Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Longevity myths |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | User:John J. Bulten User:Ryoung122 |
Mediator(s) | Atama, PhilKnight |
Comment | ArbCom case opened |
The article. If you just take a glance at it you can see the notes on nearly every sentance.
This is arguably one of the biggest messes of an article I’ve ever seen. Problems with it are noted everywhere and looking through the talk and extensive archive it appears there will be no end to it. It is really just a bunch of POV pushing. You have a few editors, the most notable being JJB saying that the term “myth” is being misused and plainly are against religion being referred to as myth and you have Ryoung122, a gerontology expert who takes issue with religion being referred to as anything but. It seems like Wikipedia:RNPOV#Religion would cover this pretty well but so far it hasn't.
I would personally split the article to resolve the issue. Create a page for Religious Longevity covering the various religious beliefs around longevity, and one for Disputed Longevity Claims which would claim the rest and is especially appropriate given that most of the article is contemporary by comparison. I would suggest this on the talk myself but I am certain given this all seems to be about one side winning over another I would be shot down.
Push for a resolution rather than allowing this mess to continue.
I'm closing the case as stale. There hasn't been any real debate on the issue since June 2009. Ryoung122 responded to my offer of mediation help by expressing skepticism that mediation would solve anything. JJB has not responded, and is unlikely to, as he seems to have gone on an extended break, and hasn't regularly edited Wikipedia for months. It's worthy to point out that neither of these editors requested this mediation, but it was requested by an uninvolved third party. -- Atama 頭 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Laughing hard between thanks for Atama's sincerity and the staleness of the case. It turns out Atama notified "User:JJB" instead of myself because I use my initials in my sig (sorry!) and I just discovered this page. The primary former discussion was User:John J. Bulten/DR2 and the talk pages. Right now I am back in at WP, I have a path forward for the article, and Ryoung122 and I have not scraped too badly yet since my return, but there's no telling what will proceed. Open to anything within policy, JJB 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The truth is, the "mess" was made by JJB, who is injecting Christian apologism (such as the idea that Noah really did live to 950 years old, because the Bible says so) into the article. This article is supposed to be written for an encyclopedia, reflecting a mainstream, secular scientific view, which is clear that humans have not been demonstrated to have lived much beyond age 120.
I agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but I see no progress as long as JJB is utilizing the wrong standard. This isn't the place to preach what you believe. Ryoung122 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that mediation is a good idea. What I don't agree is that John J Bulten has attempted to establish mediation AFTER his edits, which did not seek consensus or find consensus first, has basically changed everything to his POV. Mediation needs to begin with the consensus POV, not the "coup d'etat" POV. Ryoung122 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Name | Sex | Claimed birth | Death | Claimed age | Country |
Mark Thrash [18] | M | 25 December 1822 | 17 December 1943 | 120 years, 357 days | USA |
Maria Andersson [19] better source needed | F | 24 December 1828 | 24 August 1946 | 117 years, 243 days | Finland |
Nils Öhrberg [20] | M | 10 January citation needed 1700? | 12 October 1816 | 116 years, 276 days | Sweden |
Ellen Carroll [21] | F | 21 October 1828 | 8 December 1943 | 115 years, 48 days | Canada |
Swedish death registers contain detailed information on thousands of centenarians going back to 1749: [22]
{{
cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(
help)
jp
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
WOC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I'm going to say this: words do mean something. However, just like renaming "retarded" children "special" didn't mean they were now fully functioning members of society, so renaming longevity "myths" "traditions" is just politically-correct wordplay. It's also unsourced or poorly-sourced, with the only sources appearing to be mirrors of Bulten's work on Wikipedia, or sites trying to sell longevity products.
The first thing that needs to happen is Bulten needs to take about a week off, and let other parties consider making changes which are against consensus and against outside sources. Simply building friendship alliances on Wikipedia doesn't make you right. It makes you corrupt. Ryoung122 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a proposed compromise:
If the primary focus of the person is NOT their age, but a religious aspect (such as Noah), we could put them in "longevity traditions".
If the primary focus of the person is claiming an extreme age (far beyond scientific validation), then we put them on "longevity myths." For example, Shirali Mislimov and Old Tom Parr are examples of longevity myths, stories constructed around longevity.
One could also argue that Noah is a longstanding tradition (regardless of his age) whereas the other two cases are known ONLY for age.
I think that is a reasonable compromise.
I'm willing to abstain from editing for a set period (say, 24 hours, 2 days, even a week) if you do the same. This does NOT apply to talk pages; it applies to articles only. Let's see what third-party persons have to say. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Ryoung122 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Second, the idea of the colloquial myth is not the whole or main point here. The main points about longevity myths are in fact two:
1. They are not true 2. They are a product of a cultural need to believe that we humans live longer than we really do, because it defers the idea of our own death.
Can we not be honest about this? Must we continue to overlay a fantasy drug of immortality onto the reality of human mortality? Ryoung122 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I see a scattering of issues here, and usually what I try to do with a mediation is to first review the conflicts as I see them, then try to summarize them into points. Then we tackle each point one at a time to come up with some form of resolution. We're at a disadvantage going into this because there's a lack of focus; looking at when this mediation request was first filed, initially the dispute as defined was "the article" and it was stated, "Problems with it are noted everywhere and looking through the talk and extensive archive it appears there will be no end to it."
So what I can do is go through the talk page and its archives to come up with my own set of points, or ask if you can outline them yourselves. Either way works for me, although if I do the research myself it might take awhile. I did do this once before, but that was 9 months ago, and my memory isn't perfect (and I wouldn't doubt that the situation has changed anyway). Perhaps doing both might be helpful, if anyone wants to list your biggest concerns, please do so, but try not to engage each other if possible right now (think of it like a court case, where the defendant and plaintiff make opening statements without interruption).
