to London in 1635 with the claim that he was 152 years old, who promptly died and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Greater English claims include those of the allegedly-169-year-old Henry Jenkins (apparently concocted to support testimony in a court case about events a century before) and the supposedly 207-year-old Thomas Carn (died in 1588 by most reports).
Longevity myths did not come in for serious scrutiny until the work of W.J. Thoms in 1873, and the odd wire correspondent looking for a captivating filler reports extreme undocumented claims to this day: in early 2000 a Nepalese man claimed to have been born in 1832, citing as evidence a card issued in 1988. In December 2003,a Chinese news service claimed (incorrectly) that the Guinness Book had recognized a woman in Saudi Arabia as being 131.
Responsible validation of longevity claims involves investigation of records following the claimant from birth to the present, and claims far outside the demonstrated records regularly fail such scrutiny. The United States Social Security Administration has public death records of over 100 people said to have died in their 160s to 190s, but often a quick look at the file immediately finds an obvious error.
The work of sorting genuine supercentenarians is a continuous process, and a news story must never be taken for authoritative fact if no validation is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borr ( talk) 01:58, 13 January 2004
Why This Article from the-signal.com and Longevity myths both refer to the same mathematical error? "The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in 1933 that a Chinese man, Li Chung-yun, born in 1680, had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original)." Optim 00:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Since life expectancy is basically an averege, IMHO "where the life expectancy is rather lower" is not a valid argument. In most under developed areas life expectancy is very low due to large numbers of infant deaths HussaynKhariq 05:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That is NOT correct! Life expectancy is based on median values, not averages. For example, suppose you have five people die at ages 0, 13, 41, 56, and 73. The AVERAGE is 36.6 (0+13+41+56+73)/5. The life expectancy, however, is 41--the median value. When added up to millions of people, there is still a difference, as you pointed out the infant mortalities tend to weigh down the AVERAGES but have little effect on the MEDIAN or 50% mark, which in most countries occurs in the 70's range.
A little more about statistics: only about 1 in 2 billion people can expect to live to age 115, and only 1 in 10 billion to age 120. So, do you really think age 167 is possible? I don't! Ryoung122 09:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I had the impression that there was once a practice in the Abkhaz regions whereby one could avoid military conscription if one was of advanced age, and therefore people would often buy documents showing that they were actually in their 70s. Presto, an extra 50 years added to someone's age.
Or something. DS 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
New contender for the oldest living person.. Should be at Supercentenarian but 2 editors don't feel its valid. But Guinness is not THE authority. this is hypocritcal of them >>> "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity" It is they.. who are making money out of the disparate, the media savvy, and fallacious claims - indulging in the presentation of false/elitist 'record' system. dishonest u catch me?. Do they rule achievement history? max rspct 17:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In other words, Max Respect (an avowed Marxist), is advancing a case without proof, and then throwing in the red herring of profit-making. Guinness has millions of records, they are not making a profit off of a single "world's oldest person" record...Benito Martinez has no proof of existence before 1925, nor does he have any family tree that can establish his age in context. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
131.96.173.30 (
talk) 01:52, 21 October 2005
Noticed that other pages are saying there is some dispute to his age but this page has him undisputed. Perhaps some consistency - SimonLyall 10:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The case IS disputed. The problem is, people who don't know what they're talking about keep corrupting the system.
Now I've been given a word that a child is using his imagination - and I've come to put a stop to it! Anyway, How can this be possible?:
The longest working career for a person ever recorded is th 98 years worked by Shigechiyo Izumi, who began his career goading draft animals at a sugar mill in 1872. He retired as a sugercane farmer in 1970 aged 105.
And this article is out of date!:
Copyright 1987 Asahi News Service Asahi News Service
APRIL 6, 1987, MONDAY
LENGTH: 391 words
HEADLINE: JAPANESE EXPERT DEBUNKS IDEA OF 'VILLAGE OF 100-YEAR-OLDS'
DATELINE: TOKYO
BODY: A Japanese expert on aging says reports that the oldest Japanese man died earlier last year at the age of 120 are false -- he was only 105.
The true age of Shigechiyo Izumi, who died in February 1986, was discovered through research in his family's registration records, says Toshihisa Matsuzaki, director of the Department of Epidemiology at the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology.
At an April 4 meeting of the Japan Association of Medical Sciences, Matsuzaki also denied there is any village in the world made up mostly of people well over the age of 100, including a Japanese village with such a reputation.
There is no such thing as the village of centenarians, Matsuzaki says.
The village of Yuzurihara in Japan's Yamanashi Prefecture has a reputation as the home of many old people who go about their daily work with the vigor of those much younger. But Matsuzaki says statistics show that of the village residents over the age of 65, fewer of them are 90 or older than the national average.
The village is dubbed as a senior citizens' village only because many young people left for the city, he says.
Matsuzaki also casts doubt on other villages in the Soviet Union and Equador that have similar reputations.
He says there is no one age 110 or older living in a village in the Georgian Republic of the Soviet Union known as the home of the world's oldest people. He says half of the village residents claiming to be 90 or older gave false ages.
Matsuzaki quotes a Soviet medical researcher as saying, It is a fairy tale that people 130 or 140 years old exist.
Matsuzaki suspects that Georgian men may have reported false ages to escape military service. One reason he is suspicious is that more men than women are 100 or older in the Georgian Republic, in contrast to global statistics that show four times as many women than men reach that age.
Citing research done by American scholars, Matsuzaki also labels a myth the idea that the village of Vilcabamba, Equador, has many residents well over 100 years old.
Matsuzaki quotes the scholars as saying that all the people over the age of 90 gave the wrong age and that those who claimed to be over 100 were actually 86 years old on the average. The age claimed by one person would have made him five years older than his mother, Matsuzaki says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.173.30 ( talk) 01:56, 21 October 2005
Removed this text by User:193.203.149.125 from the article: seemed unencyclopedic.
'When the medical world began studying longevity seriously in the 1960s, scientists flocked to Abhazia, Georgia, the Hunza, and Vilcabamba, Ecuador, sites renowned for the long life spans of their residents. In 1978, Dr. Richard Mazess published a study claiming that in Vilcabamba everyone was exaggerating their true ages. Since proper birth records did not exist, he based his premise on a genealogical survey of families in Vilcabamba, combined with baptism records that are for all purposes illegible. Whether his conclusions are correct or not, they were accepted as fact.
Mazess, who is a specialist on osteoporosis, had come here to study the remarkable lack of the disease in Vilcabamba. His studies were never really finished, since he became totally absorbed with the exaggeration thesis. He stated that only one centenarian in a population base this size was out of the ordinary. Two 100 year old residents here would be more than a miracle and deserve ample study, At that time, 15 people in the valley claimed to be over a hundred. Mazess said they were all liars. He listed ten people he considered to be between 85 and 95, and who claimed to be centenarians. Of that list, two people are still alive. Since the list was made in 1978, it would seem that Dr. Mazess has an obligation to do more research around Vilcabamba. However, he is now "retired" and still too busy to follow up his original report. In fact, hardly anyone in the scientific world is interested in the theme of natural longevity any more. The fad has passed and laboratory advances have made field work superfluous. Dr. Alex Leaf, who came here with National Geographic, now quotes Richard Mazess as the authority on the old liars from Vilcabamba, and spends all his time researching fish oils. Perhaps fish oils are the salvation of humanity, and certainly it is more convenient than a trip to southern Ecuador. But there is still a whole lot to leam here in Vilcabamba that will never be discovered in a lab. http://www.vilcabamba.org/article.html" -- Sum0 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
"...Indeed, dietary moderation is a consistent feature of the lives of the superwrinklies. Protein and animal fat typically play a minimal role in their menus. In Sunchang, for example, rice and boiled vegetables are a staple. "The white-rice- and-vegetables-dominated diet consists primarily of carbohydrate, while remaining low in fat," says Dr. Park Sang Chul, who heads the World Health Organization's aging-research center in Seoul and has spent three years studying the residents of Sunchang. "Low fat content is one of the more crucial keys toward longevity." The story is similar for the locals of Hunza Valley, says Khwaja Khan, a physician in the Hunza town of Karimabad who has treated many of the valley's eldest residents. The Hunza, Khan says, were cut off from the outside world for centuries by the 7,000-meter Himalayan peaks ringing the valley, and until recently were forced to subsist on a spartan menu of apricots, walnuts, buckwheat cakes and fresh vegetables. Many cross the century mark, and a few motor on for another 10 years or longer." ... http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/printout/0,13675,501030721-464472,00.html -- Sum0 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm playing devil's advocate now (though I suppose that since I agree with it I must be somewhat diobolical), but if we're going to classify all of these as myths due to an inability to verify them scientifically, shouldn't we toss all the Biblical claims in this boat (Ark?), too? I think someone said previously that we should make this "longevity claims," and I agree if only for the purpose of consistency, if not also because it's unwise to use Wikipedia to make that sort of NPOV statement about a claim's reliability. I think the Biblical example shows us that no matter how silly something seems from a non-believer's standpoint, there is someone out there who won't classify it as a myth. Sometimes a few billion. Fearwig 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Pul-leeze! Quiz with the lunar-cycle apologism. Two wrongs don't make a right. If these patriarchs were having children at '65' and you divide by 12, what age do you get? No. The book says 930, it means 930. Much the way the characters in Lord of the Rings are thousands of years old. It's fantasy. Quit trying to make it factual when it's not. R Young { yakł talk} 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1875-living? http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_al_Wasimy
The claims by the Romans of certain people living a long time is dubious. Roman names did not have a lot of variety; many Romans would have shared a name. How can a Roman emperor be sure that a hypothetical Quintus Maximus who is alive at the time of a Census is really the same Quintus Maximus who was born 150 years ago? -- B.d.mills 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The above section misses the entire point of the article. The point of the article is that people tended to make up 'myths' about longevity, and that these myths can be defined by the motivations that give rise to them and the factors that cause them. People adding in their two cents is diluting the purpose and focus. Also, there is a 'longevity claims' section for alleged records. This isn't about records; it's about oral history. R Young { yakł talk} 07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Including Emperor Jimmu as an example of Longevity Myths is logically incorrect. Emperor Jimmu was never claimed to have lived particularily long (75 years is hardly a remarkable lifespan). While Jimmu's existance itself might be a myth, his lifespan is of no extraordinary note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.84.2 ( talk • contribs)
I disagree: some Japanese emperors were stated to have reigned for over 100 years, and the purpose of the age-exaggeration was to extend the 'reign dates' of Emperor Jimmu Tenno back into time. Most modern Japan historians believe that, if he existed, he lived some 1,000 years later. The Japanese-emperor cases are relevant because they offer one reason for age inflation. 74.237.28.5 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Further, in this case the extension of age of the in-between emperors was made in part to back-date Emperor Jimmu's status further in the past. Ryoung122 07:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings,
Please note that the myth categories, though all well-delineated, may not be 'rigid' in an either/or sense. It is possible for a myth to fit into more than one category. Someone may be a patriarch, a village elder, and a religious figure. However, these all still differ in that, for example, a village elder need not be a patriarch (esp. if a woman!) and a religious figure also may not be a patriarch (esp. in Eastern religions which stress individual paths). Note also we may see an overlap between nationalism, ideology, localism, Shangri-La, and Fountain of Youth. However, although a myth may have more than one origin, we can find examples of longevity claims that are unique to each particular myth category.
Also, if someone wants to propose a new category, please do so on the message board. Some gratituous additions have missed the point of this article. The longevity claims article is more appropriate for actual possible claims, such as ages 113 or 115. This article deals mainly with those cases which are scientifically impossible, but are still made for reasons of nationalism, religion, wanting to life forever, etc. R Young { yakł talk} 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
One of these categories should include the genealogies in Genesis. Those people were said to live 800+ years. Not that I believe it, or am a christian, but I feel it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.128.28 ( talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts on expanding the list of exaggerated claims? There's a claim of the oldest American that is all over the Genealogy websites, if you research surname Francisco, you will find most Americans will try to link into "Old Henry" Francisco, who, according to a 1939 Ripley's Believe it or Not article, was the oldest soldier in the American Revolution enlisting at age 91 in 1777, making him born in 1686 with a death in 1820, at 134. Check it out http://whitehall.bloatedtoe.com/henry-francisco.html Through The Lens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.240.220 ( talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I oppose to the name of this article. If this article is meant in the popular meaning of the word myth (an untrue, popular story) in contrast to the sociological meaning (a unverifiable story that is important for the group) then I think the title is wrong. The word myth in its popular meaning implies that it is untrue but in many cases this article fails to supply proof of the lack of veracity of these longevity claims hence the right word is claim, not myth. Wikipedia articles do not get their names because the writers want to make a point but they get their names to provide the reader with factual information. Andries 22:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You missed the whole point! These aren't just unverifiable claims; many have been shown to be false. Moreover, there is a pattern of myth-making, rooted in paternalism, maternalism, nationalism, the "local villager elder," and of course the "fountain of Youth" and "Shang-ri La." Despite scientic documentation (see Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Odense Monographs) that high age claims are a function of illiteracy and lack of record-keeping (and disappear when record-keeping is in place for 100 consecutive years), people from lands such as India continue to make extra-ordinary claims, not realizing that Europe itself once did as well...but has now matured to "proven" longevity (except for Eastern Europe, where the myth of longevity survives).
Let me say that a separate article, "longevity claims," could be established. In Louis's "longevity myths" article, he cites only extreme claims that are obviously false--and not only that, but these claims often take on nationalistic-myth or ethnic-myth overtones. The recent Elizabeth Israel myth was turned into a tourist industry, school play, etc. for Dominica.
A separate article for "longevity claims" could include supercentenarians whose age is not entirely proven but for whom either some evidence suggests is true, or the claim is within the realm of possibility--i.e., 110th birthday--and was made more on an individual basis than as a banner of nationalism, as was the case with Thomas Parr of England, Christian Drakenberg, Shirali Mislimov, Javier Perreira, etc. Ryoung122 09:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To resolve this issue, I have decided to create a Longevity Claims article. I believe that these are two separate discourses. This page is better served by explaining the history of the myths of longevity. The longevity claims article can explain the problems with the age verification process, and list some age claims that are partially-validated but not fully authenticated. Ryoung122 08:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I still don't like how biblical "claims" are listed under a heading with the word "myth" in it.
I removed the sentence "Both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past. The application of modern demographic data to ancient eras is unclear.[citation needed]" because it adds nothing to the article and is inaccurate. We are talking about people who lived, at most, 10,000 years ago. Biology tells us that humans now are exactly the same as humans 10,000 years ago; 10,000 years is less than a nanosecond in the human evolutionary time-line. Mentioning creation in this article is ridiculous, as creation is a religious not a scientific belief, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- 128.151.86.184 ( talk) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
==Longevity== In recent history, the oldest person documented beyond reasonable doubt, Jeanne Calment, died in 1997, aged 122; demographic study of modern human longevity gives odds of trillions to one against humans today reaching 130. However, both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past; the application of modern demographic data to ancient eras is unclear. The extreme ages of the Hebrew Bible exhibit a decrease over time, and the Biblical upper limit of longevity has been categorized by Witness Lee as having four successive plateaus of 1,000, 500, 200, and finally 120 years.
Accordingly, these very long lifespans have been a source of much speculation. Biblical apologists hold that sin, loss of the water-canopy firmament, and DNA breakdown all contribute to decreased lifespans. Form critics hold variously that the yearly and monthly cycle were confused, simplifying some dates; that numbers were converted incorrectly; or that other reinterpretation is necessary. If "year" is interpreted consistently as "month", some numbers become more reasonable, but other numbers become more unreasonable (fathering children at age 5).<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Henry M. Morris|Morris, Henry M.]]|title=The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings|page=159|date=1976|publisher=[[Baker Book House]]|location=[[Grand Rapids, Michigan]]|quote=Such an interpretation would have made Enoch only five years old when his son was born!}}</ref>
Well if we don't know where the bar is between apes and men in the past, the article scope becomes ambiguous, doesn't it? Only some assumption of fixity of species in the historic era solves that problem. Anyway, can I combine your statements as follows? Both scientific studies and longevity narratives indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past. Scientific studies claim human life expectancy has increased overall since the Stone Age but do not rule out much older human lifeforms, while longevity narratives imply that life expectancy has decreased within the historical period. ("Science" is not a source.) JJB 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
On a positive note, both the pictures and the sub-sections recently added have improved the article. It's just a shame that so many changes were made in such a short period of time. Please note that it is wiki-etiquette to notify an article creator of major proposed changes in format. Ryoung122 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The third Lee plateau was inserted into WP twice, first as 200 by an IP [1], then as 250 by Ryoung [2]. Googling yields mostly mirrors. I unintentionally saw and used the 200 number more widely first before realizing there may be an error. The simplest resolution is if Ryoung has the original source handy for verification; otherwise, though it is likely that consensus would favor 250 in the absence of verification, it would still technically be a matter in need of verification someday. The question is not, of course, to be decided on the Biblical data, but on what Lee concluded from it. (I note that Shem (allegedly) lived 502 years after the flood, totaling 600, in an era of 500s; Miriam and Aaron exceeded 120 in what is presumably an era of 120s, unless the "fall" is the death of Moses and not say the golden calf; and several ages in the Septuagint (as per the new template), which Lee perhaps neglected, also exceed the era plateau.) JJB 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Second of all, the numbers can be deduced from the Bible directly: Peleg lived 239 years, so "200" is clearly incorrect. Ryoung122 07:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose renaming article to "longevity narratives", "longevity stories", "longevity lore", or a similar WP:NPOV title for several reasons. I am primarily interested in Biblical longevity, — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
but seek to weight this coverage properly with other traditions.
As a related proposal, it seems to me that rather than an in-text list of Biblical longevity, a new template "Biblical longevity" would be preferred. This would allow text to flow around the otherwise sparse data; it would allow smaller font and a narrow table; and it would also be transferable to some of the shorter patriarch articles to give an indication of their statistical place within Biblical longevity narratives. It would only have 3 columns, for name/link, age, and LXX age when different. I don't see any drawbacks to this idea. OTOH, I can imagine that renaming might need a bit more demonstration of consensus first. I will also experiment with some rewordings under WP:BRD to see how they look; I would ask that anyone who cares to revert do so on an edit-by-edit rather than bulk basis. JJB 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I support JJB's proposal to rename this article to "longevity narratives". I've always thought that there was something decidedly NPOV about the title, but I couldn't think of an appropriate rename, nor did I have the time to back it up so solidly with policy. Kudos to you for the effort JJB. Cheers, CP 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I opppose JJB's proposal to rename this article to "longevity narratives." Let me explain why. First of all, this article, which was started by Louis Epstein (not myself), is meant to explain why claims to longevity that run counter to scientific evidence exist. Trying to "balance" this article by renaming it misses the entire point: we already have articles on cases that are "verified," and an article on claims that are in the gray zone (possible, but not very likely). I already created the "gray zone" article to deal with issues such as "but what if it's true." This article is for those issues that extend beyond the "gray zone" into the realm of fantasy: the same realm that includes "stories" of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster. This isn't supposed to be a "Biblical narrative." Virtually all cultures, universally, produced MYTHS, not just the Christian one.
Also, the word "narrative" includes stories that are true as well as those that are false. It's no different than telling students that "evolution is just a theory" and we should teach children that the Earth was created in "seven days."
Finally, it's clear that Wikipedia itself evolves, and that devolution has become the norm, as expert advice is refected in favor of popular opinion. How does THAT serve making this an "encyclopedia"? Or has Wikipedia just become a blog? Ryoung122 08:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of consensus, the article as currently named has existed, unchanged, for five+ years. During that time, THOUSANDS made edits. So, to say that since four people commented here=consensus is ridiculous. Let's start with the FACTS:
A. "Stories" or "narratives" about the Fountain of Youth or Shangri-La are not true, at least not if we use a scientific measuring stick.
B. All scientific sources agree that age 122 is the maxmimum proven human age so far reached. Claims a little beyond this might be called "claims," but when they reach to levels of 140, 150, 200, or even 43,000, it's simply not possible or true.
C. My words have not been as disruptive as your editing. Attempting to overthrow five years of consensus-building with just two weeks of massive editing is clearly disruptive. Thus I used the word "hijack" because it is an attempt to take this away...NOT FROM ME...but from Wikipedia's purpose, neutrality is disputed which is to be an authoritative source of encyclopedic information, NOT a blog. Thus, huge changes like you are proposing should be referenceable, and so far they are not.
D. JJ Buten's changes are severe enough to call into question the article's existence. The purpose of this article was to lay out the myths of longevity. If we cannot use the word "myth" to describe "myth," then we don't need the article.
E. Here's a typical use, nothing to do with me:
http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Young-Oils/totalhealth2004.html
Studies conducted after the 1973 National Geographic article debunked the myth of extraordinary longevity among remote populations in general, and especially in regard to the Chinese, such as the Hunzas to which Gary Young referred in his talk and in his promotional materials for Berry Young Juice.
For example, I would refer the interested reader to Age Validation of Han Chinese Centarians by Z. Wang, Y. Zeng, B. Jeune, and J.W. Vaupel. Their investigations showed that the ages of Chinese supercentarians could not be validated, and were often inflated by a combination of poor memory, in adequate records, and failure to double check age claims against available records.
Note the use of a (GASP) JOURNAL ARTICLE CITATION!
More later. Ryoung122 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
On my talk, Ryoung122 said:
Centralizing discussion here, I will reply below, but first would like to be careful to distinguish (in all the above) what truly needs to be said from what need not waste my time. JJB 02:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I think all the editors involved here should thoroughly read Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Naming conflict in order to fully understand the official policy. This article qualifies as a spinout (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, although it is still required to conform to the NPOV policy in general. But that does not mean it is not allowed to present the view that these claims are considered "myths" by some people. I think the real debate here is whether or not calling them myths qualifies as taking sides. Many people consider the word myth to mean not just something that is false, but also to mean a "traditional story" (see Myth). The articles Tornado myths and 10% of brain myth, which are uncontroversial yet seem to implicate that myths are untrue (informal use of the term). While Urban myths redirects to Urban legends (the more commonly used term). National myth, Deluge myth, and Founding myth are all formal uses of the term, which do not imply that these are falsehoods, simply "historical narratives". Whether the article is named "longevity myths/legends/narratives", the point of this article is to discuss the legendary stories regarding human longevity. The formal use of the word "myth" is to describe "legendary" accounts, whether they are true or not is irrelevant. The use of the word "myth" in this context is acceptable and conforms to the NPOV policy. Now, if anyone wants to debate whether the tone of this article conforms to the NPOV article, that is certainly up for debate. However, I have wasted enough of my time, and managed to violate my own policy of avoiding controversial edits and/or discussions, so I will leave it at that. I'm done with it. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB, I have given my opinion. My suggestion to you is to list this article on Wikipedia:Requested moves, and posting messages on the talk pages of the WikiProjects attached to this article (and even other projects that might have a related interest in this topic) seeking feedback from other editors. Four users does not make a consensus. Seeking outside opinions might break the stalemate we seem to have here, and would be more productive than the four of us rehashing old arguments over and over again. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
My response must necessarily begin by asking Ryoung122 some questions in turn, and I trust he will see the kindred spirit in my skepticism. Frankly, he makes such sweeping statements that I need citations for them, and I'm sure his familiarity with the literature should suffice to answer. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(1) Ryoung says "There is proof that when scientific standards are maintained, such ages have never been reached in humans." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source stating the age of 127 has never been reached in humans, or stating an extrapolation from the case "when scientific standards are maintained" to all cases whatsoever. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(2) Ryoung says "The purpose of the 'longevity claims' article was to list gray-area cases that do not meet the scientific standards of verification ...." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source stating the 'scientific standards of verification' that distinguish longevity claims from (verified) supercentenarians. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(3) Ryoung says Moses's "age of '120' is a symbol of 'three generations' of forty years each." Please cite a reliable, independent theological source stating that symbolism, as it would be good to include with allegorist interpretations of Enoch's age of 365. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(4) Ryoung says "These are myths." Please cite a reliable, independent sociology or mythology expert source that states that every narrative category in this article is a "myth", including particularly the "village elder myth" and "Shangri-La longevity myth". JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(5) Ryoung says they "go against the scientific evidence" and "run counter to scientific evidence". Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source stating how to distinguish claims that go against or run counter to evidence from claims that concur with evidence, and at what actual odds the claims go against or run counter or concur (for any age over 122). JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(6) Ryoung says the longevity claims article is "on claims that are in the gray zone (possible, but not very likely)" and "when they reach to levels of 140, 150, 200, or even 43,000, it's simply not possible or true." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source stating how to distinguish possible from impossible longevity claims and true from false longevity claims. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(7) Ryoung says "This article is for those issues that extend beyond the 'gray zone' into the realm of fantasy: the same realm that includes 'stories' of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster." Please cite a reliable, independent sociology or mythology expert source that states every narrative category in this article is a "fantasy" and in the realm of each of the five "storied" entities named. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(8) Ryoung says "'Stories' or 'narratives' about the Fountain of Youth or Shangri-La are not true, at least not if we use a scientific measuring stick." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source that states that stories or narratives about the fountain of youth and Shangri-La are false (rather than a literary criticism source). JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(9) Ryoung says "All scientific sources agree that age 122 is the maxmimum proven human age so far reached." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source that states that a maxmimum (or maximum) human age of 122 has been proven scientifically (rather than proven evidentiarily). JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(10) Ryoung says "The VERY PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE STORIES ARE NOT TRUE." Please cite a reliable, independent sociology or mythology expert source that states every narrative category in this article is not true, and why. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses redirects when there is more than one common expression for basically the same thing. This is not the case here. The "redirects" you are proposing are entirely invented by Wikipedia editors and not in use in the reliable sources. Therefore, redirects are not needed. Ryoung122 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I cracked open my 1983 Guinness on this issue just now, and I found my first independent categorization of the reasons for longevity narratives. It mentions four categories, but is not entirely clear what they are, so I hope I've gotten them right in the excerpt below. JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In late life, very old people often tend to advance their ages at the rate of about 17 years per decade .... Several celebrated super-centenarians (over 110 years) are believed to have been double lives (father and son, relations with the same names or successive bearers of a title) .... A number of instances have been commercially sponsored, while a fourth category of recent claims are those made for political ends .... Guinness 1983 pp. 16-19 JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
For shorthand for the moment, we can call these four overadvanced, double-life, commercial, and political. Further, these are the "recent claims"; it is clear that that permits another set, which we can call historical claims, which this Guinness piece does not illuminate us toward categorizing further. The last two modern narrative rationales correlate nicely with sections already in the article, but the first two do not (and only have a couple cases each), and many modern claims or narratives do not fit any of these categories due to lack of evidence; this may suggest a fifth modern category, that for which no evidence exists suggesting the falsity of the narrative other than scientific odds (about which I will say more later). JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, this is my first sourced assertion that the reliable sources do not categorize the arbitrary way in which we have done so for years. My natural question is: would there be a general consensus toward rearranging the article with this quote as a (first) guide, as described above? JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the number of times, by my count, that various words are used in this 4-page coverage to indicate the dubiety of a statement (we call them
WP:WEASEL words
WP:WORDS). Most frequent was "claim" (15 times), for all situations including Li at 256. Then "reputed" (13), "alleged" (7), "records" (6), "reports" (4), "celebrated" (3), "was said" or "hearsay" (3), "seemingly" (2), "false" (2), "case" (2); and 1 each for story, idea, double lives; vanity, fraud, exaggeration, credulity, uncritical, insulting; advance, prolong, point, attribute, ascribe, reckon; sponsor, publicize.
JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In other words, the RS uses the word "claim" for everything recent in both articles. I do not favor a merge, of course, because historical claims require separate treatment, as we've recognized (although this article was "claims" for awhile before the split). But of course this suggests what the word in the title might be after "longevity", such as "allegations", "reports", "statements", "cases", "stories", "ideas", "attributions", "ascriptions". Not that these are necessarily better (with or without an additional adjective), but they are backed up by a reliable categorizing source, while myths and narratives are not. JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that Robert Young's 2008 master's thesis states (original page 34, footnote 55) that "Parts of this are based on an essay by Robert Young (i.e., me) and then posted to Wikipedia on Nov 22, 2005." That corresponds to this set of edits by Ryoung122 in 2005. The article framework to this day continues to rely very heavily on this "essay", without any sourcing; and the thesis cannot be cited as a source, because it fails to cite its sources, and it comes long after the WP unsourced assertions, as well as because of COI and RS issues. Accordingly, I will flag the sentences that originate in this "essay", suggesting that unfixed ones be deleted in a week or two and the article recast. Further, this "essay" (Ryoung122's first edits to this article) thoroughly recast the article's original purpose from "this article concerns unsupported claims and why the burden of proof must rest on them, along with a list of those that have failed to meet it" to "this article concerns the history of the mythology of longevity, as well as an explanation of the longevity myth phenomenon". This appears to change the subject, from a topic that is very close to longevity claims, to a topic that has never once been proven as notable. The fact that the very stated scope of this article (history and explanation of "longevity myths") has for 4 years never been cited as notable favors merger to longevity claims on the grounds that "longevity myths" (or whatchamacallit) is not a verifiably notable topic; and when it has been verified, it refers to things like steak sauce and hormones, far removed from the topic of the essay (which is still the de facto topic of the article). JJB 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, JJB, this is all very interesting, but the issue of notability as you surely must know is one which is an unresolved issue here at wikipedia. And it seems to me, since you have seemingly abruptly changed the subject to whether this article can properly be called longevity "myths" to whether this article should even exist in the first place, at least in its present form, that there is another agenda at play here. What that agenda is, I have no idea.
But, as I said earlier, concerns about the perceived denigration of narratives which may be true, or some hold to be true, with the term "myth" can be simply resolved with a clarification of how that word is understood in a more technical sense. AS for the issues of notability, since this is hardly a resolved topic in terms of wikipedia policy, let's not be too hasty to try to apply that here. Your Scrabble analogy, like most analogies, doesn't really apply as it fails to reflect the weight of the subject here. There is much published literature on human longevity and claims of the past, as partly reflected in the notes at the bottom of the page. This stuff didn't simply pop out of Robert Young's imagination. SO while you may have a point about the need to source some of the statements, your vendetta-style approach in tagging every second sentence on the page seems designed more to instigate than to thoughtfully resolve the issues you have raised. Indeed, a cursory glance reveals that most if not all of the statements tagged can be readily sourced, including statements of opinion. So your threat to delete the offending sentences and "recast" the article seems to me a bit over-the-top as a solution to your perceived problems with the page.
IOW, your implication that this entire article is largely a recast of original, unsourced material by Robert Young is not only false, it's absurdly false, even if the structure of what he says is largely intact here.
So, let's step back from the brink here and make this a better page without tearing it to shreds in the process. Canada Jack ( talk) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB, with all due respect, the article here reflects scholarly opinion, not the opinion of one Robert Young. You have a point that some of the statements require a source, you do not have a point that this is "original unsourced material by Ryoung122." And for you to put some sixty citation tags, many of which are along the lines of demanding a source for statements like "Most such claims are for ages of less than 200 years old, with the majority in the range of 140 to 160" which is something easily verified even here at wikipedia, or "Ascribing unique longevity to a particular 'village of centenarians' is common across many cultures" which is so laughably true if one knows any of the literature, indeed if anyone cares to read the numerous articles which appear claiming exactly that, tells me your goal here is not to sincerely improve this page, but to seek to tear it down. Especially when stuff which YOU have insisted be inserted, like "Both scientific studies and longevity myths indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past..." is ludicrous on its face - how can longevity myths possibly "indicate" the nature of human biology was different? What we can determine from these myths is the nature of human belief and culture, not the nature of human biology.(!) And this all plays back to your seeming refusal to acknowledge what is meant by "myth" in the scholarly sense.
AS for you point about this being based on an essay, even if that was true, unless the essay expresses novel concepts which only the author expresses, that fact is completely irrelevant. One can make the argument that a great many articles here at wikipedia are, in effect, simply essays uniquely written by their various wikipedia editors. Even if those essays reflect unpublished essays written by the editors, as long as the sources are present, there is no issue here of "original research." If it were otherwise, we'd have to reproduce pretty well verbatim articles from other encyclopedias to avoid your definition of "conflict of interest" or "original research." As it pertains to this page, there are statements here which may need attribution, but the concepts present on this page are not novel at all, and reflect, as far as I have read, much of the standard scholarship on the topic. So, far from this being any COI or V or OR, all we need on this page are a number of references.
In the normal course of events, this would not be contentious. But, judging by your comments on certain issues with this page, I sense you do not know the scholarship as well as you should to be in a position to loudly denounce what appears here and offer solutions, as you seem to be under the impression that the page reflects the personal opinion of one Robert Young. If you and Robert have some sort of issue with one another, that should not be brought to this page, as the real fixes required here are slight and relatively minor. Canada Jack ( talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To longevity narratives, longevity folklore, or longevity stories. Second attempt; Talk:Longevity myths#Proposed move:Longevity narratives above resulted in extended discussion among partisans rather than consensus. Reasons for move, stated above, are WP:WTA, scope (I believe it should be a list of narrative categories), WP:UNDUE weighting resulting from former title, improper arbitrary relationship between article and longevity claims, and Google test. You can read for yourself the reasons against move, as I would hesitate to summarize them. JJB 13:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ryoung122, please answer my questions 1-10 above, in their place, without interrupting paragraphs. JJB 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I support this move as well, if it's to "narratives" or "folklore"; "stories" sounds a bit too vague for my liking and doesn't really solve what I perceive to be the problem of this page. My support is based on the comments above and in general because I feel that the title of this page does not conform well to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. Cheers, CP 04:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.99 ( talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Checking out JJBulten's recent edits, he has a HUGE interest in religion. The real problem here is that he is approaching this issue from an agenda-driven perspective. Wikipedia is NOT the place to argue about religious belief. Articles should conform to outside, reliable sources. For example, a scientific article:
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200421/000020042104A0614779.php
"Longevity narratives" and "longevity stories" are NOT used in the scientific literature, but are little more than something a kid made up.
Should we even be debating this? Ryoung122 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, JJB, but your argument is largely specious. It seems to me you are making a rather large mountain over a tiny molehill of a problem. As for the use of "myth" I actually wrote part of a section of the Roswell UFO Incident on the incident as a "myth" - which in the narrative sense at least one scholar has called it. Calling it a "myth" here does not establish the claims are false; rather it makes the point that in a narrative sense, folklore can be either "fiction" such as jokes or cautionary tales, or "myths" which are "presented as fact and avowedly believed to be true by many group members [the author defines "folk" as in "folk narratives" as any group of people who share at least one common factor, where the group has some traditions it calls its own]... ...but are not treated as factual in the annals of the larger culture (e.g. mainstream histories, encyclopedias, and almanacs), ostensibly because they do not conform to the scholarly epistemological standards for assessing historicity within our society. (It should be noted that the defining criteria for stories of the second [myth] type are independent of the objective factuality of the narrative.)"
The article I quote from is "Analysis of the Roswell Myth: A traditional folk motif clothed in modern garb" by Charles Ziegler. The book it appears in is "UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth." The author makes numerous references to scholars who define "myth" in manner congruent with the usage on this page. I can supply those references if you wish.
I propose that instead of renaming this article, a simple explanation of "myth" might suffice to clarify the issues you raise here. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are saying that I am "technically" correct, then we have established that the use of the word "myth" within the article is correct. Is it then, as you state, misleading? I'd say the debate boils down to whether one could be misled here - you clearly think they can be, though I'm not precisely sure as to what this means to you. How about simply stating that a "myth" is meant as a belief held by groups of people, a belief that those people affirm is "true," but which fails to conform to what we would currently hold as scientific verifiability.
For example, the Bible states that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, an age both unverifiable and scientifically implausible. Yet many people assert that he in fact lived to be this age. If people did not assert it was true, then it would not be a "myth" in this sense, it would be a fictional tale, an allegory, or what have you. Like the Brothers Grimm tales, which we can all agree are not "myths" but "fictions."
So, what constitutes a "myth" here? Well, after documenting some one billion lives or so, science has not observed any humans to celebrate a 123rd birthday. Therefore, those who claim extended lives with a degree of certitude are by definition holding onto a "myth" as those claims have not been verified and are considered scientifically implausible. Further, those who claim lives within the range of proven human longevity yet have not any of what we would identify as standard elements of verification, yet assert certitude are also engaging in "myth." Even if the claim could possibly be true. And that is really what we see here - the difference between what is scientifically plausible and/or verifiable, and what is a myth.
In conclusion, all I see the need here is to clarify what is meant by "myth" here. And that can something along the lines of: Generally, a belief held by a group of people as being true (past or present) which is scientifically implausible and/or unverifiable. "Myths" are a classification of belief which are independent of the objective factuality of the narrative in question.
(I stole the last few words from the essay I quoted from above.) Canada Jack ( talk) 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose against 'longevity narratives' and 'longevity stories'. Call me ignorant but I had to even look up the meaning of 'narratives' to see if it fitted the article. 'Narratives'/'stories' implies that they are short tales relating to people. Much of the article more closely focusses on countries rather than people and some cases are just names and dates as examples. Therefore I don't think either of these names are appropriate for the article. However I'm Neutral on a change to 'Longevity folklore'. I think 'longevity myths' is just as appropriate. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose No point changing a page which is generally understood to have it's intended meaning. I seriously doubt that a change to "narratives" would help the understanding of the average user. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
Since WIkipedia's policies on reliable sources consider journal articles to be the first source to go with as the most reliable, let's see what phrase scientific authorities use: — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
1. http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200421/000020042104A0614779.php
note this was written in 2004, and had nothing to do with me — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
2. http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200318/000020031803A0517232.php
this was writen in 2003, BEFORE this article existed — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
3. http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/16760618/The_hormonal_fountains_of_youth_myth_or_reality
this is using the term in a more recent, "informal" sense of "something widely believed to be true, but is not" — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
4. http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/11/1156
"John Morley (1) provides an elegant historical account of efforts to extend the human life span and search for immortality. He provides a perspective that includes both myth and reality. To emphasize the fact that extended longevity has always been a human aspiration, his account extends from ancient times to current efforts. The desire to attain immortality is also reflected in the promise of an afterlife by our major religions."