Another note, I'm not here as an administrator, so I won't be addressing behavioral complaints. If people are edit warring or slinging personal insults or outing each other or anything of the sort, I'm not interested in addressing that. Mediation is for content disputes (it's like the opposite of WP:ANI). If it turns out that behavioral problems are the reason for the conflict and not a simple differing of opinion then I'm declaring the mediation a failure.
I'm also not here as a regular editor to give an opinion on what I'd prefer to be in the article. My intent is to be impartial and not endorse any particular content, but to try to help you both come to an agreement. I'll certainly make suggestions about what guidelines and policies might apply in a dispute, and whether or not something is in compliance or violation. But nothing I say is law, and anything you agree to is voluntary.
Finally, please try your best to be civil, certainly express your opinions but try not to focus on one another, but to focus on the content. I already see a suggestion that one editor is "corrupt", let's not do that. Again I'm not the civility police and don't plan on threatening anyone but just for the sake of trying to succeed with this mediation, let's hold off. You both want this to work or you wouldn't be making the effort to be here. Anyway, as I said I'll go over what is in the archives for the article to try to get a handle on things. Thank you. -- Atama 頭 22:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
So long as Ryoung's COI and block history are kept in the back of the mind, I'll stick to content issues.
After Phil joined us and I notified R to present any other opening disagreements here, R gave what I regard as one of his most sincere attempts at compromise. While the technical flaws remain, I want to express my applause at the relative lack of charged language. These proposals require an appropriate and fair detailed response, but I wish first to see how Phil will provide some direction, while considering this link as part of the opening statements. JJB 10:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I should also add, for prioritization's sake, that my questions 1-3 above are the actual fundamental disagreements with R; 4-6 are lower-priority questions on which agreement between us two would be useful in consensus-building; and 7 is my personal appeal for ongoing commitments to process and resolution. JJB 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
The purpose of the mediation cabal is an attempt to find "consensus" between to editors, a sort of mediation of an "edit war." So far, rather than offering any prospect of compromise, User John J Bulten has continued his aggressive posture, adding more demands as he goes. This negates the purpose of the mediation cabal. This is NOT a football game, where you push for "first down", consolidating your position on the field, and then push forward again. John J Bulten's comments on the "longevity claims" article, such as "I get one more revert today," indicate an unconstructive, agressive edit posture.
Now, let's get back to the core issues.
1. John J Bulten's work does not reflect outside sources, but his personal opinions.
If he has a problem with scientists using the phrase "longevity myths," he needs to take them up with the outside sources, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia's core policies include the idea of "no original research." Material on Wikipedia should reflect the outside sources, and those sources should be reliable.
The few sources using "longevity traditions" are linked to quack sites, attempting to sell substances related to longevity, or mirros of Bulten's editing.
2. The below comment is extremely offensive:
For one, Bulten single-handedly created "longevity traditions," and then began transferring articles WITHOUT first achieving consensus. Now he claims that, because others have offered a compromise, he should have "total victory." Sounds like appeasement isn't working.
The real truth is that almost all the cases in "longevity traditions" fit the definition of "myth."
I have a problem with "traditions." Aside from being "original research," it basically has shifted the status quo from science to mythology. It would be like renaming an article on "evolution" to "creationism."
3. Claims versus Myths. Before Bulten came to this issue, the original article was "Longevity Myths." The problem is that there are grey-area cases that have insufficient proof of being true but are within the scientific realm of possibility...for example, since Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, we can't say that someone claiming to be 118 is definitely false. We can say that such an age is so rare that there has yet to be a single case of someone dying at 118 whose age has been properly verified. Given that, it made sense to have a third, intermediate category between articles on verified supercentenarians and articles on longevity myths.
The phrase "longevity claims" was used. Bulten is trying to confuse the issue by using an either/or dichotomy. Yes, it's true, that someone claiming to be "148" is a longevity claim, but it's also a longevity myth. However, someone claiming to be 116 with no proof either for or against is neither verified nor a myth. Like a Venn diagram, there can be category overlap, but not all longevity claims are myths, so the categories cannot be seen as the same.
Ages for cutoffs is an issue that is one of practicality and reasonableness. Age 113 is a good starting point, and that can be statistically justified because it's the age where cases fall three standard deviations outside the norm for supercentenarians (i.e., outliers). Age 131 was picked as the minimum base point for "individual longevity myths" (except those proven false) because even the extreme skeptics, such as S. Jay Olshansky, wouldn't consider age 130 impossible, though he considers age 150 to be. Whatever the age chosen for cutoffs, however, is missing the points:
A. Cases like William Coates are already myths, as they have been proven false...myths definition 4. 4. A fictitious story, person, or thing.
I don't even see a case like that as a "tradition".
B. Cases such as Shirali Mislimov, who claimed "168", are myths prima facie. Since he became a cultural icon in Azerbaijan, he fits "myth," definition 2:
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal:
C. Cases such as Noah, "950" years old, fit myth, definition 1:
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:
As a COMPROMISE, I offered to recategorize individual articles, such as "Noah" or "Adam" as "longevity traditions," so long as the basic article longevity myths retains its title. Why?
Let's start with the fact that opposition to the word "myth" is irrational, emotional opposition from Christian fundamentalists. Even the compromise is POV bias in favor of Christianity. However, I realize this is the English Wikipedia and there are a lot of fundamentalists here. Thus, I offered a compromise which, while degrading science, allows fundamentalists to maintain their drug of belief in the impossible. After all, is the story of Noah not about supernatural events, such as the Flood? Is he not an "ancestor" of Christ and the Jewish kings? Is he not a hero" or cultural type? Is his age not venerated? Clearly, the story of Noah is a MYTH.