Again, the word "myth" is used, NOT "stories". Why are we even debating this? It's Ph.D. versus 15-year-old kids who didn't even bother to read anything about the subject before popping off at the mouth. Ryoung122 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Guinness 1983: "The height of credulity was reached May 5, 1933, when a news agency solemnly filed a story from China with a Peking dateline that Li Chung-yun, the "oldest man on earth," born in 1680, had just died aged 256 years (sic)." Directly applicable, even though "story" is used in its news sense. JJB 10:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2. The Guinness book of music facts and feats - Page 58 by Robert Dearling, Celia Dearling, Brian A. L. Rust - Music - 1976 - 278 pages "... dated 1756), and the claims of the discovery of the elixir of life, would lend credence to the longevity story in those superstitious days, ..." "... confused reports, was born about 1660 and is still alive. If this seems incredible, what are we to make of his own report that he had discovered a potion which would prolong life indefinitely, as it had already prolonged his own for more than 2000 years? Among his other extravagant ..." These snippets seem very tantalizing, we'll see if it shows up at the library. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Is Abstinence from Red Wine Hazardous to Your Health? AL Klatsky - The Permanente Journal, 2007 - xnet.kp.org "For example, the truly fascinating resveratrol—longevity story involves up-regulation of a genetic system (the sirtuin genes) that influence metabolic processes promoting longevity. 18 Resveratrol has this effect and has shown the ability to increase longevity in several species." Looks directly applicable and verifiable, it's just that it matches such a subset of the whole topic (in this case, red wine). JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Bike for Life: How to Ride to 100 RM Wallack, B Katovsky - 2005 "We want to be able to hop on our bikes and do what comes naturally whenever the urge strikes, today or decades from now. So read the training and anti-aging strategies outlined in the book .... Have suggestions or a good cycling-longevity story to tell? Let us know at ...." Ditto. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Australian paper. "The boss longevity story surely comes from Manila": Mariano Santa Ana, age 117, Manila Diario, quoted in Northern Territory Times and Gazette. Reliable, verifiable, applicable: just the sort of thing I've gotten used to citing at WP. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
6. BBC. Good link. "My favourite recent longevity story is about an old Englishman." Ditto. One ref to the 106-year-old who lives on steak sauce, and one joke (story) about a nonagenarian. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Centenarians: the bonus years By Lynn Peters Adler, Edition: illustrated Published by Health Press, 1995 ISBN 0929173023, 9780929173023, 348 pages: Uses "story" 30 times and "myth" 0 times. JJB 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ryoung122 21:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
My first take from the free sources is that the driving motive said to be behind this article, namely, that stories about ages over 130 can be neatly categorized into a few recognized classes, just doesn't get coverage like virtually everything else I've put in WP. (Except for a certain 2008 thesis that contains categories too similar to this article to be of much use.) To me, that data would actually argue for "merge article back into 'claims'". That may look more and more viable the longer we play this little game. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) You see, I just don't think the article heads should be replaced with alchemy, medicine, hormones, cycling, red wine, steak sauce. What am I missing? JJB 11:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Well, time to move on to something else. My feeling right now, subject to change, is that the whole article should just be disassembled and alphabetized by geography. JJB 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Pardon us all for being oblivious, but the perfectly good phrase "longevity traditions" has been overlooked and has much better testimony than anything else so far. Unlike the prior searches, this yielded much more material very quickly, the material is much more appropriate, and many more sources can be provided without the baggage of other alternatives:
JJB 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The argument that the term "myth" is not appropriate for this article is based, it would seem, on two false premises: 1) The word "myth" suggests "fiction," when some of the so-called "myths" here may have been real, therefore it is POV to use that term and not a more neutral term like "story"; 2) Because many of the so-called "myths" on this page have no source which actually uses that term to describe them, it is OR to describe them as "myths." However, both of these premises are demonstrably false, and as I have indicated above, narratives, if they are held to be seen as "true" by a group of people but which are scientifically implausible, are routinely called "myths" or "myth narratives" in a generic sense, even if some specific tales are not called "myths." In other words, just because, for example, if we couldn't find someone who called the Gettysburg Address a "speech," doesn't mean we can't describe it as a speech. If we have a common definition of "speech," we can call it a speech. Here, if a story fits the readily found definition of "myth," we are not required to locate someone who in fact called story X a "myth," it is a "myth" if it fits the definition of "myth."
So, what is a "myth"? The usage on this page is quite obvious - it is a "myth" in the sense used in cultural anthropology, which this article, quite clearly, is an example of. If there is a failing in the text on the page, it is in that it lacks an explicit description of this usage, thus leading to the somewhat understandable mistaken confusion over whether it is "POV" to call some claims "myths," as a common colloquial definition of "myth" is "untrue story." As I alluded to above, Charles Zeigler touches on issues of myth narrative in discussing the Roswell UFO incident. In his introduction, he says that, without prejudging the veracity of the incident, "it can be treated and analyzed along lines that have become well established in cultural anthropology." So, to call Roswell a "myth," even though many people steadfastly believe aliens were involved, in no way suggests the incident was false, just that it fits the criteria of "myth" simply because some claims here are scientifically implausible. He says a "myth," generically, is "a narrative that some people within the society say they find credible. In other words, a myth necessarily has (or had, in the case of antique myths) a constituency of true believers who, by virtue of a shared avowal of their belief, constitute a subculture." In the case of Roswell, authors who claim aliens call their investigative works "non-fiction," while skeptics say they lack true investigative rigour and are not "true."
Can we apply what is true in calling Roswell a "myth" to claims of long life? Of course we can. Because we have a) current believers of a narrative or past believers of a narrative and b) a scientific consensus on what is plausible, or what is considered "verified."
The definition of "myth" is directly applicable to the claims on this page even if not all sources describe particular claims or beliefs as "myth." All we need is to determine what is scientifically plausible and whether the claim fits that definition or goes beyond it. So, if a group of people say that Mr. X is 150 years old, since this is beyond scientific plausibility (and that is simply what science says is plausible or not), and we have people saying it is true without proof, this fits the definition of a myth narrative.
So, in conclusion, there is no need to change the name of the page, nor to amalgamate it with "longevity claims" as there is a distinct category of claims on this page - claims which are scientifically implausible and/or unverifiable with past or present believers.
The proposed remedy is extreme as it seeks to largely tear up the page when several minor fixes would address the deficiencies on the page. Those fixes include: spelling out what is meant by "myth"; adding more references from the voluminous literature on the subject. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Jack, pardon me for correcting your strawman arguments. The correct argument is: The word "myth" per WP:WTA#Myth and legend must be used in a proven sociological or mythological context, which is not done. You admit this lack of sourcing.
This is no "strawman" argument, JJB. Your premise on changing the page title or merging it with "claims" is that the use of "myth" is POV and not supported by sources. My argument was that all that was needed here was to define the term "myth," the usage of the term is not "POV," and no sources are required to declare the particular "myths" as being "myths," as the definition is an understood and readily applied definition.
So, what does your link to WP's guidance on "myth" say? Well, it certainly does not say anything you claim it says per "must be used in a proven sociological or mythological context." What it does say almost precisely mirrors what I have said all along and the remedy I have proposed - define the formal meaning of "myth" - is precisely what the section you yourself have supplied a link for says.
When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology or mythology. And what is this "formal" definition? All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth.
You still demand that this "context" must be "proven." Yet, WP itself makes no such requirement. Why? Because any belief by a group of people which is scientifically implausible is by definition a "myth." All that WP requires is that we supply that usage is in a sociological/mythological context. Which is my solution here - to define the term more carefully in the lede. And which is all the WP requires, your incorrect claims notwithstanding.
You admit this lack of sourcing. I admit some claims here need sources. I do not "admit" that we need to supply sources calling particular stories or what have you "myths." That is not required by wikipedia as long as the usage of the term is defined.
If anyone were to actually insert sources demonstrating that the categorization of longevity stories into Ryoung122's categories is established within sociology, and those inserts stood consensus, this might greatly relieve that issue, as you suggest... Nice try, JJB. There are citations which could use sources. However, on the over-arching issue of the need to supply a source for everything which is supposedly a "myth" here, I have never stated that was needed, indeed, I am arguing the reverse.
The correct argument is: Based on WP:V we have no verifiable proof that we can make the sweeping jump from the specific cases to the general category of calling everything on this page by the tainted word "myth", and no verifiable proof that any of the cases are treated as myth in sociological literature.
And here, your house of cards collapsed. Since I have established - by your own link - that WP merely requires a close definition of "myth," your comments above are irrelevant. You betray your lack of understanding of the formal meaning of "myth," and a casual dismissal of my solution to that problem which WP itself instructs by calling the term myth "tainted." IOW, there is no "requirement" to have the literature "treat" cases as "myth," the only "requirement" is to establish the definition as stated above, and further clarify what scientifically is considered implausible in terms of longevity, which would be "context."
In fact, even the idea that America is a democracy, or a republic, is "a narrative that some people within the society say they find credible" and therefore a myth, unless Zeigler's unstated assumptions are stated.
Which is why all we need is to state them. Besides - talk about "strawmen arguments" - there are few who would question the premise that America is a democracy/republic in the mainstream media or elsewhere. The claim, in other words, is not considered implausible, and therefore, by definition, is not a "myth." A better analogy, per Ziegler, is whether we can claim that a UFO report is a "myth" if no one has published an article specifically describing UFO incident X as being a "myth." Since reports that aliens have or are visiting earth are generally considered implausible and unverified, yet people believe that aliens are or have visited, we can therefore call such claims "myths" as long as we define the formal use of the term so as not to suggest the specific claim is "false."
On the other hand, though, a cursory review of Ryoung122's edit history reveals that he considers the word "narrative" to be very strong OR, significant enough that it must be taken out and shot every time it appears (and often when it doesn't, as I've documented). But "myth" is the word to avoid, and "narrative" is as unobjectionable as "speech". So your second argument might better be addressed to him. That's because "narrative" doesn't have the same meaning as "myth" and "myth" is the term which best applies to implausible claims. "Narrative" for example can refer to fairy tales and jokes. The term is not specific.
Scientific literature I've consulted suggests that there is no bar, there is only an increasing unlikelihood with time. For instance, if reaching 130 is trillion-to-one odds (an unsourced statement of Robert Young's), and if a trillion people have lived on the earth (as a very rough guess), then it's likely that one to three people have reached 130 (as a very rough mathematical calculation); sorry, but evidence suggests to me that Ryoung has misapplied the math. There is no bar at 131 or later. There is also the issue that the past is obviously different from the present and science does not comment very much on how that applies to longevity. So all this handwaving reference to your certain knowledge of what science says is plausible (wholly different from what history says is verified) requires sourcing.
Here you reveal your ignorance on what we can do here at wikipedia. The term "plausible" does not eliminate from possibility a claim is true. It simply states that, scientifically, it is likely not to be true. As for your comments from the past, that is your personal speculation. That is a POV comment. As science simply is applying what is known to what is unknown. SO, in assessing the credibility of ancient claims, based on what is known about longevity, those claims are implausible. It, again, does not eliminate from possibility that some claims may be true. Which is why we simply define "myth" as claims which are believed but which are considered implausible. You may have a bit of wiggle room on when a claim becomes implausible, whether it is 130 or 122 (the oldest proven) or, generally, claims above 110 without documentation. But 175? 200? These are, as science understands it, implausible claims.
The fact that Ryoung122 changed the entire scope of the article in 2005 based on an essay that to this day remains essentially unsourced research of his own (if you will, original), and that the categories within this article are not established anywhere in sociology, requires addressing appropriately.
And you have identified inappropriate solutions. So, before you continue on your solutions, gain consensus. You have none here. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No move Parsecboy ( talk) 13:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (I.e., no consensus.) JJB 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
To longevity traditions. Third attempt; Talk:Longevity myths#Proposed move:Longevity narratives and Talk:Longevity myths#Requested move 1 above resulted in extended discussion among partisans rather than consensus.
In good faith, it appears that this move resolves much of the concerns expressed from both sides of the debate above. JJB 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Then why don't you source the idea in sociology that Ryoung's categories are established myth categories, and source the scientific implausibility, to remove my skepticism that they are unlikely to source appropriately?
Clearly, you are playing the "obtuse" game JJB. As I have shown, quite clearly, WP policy is that you don't need to "establish myth categories." All we have to do is define the term and establish the context. Obviously, you don't agree, but my counter-argument, thus far, carries more weight as more editors here agree there is no need to change the article title or merge with another article on "claims."
So far, you lack consensus, so unless that changes in the near future (i.e., more editors agree with your proposals) we shall a) revert most of your non-agreed-upon changes, and b) make the amendments as per my suggestions. IOW, JJB, you have thus far lost the argument. Canada Jack ( talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above speaks volumes. Thanks for engaging in this process. Sorry you failed to achieve consensus. Deal with it. Canada Jack ( talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
This page has become so corrupted by the edits of a single editor that I'm reverting back to almost a month ago. Please discuss.
I have several problems with the editing over the course of the past month.
1. Where did "Shangri-La" go? It's easy to find the idea that a "place" is responsible for extreme longevity: this even exists in the modern-era verson of "Blue Zones" and the unscientific focus by the media on particular, exotic locales associated with longevity (such as Icaria, Greece). There are dozens of references to places such as Vilcabamba or Hunza.
http://www.aarpinternational.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=584699
note the phrase
"The search for formulas to halt the passage of time or to better withstand its ravages, which has long occupied scientists, philosophers and other mortals, could lead in the end to a "sacred valley" in Ecuador - Vilcabamba - where myth and reality weave the secret of longevity."
This is written by the AARP! JJ, do you think THAT is unreliable as a source?
2. A shift more to Biblical longevity. This article really isn't about Christian myths of longevity alone: it's about the universal tendency of human cultures to create myths to explain ideas of longevity.
3. Insertion of cases more in the "longevity claims" range.
4. Insertion of original research.
Now, some may like the other version better, but these four issues must be dealt with.
Finally, regarding "essays": when Wikipedia was started, articles were often written by one editor as a starting point. As much as I'd like to take credit for things, it is clear that ideas such as the Fountain of Youth, Shangri-La, etc. existed long before I did. I merely making sure that this article was organized in such as way that the reader could get some sense of the various reasons/rationales for age inflation. Because editor JJBulten has not bothered to do enough research on this subject before he started his massive, POV edit campaign which overturned almost four years of consensus, the article has become degraded.
Now, I admit, I like some of the things added since. But they have been added way too rapidly and in an attempt to force a new consensus, based on original research, through use of speed and volume. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Ryoung122 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We are far from consensus, yet one editor is tearing up the page. Let's get the old version here, discuss the issues, come to a consensus, then proceed on that consensus. Canada Jack ( talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB, let's address the major issues, such as STRUCTURAL changes, before major edits are done. This shouldn't be about cherry-picking material to support your particular viewpoint.
And, I offered to REFRAIN from editing this article for a month if you did as well; I have seen no evidence of your stopping this editing spree which other editors have noted appear to be "tearing up" the article rather than building consensus.
The crux of the issue is NOT your self-perceived need to write your own essay. If you want to do that, fine: go get it published. But until then, this article, and your editing, should reflect the reliable sources outside Wikipedia that are available. Ryoung122 22:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB: Me and several other editors have requested, with respect, you cease this wrecking-ball approach to the page. And count me as the third person who suggests that we revert from where we started, agree on changes and then proceed.
And let's get bold-faced misrepresentation straight: "Longevity myth" is still OR because you have not found the phrase in the sociological context which WP:WTA#Myth and legend demands, as others admit.
This is, as I have shown ABSOLUTELY WRONG. And it is time for you to stop pretending anyone "admitted" to this. WP policy is to DEFINE THE TERM "MYTH" AND TO SUPPLY THE CONTEXT ie. Define the sociological context, which, in this case, is define what is scientifically plausible.
You have been shown to be utterly incorrect in your assertion that "myth" has to be found in the sources which describe the so-called "myths" on the page. Wikipedia policy, the very one you link to only demands the term be carefully defined and used in context. Period. It says NOTHING about "finding the phrase in the sociological context, it simply states that that context must be stated. Which is an entirely different thing, your increasingly non-nonsensical claims otherwise notwithstanding. Canada Jack ( talk) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I make that any clearer? Also, we can see that the use of the term "Shangri-La" is more than just my idea:
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitylegends/p/hunza.htm
Thus, you are wrong again. Ryoung122 08:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Which of them are you reverting me for? (Ryoung, if you specifically state which of my edits you disagree with, we can reach consensus. If you continue to refuse to be specific, I will just continue to improve the article and note your lack of contribution toward consensus. It would also help if you answered my 10 questions above, in their place. Thank you.) JJB 00:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of substantive replies to my various questions from anyone, I must state my conclusion that it is proper to continue improving the article along the same path, even in the face of regular reverts by Ryoung to a version of one month ago (plus two insignificant edits), which are contrary to the recommendation that reverts should not be based solely on claims of alleged consensus for the old version. I note one attempt by Ryoung to state four generic objections, which in good faith I have attempted to respond to twice, even though it seems to add a very unnatural tinge to the article; a close reading of his objections might even sustain the view that his own reversions are contrary to his stated views about the article, as demonstrated above, not to mention that he admits reverting against what he considers significant improvements. Until and unless someone can give a substantive, specific reply why a month of improvements should be reverted (or some other alternative arises), I must consider that Ryoung's reversions are contrary to the Wikipedia process. Please answer the questions, such as stating specific cases where my edits may be OR or POV. JJB 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB and RYoung, I think this debate has escalated into an all-out war. The quality of this article has suffered, and now it is littered with OR and CN tags, which serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Whoever added these tags should remove them, and add the {{ Original research}} instead.
Or even better, how about you fix it yourself? If you have access to verifiable and reliable sources, then please do what you must. Otherwise, delete the information and leave it at that. On the other hand, if anyone had bothered to do a simple google for most of these claims, you would probably find sources which support the information. Which is why I seriously doubt the intentions of whichever editor added these tags, and it seems to be a indication of (gasp!) bad faith on their part. Columbia issued a postage stamp of Javier Pereria for christ's sake! I dont' care who added these tags, it an obvious indication of someone who is trying to push their POV into this article.
Whoever did this, cares nothing about the quality of this article and is simply trying to prove a point. What that point is, I don't know and I don't care. But this is making me sick, and if this keeps up I am seriously considering filing a RFC if everyone doesn't grow up and start working together. This is getting to the point of childishness. Quit the edit warring, stop the bickering, and start doing some actual work for a change, instead of merely posturing over who is right.
As far as I'm concerned, you're both wrong. JJB, if you would like to present "your side" of the debate, fine! Go ahead! Add your sources about how people lived to be 300 years old. RYoung, ditto. If you think his sources are wrong, add yours stating how ridiculous it is that someone could claim to be 300 years old. Theres no reason why this article can't present both sides of the debate, and in fact it is required that it should. But if you can't reference it or verify it, then don't say it. Feel free to delete anything that doesn't have a reference if it offends you that much.
JJB, as far as the name of the article is concerned. I think you should admit defeat. "Myths" is the obvious choice, and is the most recognizible choice. Despite your claims of using Google to find over one million hits for "longevity traditions" I only come up with 60 (vs 2,000 for "longevity myths"). The problem is you need to put your search terms within quotes, or google will find every page that contains both the words "longevity" and "traditions". "Longevity myths" is clearly the most commonly used title, so please.... accept that you are wrong. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 01:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Rewriting, and negotiating on talk, is proceeding as well as time can permit. But I really don't know how to take on my own shoulders all the additional work of guessing what kind of truce Ryoung would accept (in addition to doing all the work of guessing what problems he has with my edits), as he does not answer my questions about these things. JJB 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just wikified the Javier Pereira reportage, and comparing the prior version with mine affirms many of my points about problems in this article. (1) Prior version had complete lack of context, one sentence, not even identifying Colombia or linking to Pereira's article. (2) Complete lack of reliable sourcing; even the main WP article relies only on tertiary sources and (probably) OR. (3) Complete imbalance, focusing only on the debunking point (that the claim was based on a dental exam, not in the main article), without any other side presented (such as actual medical testimony quoted in Time, or Pereira's alleged memories of 1815). (4) Complete inability to source the key debunking point. While the unsourced deathdate in his article was rapidly googled to the Boston Globe, the claim that the age relies on a dentist is unfindable. Here is "'javier pereira' colombia dentist", with zero relevant hits that I can see. (5) Origin in unsourced research original to WP. It is natural that those three terms get zero relevance, because they have apparently never appeared on the same WP page before ("colombia" was missing from this article all that time). In other words, whoever inserted the original "dentist" claim into WP (any bets?!) had zero internet support for doing so, even though generic discussions of Pereira's medical exams without the word "dentist" appear sufficiently.