Two, even many Christians have agreed that, even if the Biblical ages are true, people don't live that long today. I note that even John J Bulten offered to use the word "myth" for cases post-1955. I suggest, instead, post-B.C. There's not a single age in the New Testament mentioned above age "84" (Anna). The New Testament was WRITTEN, not "ORAL TRADITION."
3. The issue of "limbo": Why is John J Bulten continuing to manufacture problems? That category was devised for cases where the person is unlikely to still be alive, but for which no updates have occurred and no death dates are available.
Given that the mortality rate at age 110 is 50%, it's easily justifiable that anyone 110 with no update in the past year is more likely to be dead than alive. By age 114, the death rate is close to 70%. We could justify an even tighter cutoff. But for practical purposes, birthdays are often reported only once a year, and one of the purposes of the "claims" article is to list potential cases to be 110+ that might not have been verified (but still retain the remote possibility, usually less than 1%, of being true).
4. "R has repeatedly said the article is intended to show these claims false, which is not WP's job."
That may NOT be Wikipedia's job, but it is the job of the scientists. It is Wikipedia's job to reflect what the outside, reliable sources state, not invent a quasi-original research world that instead reflects the opinion of far-right, ideological extremists whose editing is akin to political attack.
Ultimately, all these issues revolve around the fundamental questions:
1. How long do we humans have to live? Religion seeks to tell us that we can achieve "immortality" through it; science seeks proof that immortality is possible. So far, the evidence strongly shows that humans have never lived beyond 122 years, and even giving a margin of error, researcher Jean-Marie Robine has calculated that, given no other information, there was only a 14% likelihood that even ONE person would live to age 122, given present mortality rates. This indicates that Calment's age is close to the maximum limit (some say "125") based on current mortality rates. There is an acknowledgement that future declines in mortality may result in higher maximum longevity, but that does nothing for the past. In fact, the demographers have pushed the idea that no one lived to age 110 until the late 1800s.
2. We like the idea of someone living to "150" because it delays thoughts of our own mortality. There is an innate human desire to "believe."
3. Wikipedia, one of the ten most-visited websites in the world, is often the place the young (people under 20) turn to find out about things. As such, it is important for the education of the present and future generations that we not treat the article and category "longevity myths" the same way Galileo was treated for suggesting the Earth revolved around the sun (heliocentric theory) instead of the Sun revolving around the Earth (geocentric theory).
It is more than clear that John J Bulten is filling the role of the religious fundamentalists of Galileo's day. For him, what is important is not "truth" or even "verifiability" but the entrenched but diminishing power of past mythologies to hold reasonable thought in check. Should he choose to believe that Noah lived to 950, that is his right. But to attempt to use his editing at Wikipedia to insist that we have no reason, scientifically, to believe that Noah didn't live to 950 is an abuse of his editing privileges. I strongly suggest he find a way to achieve compromise and consensus, not seeking a coup d'etat. Ryoung122 17:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
While mediation is (um) stalling, other editors are taking note and proposing mass blanking or even AfD. I trust they will realize this is not the consensus and such proposals are well-meaning simple attempts to deal with the complex question. They are invited here of course. However, the paradigm that Ryoung122 and I are parties mediating a two-way set of POV-balance issues is now relatively broken, seeing both that our discussion here is so quiet and that there is a new active POV-balance group. I am still committed to resolution whether intra- or extra-cabal but the situation is now more complicated. Thanks for listening. JJB 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The editor influx has proposed what I believe is a shortsighted, irresponsible merge that short-circuits some of the discussion above. I have stepped in by counterproposing a merge that seems much more rational but would need some consensus or modification from Ryoung122. Further, I still love our sterling mediator, but Atama has been on wikibreak for a full week, shortly after saying a first analysis of our opening statements was almost ready, and Ryoung122 has had only two edits in that time even though he has a talk message from me. Accordingly, I am considering the mediation on hold until further notice, and proceeding with a few more bold edits under WP:BRD, to be discussed with the first taker among R, the other regulars, or the influx. JJB 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
JJBulten, your recent edits at longevity myths, longevity claims, and elsewhere have been unconstructive and against scientific consensus. Please stop.
Let's be honest: myths as ideas have survived into the present-day. You are proof of that.
The pre-1955/post-1955 divide is NOT acceptable or tenable. Even though Guinness began in 1955, they cited cases from the 1800s.
The earliest centenarian case validations date to the 1700s.
The real divide is between fact (proven ages in the 110-122 realm), fiction (claimed ages in the 113-130 realm), and fantasy (dreamed ages in the 131+ realm, especially claims to 140+).
I'm going to say something. Think about this. Moses's age claim is both a myth and a claim. His age is mythical in that it was a symbol (the same can be said for St. Patrick). The idea is that 40 years=a generation, and Moses's life consisted of 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in Midian, and 40 years in the Wilderness. Such ages are allegorical, not literal.
But his age was also scientifically possible. The main reason he's not on the claims page is because, with no claimed birthdate and no claimed death date, his age isn't specific enough.
So, let's think about this:
1. Myths can exist in the past or the present.
2. Verified ages began when adequate recordkeeping began. While no one reached a proven age of 110 until 1898, records go back further than that: for example, the record in 1837 was 108.
3. Myths aren't just about whether they are true; they are in fact stories made to explain how things are or came to be that are not based on evidence.
So, here's a carrot: I'm not against all Biblical claims. That's not the point. The point is, scientists believe that we should be skeptical of what cannot be proven, and it would do everyone some good to separate the scientific material from the religous.
Now, I thought you were going to wait until the merge proposal was over before we went forward with a compromise, but I see that is not the case. What is your problem?
My goal is to educate. Your goal seems to be to spread an ideology. Ryoung122 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I would propose you start by commenting on our opening statement and opening response sections, and/or on Atama's last word on the subject. I will also notify Ryoung122 and Itsmejudith. JJB 19:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that AFD on "myths" alone would not be the procedure to address IMJ's concern and it would be at severe risk, due to the lack of consensus on several points, of becoming a mixed debate on several points. This is why I present an orderly sequence of concerns. If IMJ thinks no unverifieds belong in lists (as stated) and only a few verifieds belong in a few lists, the whole batch of ~40 topic articles and ~200 individual articles would be nominable at once; but that's not a wieldy consensus-building method. I agree entirely with nominations in batches, and since the first is going so swimmingly I'll take the bold step of researching my next 3 good AFD targets and preparing to nom immediately if no objection. Noms should start with articles that are undefended by silent consensus, not with those that are volubly debated by three or more camps. But nominating "myths" immediately would have the appearance of dissing my rescue work on what was in April 09 quite an arguably deletable topic. All that is "why not". (As to "incoherent", a WP:SOFIXIT concern, the primary reason for that is my attempt to stick very close to sources and not introduce transitions and paraphrases that make for both smoothness and charges of OR/SYN.) In short, Itsmejudith, since you propose a category of unverifieds, please interact with relevant points of WP:CLN as follows: JJB 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
ADD: See ongoing list of AFDs. JJB 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This page had now fallen off my 3-day watchlist. I was hoping that either you or R or IMJ or Griswaldo would comment on what I regard as open challenges. I am asking R a simple question about cases that resemble Drackenberg, a question he should have a ready and easy answer for; and a harder question about how he would defend, from sources, the idea that a cutoff of 131.000 between "claims" and "myths" is not OR, which I do not believe he has sources for but which I believe he does not want to answer because of risk of losing his point. Also, I am asking IMJ a question about her statement that unverified cases belong in categories and the implications of WP:CLN for her position, but she did not respond to this directly, commenting only on categories for verifieds instead. I believe she does not want to engage this discussion because CLN would give clear evidence for retaining one or more articles on unverifieds. I am also disappointed by several of Griswaldo's behaviors: starting a discussion toward deleting the Biblical longevity template when I asked him repeatedly to concentrate on the most uncontroversial deletion entry points, and when he himself did not list this template when he listed the articles in the basic longevity template and supercentenarian categories for deletion; continuing the discussion at multiple articles inappropriately when he was advised this was contrary to WP:MULTI and accusing me of lawyering for bringing it up; and in general adopting a position of unannounced slashing at what I have contributed rather than engaging in mediation or helping to cut back the much more massive and more questionable contributions of others. I had interacted with him as an ally but he has not followed through on areas in which we agree, only on those in which we disagree. Now, how can mediation cabal help me with these open challenges, please? JJB 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
From both Talk:Moses and Talk:Jacob: This template ought to be deleted outright. It is not of encyclopedic value and is pure trivia. Why is it features so prominently here? Why is it here at all? Why not a template listing Biblical figures by the number of times they are mentioned in the Bible, the number of spouses or children they had, or simply by alphabetical order? The template is WP:UNDUE. Please remove it. Griswaldo ( talk) 04:2x, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Response:
However, as currently organized, it can be useful to both believers and non-believers. We can see what we want to see. Some may see "proof" that people once lived longer, because the Bible said so. Others may see "proof" that the ages claimed aren't realistic (neither is parting the Red Sea or turning rods into snakes).
Stating what the ages listed in the Bible could be objective. I suggest a reorganization of the template, adding a chronology and claimed dates of birth and death (using the Ussher chronology) and younger claimed ages (such as the ages of the kings of Israel). Even Christian apologists such as Custance attempted to come up with rationalizations why the ages claimed in the Bible declined over time. For historians, the falling ages claimed can be explained by fact that much of the early ages came from pre-literate societies. The Bible claims that Moses wrote the Pentateuch...and around 1500 B.C. That's far from writing about things when the birth events happened. Later ages cited, such as the time of the kings, when written records existed, are more in line with modern observations...although even Rehoboam's "58" is disputed as inflated; some researchers believe he died at 41. Ryoung122 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Pardon the analogy, but just because the USA allied with the USSR in World War II in order to defeat Hitler doesn't imply the US was a real long-term ally, it was only an alliance of convenience. Because sometimes, even "enemies" can agree when they share common goals/objectives.
Let's go over this dispute from a simplified model:
Ryoung122's "longevity myths" perspective represents the secular/scientific view
JJBulten's "longevity traditions" perspective represents the religious view
Itsmejudith's "longevity" perspective represents a "throw the baby out with the bath water" perspective.
In my mind, Itsmejudith is only complicating what was, in fact, a rather simple binary. As such, both myself and JJBulten have opposed the pro-deletionist "solutions" that Itsmejudith has offered, since they are not solutions.
As disagreeable as both JJBulten and myself have appeared, I think we have options to compromise, but improper deletion and merging is not the answer. Ryoung122 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It is my conclusion that IMJ and I can settle differences amicably and that we are both being patient and generous in the areas where the difference goes somewhat deep. It is my further conclusion that R refuses to discuss his differences with either of us in this forum, for nearly 3 weeks now. The ANI filed by IMJ generated much discussion and zero action. Since I don't believe in closing doors, I will need to consider this mediation on hold again indefinitely (it just never occurred to me that people would agree to mediate and then refuse to complete the mediation). My goal of having rational, facilitated point-by-point discussions toward consensus with R on the bullets in my opening statement simply does not look very likely. Any notification that R is open to discussion, of course, will be interacted with cheerfully. JJB 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Longevity myths |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | User:John J. Bulten User:Ryoung122 |
Mediator(s) | Atama, PhilKnight |
Comment | ArbCom case opened |
The article. If you just take a glance at it you can see the notes on nearly every sentance.