In short, this Pereira sentence was inserted by someone familiar with the case who (for whatever reason) utterly failed to apply WP policy to tell others anything about finding that case, who was set on the article unbalancedly talking about the debunking but hardly even about the claim, and who relied on information not verifiable to any reliable source (we call that original research). It has remained uncorrected all this time. And this is typical of a majority of sentences in this article. Has anyone yet figured out how abysmal the article has been for four years, and why there is a need for drastic measures, such as deletion of all tagged original research, as Ergo proposes above? Or am I overdoing it? JJB 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/rej/12/2
Supercentenarians Table
Global Mortality Rates Beyond Age 110 Robert D. Young, Louis Epstein, L. Stephen Coles Rejuvenation Research. April 2009, 12(2): 159-160. First Page | Full Text PDF | Reprints & Permissions
In other words, both myself and Louis Epstein continue to have our work PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL ARTICLES. Thus, your accusations of "original research" are spurious. Anything that's been published in a reliable source is not "original research" on Wikipedia.
Can I be more clear: according to the core concepts of Wikipedia, such as WP:RS, journal articles are supposed to be given highest priority when considering sources. Yet you give yourself priority over published research. That indicates to me that you, sir, are the problem, not Louis Epstein and not myself. I am here because I believe in educating the next generation. Like Galileo, five hundred years from now, history will view me as on the correct side, not you. Ryoung122 21:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I do not think that JJBulten has yet understood what I am doing. Mass-reversion does not necessarily mean I oppose all new material. However, it does mean that the sum total of the newer edits are so unconstructive as to require a start-over point. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
I have already mentioned that I don't mind:
A. pictures
B. addition of king lists
C. addition of examples of national or ethnic longevity — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
However, there are a few areas that I consider that should NOT be compromised:
A. the main structure of the article — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Let me make this clear to JJBulten: this article intended to explain the various kinds of longevity myths or traditions. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
The exact name is not as important as the idea. Let me go over these again:
1. Patriarchal: this is not just "religious" but is more genealogical in focus. Before written history, there was oral history. Oral myths and traditions told stories of ancestors. I find it interesting that, in the Bible, when ages were actually written down, the ages claimed were not so extreme: King David lived 70 years; the oldest age mentioned in the New Testament is Anna, 84 years old. Extreme ages in the Bible only exist in the pre-written record era.
Yet the focus here is NOT the Bible, Christianity, or Judaism. Whether Sumeria, Japan, or what have you, most cultures that maintained lists of ancestors had inflated ages the further back in the past one went. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
2. Village elder: the idea that a local in a village is an extreme age; this is often based on status. Thus, the issue is one of STATUS. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
3. Fountain of Youth: the idea that one can live longer by drinking water from a fountain, taking a substance, etc. This is often associated with alchemy and quackery. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
4. "Shangri-La": the idea that longevity is associated with a particular PLACE, such as Vilcabama, the Hunza Valley, or Shangri-La. Clearly, this can be seen in the USSR: extreme longevity was claimed for peoples in the Caucasus (whether they be Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, etc.). Note that in Vilcabamba, it was claimed that if Western tourists visited the site, they would live long too. These stories often have to do with the European idea of the Grand Tour. Note this myth continues with recent popular books such as http://www.bluezones.com/ — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Now, who is trying to make money here? The GRG.org website is non-profit; the blue-zone website is for-profit. Enough said. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
5. Nationalism: the claim that someone lived a long time because of their nationality. The place is not the issue, the nationality is.
6. Ideological myth: the claim that someone lives a long time because of the way of the government (i.e., Communist, capitalist). For example, Castro has promoted Cuba as an island of longevity:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003677182_cuba23.html
However, I consider this too closely associated with #5 to need separate billing, thus I combined it. However, if you want to separate it, go ahead.
7. Spiritual practice: this pertains to the idea that one can attain long life through spiritual practice, such as meditation. However, the ages claimed (such as 256) are often not based on reality. This number is a multiplier of the number 8 (32*8) and is more a symbol than a real number. Others, such as the Swami Bua, have changed their age repeatedly. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
8. Others...I meant for people to expand this. This includes ideas such as the myth of Confederate longevity, and the local family myth (longevity may run in families, but great-great grandpa really didn't live to 110). In my own family, my "100"-year-old great-grandfather died at 87. Many, many families have had longevity myths that turned out not to be such.
I consider these all myths not simply because they are not true, — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
but because they are shared cultural traditions. This is different from the age misreporting of individual claims, which often is motivated by:
A. error B. pension fraud C. individual vanity or seeking attention
Thus, if you wish to create a combined article that ADDS YOUR MATERIAL BUT DOES NOT DELETE MINE, WE CAN BE CLOSER TO REACHING CONSENSUS, and work out the individual details. But right now, what we have is a "fork"...you basically created another article, based on original research, and threw out the version that was based on published research. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Ryoung122 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to add "exhibitionism" that is something I won't object to.
The ancient Egyptians used a 365 day solar calendar, not a lunar one, as the Sun God was one of their most important deities. Semitic people for the most part did indeed use a lunar rather than solar calendar, but not the Hebrews, as the historical Moses was likely educated in Egypt, not among the semites. In other words when the account says someone was nine centuries old, they meant NINE centuries old. Moreover, the ancient Babylonians invented virtually all modern measurements of time, and they knew the earth was round, as did the writers of the Bible, who learned how to write in Babylon. Okay maybe not learn; that is where they perfected Hebrew script.
67.148.120.90 ( talk) 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747
Greetings, I do not think that JJBulten has yet understood what I am doing. Mass-reversion does not necessarily mean I oppose all new material. However, it does mean that the sum total of the newer edits are so unconstructive as to require a start-over point. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
I have already mentioned that I don't mind:
A. pictures
B. addition of king lists
C. addition of examples of national or ethnic longevity
However, there are a few areas that I consider that should NOT be compromised:
I. the main structure of the article
Let me make this clear to JJBulten: this article intended to explain the various kinds of longevity myths or traditions. The exact name is not as important as the idea. Let me go over these again:
1. Patriarchal: this is not just "religious" but is more genealogical in focus. Before written history, there was oral history. Oral myths and traditions told stories of ancestors. I find it interesting that, in the Bible, when ages were actually written down, the ages claimed were not so extreme: King David lived 70 years; the oldest age mentioned in the New Testament is Anna, 84 years old. Extreme ages in the Bible only exist in the pre-written record era.
Yet the focus here is NOT the Bible, Christianity, or Judaism. Whether Sumeria, Japan, or what have you, most cultures that maintained lists of ancestors had inflated ages the further back in the past one went.
2. Village elder: the idea that a local in a village is an extreme age; this is often based on status. Thus, the issue is one of STATUS.
3. Fountain of Youth: the idea that one can live longer by drinking water from a fountain, taking a substance, etc. This is often associated with alchemy and quackery.
4. "Shangri-La": the idea that longevity is associated with a particular PLACE, such as Vilcabama, the Hunza Valley, or Shangri-La. Clearly, this can be seen in the USSR: extreme longevity was claimed for peoples in the Caucasus (whether they be Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, etc.). Note that in Vilcabamba, it was claimed that if Western tourists visited the site, they would live long too. These stories often have to do with the European idea of the Grand Tour. Note this myth continues with recent popular books such as http://www.bluezones.com/
Now, who is trying to make money here? The GRG.org website is non-profit; the blue-zone website is for-profit. Enough said.
5. Nationalism: the claim that someone lived a long time because of their nationality. The place is not the issue, the nationality is.
6. Ideological myth: the claim that someone lives a long time because of the way of the government (i.e., Communist, capitalist). For example, Castro has promoted Cuba as an island of longevity:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003677182_cuba23.html
However, I consider this too closely associated with #5 to need separate billing, thus I combined it. However, if you want to separate it, go ahead.
7. Spiritual practice: this pertains to the idea that one can attain long life through spiritual practice, such as meditation. However, the ages claimed (such as 256) are often not based on reality. This number is a multiplier of the number 8 (32*8) and is more a symbol than a real number. Others, such as the Swami Bua, have changed their age repeatedly.
8. Others...I meant for people to expand this. This includes ideas such as the myth of Confederate longevity, and the local family myth (longevity may run in families, but great-great grandpa really didn't live to 110). In my own family, my "100"-year-old great-grandfather died at 87. Many, many families have had longevity myths that turned out not to be such. If you want to add "exhibitionism" that is something I won't object to. Obviously, the essay I wrote was open-ended: it started, but did not finish the subject. It was intended for expansion by others.
I consider these all myths not simply because they are not true, but because they are shared cultural traditions. This is different from the age misreporting of individual claims, which often is motivated by:
A. error B. pension fraud C. individual vanity or seeking attention
II. An understanding that, myth or no myth, claims to ages much beyond 120 are generally considered outside the realm of science.
What remains open for discussion:
I favor including individual examples of claims to 130+ on this page. If you want to change it to 140+, I don't see why this needs to go higher as age 130 is already 7+ years beyond any proven age, ever. Also, since most longevity claims are only exaggerated 1-15 years, most longevity claimants are dead by 130 (115 is the average maximum age in a given year; 115+15=130). Thus, claims above 130 seem to go more into a suspension of disbelief (UFO-level, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, etc.) rather than a simple age misreporting error, or forgetfulness. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Thus, if you wish to create a combined article that ADDS YOUR MATERIAL BUT DOES NOT DELETE MINE, and that removes false "original research" accusations, WE CAN BE CLOSER TO REACHING CONSENSUS, and work out the individual details. But right now, what we have is a "fork"...you basically created another article, based on original research, and threw out the version that was based on published research.
I will give you one more chance to get it right before I make my own version.
Ryoung122 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A. 'Alchemists'...Alchemists tried to do things such as "turn lead into gold," not simply find an "elixir of life". Thus I think the "Fountain of Youth" title is more appropriate. No one would confuse "Fountain of Youth" with turning lead into gold.
B. Unsourced/original research: A lot of your material is simply things you made up. My material has already been published twice and won a national award. While I'm not supposed to cite myself, I find it unfair for you or others to claim that "I can't find a source for this" when there is one. And let's not forget that my material had sources as well.
Ryoung122 19:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The multiple problems with using the "myth" section of your thesis as a source for WP are as follows. First, that section was an unsourced WP essay for 3 years before it became a thesis, so it can hardly be said that the thesis is the source; — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
Ryoung122 is the only source, who BTW irrevocably gave the rights and control over his essay in 2005 to the WikiMedia Foundation, under the WP:GFDL. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
Second, the dual publication and the obscure award do not themselves defeat the presumption of self-publication; the university and the bookseller exert no obvious responsibility for or editorial discretion over the views of Young, even if university staff assisted in the thesis's acceptance. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
Third, all such publications of the "Young framework" fail the basic reliability of sources criterion, because the framework makes sweeping (extraordinary) characterizations not reported by any other source, — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
which give no evidence of representing anything other than one observer's view. Fourth, the "myth" section of the thesis cites very few of its own sources (and I believe I already culled all of the usable ones, and to say that Witness Lee was the best of them isn't saying much) — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
, so it does not evince its own reliability, unlike (arguably) other sections of the thesis. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
And then, even if we tried to overcome all of this to rehabilitate your framework into a source, we'd need to establish that ( WP:SPS) Young's "work in the relevant field has previously [before 2005] been published by reliable third-party publications"; and to observe the caution that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so"; and to fight an uphill battle establishing compliance with the requirements of WP:SELFPUB (all of which look like apparent failures, except authenticity); and even then we face WP:BLP issues, in that when a living person claims to be over 122, for WP to contradict that person outright is called libel and is potentially a crime, and the WMF has extreme distaste for that, especially if no scientific sources are forthcoming to contradict the claim outright.
In short, to say "there is" a source but COI prohibits you from citing it is to blame COI for what is a more endemic problem: if anybody tried to cite Young 2008 as a source, it would fail for all these reasons other than COI. Accordingly, please continue to list any other issues, such as OR, that you may have with the article as it stands. JJB 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Since Ryoung122 has made other edits without commenting here, it is reasonable to presume that compromise has been reached on the current baseline, stable for 2 days. Accordingly, I will come back later to deal with the tagging issues, such as by deletion or sourcing. I will also presume that Ryoung122 is familiar with the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which should be invoked for future disagreements. JJB 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case I can cease the point-by-point debunking of digressive issues (unless you would like to discuss the very dry basic principles of logic at any point), and move to conclusive paradigms. JJB 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Under WP:BRD I reverted Ryoung122's deletion of the invisible tag, which he summarized as "removed baseless assertions"; while doing this, I did not restore the words "original research or", which seem to be offensive to him. It is possible Ryoung122 does not understand the purpose of the invisible tag, which is merely to provide editors information on where the unsourced material originated (viz., either the 2003 article creation by Louis Epstein, two later edits by him, or the 2005 article revamp by Ryoung122 and (nearly identically) the 2008 thesis by Robert Young that remains unsourced in relevant part). Further, this tag explains the invisible page number references I inserted in the other tags throughout the article. Since nobody will see the tag other than editors who wish to get involved in the editing and discussion, and since all assertions are well-based (although it is possible Ryoung122 does not see this as to the OR assertion), the edit summary is insufficient for sustaining the deletion. Of course, removing all the unsourced info at once is also a viable option making the invisible tag unnecessary, but I doubt Ryoung122 is quite ready for that eminently necessary eventual step yet. JJB 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I have an appointment and will not get to comment on the deletion of the individual cases section until later. I trust that there will be no edit warring on that deletion until we have time to discuss mutually? Adding "underconstruction" just in case. JJB 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the tag? Did you read paradigm 3 above? JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The debunking of the National Geographic article, mentioned herein as to Vilcabamba, Hunza, and Barzavu, is presumably sourceable to another NG article that is said to have "recanted" the first. If someone could provide the year and month of this article, it is probable that I can run with that and locate and source the actual text appropriately. Please see what you can find out, thanks. JJB 04:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's the issues with the section added back by Ryoung122 and which I deleted again. (In April I had moved this section to longevity claims, but he deleted it there and neither of us had restored it in either place until now; naturally I still favor inserting it there.) JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In short, and under WP:BRD, it is now appropriate for Ryoung122 to provide sources for any of the unsourced data in this table desired for this article, plus sources that consider some age cutoff as indicating mythicality, and sources that state what was discredited, disproven, or unbelievable. We would also need rationale for why nobody else should appear in such a table, or else a fix for that issue (rush list of candidates: Jimmu, Taejo, Bua, Kentigern, Servatius, Shenouda, Epimenides (assuming DOB/DOD sourceable), Magee, Smith, Geronimo, da Silva (x4), Du, Pereira, Martinez, Carn, Jenkins, Fitzgerald, Khakimova, Dzhukalayeva, Williams, Yaupa, Huppazoli). I sure hope we won't see a reinserted unbalanced table with the request that someone else do the work of collating and formatting all the other names, dates, and geographies, simply to retain the table as it appeared before I arrived, as if putting in an unbalanced list and asking others to balance it is somehow NPOV. Better to have no table at all. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's ANOTHER reference to the Shangri-La myth, published before I was born:
Davies, D., "A Shangri-La in Ecuador", New Scientist (1973).
I guess I just made it up, right, JJB? Ryoung122 08:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Human Longevity, Individual Life Duration, and the Growth of the Oldest-Old ...
By Jean-Marie Robine, Eileen M. Crimmins, Shiro Horiuchi, Yi Zeng
"invalidating the longstanding MYTH that a man born in 1701 had reached the age of 113..."
Page 172
98.242.74.75 ( talk) 08:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Since my scope proposal of 23 May above was met by silence, I am now prepared to edit the first sentence to conclude: "... are claims of supercentenarian human longevity supported chiefly by tradition, and claims lacking either age in years or death date." (Aside: The topic of nonhuman claims seems unnecessary enough to remain a separate subsection at Longevity#Non-human biological longevity, as the link between tradition/myth and nonhumans is too tenuous to sustain.) JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
A. No one supported your proposal
B. You had enough issues on the table, no need to start yet another problem.
I'm just flabbergasted at your warlike mentality; you are editing this article as if this were a game of chess or a military field marshall advancing troops in a campaign. Like war, you are not stopping to consider the casualties and if the result is better than what existed before the conflict. I strongly urge you to SLOW DOWN and consider both your methodologies and your larger views concerning this area of reference. I am faintly impressed that, as you have read more, you have realized that you were wrong on some points...but not nearly enough. Please consider doing some more reading before attempting to force these massive changes again.
Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 08:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It is possible that Ryoung122's statement is somewhat responsive to my proposal ("The exact name is not as important as the idea", with request for category preservation), which if so would suggest further possibility to move forward. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This scope is clearly delineated and thus superior to the current text (which was intended as a temporary placeholder that simply repeats back "traditions about longevity", so that more reasonable discussion could occur later, meaning now); it is superior to the prior gray-area scopes mentioned above as well (except for Epstein's, which is now essentially the scope of the longevity claims article instead). If this can be accepted as the scope here, as seems promising, it will make very clear which individuals should be mentioned in either article or both, and the only scope issue remaining will be the 131-year cutoff issue above, appropriate for a new discussion later at the other article. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I would also move the last lead sentence to a new section "Categorization" after "Scientific status", where any sourced evidence of sociological tradition categories can be placed, starting with the Guinness data I alluded to above. While not all Ryoung122's original categories will necessarily be preserved in the final stable article, especially if no sources are forthcoming, the already sourced categorizations will bear out some of it as the remaining sections are brought into WP compliance. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
1. "No one else is editing, so I must have a consensus." Get a life. You have bullied your way through the process, insisting on changes that were opposed by a majority, and unsourced. You only slowly are becoming familiar with the actual history of the subject (I must say that is a slight positive, but not enough).
2. Misinterpreting "give an inch, take a mile." I was expecting that by ceding some ground, you would do the same...but here you are pushing for further changes. I'm going back to square one, which was a far tidier and more succinct summation of the subject matter. Bells and whistles cannot replace knowledge and facts.
3. Ignoring major citations. I have already posted at least five journal article or book citations on "longevity myths" including the use of the term, yet you continue to add an "unsourced" tag. Don't bother adding tags if you are going to ignore information given.
4. I attempted to slow down to give people time to calm down, but you have continued at an editing pace which has not been conducive to making this a better article. This is not tennis. It's not about piling up points in a competition. This article should, in theory, be SCIENTIFICALLY grounded and, according to WP:RS, scientific material (as published in journals, for example) should be given greater credence.
Ryoung122 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What sorts of records are accepted as adequate documentation ("demonstrated records") ? When did people start using those sorts of records ? Did those sorts of records exist over 300 years ago ? -- DavidCary 21:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"When were you born?" "It must have been a hundred years ago." "Can you prove it?" "Are you calling me a liar?!" DS 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Moved from article because much of the text is copied verbatim from the printed Guinness Book of Records . See http://207.178.248.67/editorial/boston/0801/080601.html for an example of a rewritten version of the same information.
Longevity myths have been around for as long as human records. As the Guinness Book of World Records stated in numerous editions from the 1960s to 1980s, "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity."
At the time those words were written Guinness had never acknowledged anyone as having reached the age of 114, but longevity has increased in recent years. The first three people to be acknowledged by Guinness as reaching 114 have all been subjected to doubt by others,and the first two people Guinness accepted as reaching 113 (both male though the 113-plus age bracket has since been shown on the order of 90% female) are both no longer regarded as having done so.
Even today with Jeanne Calment the recordholder at an indisputable age of 122, the facts remain clear:
Fewer than fifty people in human history have been documented as reaching the age of 114.
Fewer than twenty of those people who reached 114 have reached the age of 115.
Yet in the face of the ages that can be validated by investigation,we are still confronted with claims that the observed extremes have been far exceeded - longevity myths.
Leaving aside claims in mythology of lives into the thousands of years, and biblical claims like Methuselah, there have been reports for centuries that persist today of people decades, even generations, older than have ever been shown authentic.