This is arguably one of the biggest messes of an article I’ve ever seen. Problems with it are noted everywhere and looking through the talk and extensive archive it appears there will be no end to it. It is really just a bunch of POV pushing. You have a few editors, the most notable being JJB saying that the term “myth” is being misused and plainly are against religion being referred to as myth and you have Ryoung122, a gerontology expert who takes issue with religion being referred to as anything but. It seems like Wikipedia:RNPOV#Religion would cover this pretty well but so far it hasn't.
I would personally split the article to resolve the issue. Create a page for Religious Longevity covering the various religious beliefs around longevity, and one for Disputed Longevity Claims which would claim the rest and is especially appropriate given that most of the article is contemporary by comparison. I would suggest this on the talk myself but I am certain given this all seems to be about one side winning over another I would be shot down.
Push for a resolution rather than allowing this mess to continue.
I'm closing the case as stale. There hasn't been any real debate on the issue since June 2009. Ryoung122 responded to my offer of mediation help by expressing skepticism that mediation would solve anything. JJB has not responded, and is unlikely to, as he seems to have gone on an extended break, and hasn't regularly edited Wikipedia for months. It's worthy to point out that neither of these editors requested this mediation, but it was requested by an uninvolved third party. -- Atama 頭 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Laughing hard between thanks for Atama's sincerity and the staleness of the case. It turns out Atama notified "User:JJB" instead of myself because I use my initials in my sig (sorry!) and I just discovered this page. The primary former discussion was User:John J. Bulten/DR2 and the talk pages. Right now I am back in at WP, I have a path forward for the article, and Ryoung122 and I have not scraped too badly yet since my return, but there's no telling what will proceed. Open to anything within policy, JJB 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The truth is, the "mess" was made by JJB, who is injecting Christian apologism (such as the idea that Noah really did live to 950 years old, because the Bible says so) into the article. This article is supposed to be written for an encyclopedia, reflecting a mainstream, secular scientific view, which is clear that humans have not been demonstrated to have lived much beyond age 120.
I agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but I see no progress as long as JJB is utilizing the wrong standard. This isn't the place to preach what you believe. Ryoung122 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that mediation is a good idea. What I don't agree is that John J Bulten has attempted to establish mediation AFTER his edits, which did not seek consensus or find consensus first, has basically changed everything to his POV. Mediation needs to begin with the consensus POV, not the "coup d'etat" POV. Ryoung122 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Name | Sex | Claimed birth | Death | Claimed age | Country |
Mark Thrash [18] | M | 25 December 1822 | 17 December 1943 | 120 years, 357 days | USA |
Maria Andersson [19] better source needed | F | 24 December 1828 | 24 August 1946 | 117 years, 243 days | Finland |
Nils Öhrberg [20] | M | 10 January citation needed 1700? | 12 October 1816 | 116 years, 276 days | Sweden |
Ellen Carroll [21] | F | 21 October 1828 | 8 December 1943 | 115 years, 48 days | Canada |
Swedish death registers contain detailed information on thousands of centenarians going back to 1749: [22]
{{
cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(
help)
jp
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
WOC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I'm going to say this: words do mean something. However, just like renaming "retarded" children "special" didn't mean they were now fully functioning members of society, so renaming longevity "myths" "traditions" is just politically-correct wordplay. It's also unsourced or poorly-sourced, with the only sources appearing to be mirrors of Bulten's work on Wikipedia, or sites trying to sell longevity products.
The first thing that needs to happen is Bulten needs to take about a week off, and let other parties consider making changes which are against consensus and against outside sources. Simply building friendship alliances on Wikipedia doesn't make you right. It makes you corrupt. Ryoung122 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a proposed compromise:
If the primary focus of the person is NOT their age, but a religious aspect (such as Noah), we could put them in "longevity traditions".
If the primary focus of the person is claiming an extreme age (far beyond scientific validation), then we put them on "longevity myths." For example, Shirali Mislimov and Old Tom Parr are examples of longevity myths, stories constructed around longevity.
One could also argue that Noah is a longstanding tradition (regardless of his age) whereas the other two cases are known ONLY for age.
I think that is a reasonable compromise.
I'm willing to abstain from editing for a set period (say, 24 hours, 2 days, even a week) if you do the same. This does NOT apply to talk pages; it applies to articles only. Let's see what third-party persons have to say. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below
Ryoung122 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Second, the idea of the colloquial myth is not the whole or main point here. The main points about longevity myths are in fact two:
1. They are not true 2. They are a product of a cultural need to believe that we humans live longer than we really do, because it defers the idea of our own death.
Can we not be honest about this? Must we continue to overlay a fantasy drug of immortality onto the reality of human mortality? Ryoung122 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I see a scattering of issues here, and usually what I try to do with a mediation is to first review the conflicts as I see them, then try to summarize them into points. Then we tackle each point one at a time to come up with some form of resolution. We're at a disadvantage going into this because there's a lack of focus; looking at when this mediation request was first filed, initially the dispute as defined was "the article" and it was stated, "Problems with it are noted everywhere and looking through the talk and extensive archive it appears there will be no end to it."
So what I can do is go through the talk page and its archives to come up with my own set of points, or ask if you can outline them yourselves. Either way works for me, although if I do the research myself it might take awhile. I did do this once before, but that was 9 months ago, and my memory isn't perfect (and I wouldn't doubt that the situation has changed anyway). Perhaps doing both might be helpful, if anyone wants to list your biggest concerns, please do so, but try not to engage each other if possible right now (think of it like a court case, where the defendant and plaintiff make opening statements without interruption).
Another note, I'm not here as an administrator, so I won't be addressing behavioral complaints. If people are edit warring or slinging personal insults or outing each other or anything of the sort, I'm not interested in addressing that. Mediation is for content disputes (it's like the opposite of WP:ANI). If it turns out that behavioral problems are the reason for the conflict and not a simple differing of opinion then I'm declaring the mediation a failure.
I'm also not here as a regular editor to give an opinion on what I'd prefer to be in the article. My intent is to be impartial and not endorse any particular content, but to try to help you both come to an agreement. I'll certainly make suggestions about what guidelines and policies might apply in a dispute, and whether or not something is in compliance or violation. But nothing I say is law, and anything you agree to is voluntary.
Finally, please try your best to be civil, certainly express your opinions but try not to focus on one another, but to focus on the content. I already see a suggestion that one editor is "corrupt", let's not do that. Again I'm not the civility police and don't plan on threatening anyone but just for the sake of trying to succeed with this mediation, let's hold off. You both want this to work or you wouldn't be making the effort to be here. Anyway, as I said I'll go over what is in the archives for the article to try to get a handle on things. Thank you. -- Atama 頭 22:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
So long as Ryoung's COI and block history are kept in the back of the mind, I'll stick to content issues.
After Phil joined us and I notified R to present any other opening disagreements here, R gave what I regard as one of his most sincere attempts at compromise. While the technical flaws remain, I want to express my applause at the relative lack of charged language. These proposals require an appropriate and fair detailed response, but I wish first to see how Phil will provide some direction, while considering this link as part of the opening statements. JJB 10:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I should also add, for prioritization's sake, that my questions 1-3 above are the actual fundamental disagreements with R; 4-6 are lower-priority questions on which agreement between us two would be useful in consensus-building; and 7 is my personal appeal for ongoing commitments to process and resolution. JJB 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
The purpose of the mediation cabal is an attempt to find "consensus" between to editors, a sort of mediation of an "edit war." So far, rather than offering any prospect of compromise, User John J Bulten has continued his aggressive posture, adding more demands as he goes. This negates the purpose of the mediation cabal. This is NOT a football game, where you push for "first down", consolidating your position on the field, and then push forward again. John J Bulten's comments on the "longevity claims" article, such as "I get one more revert today," indicate an unconstructive, agressive edit posture.
Now, let's get back to the core issues.
1. John J Bulten's work does not reflect outside sources, but his personal opinions.
If he has a problem with scientists using the phrase "longevity myths," he needs to take them up with the outside sources, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia's core policies include the idea of "no original research." Material on Wikipedia should reflect the outside sources, and those sources should be reliable.
The few sources using "longevity traditions" are linked to quack sites, attempting to sell substances related to longevity, or mirros of Bulten's editing.
2. The below comment is extremely offensive:
For one, Bulten single-handedly created "longevity traditions," and then began transferring articles WITHOUT first achieving consensus. Now he claims that, because others have offered a compromise, he should have "total victory." Sounds like appeasement isn't working.
The real truth is that almost all the cases in "longevity traditions" fit the definition of "myth."
I have a problem with "traditions." Aside from being "original research," it basically has shifted the status quo from science to mythology. It would be like renaming an article on "evolution" to "creationism."
3. Claims versus Myths. Before Bulten came to this issue, the original article was "Longevity Myths." The problem is that there are grey-area cases that have insufficient proof of being true but are within the scientific realm of possibility...for example, since Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, we can't say that someone claiming to be 118 is definitely false. We can say that such an age is so rare that there has yet to be a single case of someone dying at 118 whose age has been properly verified. Given that, it made sense to have a third, intermediate category between articles on verified supercentenarians and articles on longevity myths.
The phrase "longevity claims" was used. Bulten is trying to confuse the issue by using an either/or dichotomy. Yes, it's true, that someone claiming to be "148" is a longevity claim, but it's also a longevity myth. However, someone claiming to be 116 with no proof either for or against is neither verified nor a myth. Like a Venn diagram, there can be category overlap, but not all longevity claims are myths, so the categories cannot be seen as the same.
Ages for cutoffs is an issue that is one of practicality and reasonableness. Age 113 is a good starting point, and that can be statistically justified because it's the age where cases fall three standard deviations outside the norm for supercentenarians (i.e., outliers). Age 131 was picked as the minimum base point for "individual longevity myths" (except those proven false) because even the extreme skeptics, such as S. Jay Olshansky, wouldn't consider age 130 impossible, though he considers age 150 to be. Whatever the age chosen for cutoffs, however, is missing the points:
A. Cases like William Coates are already myths, as they have been proven false...myths definition 4. 4. A fictitious story, person, or thing.
I don't even see a case like that as a "tradition".
B. Cases such as Shirali Mislimov, who claimed "168", are myths prima facie. Since he became a cultural icon in Azerbaijan, he fits "myth," definition 2:
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal:
C. Cases such as Noah, "950" years old, fit myth, definition 1:
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:
As a COMPROMISE, I offered to recategorize individual articles, such as "Noah" or "Adam" as "longevity traditions," so long as the basic article longevity myths retains its title. Why?
Let's start with the fact that opposition to the word "myth" is irrational, emotional opposition from Christian fundamentalists. Even the compromise is POV bias in favor of Christianity. However, I realize this is the English Wikipedia and there are a lot of fundamentalists here. Thus, I offered a compromise which, while degrading science, allows fundamentalists to maintain their drug of belief in the impossible. After all, is the story of Noah not about supernatural events, such as the Flood? Is he not an "ancestor" of Christ and the Jewish kings? Is he not a hero" or cultural type? Is his age not venerated? Clearly, the story of Noah is a MYTH.