A National Geographic article in 1973 treated with respect some claims subsequently disproven and retracted, including the notorious Vilcabamba valley in Ecuador, where locals pointed to ancestors' baptismal records as their own. Also in that article were reports of very aged people in Hunza, a mountain region of Pakistan, without documentary evidence being cited.
It is typical that extreme longevity claims come from remote areas where recordkeeping is poor, but generally observed life expectancy is rather lower than in the areas where genuine claims are typically found. The Caribbean island nation of Dominica was lately promoting the allegedly 128-year-old Elizabeth Israel (1875??-2003) but has a smaller population and lower life expectancy than Iceland, where the documentation is very good and the longevity record is 108.
The Caucasus mountain region of Abkhazia was the subject of extreme claims for decades, inspired by the desire of Stalin to believe that he would live a very long time, the most extreme claim there being that of Shirali Mislimov ( 1805??- 1973). An earlier claim of similar lifespan from South America was for Javier Pereira (said to have been determined to be 167 years old by a dentist looking at his teeth!). There have likewise been a scattering of extreme claims from Africa, the most recent being Namibia's Anna Visser, who died in January 2004 at an alleged 125 or 126.
The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in 1933 that a Chinese man, Li Chung-yun, born in 1680, had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original).
In prior centuries there have been other claims, one of the best-known being Thomas Parr, introduced to London in 1635 with the claim that he was 152 years old, who promptly died and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Greater English claims include those of the allegedly-169-year-old Henry Jenkins (apparently concocted to support testimony in a court case about events a century before) and the supposedly 207-year-old Thomas Carn (died in 1588 by most reports).
Longevity myths did not come in for serious scrutiny until the work of W.J. Thoms in 1873, and the odd wire correspondent looking for a captivating filler reports extreme undocumented claims to this day: in early 2000 a Nepalese man claimed to have been born in 1832, citing as evidence a card issued in 1988. In December 2003,a Chinese news service claimed (incorrectly) that the Guinness Book had recognized a woman in Saudi Arabia as being 131.
Responsible validation of longevity claims involves investigation of records following the claimant from birth to the present, and claims far outside the demonstrated records regularly fail such scrutiny. The United States Social Security Administration has public death records of over 100 people said to have died in their 160s to 190s, but often a quick look at the file immediately finds an obvious error.
The work of sorting genuine supercentenarians is a continuous process, and a news story must never be taken for authoritative fact if no validation is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borr ( talk) 01:58, 13 January 2004
Why This Article from the-signal.com and Longevity myths both refer to the same mathematical error? "The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in 1933 that a Chinese man, Li Chung-yun, born in 1680, had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original)." Optim 00:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Since life expectancy is basically an averege, IMHO "where the life expectancy is rather lower" is not a valid argument. In most under developed areas life expectancy is very low due to large numbers of infant deaths HussaynKhariq 05:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That is NOT correct! Life expectancy is based on median values, not averages. For example, suppose you have five people die at ages 0, 13, 41, 56, and 73. The AVERAGE is 36.6 (0+13+41+56+73)/5. The life expectancy, however, is 41--the median value. When added up to millions of people, there is still a difference, as you pointed out the infant mortalities tend to weigh down the AVERAGES but have little effect on the MEDIAN or 50% mark, which in most countries occurs in the 70's range.
A little more about statistics: only about 1 in 2 billion people can expect to live to age 115, and only 1 in 10 billion to age 120. So, do you really think age 167 is possible? I don't! Ryoung122 09:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I had the impression that there was once a practice in the Abkhaz regions whereby one could avoid military conscription if one was of advanced age, and therefore people would often buy documents showing that they were actually in their 70s. Presto, an extra 50 years added to someone's age.
Or something. DS 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
New contender for the oldest living person.. Should be at Supercentenarian but 2 editors don't feel its valid. But Guinness is not THE authority. this is hypocritcal of them >>> "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity" It is they.. who are making money out of the disparate, the media savvy, and fallacious claims - indulging in the presentation of false/elitist 'record' system. dishonest u catch me?. Do they rule achievement history? max rspct 17:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In other words, Max Respect (an avowed Marxist), is advancing a case without proof, and then throwing in the red herring of profit-making. Guinness has millions of records, they are not making a profit off of a single "world's oldest person" record...Benito Martinez has no proof of existence before 1925, nor does he have any family tree that can establish his age in context. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
131.96.173.30 (
talk) 01:52, 21 October 2005
Noticed that other pages are saying there is some dispute to his age but this page has him undisputed. Perhaps some consistency - SimonLyall 10:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The case IS disputed. The problem is, people who don't know what they're talking about keep corrupting the system.
Now I've been given a word that a child is using his imagination - and I've come to put a stop to it! Anyway, How can this be possible?:
The longest working career for a person ever recorded is th 98 years worked by Shigechiyo Izumi, who began his career goading draft animals at a sugar mill in 1872. He retired as a sugercane farmer in 1970 aged 105.
And this article is out of date!:
Copyright 1987 Asahi News Service Asahi News Service
APRIL 6, 1987, MONDAY
LENGTH: 391 words
HEADLINE: JAPANESE EXPERT DEBUNKS IDEA OF 'VILLAGE OF 100-YEAR-OLDS'
DATELINE: TOKYO
BODY: A Japanese expert on aging says reports that the oldest Japanese man died earlier last year at the age of 120 are false -- he was only 105.
The true age of Shigechiyo Izumi, who died in February 1986, was discovered through research in his family's registration records, says Toshihisa Matsuzaki, director of the Department of Epidemiology at the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology.
At an April 4 meeting of the Japan Association of Medical Sciences, Matsuzaki also denied there is any village in the world made up mostly of people well over the age of 100, including a Japanese village with such a reputation.
There is no such thing as the village of centenarians, Matsuzaki says.
The village of Yuzurihara in Japan's Yamanashi Prefecture has a reputation as the home of many old people who go about their daily work with the vigor of those much younger. But Matsuzaki says statistics show that of the village residents over the age of 65, fewer of them are 90 or older than the national average.
The village is dubbed as a senior citizens' village only because many young people left for the city, he says.
Matsuzaki also casts doubt on other villages in the Soviet Union and Equador that have similar reputations.
He says there is no one age 110 or older living in a village in the Georgian Republic of the Soviet Union known as the home of the world's oldest people. He says half of the village residents claiming to be 90 or older gave false ages.
Matsuzaki quotes a Soviet medical researcher as saying, It is a fairy tale that people 130 or 140 years old exist.
Matsuzaki suspects that Georgian men may have reported false ages to escape military service. One reason he is suspicious is that more men than women are 100 or older in the Georgian Republic, in contrast to global statistics that show four times as many women than men reach that age.
Citing research done by American scholars, Matsuzaki also labels a myth the idea that the village of Vilcabamba, Equador, has many residents well over 100 years old.
Matsuzaki quotes the scholars as saying that all the people over the age of 90 gave the wrong age and that those who claimed to be over 100 were actually 86 years old on the average. The age claimed by one person would have made him five years older than his mother, Matsuzaki says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.173.30 ( talk) 01:56, 21 October 2005
Removed this text by User:193.203.149.125 from the article: seemed unencyclopedic.
'When the medical world began studying longevity seriously in the 1960s, scientists flocked to Abhazia, Georgia, the Hunza, and Vilcabamba, Ecuador, sites renowned for the long life spans of their residents. In 1978, Dr. Richard Mazess published a study claiming that in Vilcabamba everyone was exaggerating their true ages. Since proper birth records did not exist, he based his premise on a genealogical survey of families in Vilcabamba, combined with baptism records that are for all purposes illegible. Whether his conclusions are correct or not, they were accepted as fact.
Mazess, who is a specialist on osteoporosis, had come here to study the remarkable lack of the disease in Vilcabamba. His studies were never really finished, since he became totally absorbed with the exaggeration thesis. He stated that only one centenarian in a population base this size was out of the ordinary. Two 100 year old residents here would be more than a miracle and deserve ample study, At that time, 15 people in the valley claimed to be over a hundred. Mazess said they were all liars. He listed ten people he considered to be between 85 and 95, and who claimed to be centenarians. Of that list, two people are still alive. Since the list was made in 1978, it would seem that Dr. Mazess has an obligation to do more research around Vilcabamba. However, he is now "retired" and still too busy to follow up his original report. In fact, hardly anyone in the scientific world is interested in the theme of natural longevity any more. The fad has passed and laboratory advances have made field work superfluous. Dr. Alex Leaf, who came here with National Geographic, now quotes Richard Mazess as the authority on the old liars from Vilcabamba, and spends all his time researching fish oils. Perhaps fish oils are the salvation of humanity, and certainly it is more convenient than a trip to southern Ecuador. But there is still a whole lot to leam here in Vilcabamba that will never be discovered in a lab. http://www.vilcabamba.org/article.html" -- Sum0 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
"...Indeed, dietary moderation is a consistent feature of the lives of the superwrinklies. Protein and animal fat typically play a minimal role in their menus. In Sunchang, for example, rice and boiled vegetables are a staple. "The white-rice- and-vegetables-dominated diet consists primarily of carbohydrate, while remaining low in fat," says Dr. Park Sang Chul, who heads the World Health Organization's aging-research center in Seoul and has spent three years studying the residents of Sunchang. "Low fat content is one of the more crucial keys toward longevity." The story is similar for the locals of Hunza Valley, says Khwaja Khan, a physician in the Hunza town of Karimabad who has treated many of the valley's eldest residents. The Hunza, Khan says, were cut off from the outside world for centuries by the 7,000-meter Himalayan peaks ringing the valley, and until recently were forced to subsist on a spartan menu of apricots, walnuts, buckwheat cakes and fresh vegetables. Many cross the century mark, and a few motor on for another 10 years or longer." ... http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/printout/0,13675,501030721-464472,00.html -- Sum0 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm playing devil's advocate now (though I suppose that since I agree with it I must be somewhat diobolical), but if we're going to classify all of these as myths due to an inability to verify them scientifically, shouldn't we toss all the Biblical claims in this boat (Ark?), too? I think someone said previously that we should make this "longevity claims," and I agree if only for the purpose of consistency, if not also because it's unwise to use Wikipedia to make that sort of NPOV statement about a claim's reliability. I think the Biblical example shows us that no matter how silly something seems from a non-believer's standpoint, there is someone out there who won't classify it as a myth. Sometimes a few billion. Fearwig 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Pul-leeze! Quiz with the lunar-cycle apologism. Two wrongs don't make a right. If these patriarchs were having children at '65' and you divide by 12, what age do you get? No. The book says 930, it means 930. Much the way the characters in Lord of the Rings are thousands of years old. It's fantasy. Quit trying to make it factual when it's not. R Young { yakł talk} 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1875-living? http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_al_Wasimy
The claims by the Romans of certain people living a long time is dubious. Roman names did not have a lot of variety; many Romans would have shared a name. How can a Roman emperor be sure that a hypothetical Quintus Maximus who is alive at the time of a Census is really the same Quintus Maximus who was born 150 years ago? -- B.d.mills 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The above section misses the entire point of the article. The point of the article is that people tended to make up 'myths' about longevity, and that these myths can be defined by the motivations that give rise to them and the factors that cause them. People adding in their two cents is diluting the purpose and focus. Also, there is a 'longevity claims' section for alleged records. This isn't about records; it's about oral history. R Young { yakł talk} 07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Including Emperor Jimmu as an example of Longevity Myths is logically incorrect. Emperor Jimmu was never claimed to have lived particularily long (75 years is hardly a remarkable lifespan). While Jimmu's existance itself might be a myth, his lifespan is of no extraordinary note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.84.2 ( talk • contribs)
I disagree: some Japanese emperors were stated to have reigned for over 100 years, and the purpose of the age-exaggeration was to extend the 'reign dates' of Emperor Jimmu Tenno back into time. Most modern Japan historians believe that, if he existed, he lived some 1,000 years later. The Japanese-emperor cases are relevant because they offer one reason for age inflation. 74.237.28.5 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Further, in this case the extension of age of the in-between emperors was made in part to back-date Emperor Jimmu's status further in the past. Ryoung122 07:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings,
Please note that the myth categories, though all well-delineated, may not be 'rigid' in an either/or sense. It is possible for a myth to fit into more than one category. Someone may be a patriarch, a village elder, and a religious figure. However, these all still differ in that, for example, a village elder need not be a patriarch (esp. if a woman!) and a religious figure also may not be a patriarch (esp. in Eastern religions which stress individual paths). Note also we may see an overlap between nationalism, ideology, localism, Shangri-La, and Fountain of Youth. However, although a myth may have more than one origin, we can find examples of longevity claims that are unique to each particular myth category.
Also, if someone wants to propose a new category, please do so on the message board. Some gratituous additions have missed the point of this article. The longevity claims article is more appropriate for actual possible claims, such as ages 113 or 115. This article deals mainly with those cases which are scientifically impossible, but are still made for reasons of nationalism, religion, wanting to life forever, etc. R Young { yakł talk} 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
One of these categories should include the genealogies in Genesis. Those people were said to live 800+ years. Not that I believe it, or am a christian, but I feel it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.128.28 ( talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts on expanding the list of exaggerated claims? There's a claim of the oldest American that is all over the Genealogy websites, if you research surname Francisco, you will find most Americans will try to link into "Old Henry" Francisco, who, according to a 1939 Ripley's Believe it or Not article, was the oldest soldier in the American Revolution enlisting at age 91 in 1777, making him born in 1686 with a death in 1820, at 134. Check it out http://whitehall.bloatedtoe.com/henry-francisco.html Through The Lens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.240.220 ( talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I oppose to the name of this article. If this article is meant in the popular meaning of the word myth (an untrue, popular story) in contrast to the sociological meaning (a unverifiable story that is important for the group) then I think the title is wrong. The word myth in its popular meaning implies that it is untrue but in many cases this article fails to supply proof of the lack of veracity of these longevity claims hence the right word is claim, not myth. Wikipedia articles do not get their names because the writers want to make a point but they get their names to provide the reader with factual information. Andries 22:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You missed the whole point! These aren't just unverifiable claims; many have been shown to be false. Moreover, there is a pattern of myth-making, rooted in paternalism, maternalism, nationalism, the "local villager elder," and of course the "fountain of Youth" and "Shang-ri La." Despite scientic documentation (see Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Odense Monographs) that high age claims are a function of illiteracy and lack of record-keeping (and disappear when record-keeping is in place for 100 consecutive years), people from lands such as India continue to make extra-ordinary claims, not realizing that Europe itself once did as well...but has now matured to "proven" longevity (except for Eastern Europe, where the myth of longevity survives).
Let me say that a separate article, "longevity claims," could be established. In Louis's "longevity myths" article, he cites only extreme claims that are obviously false--and not only that, but these claims often take on nationalistic-myth or ethnic-myth overtones. The recent Elizabeth Israel myth was turned into a tourist industry, school play, etc. for Dominica.
A separate article for "longevity claims" could include supercentenarians whose age is not entirely proven but for whom either some evidence suggests is true, or the claim is within the realm of possibility--i.e., 110th birthday--and was made more on an individual basis than as a banner of nationalism, as was the case with Thomas Parr of England, Christian Drakenberg, Shirali Mislimov, Javier Perreira, etc. Ryoung122 09:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To resolve this issue, I have decided to create a Longevity Claims article. I believe that these are two separate discourses. This page is better served by explaining the history of the myths of longevity. The longevity claims article can explain the problems with the age verification process, and list some age claims that are partially-validated but not fully authenticated. Ryoung122 08:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I still don't like how biblical "claims" are listed under a heading with the word "myth" in it.
I removed the sentence "Both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past. The application of modern demographic data to ancient eras is unclear.[citation needed]" because it adds nothing to the article and is inaccurate. We are talking about people who lived, at most, 10,000 years ago. Biology tells us that humans now are exactly the same as humans 10,000 years ago; 10,000 years is less than a nanosecond in the human evolutionary time-line. Mentioning creation in this article is ridiculous, as creation is a religious not a scientific belief, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- 128.151.86.184 ( talk) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
==Longevity== In recent history, the oldest person documented beyond reasonable doubt, Jeanne Calment, died in 1997, aged 122; demographic study of modern human longevity gives odds of trillions to one against humans today reaching 130. However, both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past; the application of modern demographic data to ancient eras is unclear. The extreme ages of the Hebrew Bible exhibit a decrease over time, and the Biblical upper limit of longevity has been categorized by Witness Lee as having four successive plateaus of 1,000, 500, 200, and finally 120 years.
Accordingly, these very long lifespans have been a source of much speculation. Biblical apologists hold that sin, loss of the water-canopy firmament, and DNA breakdown all contribute to decreased lifespans. Form critics hold variously that the yearly and monthly cycle were confused, simplifying some dates; that numbers were converted incorrectly; or that other reinterpretation is necessary. If "year" is interpreted consistently as "month", some numbers become more reasonable, but other numbers become more unreasonable (fathering children at age 5).<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Henry M. Morris|Morris, Henry M.]]|title=The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings|page=159|date=1976|publisher=[[Baker Book House]]|location=[[Grand Rapids, Michigan]]|quote=Such an interpretation would have made Enoch only five years old when his son was born!}}</ref>
Well if we don't know where the bar is between apes and men in the past, the article scope becomes ambiguous, doesn't it? Only some assumption of fixity of species in the historic era solves that problem. Anyway, can I combine your statements as follows? Both scientific studies and longevity narratives indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past. Scientific studies claim human life expectancy has increased overall since the Stone Age but do not rule out much older human lifeforms, while longevity narratives imply that life expectancy has decreased within the historical period. ("Science" is not a source.) JJB 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
On a positive note, both the pictures and the sub-sections recently added have improved the article. It's just a shame that so many changes were made in such a short period of time. Please note that it is wiki-etiquette to notify an article creator of major proposed changes in format. Ryoung122 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The third Lee plateau was inserted into WP twice, first as 200 by an IP [1], then as 250 by Ryoung [2]. Googling yields mostly mirrors. I unintentionally saw and used the 200 number more widely first before realizing there may be an error. The simplest resolution is if Ryoung has the original source handy for verification; otherwise, though it is likely that consensus would favor 250 in the absence of verification, it would still technically be a matter in need of verification someday. The question is not, of course, to be decided on the Biblical data, but on what Lee concluded from it. (I note that Shem (allegedly) lived 502 years after the flood, totaling 600, in an era of 500s; Miriam and Aaron exceeded 120 in what is presumably an era of 120s, unless the "fall" is the death of Moses and not say the golden calf; and several ages in the Septuagint (as per the new template), which Lee perhaps neglected, also exceed the era plateau.) JJB 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Second of all, the numbers can be deduced from the Bible directly: Peleg lived 239 years, so "200" is clearly incorrect. Ryoung122 07:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose renaming article to "longevity narratives", "longevity stories", "longevity lore", or a similar WP:NPOV title for several reasons. I am primarily interested in Biblical longevity, — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
but seek to weight this coverage properly with other traditions.
As a related proposal, it seems to me that rather than an in-text list of Biblical longevity, a new template "Biblical longevity" would be preferred. This would allow text to flow around the otherwise sparse data; it would allow smaller font and a narrow table; and it would also be transferable to some of the shorter patriarch articles to give an indication of their statistical place within Biblical longevity narratives. It would only have 3 columns, for name/link, age, and LXX age when different. I don't see any drawbacks to this idea. OTOH, I can imagine that renaming might need a bit more demonstration of consensus first. I will also experiment with some rewordings under WP:BRD to see how they look; I would ask that anyone who cares to revert do so on an edit-by-edit rather than bulk basis. JJB 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I support JJB's proposal to rename this article to "longevity narratives". I've always thought that there was something decidedly NPOV about the title, but I couldn't think of an appropriate rename, nor did I have the time to back it up so solidly with policy. Kudos to you for the effort JJB. Cheers, CP 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I opppose JJB's proposal to rename this article to "longevity narratives." Let me explain why. First of all, this article, which was started by Louis Epstein (not myself), is meant to explain why claims to longevity that run counter to scientific evidence exist. Trying to "balance" this article by renaming it misses the entire point: we already have articles on cases that are "verified," and an article on claims that are in the gray zone (possible, but not very likely). I already created the "gray zone" article to deal with issues such as "but what if it's true." This article is for those issues that extend beyond the "gray zone" into the realm of fantasy: the same realm that includes "stories" of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster. This isn't supposed to be a "Biblical narrative." Virtually all cultures, universally, produced MYTHS, not just the Christian one.
Also, the word "narrative" includes stories that are true as well as those that are false. It's no different than telling students that "evolution is just a theory" and we should teach children that the Earth was created in "seven days."
Finally, it's clear that Wikipedia itself evolves, and that devolution has become the norm, as expert advice is refected in favor of popular opinion. How does THAT serve making this an "encyclopedia"? Or has Wikipedia just become a blog? Ryoung122 08:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of consensus, the article as currently named has existed, unchanged, for five+ years. During that time, THOUSANDS made edits. So, to say that since four people commented here=consensus is ridiculous. Let's start with the FACTS:
A. "Stories" or "narratives" about the Fountain of Youth or Shangri-La are not true, at least not if we use a scientific measuring stick.
B. All scientific sources agree that age 122 is the maxmimum proven human age so far reached. Claims a little beyond this might be called "claims," but when they reach to levels of 140, 150, 200, or even 43,000, it's simply not possible or true.
C. My words have not been as disruptive as your editing. Attempting to overthrow five years of consensus-building with just two weeks of massive editing is clearly disruptive. Thus I used the word "hijack" because it is an attempt to take this away...NOT FROM ME...but from Wikipedia's purpose, neutrality is disputed which is to be an authoritative source of encyclopedic information, NOT a blog. Thus, huge changes like you are proposing should be referenceable, and so far they are not.
D. JJ Buten's changes are severe enough to call into question the article's existence. The purpose of this article was to lay out the myths of longevity. If we cannot use the word "myth" to describe "myth," then we don't need the article.
E. Here's a typical use, nothing to do with me:
http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Young-Oils/totalhealth2004.html
Studies conducted after the 1973 National Geographic article debunked the myth of extraordinary longevity among remote populations in general, and especially in regard to the Chinese, such as the Hunzas to which Gary Young referred in his talk and in his promotional materials for Berry Young Juice.
For example, I would refer the interested reader to Age Validation of Han Chinese Centarians by Z. Wang, Y. Zeng, B. Jeune, and J.W. Vaupel. Their investigations showed that the ages of Chinese supercentarians could not be validated, and were often inflated by a combination of poor memory, in adequate records, and failure to double check age claims against available records.
Note the use of a (GASP) JOURNAL ARTICLE CITATION!
More later. Ryoung122 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
On my talk, Ryoung122 said:
Centralizing discussion here, I will reply below, but first would like to be careful to distinguish (in all the above) what truly needs to be said from what need not waste my time. JJB 02:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I think all the editors involved here should thoroughly read Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Naming conflict in order to fully understand the official policy. This article qualifies as a spinout (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, although it is still required to conform to the NPOV policy in general. But that does not mean it is not allowed to present the view that these claims are considered "myths" by some people. I think the real debate here is whether or not calling them myths qualifies as taking sides. Many people consider the word myth to mean not just something that is false, but also to mean a "traditional story" (see Myth). The articles Tornado myths and 10% of brain myth, which are uncontroversial yet seem to implicate that myths are untrue (informal use of the term). While Urban myths redirects to Urban legends (the more commonly used term). National myth, Deluge myth, and Founding myth are all formal uses of the term, which do not imply that these are falsehoods, simply "historical narratives". Whether the article is named "longevity myths/legends/narratives", the point of this article is to discuss the legendary stories regarding human longevity. The formal use of the word "myth" is to describe "legendary" accounts, whether they are true or not is irrelevant. The use of the word "myth" in this context is acceptable and conforms to the NPOV policy. Now, if anyone wants to debate whether the tone of this article conforms to the NPOV article, that is certainly up for debate. However, I have wasted enough of my time, and managed to violate my own policy of avoiding controversial edits and/or discussions, so I will leave it at that. I'm done with it. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB, I have given my opinion. My suggestion to you is to list this article on Wikipedia:Requested moves, and posting messages on the talk pages of the WikiProjects attached to this article (and even other projects that might have a related interest in this topic) seeking feedback from other editors. Four users does not make a consensus. Seeking outside opinions might break the stalemate we seem to have here, and would be more productive than the four of us rehashing old arguments over and over again. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
My response must necessarily begin by asking Ryoung122 some questions in turn, and I trust he will see the kindred spirit in my skepticism. Frankly, he makes such sweeping statements that I need citations for them, and I'm sure his familiarity with the literature should suffice to answer. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(1) Ryoung says "There is proof that when scientific standards are maintained, such ages have never been reached in humans." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source stating the age of 127 has never been reached in humans, or stating an extrapolation from the case "when scientific standards are maintained" to all cases whatsoever. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(2) Ryoung says "The purpose of the 'longevity claims' article was to list gray-area cases that do not meet the scientific standards of verification ...." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source stating the 'scientific standards of verification' that distinguish longevity claims from (verified) supercentenarians. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(3) Ryoung says Moses's "age of '120' is a symbol of 'three generations' of forty years each." Please cite a reliable, independent theological source stating that symbolism, as it would be good to include with allegorist interpretations of Enoch's age of 365. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(4) Ryoung says "These are myths." Please cite a reliable, independent sociology or mythology expert source that states that every narrative category in this article is a "myth", including particularly the "village elder myth" and "Shangri-La longevity myth". JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(5) Ryoung says they "go against the scientific evidence" and "run counter to scientific evidence". Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source stating how to distinguish claims that go against or run counter to evidence from claims that concur with evidence, and at what actual odds the claims go against or run counter or concur (for any age over 122). JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(6) Ryoung says the longevity claims article is "on claims that are in the gray zone (possible, but not very likely)" and "when they reach to levels of 140, 150, 200, or even 43,000, it's simply not possible or true." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source stating how to distinguish possible from impossible longevity claims and true from false longevity claims. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(7) Ryoung says "This article is for those issues that extend beyond the 'gray zone' into the realm of fantasy: the same realm that includes 'stories' of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster." Please cite a reliable, independent sociology or mythology expert source that states every narrative category in this article is a "fantasy" and in the realm of each of the five "storied" entities named. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(8) Ryoung says "'Stories' or 'narratives' about the Fountain of Youth or Shangri-La are not true, at least not if we use a scientific measuring stick." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source that states that stories or narratives about the fountain of youth and Shangri-La are false (rather than a literary criticism source). JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(9) Ryoung says "All scientific sources agree that age 122 is the maxmimum proven human age so far reached." Please cite a reliable, independent scientific source that states that a maxmimum (or maximum) human age of 122 has been proven scientifically (rather than proven evidentiarily). JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
(10) Ryoung says "The VERY PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE STORIES ARE NOT TRUE." Please cite a reliable, independent sociology or mythology expert source that states every narrative category in this article is not true, and why. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses redirects when there is more than one common expression for basically the same thing. This is not the case here. The "redirects" you are proposing are entirely invented by Wikipedia editors and not in use in the reliable sources. Therefore, redirects are not needed. Ryoung122 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I cracked open my 1983 Guinness on this issue just now, and I found my first independent categorization of the reasons for longevity narratives. It mentions four categories, but is not entirely clear what they are, so I hope I've gotten them right in the excerpt below. JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In late life, very old people often tend to advance their ages at the rate of about 17 years per decade .... Several celebrated super-centenarians (over 110 years) are believed to have been double lives (father and son, relations with the same names or successive bearers of a title) .... A number of instances have been commercially sponsored, while a fourth category of recent claims are those made for political ends .... Guinness 1983 pp. 16-19 JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
For shorthand for the moment, we can call these four overadvanced, double-life, commercial, and political. Further, these are the "recent claims"; it is clear that that permits another set, which we can call historical claims, which this Guinness piece does not illuminate us toward categorizing further. The last two modern narrative rationales correlate nicely with sections already in the article, but the first two do not (and only have a couple cases each), and many modern claims or narratives do not fit any of these categories due to lack of evidence; this may suggest a fifth modern category, that for which no evidence exists suggesting the falsity of the narrative other than scientific odds (about which I will say more later). JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, this is my first sourced assertion that the reliable sources do not categorize the arbitrary way in which we have done so for years. My natural question is: would there be a general consensus toward rearranging the article with this quote as a (first) guide, as described above? JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the number of times, by my count, that various words are used in this 4-page coverage to indicate the dubiety of a statement (we call them
WP:WEASEL words
WP:WORDS). Most frequent was "claim" (15 times), for all situations including Li at 256. Then "reputed" (13), "alleged" (7), "records" (6), "reports" (4), "celebrated" (3), "was said" or "hearsay" (3), "seemingly" (2), "false" (2), "case" (2); and 1 each for story, idea, double lives; vanity, fraud, exaggeration, credulity, uncritical, insulting; advance, prolong, point, attribute, ascribe, reckon; sponsor, publicize.
JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In other words, the RS uses the word "claim" for everything recent in both articles. I do not favor a merge, of course, because historical claims require separate treatment, as we've recognized (although this article was "claims" for awhile before the split). But of course this suggests what the word in the title might be after "longevity", such as "allegations", "reports", "statements", "cases", "stories", "ideas", "attributions", "ascriptions". Not that these are necessarily better (with or without an additional adjective), but they are backed up by a reliable categorizing source, while myths and narratives are not. JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that Robert Young's 2008 master's thesis states (original page 34, footnote 55) that "Parts of this are based on an essay by Robert Young (i.e., me) and then posted to Wikipedia on Nov 22, 2005." That corresponds to this set of edits by Ryoung122 in 2005. The article framework to this day continues to rely very heavily on this "essay", without any sourcing; and the thesis cannot be cited as a source, because it fails to cite its sources, and it comes long after the WP unsourced assertions, as well as because of COI and RS issues. Accordingly, I will flag the sentences that originate in this "essay", suggesting that unfixed ones be deleted in a week or two and the article recast. Further, this "essay" (Ryoung122's first edits to this article) thoroughly recast the article's original purpose from "this article concerns unsupported claims and why the burden of proof must rest on them, along with a list of those that have failed to meet it" to "this article concerns the history of the mythology of longevity, as well as an explanation of the longevity myth phenomenon". This appears to change the subject, from a topic that is very close to longevity claims, to a topic that has never once been proven as notable. The fact that the very stated scope of this article (history and explanation of "longevity myths") has for 4 years never been cited as notable favors merger to longevity claims on the grounds that "longevity myths" (or whatchamacallit) is not a verifiably notable topic; and when it has been verified, it refers to things like steak sauce and hormones, far removed from the topic of the essay (which is still the de facto topic of the article). JJB 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, JJB, this is all very interesting, but the issue of notability as you surely must know is one which is an unresolved issue here at wikipedia. And it seems to me, since you have seemingly abruptly changed the subject to whether this article can properly be called longevity "myths" to whether this article should even exist in the first place, at least in its present form, that there is another agenda at play here. What that agenda is, I have no idea.
But, as I said earlier, concerns about the perceived denigration of narratives which may be true, or some hold to be true, with the term "myth" can be simply resolved with a clarification of how that word is understood in a more technical sense. AS for the issues of notability, since this is hardly a resolved topic in terms of wikipedia policy, let's not be too hasty to try to apply that here. Your Scrabble analogy, like most analogies, doesn't really apply as it fails to reflect the weight of the subject here. There is much published literature on human longevity and claims of the past, as partly reflected in the notes at the bottom of the page. This stuff didn't simply pop out of Robert Young's imagination. SO while you may have a point about the need to source some of the statements, your vendetta-style approach in tagging every second sentence on the page seems designed more to instigate than to thoughtfully resolve the issues you have raised. Indeed, a cursory glance reveals that most if not all of the statements tagged can be readily sourced, including statements of opinion. So your threat to delete the offending sentences and "recast" the article seems to me a bit over-the-top as a solution to your perceived problems with the page.
IOW, your implication that this entire article is largely a recast of original, unsourced material by Robert Young is not only false, it's absurdly false, even if the structure of what he says is largely intact here.
So, let's step back from the brink here and make this a better page without tearing it to shreds in the process. Canada Jack ( talk) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB, with all due respect, the article here reflects scholarly opinion, not the opinion of one Robert Young. You have a point that some of the statements require a source, you do not have a point that this is "original unsourced material by Ryoung122." And for you to put some sixty citation tags, many of which are along the lines of demanding a source for statements like "Most such claims are for ages of less than 200 years old, with the majority in the range of 140 to 160" which is something easily verified even here at wikipedia, or "Ascribing unique longevity to a particular 'village of centenarians' is common across many cultures" which is so laughably true if one knows any of the literature, indeed if anyone cares to read the numerous articles which appear claiming exactly that, tells me your goal here is not to sincerely improve this page, but to seek to tear it down. Especially when stuff which YOU have insisted be inserted, like "Both scientific studies and longevity myths indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past..." is ludicrous on its face - how can longevity myths possibly "indicate" the nature of human biology was different? What we can determine from these myths is the nature of human belief and culture, not the nature of human biology.(!) And this all plays back to your seeming refusal to acknowledge what is meant by "myth" in the scholarly sense.
AS for you point about this being based on an essay, even if that was true, unless the essay expresses novel concepts which only the author expresses, that fact is completely irrelevant. One can make the argument that a great many articles here at wikipedia are, in effect, simply essays uniquely written by their various wikipedia editors. Even if those essays reflect unpublished essays written by the editors, as long as the sources are present, there is no issue here of "original research." If it were otherwise, we'd have to reproduce pretty well verbatim articles from other encyclopedias to avoid your definition of "conflict of interest" or "original research." As it pertains to this page, there are statements here which may need attribution, but the concepts present on this page are not novel at all, and reflect, as far as I have read, much of the standard scholarship on the topic. So, far from this being any COI or V or OR, all we need on this page are a number of references.
In the normal course of events, this would not be contentious. But, judging by your comments on certain issues with this page, I sense you do not know the scholarship as well as you should to be in a position to loudly denounce what appears here and offer solutions, as you seem to be under the impression that the page reflects the personal opinion of one Robert Young. If you and Robert have some sort of issue with one another, that should not be brought to this page, as the real fixes required here are slight and relatively minor. Canada Jack ( talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To longevity narratives, longevity folklore, or longevity stories. Second attempt; Talk:Longevity myths#Proposed move:Longevity narratives above resulted in extended discussion among partisans rather than consensus. Reasons for move, stated above, are WP:WTA, scope (I believe it should be a list of narrative categories), WP:UNDUE weighting resulting from former title, improper arbitrary relationship between article and longevity claims, and Google test. You can read for yourself the reasons against move, as I would hesitate to summarize them. JJB 13:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ryoung122, please answer my questions 1-10 above, in their place, without interrupting paragraphs. JJB 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I support this move as well, if it's to "narratives" or "folklore"; "stories" sounds a bit too vague for my liking and doesn't really solve what I perceive to be the problem of this page. My support is based on the comments above and in general because I feel that the title of this page does not conform well to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. Cheers, CP 04:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.99 ( talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Checking out JJBulten's recent edits, he has a HUGE interest in religion. The real problem here is that he is approaching this issue from an agenda-driven perspective. Wikipedia is NOT the place to argue about religious belief. Articles should conform to outside, reliable sources. For example, a scientific article:
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200421/000020042104A0614779.php
"Longevity narratives" and "longevity stories" are NOT used in the scientific literature, but are little more than something a kid made up.
Should we even be debating this? Ryoung122 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, JJB, but your argument is largely specious. It seems to me you are making a rather large mountain over a tiny molehill of a problem. As for the use of "myth" I actually wrote part of a section of the Roswell UFO Incident on the incident as a "myth" - which in the narrative sense at least one scholar has called it. Calling it a "myth" here does not establish the claims are false; rather it makes the point that in a narrative sense, folklore can be either "fiction" such as jokes or cautionary tales, or "myths" which are "presented as fact and avowedly believed to be true by many group members [the author defines "folk" as in "folk narratives" as any group of people who share at least one common factor, where the group has some traditions it calls its own]... ...but are not treated as factual in the annals of the larger culture (e.g. mainstream histories, encyclopedias, and almanacs), ostensibly because they do not conform to the scholarly epistemological standards for assessing historicity within our society. (It should be noted that the defining criteria for stories of the second [myth] type are independent of the objective factuality of the narrative.)"
The article I quote from is "Analysis of the Roswell Myth: A traditional folk motif clothed in modern garb" by Charles Ziegler. The book it appears in is "UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth." The author makes numerous references to scholars who define "myth" in manner congruent with the usage on this page. I can supply those references if you wish.
I propose that instead of renaming this article, a simple explanation of "myth" might suffice to clarify the issues you raise here. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are saying that I am "technically" correct, then we have established that the use of the word "myth" within the article is correct. Is it then, as you state, misleading? I'd say the debate boils down to whether one could be misled here - you clearly think they can be, though I'm not precisely sure as to what this means to you. How about simply stating that a "myth" is meant as a belief held by groups of people, a belief that those people affirm is "true," but which fails to conform to what we would currently hold as scientific verifiability.
For example, the Bible states that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, an age both unverifiable and scientifically implausible. Yet many people assert that he in fact lived to be this age. If people did not assert it was true, then it would not be a "myth" in this sense, it would be a fictional tale, an allegory, or what have you. Like the Brothers Grimm tales, which we can all agree are not "myths" but "fictions."
So, what constitutes a "myth" here? Well, after documenting some one billion lives or so, science has not observed any humans to celebrate a 123rd birthday. Therefore, those who claim extended lives with a degree of certitude are by definition holding onto a "myth" as those claims have not been verified and are considered scientifically implausible. Further, those who claim lives within the range of proven human longevity yet have not any of what we would identify as standard elements of verification, yet assert certitude are also engaging in "myth." Even if the claim could possibly be true. And that is really what we see here - the difference between what is scientifically plausible and/or verifiable, and what is a myth.
In conclusion, all I see the need here is to clarify what is meant by "myth" here. And that can something along the lines of: Generally, a belief held by a group of people as being true (past or present) which is scientifically implausible and/or unverifiable. "Myths" are a classification of belief which are independent of the objective factuality of the narrative in question.
(I stole the last few words from the essay I quoted from above.) Canada Jack ( talk) 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose against 'longevity narratives' and 'longevity stories'. Call me ignorant but I had to even look up the meaning of 'narratives' to see if it fitted the article. 'Narratives'/'stories' implies that they are short tales relating to people. Much of the article more closely focusses on countries rather than people and some cases are just names and dates as examples. Therefore I don't think either of these names are appropriate for the article. However I'm Neutral on a change to 'Longevity folklore'. I think 'longevity myths' is just as appropriate. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose No point changing a page which is generally understood to have it's intended meaning. I seriously doubt that a change to "narratives" would help the understanding of the average user. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
Since WIkipedia's policies on reliable sources consider journal articles to be the first source to go with as the most reliable, let's see what phrase scientific authorities use: — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
1. http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200421/000020042104A0614779.php
note this was written in 2004, and had nothing to do with me — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
2. http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200318/000020031803A0517232.php
this was writen in 2003, BEFORE this article existed — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
3. http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/16760618/The_hormonal_fountains_of_youth_myth_or_reality
this is using the term in a more recent, "informal" sense of "something widely believed to be true, but is not" — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
4. http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/11/1156
"John Morley (1) provides an elegant historical account of efforts to extend the human life span and search for immortality. He provides a perspective that includes both myth and reality. To emphasize the fact that extended longevity has always been a human aspiration, his account extends from ancient times to current efforts. The desire to attain immortality is also reflected in the promise of an afterlife by our major religions."