Two, even many Christians have agreed that, even if the Biblical ages are true, people don't live that long today. I note that even John J Bulten offered to use the word "myth" for cases post-1955. I suggest, instead, post-B.C. There's not a single age in the New Testament mentioned above age "84" (Anna). The New Testament was WRITTEN, not "ORAL TRADITION."
3. The issue of "limbo": Why is John J Bulten continuing to manufacture problems? That category was devised for cases where the person is unlikely to still be alive, but for which no updates have occurred and no death dates are available.
Given that the mortality rate at age 110 is 50%, it's easily justifiable that anyone 110 with no update in the past year is more likely to be dead than alive. By age 114, the death rate is close to 70%. We could justify an even tighter cutoff. But for practical purposes, birthdays are often reported only once a year, and one of the purposes of the "claims" article is to list potential cases to be 110+ that might not have been verified (but still retain the remote possibility, usually less than 1%, of being true).
4. "R has repeatedly said the article is intended to show these claims false, which is not WP's job."
That may NOT be Wikipedia's job, but it is the job of the scientists. It is Wikipedia's job to reflect what the outside, reliable sources state, not invent a quasi-original research world that instead reflects the opinion of far-right, ideological extremists whose editing is akin to political attack.
Ultimately, all these issues revolve around the fundamental questions:
1. How long do we humans have to live? Religion seeks to tell us that we can achieve "immortality" through it; science seeks proof that immortality is possible. So far, the evidence strongly shows that humans have never lived beyond 122 years, and even giving a margin of error, researcher Jean-Marie Robine has calculated that, given no other information, there was only a 14% likelihood that even ONE person would live to age 122, given present mortality rates. This indicates that Calment's age is close to the maximum limit (some say "125") based on current mortality rates. There is an acknowledgement that future declines in mortality may result in higher maximum longevity, but that does nothing for the past. In fact, the demographers have pushed the idea that no one lived to age 110 until the late 1800s.
2. We like the idea of someone living to "150" because it delays thoughts of our own mortality. There is an innate human desire to "believe."
3. Wikipedia, one of the ten most-visited websites in the world, is often the place the young (people under 20) turn to find out about things. As such, it is important for the education of the present and future generations that we not treat the article and category "longevity myths" the same way Galileo was treated for suggesting the Earth revolved around the sun (heliocentric theory) instead of the Sun revolving around the Earth (geocentric theory).
It is more than clear that John J Bulten is filling the role of the religious fundamentalists of Galileo's day. For him, what is important is not "truth" or even "verifiability" but the entrenched but diminishing power of past mythologies to hold reasonable thought in check. Should he choose to believe that Noah lived to 950, that is his right. But to attempt to use his editing at Wikipedia to insist that we have no reason, scientifically, to believe that Noah didn't live to 950 is an abuse of his editing privileges. I strongly suggest he find a way to achieve compromise and consensus, not seeking a coup d'etat. Ryoung122 17:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
While mediation is (um) stalling, other editors are taking note and proposing mass blanking or even AfD. I trust they will realize this is not the consensus and such proposals are well-meaning simple attempts to deal with the complex question. They are invited here of course. However, the paradigm that Ryoung122 and I are parties mediating a two-way set of POV-balance issues is now relatively broken, seeing both that our discussion here is so quiet and that there is a new active POV-balance group. I am still committed to resolution whether intra- or extra-cabal but the situation is now more complicated. Thanks for listening. JJB 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The editor influx has proposed what I believe is a shortsighted, irresponsible merge that short-circuits some of the discussion above. I have stepped in by counterproposing a merge that seems much more rational but would need some consensus or modification from Ryoung122. Further, I still love our sterling mediator, but Atama has been on wikibreak for a full week, shortly after saying a first analysis of our opening statements was almost ready, and Ryoung122 has had only two edits in that time even though he has a talk message from me. Accordingly, I am considering the mediation on hold until further notice, and proceeding with a few more bold edits under WP:BRD, to be discussed with the first taker among R, the other regulars, or the influx. JJB 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
JJBulten, your recent edits at longevity myths, longevity claims, and elsewhere have been unconstructive and against scientific consensus. Please stop.
Let's be honest: myths as ideas have survived into the present-day. You are proof of that.
The pre-1955/post-1955 divide is NOT acceptable or tenable. Even though Guinness began in 1955, they cited cases from the 1800s.
The earliest centenarian case validations date to the 1700s.
The real divide is between fact (proven ages in the 110-122 realm), fiction (claimed ages in the 113-130 realm), and fantasy (dreamed ages in the 131+ realm, especially claims to 140+).
I'm going to say something. Think about this. Moses's age claim is both a myth and a claim. His age is mythical in that it was a symbol (the same can be said for St. Patrick). The idea is that 40 years=a generation, and Moses's life consisted of 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in Midian, and 40 years in the Wilderness. Such ages are allegorical, not literal.
But his age was also scientifically possible. The main reason he's not on the claims page is because, with no claimed birthdate and no claimed death date, his age isn't specific enough.
So, let's think about this:
1. Myths can exist in the past or the present.
2. Verified ages began when adequate recordkeeping began. While no one reached a proven age of 110 until 1898, records go back further than that: for example, the record in 1837 was 108.
3. Myths aren't just about whether they are true; they are in fact stories made to explain how things are or came to be that are not based on evidence.
So, here's a carrot: I'm not against all Biblical claims. That's not the point. The point is, scientists believe that we should be skeptical of what cannot be proven, and it would do everyone some good to separate the scientific material from the religous.
Now, I thought you were going to wait until the merge proposal was over before we went forward with a compromise, but I see that is not the case. What is your problem?