Again, the word "myth" is used, NOT "stories". Why are we even debating this? It's Ph.D. versus 15-year-old kids who didn't even bother to read anything about the subject before popping off at the mouth. Ryoung122 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Guinness 1983: "The height of credulity was reached May 5, 1933, when a news agency solemnly filed a story from China with a Peking dateline that Li Chung-yun, the "oldest man on earth," born in 1680, had just died aged 256 years (sic)." Directly applicable, even though "story" is used in its news sense. JJB 10:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2. The Guinness book of music facts and feats - Page 58 by Robert Dearling, Celia Dearling, Brian A. L. Rust - Music - 1976 - 278 pages "... dated 1756), and the claims of the discovery of the elixir of life, would lend credence to the longevity story in those superstitious days, ..." "... confused reports, was born about 1660 and is still alive. If this seems incredible, what are we to make of his own report that he had discovered a potion which would prolong life indefinitely, as it had already prolonged his own for more than 2000 years? Among his other extravagant ..." These snippets seem very tantalizing, we'll see if it shows up at the library. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Is Abstinence from Red Wine Hazardous to Your Health? AL Klatsky - The Permanente Journal, 2007 - xnet.kp.org "For example, the truly fascinating resveratrol—longevity story involves up-regulation of a genetic system (the sirtuin genes) that influence metabolic processes promoting longevity. 18 Resveratrol has this effect and has shown the ability to increase longevity in several species." Looks directly applicable and verifiable, it's just that it matches such a subset of the whole topic (in this case, red wine). JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Bike for Life: How to Ride to 100 RM Wallack, B Katovsky - 2005 "We want to be able to hop on our bikes and do what comes naturally whenever the urge strikes, today or decades from now. So read the training and anti-aging strategies outlined in the book .... Have suggestions or a good cycling-longevity story to tell? Let us know at ...." Ditto. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Australian paper. "The boss longevity story surely comes from Manila": Mariano Santa Ana, age 117, Manila Diario, quoted in Northern Territory Times and Gazette. Reliable, verifiable, applicable: just the sort of thing I've gotten used to citing at WP. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
6. BBC. Good link. "My favourite recent longevity story is about an old Englishman." Ditto. One ref to the 106-year-old who lives on steak sauce, and one joke (story) about a nonagenarian. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Centenarians: the bonus years By Lynn Peters Adler, Edition: illustrated Published by Health Press, 1995 ISBN 0929173023, 9780929173023, 348 pages: Uses "story" 30 times and "myth" 0 times. JJB 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ryoung122 21:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
My first take from the free sources is that the driving motive said to be behind this article, namely, that stories about ages over 130 can be neatly categorized into a few recognized classes, just doesn't get coverage like virtually everything else I've put in WP. (Except for a certain 2008 thesis that contains categories too similar to this article to be of much use.) To me, that data would actually argue for "merge article back into 'claims'". That may look more and more viable the longer we play this little game. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) You see, I just don't think the article heads should be replaced with alchemy, medicine, hormones, cycling, red wine, steak sauce. What am I missing? JJB 11:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Well, time to move on to something else. My feeling right now, subject to change, is that the whole article should just be disassembled and alphabetized by geography. JJB 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Pardon us all for being oblivious, but the perfectly good phrase "longevity traditions" has been overlooked and has much better testimony than anything else so far. Unlike the prior searches, this yielded much more material very quickly, the material is much more appropriate, and many more sources can be provided without the baggage of other alternatives:
JJB 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The argument that the term "myth" is not appropriate for this article is based, it would seem, on two false premises: 1) The word "myth" suggests "fiction," when some of the so-called "myths" here may have been real, therefore it is POV to use that term and not a more neutral term like "story"; 2) Because many of the so-called "myths" on this page have no source which actually uses that term to describe them, it is OR to describe them as "myths." However, both of these premises are demonstrably false, and as I have indicated above, narratives, if they are held to be seen as "true" by a group of people but which are scientifically implausible, are routinely called "myths" or "myth narratives" in a generic sense, even if some specific tales are not called "myths." In other words, just because, for example, if we couldn't find someone who called the Gettysburg Address a "speech," doesn't mean we can't describe it as a speech. If we have a common definition of "speech," we can call it a speech. Here, if a story fits the readily found definition of "myth," we are not required to locate someone who in fact called story X a "myth," it is a "myth" if it fits the definition of "myth."
So, what is a "myth"? The usage on this page is quite obvious - it is a "myth" in the sense used in cultural anthropology, which this article, quite clearly, is an example of. If there is a failing in the text on the page, it is in that it lacks an explicit description of this usage, thus leading to the somewhat understandable mistaken confusion over whether it is "POV" to call some claims "myths," as a common colloquial definition of "myth" is "untrue story." As I alluded to above, Charles Zeigler touches on issues of myth narrative in discussing the Roswell UFO incident. In his introduction, he says that, without prejudging the veracity of the incident, "it can be treated and analyzed along lines that have become well established in cultural anthropology." So, to call Roswell a "myth," even though many people steadfastly believe aliens were involved, in no way suggests the incident was false, just that it fits the criteria of "myth" simply because some claims here are scientifically implausible. He says a "myth," generically, is "a narrative that some people within the society say they find credible. In other words, a myth necessarily has (or had, in the case of antique myths) a constituency of true believers who, by virtue of a shared avowal of their belief, constitute a subculture." In the case of Roswell, authors who claim aliens call their investigative works "non-fiction," while skeptics say they lack true investigative rigour and are not "true."
Can we apply what is true in calling Roswell a "myth" to claims of long life? Of course we can. Because we have a) current believers of a narrative or past believers of a narrative and b) a scientific consensus on what is plausible, or what is considered "verified."
The definition of "myth" is directly applicable to the claims on this page even if not all sources describe particular claims or beliefs as "myth." All we need is to determine what is scientifically plausible and whether the claim fits that definition or goes beyond it. So, if a group of people say that Mr. X is 150 years old, since this is beyond scientific plausibility (and that is simply what science says is plausible or not), and we have people saying it is true without proof, this fits the definition of a myth narrative.
So, in conclusion, there is no need to change the name of the page, nor to amalgamate it with "longevity claims" as there is a distinct category of claims on this page - claims which are scientifically implausible and/or unverifiable with past or present believers.
The proposed remedy is extreme as it seeks to largely tear up the page when several minor fixes would address the deficiencies on the page. Those fixes include: spelling out what is meant by "myth"; adding more references from the voluminous literature on the subject. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Jack, pardon me for correcting your strawman arguments. The correct argument is: The word "myth" per WP:WTA#Myth and legend must be used in a proven sociological or mythological context, which is not done. You admit this lack of sourcing.
This is no "strawman" argument, JJB. Your premise on changing the page title or merging it with "claims" is that the use of "myth" is POV and not supported by sources. My argument was that all that was needed here was to define the term "myth," the usage of the term is not "POV," and no sources are required to declare the particular "myths" as being "myths," as the definition is an understood and readily applied definition.
So, what does your link to WP's guidance on "myth" say? Well, it certainly does not say anything you claim it says per "must be used in a proven sociological or mythological context." What it does say almost precisely mirrors what I have said all along and the remedy I have proposed - define the formal meaning of "myth" - is precisely what the section you yourself have supplied a link for says.
When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology or mythology. And what is this "formal" definition? All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth.
You still demand that this "context" must be "proven." Yet, WP itself makes no such requirement. Why? Because any belief by a group of people which is scientifically implausible is by definition a "myth." All that WP requires is that we supply that usage is in a sociological/mythological context. Which is my solution here - to define the term more carefully in the lede. And which is all the WP requires, your incorrect claims notwithstanding.
You admit this lack of sourcing. I admit some claims here need sources. I do not "admit" that we need to supply sources calling particular stories or what have you "myths." That is not required by wikipedia as long as the usage of the term is defined.
If anyone were to actually insert sources demonstrating that the categorization of longevity stories into Ryoung122's categories is established within sociology, and those inserts stood consensus, this might greatly relieve that issue, as you suggest... Nice try, JJB. There are citations which could use sources. However, on the over-arching issue of the need to supply a source for everything which is supposedly a "myth" here, I have never stated that was needed, indeed, I am arguing the reverse.
The correct argument is: Based on WP:V we have no verifiable proof that we can make the sweeping jump from the specific cases to the general category of calling everything on this page by the tainted word "myth", and no verifiable proof that any of the cases are treated as myth in sociological literature.
And here, your house of cards collapsed. Since I have established - by your own link - that WP merely requires a close definition of "myth," your comments above are irrelevant. You betray your lack of understanding of the formal meaning of "myth," and a casual dismissal of my solution to that problem which WP itself instructs by calling the term myth "tainted." IOW, there is no "requirement" to have the literature "treat" cases as "myth," the only "requirement" is to establish the definition as stated above, and further clarify what scientifically is considered implausible in terms of longevity, which would be "context."
In fact, even the idea that America is a democracy, or a republic, is "a narrative that some people within the society say they find credible" and therefore a myth, unless Zeigler's unstated assumptions are stated.
Which is why all we need is to state them. Besides - talk about "strawmen arguments" - there are few who would question the premise that America is a democracy/republic in the mainstream media or elsewhere. The claim, in other words, is not considered implausible, and therefore, by definition, is not a "myth." A better analogy, per Ziegler, is whether we can claim that a UFO report is a "myth" if no one has published an article specifically describing UFO incident X as being a "myth." Since reports that aliens have or are visiting earth are generally considered implausible and unverified, yet people believe that aliens are or have visited, we can therefore call such claims "myths" as long as we define the formal use of the term so as not to suggest the specific claim is "false."
On the other hand, though, a cursory review of Ryoung122's edit history reveals that he considers the word "narrative" to be very strong OR, significant enough that it must be taken out and shot every time it appears (and often when it doesn't, as I've documented). But "myth" is the word to avoid, and "narrative" is as unobjectionable as "speech". So your second argument might better be addressed to him. That's because "narrative" doesn't have the same meaning as "myth" and "myth" is the term which best applies to implausible claims. "Narrative" for example can refer to fairy tales and jokes. The term is not specific.
Scientific literature I've consulted suggests that there is no bar, there is only an increasing unlikelihood with time. For instance, if reaching 130 is trillion-to-one odds (an unsourced statement of Robert Young's), and if a trillion people have lived on the earth (as a very rough guess), then it's likely that one to three people have reached 130 (as a very rough mathematical calculation); sorry, but evidence suggests to me that Ryoung has misapplied the math. There is no bar at 131 or later. There is also the issue that the past is obviously different from the present and science does not comment very much on how that applies to longevity. So all this handwaving reference to your certain knowledge of what science says is plausible (wholly different from what history says is verified) requires sourcing.
Here you reveal your ignorance on what we can do here at wikipedia. The term "plausible" does not eliminate from possibility a claim is true. It simply states that, scientifically, it is likely not to be true. As for your comments from the past, that is your personal speculation. That is a POV comment. As science simply is applying what is known to what is unknown. SO, in assessing the credibility of ancient claims, based on what is known about longevity, those claims are implausible. It, again, does not eliminate from possibility that some claims may be true. Which is why we simply define "myth" as claims which are believed but which are considered implausible. You may have a bit of wiggle room on when a claim becomes implausible, whether it is 130 or 122 (the oldest proven) or, generally, claims above 110 without documentation. But 175? 200? These are, as science understands it, implausible claims.
The fact that Ryoung122 changed the entire scope of the article in 2005 based on an essay that to this day remains essentially unsourced research of his own (if you will, original), and that the categories within this article are not established anywhere in sociology, requires addressing appropriately.
And you have identified inappropriate solutions. So, before you continue on your solutions, gain consensus. You have none here. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No move Parsecboy ( talk) 13:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (I.e., no consensus.) JJB 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
To longevity traditions. Third attempt; Talk:Longevity myths#Proposed move:Longevity narratives and Talk:Longevity myths#Requested move 1 above resulted in extended discussion among partisans rather than consensus.
In good faith, it appears that this move resolves much of the concerns expressed from both sides of the debate above. JJB 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Then why don't you source the idea in sociology that Ryoung's categories are established myth categories, and source the scientific implausibility, to remove my skepticism that they are unlikely to source appropriately?
Clearly, you are playing the "obtuse" game JJB. As I have shown, quite clearly, WP policy is that you don't need to "establish myth categories." All we have to do is define the term and establish the context. Obviously, you don't agree, but my counter-argument, thus far, carries more weight as more editors here agree there is no need to change the article title or merge with another article on "claims."
So far, you lack consensus, so unless that changes in the near future (i.e., more editors agree with your proposals) we shall a) revert most of your non-agreed-upon changes, and b) make the amendments as per my suggestions. IOW, JJB, you have thus far lost the argument. Canada Jack ( talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above speaks volumes. Thanks for engaging in this process. Sorry you failed to achieve consensus. Deal with it. Canada Jack ( talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
This page has become so corrupted by the edits of a single editor that I'm reverting back to almost a month ago. Please discuss.
I have several problems with the editing over the course of the past month.
1. Where did "Shangri-La" go? It's easy to find the idea that a "place" is responsible for extreme longevity: this even exists in the modern-era verson of "Blue Zones" and the unscientific focus by the media on particular, exotic locales associated with longevity (such as Icaria, Greece). There are dozens of references to places such as Vilcabamba or Hunza.
http://www.aarpinternational.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=584699
note the phrase
"The search for formulas to halt the passage of time or to better withstand its ravages, which has long occupied scientists, philosophers and other mortals, could lead in the end to a "sacred valley" in Ecuador - Vilcabamba - where myth and reality weave the secret of longevity."
This is written by the AARP! JJ, do you think THAT is unreliable as a source?
2. A shift more to Biblical longevity. This article really isn't about Christian myths of longevity alone: it's about the universal tendency of human cultures to create myths to explain ideas of longevity.
3. Insertion of cases more in the "longevity claims" range.
4. Insertion of original research.
Now, some may like the other version better, but these four issues must be dealt with.
Finally, regarding "essays": when Wikipedia was started, articles were often written by one editor as a starting point. As much as I'd like to take credit for things, it is clear that ideas such as the Fountain of Youth, Shangri-La, etc. existed long before I did. I merely making sure that this article was organized in such as way that the reader could get some sense of the various reasons/rationales for age inflation. Because editor JJBulten has not bothered to do enough research on this subject before he started his massive, POV edit campaign which overturned almost four years of consensus, the article has become degraded.
Now, I admit, I like some of the things added since. But they have been added way too rapidly and in an attempt to force a new consensus, based on original research, through use of speed and volume. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Ryoung122 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We are far from consensus, yet one editor is tearing up the page. Let's get the old version here, discuss the issues, come to a consensus, then proceed on that consensus. Canada Jack ( talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB, let's address the major issues, such as STRUCTURAL changes, before major edits are done. This shouldn't be about cherry-picking material to support your particular viewpoint.
And, I offered to REFRAIN from editing this article for a month if you did as well; I have seen no evidence of your stopping this editing spree which other editors have noted appear to be "tearing up" the article rather than building consensus.
The crux of the issue is NOT your self-perceived need to write your own essay. If you want to do that, fine: go get it published. But until then, this article, and your editing, should reflect the reliable sources outside Wikipedia that are available. Ryoung122 22:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB: Me and several other editors have requested, with respect, you cease this wrecking-ball approach to the page. And count me as the third person who suggests that we revert from where we started, agree on changes and then proceed.
And let's get bold-faced misrepresentation straight: "Longevity myth" is still OR because you have not found the phrase in the sociological context which WP:WTA#Myth and legend demands, as others admit.
This is, as I have shown ABSOLUTELY WRONG. And it is time for you to stop pretending anyone "admitted" to this. WP policy is to DEFINE THE TERM "MYTH" AND TO SUPPLY THE CONTEXT ie. Define the sociological context, which, in this case, is define what is scientifically plausible.
You have been shown to be utterly incorrect in your assertion that "myth" has to be found in the sources which describe the so-called "myths" on the page. Wikipedia policy, the very one you link to only demands the term be carefully defined and used in context. Period. It says NOTHING about "finding the phrase in the sociological context, it simply states that that context must be stated. Which is an entirely different thing, your increasingly non-nonsensical claims otherwise notwithstanding. Canada Jack ( talk) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I make that any clearer? Also, we can see that the use of the term "Shangri-La" is more than just my idea:
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitylegends/p/hunza.htm
Thus, you are wrong again. Ryoung122 08:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Which of them are you reverting me for? (Ryoung, if you specifically state which of my edits you disagree with, we can reach consensus. If you continue to refuse to be specific, I will just continue to improve the article and note your lack of contribution toward consensus. It would also help if you answered my 10 questions above, in their place. Thank you.) JJB 00:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of substantive replies to my various questions from anyone, I must state my conclusion that it is proper to continue improving the article along the same path, even in the face of regular reverts by Ryoung to a version of one month ago (plus two insignificant edits), which are contrary to the recommendation that reverts should not be based solely on claims of alleged consensus for the old version. I note one attempt by Ryoung to state four generic objections, which in good faith I have attempted to respond to twice, even though it seems to add a very unnatural tinge to the article; a close reading of his objections might even sustain the view that his own reversions are contrary to his stated views about the article, as demonstrated above, not to mention that he admits reverting against what he considers significant improvements. Until and unless someone can give a substantive, specific reply why a month of improvements should be reverted (or some other alternative arises), I must consider that Ryoung's reversions are contrary to the Wikipedia process. Please answer the questions, such as stating specific cases where my edits may be OR or POV. JJB 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
JJB and RYoung, I think this debate has escalated into an all-out war. The quality of this article has suffered, and now it is littered with OR and CN tags, which serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Whoever added these tags should remove them, and add the {{ Original research}} instead.
Or even better, how about you fix it yourself? If you have access to verifiable and reliable sources, then please do what you must. Otherwise, delete the information and leave it at that. On the other hand, if anyone had bothered to do a simple google for most of these claims, you would probably find sources which support the information. Which is why I seriously doubt the intentions of whichever editor added these tags, and it seems to be a indication of (gasp!) bad faith on their part. Columbia issued a postage stamp of Javier Pereria for christ's sake! I dont' care who added these tags, it an obvious indication of someone who is trying to push their POV into this article.
Whoever did this, cares nothing about the quality of this article and is simply trying to prove a point. What that point is, I don't know and I don't care. But this is making me sick, and if this keeps up I am seriously considering filing a RFC if everyone doesn't grow up and start working together. This is getting to the point of childishness. Quit the edit warring, stop the bickering, and start doing some actual work for a change, instead of merely posturing over who is right.
As far as I'm concerned, you're both wrong. JJB, if you would like to present "your side" of the debate, fine! Go ahead! Add your sources about how people lived to be 300 years old. RYoung, ditto. If you think his sources are wrong, add yours stating how ridiculous it is that someone could claim to be 300 years old. Theres no reason why this article can't present both sides of the debate, and in fact it is required that it should. But if you can't reference it or verify it, then don't say it. Feel free to delete anything that doesn't have a reference if it offends you that much.