My goal is to educate. Your goal seems to be to spread an ideology. Ryoung122 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I would propose you start by commenting on our opening statement and opening response sections, and/or on Atama's last word on the subject. I will also notify Ryoung122 and Itsmejudith. JJB 19:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that AFD on "myths" alone would not be the procedure to address IMJ's concern and it would be at severe risk, due to the lack of consensus on several points, of becoming a mixed debate on several points. This is why I present an orderly sequence of concerns. If IMJ thinks no unverifieds belong in lists (as stated) and only a few verifieds belong in a few lists, the whole batch of ~40 topic articles and ~200 individual articles would be nominable at once; but that's not a wieldy consensus-building method. I agree entirely with nominations in batches, and since the first is going so swimmingly I'll take the bold step of researching my next 3 good AFD targets and preparing to nom immediately if no objection. Noms should start with articles that are undefended by silent consensus, not with those that are volubly debated by three or more camps. But nominating "myths" immediately would have the appearance of dissing my rescue work on what was in April 09 quite an arguably deletable topic. All that is "why not". (As to "incoherent", a WP:SOFIXIT concern, the primary reason for that is my attempt to stick very close to sources and not introduce transitions and paraphrases that make for both smoothness and charges of OR/SYN.) In short, Itsmejudith, since you propose a category of unverifieds, please interact with relevant points of WP:CLN as follows: JJB 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
ADD: See ongoing list of AFDs. JJB 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This page had now fallen off my 3-day watchlist. I was hoping that either you or R or IMJ or Griswaldo would comment on what I regard as open challenges. I am asking R a simple question about cases that resemble Drackenberg, a question he should have a ready and easy answer for; and a harder question about how he would defend, from sources, the idea that a cutoff of 131.000 between "claims" and "myths" is not OR, which I do not believe he has sources for but which I believe he does not want to answer because of risk of losing his point. Also, I am asking IMJ a question about her statement that unverified cases belong in categories and the implications of WP:CLN for her position, but she did not respond to this directly, commenting only on categories for verifieds instead. I believe she does not want to engage this discussion because CLN would give clear evidence for retaining one or more articles on unverifieds. I am also disappointed by several of Griswaldo's behaviors: starting a discussion toward deleting the Biblical longevity template when I asked him repeatedly to concentrate on the most uncontroversial deletion entry points, and when he himself did not list this template when he listed the articles in the basic longevity template and supercentenarian categories for deletion; continuing the discussion at multiple articles inappropriately when he was advised this was contrary to WP:MULTI and accusing me of lawyering for bringing it up; and in general adopting a position of unannounced slashing at what I have contributed rather than engaging in mediation or helping to cut back the much more massive and more questionable contributions of others. I had interacted with him as an ally but he has not followed through on areas in which we agree, only on those in which we disagree. Now, how can mediation cabal help me with these open challenges, please? JJB 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
From both Talk:Moses and Talk:Jacob: This template ought to be deleted outright. It is not of encyclopedic value and is pure trivia. Why is it features so prominently here? Why is it here at all? Why not a template listing Biblical figures by the number of times they are mentioned in the Bible, the number of spouses or children they had, or simply by alphabetical order? The template is WP:UNDUE. Please remove it. Griswaldo ( talk) 04:2x, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Response:
However, as currently organized, it can be useful to both believers and non-believers. We can see what we want to see. Some may see "proof" that people once lived longer, because the Bible said so. Others may see "proof" that the ages claimed aren't realistic (neither is parting the Red Sea or turning rods into snakes).
Stating what the ages listed in the Bible could be objective. I suggest a reorganization of the template, adding a chronology and claimed dates of birth and death (using the Ussher chronology) and younger claimed ages (such as the ages of the kings of Israel). Even Christian apologists such as Custance attempted to come up with rationalizations why the ages claimed in the Bible declined over time. For historians, the falling ages claimed can be explained by fact that much of the early ages came from pre-literate societies. The Bible claims that Moses wrote the Pentateuch...and around 1500 B.C. That's far from writing about things when the birth events happened. Later ages cited, such as the time of the kings, when written records existed, are more in line with modern observations...although even Rehoboam's "58" is disputed as inflated; some researchers believe he died at 41. Ryoung122 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Pardon the analogy, but just because the USA allied with the USSR in World War II in order to defeat Hitler doesn't imply the US was a real long-term ally, it was only an alliance of convenience. Because sometimes, even "enemies" can agree when they share common goals/objectives.
Let's go over this dispute from a simplified model:
Ryoung122's "longevity myths" perspective represents the secular/scientific view
JJBulten's "longevity traditions" perspective represents the religious view
Itsmejudith's "longevity" perspective represents a "throw the baby out with the bath water" perspective.
In my mind, Itsmejudith is only complicating what was, in fact, a rather simple binary. As such, both myself and JJBulten have opposed the pro-deletionist "solutions" that Itsmejudith has offered, since they are not solutions.
As disagreeable as both JJBulten and myself have appeared, I think we have options to compromise, but improper deletion and merging is not the answer. Ryoung122 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It is my conclusion that IMJ and I can settle differences amicably and that we are both being patient and generous in the areas where the difference goes somewhat deep. It is my further conclusion that R refuses to discuss his differences with either of us in this forum, for nearly 3 weeks now. The ANI filed by IMJ generated much discussion and zero action. Since I don't believe in closing doors, I will need to consider this mediation on hold again indefinitely (it just never occurred to me that people would agree to mediate and then refuse to complete the mediation). My goal of having rational, facilitated point-by-point discussions toward consensus with R on the bullets in my opening statement simply does not look very likely. Any notification that R is open to discussion, of course, will be interacted with cheerfully. JJB 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)