JJB, as far as the name of the article is concerned. I think you should admit defeat. "Myths" is the obvious choice, and is the most recognizible choice. Despite your claims of using Google to find over one million hits for "longevity traditions" I only come up with 60 (vs 2,000 for "longevity myths"). The problem is you need to put your search terms within quotes, or google will find every page that contains both the words "longevity" and "traditions". "Longevity myths" is clearly the most commonly used title, so please.... accept that you are wrong. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 01:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Rewriting, and negotiating on talk, is proceeding as well as time can permit. But I really don't know how to take on my own shoulders all the additional work of guessing what kind of truce Ryoung would accept (in addition to doing all the work of guessing what problems he has with my edits), as he does not answer my questions about these things. JJB 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just wikified the Javier Pereira reportage, and comparing the prior version with mine affirms many of my points about problems in this article. (1) Prior version had complete lack of context, one sentence, not even identifying Colombia or linking to Pereira's article. (2) Complete lack of reliable sourcing; even the main WP article relies only on tertiary sources and (probably) OR. (3) Complete imbalance, focusing only on the debunking point (that the claim was based on a dental exam, not in the main article), without any other side presented (such as actual medical testimony quoted in Time, or Pereira's alleged memories of 1815). (4) Complete inability to source the key debunking point. While the unsourced deathdate in his article was rapidly googled to the Boston Globe, the claim that the age relies on a dentist is unfindable. Here is "'javier pereira' colombia dentist", with zero relevant hits that I can see. (5) Origin in unsourced research original to WP. It is natural that those three terms get zero relevance, because they have apparently never appeared on the same WP page before ("colombia" was missing from this article all that time). In other words, whoever inserted the original "dentist" claim into WP (any bets?!) had zero internet support for doing so, even though generic discussions of Pereira's medical exams without the word "dentist" appear sufficiently.
In short, this Pereira sentence was inserted by someone familiar with the case who (for whatever reason) utterly failed to apply WP policy to tell others anything about finding that case, who was set on the article unbalancedly talking about the debunking but hardly even about the claim, and who relied on information not verifiable to any reliable source (we call that original research). It has remained uncorrected all this time. And this is typical of a majority of sentences in this article. Has anyone yet figured out how abysmal the article has been for four years, and why there is a need for drastic measures, such as deletion of all tagged original research, as Ergo proposes above? Or am I overdoing it? JJB 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/rej/12/2
Supercentenarians Table
Global Mortality Rates Beyond Age 110 Robert D. Young, Louis Epstein, L. Stephen Coles Rejuvenation Research. April 2009, 12(2): 159-160. First Page | Full Text PDF | Reprints & Permissions
In other words, both myself and Louis Epstein continue to have our work PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL ARTICLES. Thus, your accusations of "original research" are spurious. Anything that's been published in a reliable source is not "original research" on Wikipedia.
Can I be more clear: according to the core concepts of Wikipedia, such as WP:RS, journal articles are supposed to be given highest priority when considering sources. Yet you give yourself priority over published research. That indicates to me that you, sir, are the problem, not Louis Epstein and not myself. I am here because I believe in educating the next generation. Like Galileo, five hundred years from now, history will view me as on the correct side, not you. Ryoung122 21:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I do not think that JJBulten has yet understood what I am doing. Mass-reversion does not necessarily mean I oppose all new material. However, it does mean that the sum total of the newer edits are so unconstructive as to require a start-over point. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
I have already mentioned that I don't mind:
A. pictures
B. addition of king lists
C. addition of examples of national or ethnic longevity — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
However, there are a few areas that I consider that should NOT be compromised:
A. the main structure of the article — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Let me make this clear to JJBulten: this article intended to explain the various kinds of longevity myths or traditions. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
The exact name is not as important as the idea. Let me go over these again:
1. Patriarchal: this is not just "religious" but is more genealogical in focus. Before written history, there was oral history. Oral myths and traditions told stories of ancestors. I find it interesting that, in the Bible, when ages were actually written down, the ages claimed were not so extreme: King David lived 70 years; the oldest age mentioned in the New Testament is Anna, 84 years old. Extreme ages in the Bible only exist in the pre-written record era.
Yet the focus here is NOT the Bible, Christianity, or Judaism. Whether Sumeria, Japan, or what have you, most cultures that maintained lists of ancestors had inflated ages the further back in the past one went. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
2. Village elder: the idea that a local in a village is an extreme age; this is often based on status. Thus, the issue is one of STATUS. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
3. Fountain of Youth: the idea that one can live longer by drinking water from a fountain, taking a substance, etc. This is often associated with alchemy and quackery. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
4. "Shangri-La": the idea that longevity is associated with a particular PLACE, such as Vilcabama, the Hunza Valley, or Shangri-La. Clearly, this can be seen in the USSR: extreme longevity was claimed for peoples in the Caucasus (whether they be Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, etc.). Note that in Vilcabamba, it was claimed that if Western tourists visited the site, they would live long too. These stories often have to do with the European idea of the Grand Tour. Note this myth continues with recent popular books such as http://www.bluezones.com/ — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Now, who is trying to make money here? The GRG.org website is non-profit; the blue-zone website is for-profit. Enough said. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
5. Nationalism: the claim that someone lived a long time because of their nationality. The place is not the issue, the nationality is.
6. Ideological myth: the claim that someone lives a long time because of the way of the government (i.e., Communist, capitalist). For example, Castro has promoted Cuba as an island of longevity:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003677182_cuba23.html
However, I consider this too closely associated with #5 to need separate billing, thus I combined it. However, if you want to separate it, go ahead.
7. Spiritual practice: this pertains to the idea that one can attain long life through spiritual practice, such as meditation. However, the ages claimed (such as 256) are often not based on reality. This number is a multiplier of the number 8 (32*8) and is more a symbol than a real number. Others, such as the Swami Bua, have changed their age repeatedly. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
8. Others...I meant for people to expand this. This includes ideas such as the myth of Confederate longevity, and the local family myth (longevity may run in families, but great-great grandpa really didn't live to 110). In my own family, my "100"-year-old great-grandfather died at 87. Many, many families have had longevity myths that turned out not to be such.
I consider these all myths not simply because they are not true, — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
but because they are shared cultural traditions. This is different from the age misreporting of individual claims, which often is motivated by:
A. error B. pension fraud C. individual vanity or seeking attention
Thus, if you wish to create a combined article that ADDS YOUR MATERIAL BUT DOES NOT DELETE MINE, WE CAN BE CLOSER TO REACHING CONSENSUS, and work out the individual details. But right now, what we have is a "fork"...you basically created another article, based on original research, and threw out the version that was based on published research. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Ryoung122 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to add "exhibitionism" that is something I won't object to.
The ancient Egyptians used a 365 day solar calendar, not a lunar one, as the Sun God was one of their most important deities. Semitic people for the most part did indeed use a lunar rather than solar calendar, but not the Hebrews, as the historical Moses was likely educated in Egypt, not among the semites. In other words when the account says someone was nine centuries old, they meant NINE centuries old. Moreover, the ancient Babylonians invented virtually all modern measurements of time, and they knew the earth was round, as did the writers of the Bible, who learned how to write in Babylon. Okay maybe not learn; that is where they perfected Hebrew script.
67.148.120.90 ( talk) 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747
Greetings, I do not think that JJBulten has yet understood what I am doing. Mass-reversion does not necessarily mean I oppose all new material. However, it does mean that the sum total of the newer edits are so unconstructive as to require a start-over point. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
I have already mentioned that I don't mind:
A. pictures
B. addition of king lists
C. addition of examples of national or ethnic longevity
However, there are a few areas that I consider that should NOT be compromised:
I. the main structure of the article
Let me make this clear to JJBulten: this article intended to explain the various kinds of longevity myths or traditions. The exact name is not as important as the idea. Let me go over these again:
1. Patriarchal: this is not just "religious" but is more genealogical in focus. Before written history, there was oral history. Oral myths and traditions told stories of ancestors. I find it interesting that, in the Bible, when ages were actually written down, the ages claimed were not so extreme: King David lived 70 years; the oldest age mentioned in the New Testament is Anna, 84 years old. Extreme ages in the Bible only exist in the pre-written record era.
Yet the focus here is NOT the Bible, Christianity, or Judaism. Whether Sumeria, Japan, or what have you, most cultures that maintained lists of ancestors had inflated ages the further back in the past one went.
2. Village elder: the idea that a local in a village is an extreme age; this is often based on status. Thus, the issue is one of STATUS.
3. Fountain of Youth: the idea that one can live longer by drinking water from a fountain, taking a substance, etc. This is often associated with alchemy and quackery.
4. "Shangri-La": the idea that longevity is associated with a particular PLACE, such as Vilcabama, the Hunza Valley, or Shangri-La. Clearly, this can be seen in the USSR: extreme longevity was claimed for peoples in the Caucasus (whether they be Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, etc.). Note that in Vilcabamba, it was claimed that if Western tourists visited the site, they would live long too. These stories often have to do with the European idea of the Grand Tour. Note this myth continues with recent popular books such as http://www.bluezones.com/
Now, who is trying to make money here? The GRG.org website is non-profit; the blue-zone website is for-profit. Enough said.
5. Nationalism: the claim that someone lived a long time because of their nationality. The place is not the issue, the nationality is.
6. Ideological myth: the claim that someone lives a long time because of the way of the government (i.e., Communist, capitalist). For example, Castro has promoted Cuba as an island of longevity:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003677182_cuba23.html
However, I consider this too closely associated with #5 to need separate billing, thus I combined it. However, if you want to separate it, go ahead.
7. Spiritual practice: this pertains to the idea that one can attain long life through spiritual practice, such as meditation. However, the ages claimed (such as 256) are often not based on reality. This number is a multiplier of the number 8 (32*8) and is more a symbol than a real number. Others, such as the Swami Bua, have changed their age repeatedly.
8. Others...I meant for people to expand this. This includes ideas such as the myth of Confederate longevity, and the local family myth (longevity may run in families, but great-great grandpa really didn't live to 110). In my own family, my "100"-year-old great-grandfather died at 87. Many, many families have had longevity myths that turned out not to be such. If you want to add "exhibitionism" that is something I won't object to. Obviously, the essay I wrote was open-ended: it started, but did not finish the subject. It was intended for expansion by others.
I consider these all myths not simply because they are not true, but because they are shared cultural traditions. This is different from the age misreporting of individual claims, which often is motivated by:
A. error B. pension fraud C. individual vanity or seeking attention
II. An understanding that, myth or no myth, claims to ages much beyond 120 are generally considered outside the realm of science.
What remains open for discussion:
I favor including individual examples of claims to 130+ on this page. If you want to change it to 140+, I don't see why this needs to go higher as age 130 is already 7+ years beyond any proven age, ever. Also, since most longevity claims are only exaggerated 1-15 years, most longevity claimants are dead by 130 (115 is the average maximum age in a given year; 115+15=130). Thus, claims above 130 seem to go more into a suspension of disbelief (UFO-level, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, etc.) rather than a simple age misreporting error, or forgetfulness. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Thus, if you wish to create a combined article that ADDS YOUR MATERIAL BUT DOES NOT DELETE MINE, and that removes false "original research" accusations, WE CAN BE CLOSER TO REACHING CONSENSUS, and work out the individual details. But right now, what we have is a "fork"...you basically created another article, based on original research, and threw out the version that was based on published research.
I will give you one more chance to get it right before I make my own version.
Ryoung122 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A. 'Alchemists'...Alchemists tried to do things such as "turn lead into gold," not simply find an "elixir of life". Thus I think the "Fountain of Youth" title is more appropriate. No one would confuse "Fountain of Youth" with turning lead into gold.
B. Unsourced/original research: A lot of your material is simply things you made up. My material has already been published twice and won a national award. While I'm not supposed to cite myself, I find it unfair for you or others to claim that "I can't find a source for this" when there is one. And let's not forget that my material had sources as well.
Ryoung122 19:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The multiple problems with using the "myth" section of your thesis as a source for WP are as follows. First, that section was an unsourced WP essay for 3 years before it became a thesis, so it can hardly be said that the thesis is the source; — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
Ryoung122 is the only source, who BTW irrevocably gave the rights and control over his essay in 2005 to the WikiMedia Foundation, under the WP:GFDL. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
Second, the dual publication and the obscure award do not themselves defeat the presumption of self-publication; the university and the bookseller exert no obvious responsibility for or editorial discretion over the views of Young, even if university staff assisted in the thesis's acceptance. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
Third, all such publications of the "Young framework" fail the basic reliability of sources criterion, because the framework makes sweeping (extraordinary) characterizations not reported by any other source, — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
which give no evidence of representing anything other than one observer's view. Fourth, the "myth" section of the thesis cites very few of its own sources (and I believe I already culled all of the usable ones, and to say that Witness Lee was the best of them isn't saying much) — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
, so it does not evince its own reliability, unlike (arguably) other sections of the thesis. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below
And then, even if we tried to overcome all of this to rehabilitate your framework into a source, we'd need to establish that ( WP:SPS) Young's "work in the relevant field has previously [before 2005] been published by reliable third-party publications"; and to observe the caution that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so"; and to fight an uphill battle establishing compliance with the requirements of WP:SELFPUB (all of which look like apparent failures, except authenticity); and even then we face WP:BLP issues, in that when a living person claims to be over 122, for WP to contradict that person outright is called libel and is potentially a crime, and the WMF has extreme distaste for that, especially if no scientific sources are forthcoming to contradict the claim outright.
In short, to say "there is" a source but COI prohibits you from citing it is to blame COI for what is a more endemic problem: if anybody tried to cite Young 2008 as a source, it would fail for all these reasons other than COI. Accordingly, please continue to list any other issues, such as OR, that you may have with the article as it stands. JJB 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Since Ryoung122 has made other edits without commenting here, it is reasonable to presume that compromise has been reached on the current baseline, stable for 2 days. Accordingly, I will come back later to deal with the tagging issues, such as by deletion or sourcing. I will also presume that Ryoung122 is familiar with the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which should be invoked for future disagreements. JJB 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case I can cease the point-by-point debunking of digressive issues (unless you would like to discuss the very dry basic principles of logic at any point), and move to conclusive paradigms. JJB 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Under WP:BRD I reverted Ryoung122's deletion of the invisible tag, which he summarized as "removed baseless assertions"; while doing this, I did not restore the words "original research or", which seem to be offensive to him. It is possible Ryoung122 does not understand the purpose of the invisible tag, which is merely to provide editors information on where the unsourced material originated (viz., either the 2003 article creation by Louis Epstein, two later edits by him, or the 2005 article revamp by Ryoung122 and (nearly identically) the 2008 thesis by Robert Young that remains unsourced in relevant part). Further, this tag explains the invisible page number references I inserted in the other tags throughout the article. Since nobody will see the tag other than editors who wish to get involved in the editing and discussion, and since all assertions are well-based (although it is possible Ryoung122 does not see this as to the OR assertion), the edit summary is insufficient for sustaining the deletion. Of course, removing all the unsourced info at once is also a viable option making the invisible tag unnecessary, but I doubt Ryoung122 is quite ready for that eminently necessary eventual step yet. JJB 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I have an appointment and will not get to comment on the deletion of the individual cases section until later. I trust that there will be no edit warring on that deletion until we have time to discuss mutually? Adding "underconstruction" just in case. JJB 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the tag? Did you read paradigm 3 above? JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The debunking of the National Geographic article, mentioned herein as to Vilcabamba, Hunza, and Barzavu, is presumably sourceable to another NG article that is said to have "recanted" the first. If someone could provide the year and month of this article, it is probable that I can run with that and locate and source the actual text appropriately. Please see what you can find out, thanks. JJB 04:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's the issues with the section added back by Ryoung122 and which I deleted again. (In April I had moved this section to longevity claims, but he deleted it there and neither of us had restored it in either place until now; naturally I still favor inserting it there.) JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In short, and under WP:BRD, it is now appropriate for Ryoung122 to provide sources for any of the unsourced data in this table desired for this article, plus sources that consider some age cutoff as indicating mythicality, and sources that state what was discredited, disproven, or unbelievable. We would also need rationale for why nobody else should appear in such a table, or else a fix for that issue (rush list of candidates: Jimmu, Taejo, Bua, Kentigern, Servatius, Shenouda, Epimenides (assuming DOB/DOD sourceable), Magee, Smith, Geronimo, da Silva (x4), Du, Pereira, Martinez, Carn, Jenkins, Fitzgerald, Khakimova, Dzhukalayeva, Williams, Yaupa, Huppazoli). I sure hope we won't see a reinserted unbalanced table with the request that someone else do the work of collating and formatting all the other names, dates, and geographies, simply to retain the table as it appeared before I arrived, as if putting in an unbalanced list and asking others to balance it is somehow NPOV. Better to have no table at all. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's ANOTHER reference to the Shangri-La myth, published before I was born:
Davies, D., "A Shangri-La in Ecuador", New Scientist (1973).
I guess I just made it up, right, JJB? Ryoung122 08:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Human Longevity, Individual Life Duration, and the Growth of the Oldest-Old ...
By Jean-Marie Robine, Eileen M. Crimmins, Shiro Horiuchi, Yi Zeng
"invalidating the longstanding MYTH that a man born in 1701 had reached the age of 113..."
Page 172
98.242.74.75 ( talk) 08:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Since my scope proposal of 23 May above was met by silence, I am now prepared to edit the first sentence to conclude: "... are claims of supercentenarian human longevity supported chiefly by tradition, and claims lacking either age in years or death date." (Aside: The topic of nonhuman claims seems unnecessary enough to remain a separate subsection at Longevity#Non-human biological longevity, as the link between tradition/myth and nonhumans is too tenuous to sustain.) JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
A. No one supported your proposal
B. You had enough issues on the table, no need to start yet another problem.
I'm just flabbergasted at your warlike mentality; you are editing this article as if this were a game of chess or a military field marshall advancing troops in a campaign. Like war, you are not stopping to consider the casualties and if the result is better than what existed before the conflict. I strongly urge you to SLOW DOWN and consider both your methodologies and your larger views concerning this area of reference. I am faintly impressed that, as you have read more, you have realized that you were wrong on some points...but not nearly enough. Please consider doing some more reading before attempting to force these massive changes again.
Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 08:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It is possible that Ryoung122's statement is somewhat responsive to my proposal ("The exact name is not as important as the idea", with request for category preservation), which if so would suggest further possibility to move forward. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This scope is clearly delineated and thus superior to the current text (which was intended as a temporary placeholder that simply repeats back "traditions about longevity", so that more reasonable discussion could occur later, meaning now); it is superior to the prior gray-area scopes mentioned above as well (except for Epstein's, which is now essentially the scope of the longevity claims article instead). If this can be accepted as the scope here, as seems promising, it will make very clear which individuals should be mentioned in either article or both, and the only scope issue remaining will be the 131-year cutoff issue above, appropriate for a new discussion later at the other article. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I would also move the last lead sentence to a new section "Categorization" after "Scientific status", where any sourced evidence of sociological tradition categories can be placed, starting with the Guinness data I alluded to above. While not all Ryoung122's original categories will necessarily be preserved in the final stable article, especially if no sources are forthcoming, the already sourced categorizations will bear out some of it as the remaining sections are brought into WP compliance. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
1. "No one else is editing, so I must have a consensus." Get a life. You have bullied your way through the process, insisting on changes that were opposed by a majority, and unsourced. You only slowly are becoming familiar with the actual history of the subject (I must say that is a slight positive, but not enough).
2. Misinterpreting "give an inch, take a mile." I was expecting that by ceding some ground, you would do the same...but here you are pushing for further changes. I'm going back to square one, which was a far tidier and more succinct summation of the subject matter. Bells and whistles cannot replace knowledge and facts.
3. Ignoring major citations. I have already posted at least five journal article or book citations on "longevity myths" including the use of the term, yet you continue to add an "unsourced" tag. Don't bother adding tags if you are going to ignore information given.
4. I attempted to slow down to give people time to calm down, but you have continued at an editing pace which has not been conducive to making this a better article. This is not tennis. It's not about piling up points in a competition. This article should, in theory, be SCIENTIFICALLY grounded and, according to WP:RS, scientific material (as published in journals, for example) should be given greater credence.
Ryoung122 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)