Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 14 May 2009

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Longevity Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Werdnabot

The name of this article is wrong: it should be Longevity claims

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. Misplaced Pages 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).

This article is specifically concerned with untrue claims,and the reasons they should not be taken at face value.The phenomenon of making unsupported claims of longevity has been known throughout history,and the burden of proof is on the claimant'.An article that encourages respect for unsupported assertions in the name of "NPOV" is not providing factual information,but obscuring it.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 agree. The claims that were proven to be a myth should go here, and those that have not been proven should go at Longevity claims. Calling religious longevity "myths" may affend people, and these havn't even been proven whether or not they are true or false. -AMK152 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It rather works the other way around, especially given their ages were written down thousands of years after they were presumed to have lived. Either 1) the authors made the ages up, 2) they were "divinely inspired", or 3) the ages were passed down by word of mouth for hundreds of generations, clearly placing them in the category of myths and legends. The most likely explanations by far are #1 and #3, as instances of that phenomenon have been seen countless times, whereas divine inspiration is not documented. So if you want them to be considered more than myth, some evidence for their truth must be shown. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move: Longevity narratives

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

In other words, you seek to hijack science with creationism. Ryoung122 06:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

but seek to weight this coverage properly with other traditions.

1. Guidance on use of word "myth" is being thoroughly ignored.
   1. Even the rule that "myth" should be used evenhandedly, applied in the section headings, is broken in the lead and elsewhere as if myth-narrative-story-tale are all equal, directly against guidance. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

      Commment: this is a farce. When the article was created, the word "myth" was used for every subsection. Considering that YOU actually are the one who changed the headings and subheadings to include inconsistent use of "narrative, myth, and story," I find it incredulous that you then turn around and use YOUR OWN INFRACTIONS as rationale for renaming the article.

      Going back to Misplaced Pages's policy:

      Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Misplaced Pages is no exception

      The use of the word "myth" is being used formally in this article.Ryoung122 08:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

      My comment referred to the four terms in the third lead sentence here. JJB 05:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   2. The article makes no attempt at "utmost care to" avoid informal use or to frame itself within disciplines of sociology or mythology; neither are mentioned, nor hardly even cited.
   3. "Myth" is an offensive word to many, even when used formally by sociologists to describe lore with adherents in the billions. All monotheistic faiths contain large components that hold that Abraham lived to 175 and Sarah to 127. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

      Again, proof that you are using "creationism" as the tool for "hijacking" this article. I stand by that assertion. Misplaced Pages articles on science should be based on science. There is no proof, scientifically, that Abraham and Sarah even existed, let alone lived to 175 or 127. There is proof that when scientific standards are maintained, such ages have never been reached in humans.Ryoung122 08:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

   4. The word "claim" is also a word to avoid, although it is much more defensible in that individual unverified claims are much more even-handedly treated and do not have the cultural following of lore.
2. The article is rambling and still lacking clear scope after all these years. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

   Actually, the article had a clear focus in the beginning. As usual, articles on Misplaced Pages begin to lose focus in the same way that Congressional legislation becomes loaded down with pork-barrel spending...each has their own agenda.

   If you are offended by this article, or others such as ones on pornography, then leave. The article should not be based on your personal POV but on what the literature and outside sources say. A myth, by definition, is not provable using the scientific method. If you wish to go by faith, be my guest.Ryoung122 06:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

3. I also infer a fear that listing too many specific cases from a particular tradition would be imbalance. Rather, the indication of how many claims come from each tradition would be worthwhile. It is a very basic principle that all historical claimants meeting appropriate cutoff points should have a home on these WP articles, just as all modern claimants, that meet various cutoffs by category, are listed. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

   I disagree. Let the evidence, or lack thereof, stand for itself...apply the same standards globally, to everyone. If there are more claims from Brazil, then perhaps Brazil has a tradition of reporting longevity claims. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to "balance" the article by changing facts. It's like complaining that New York City or Hong Kong has too many entries in the list of tall buildings.Ryoung122 08:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

   1. It is entirely possible that one scope consideration might be: narratives concerns generic claims that populations rather than individuals are prone to longevity, as demonstrated by (usually) a plurality of same-source claims; while claims refer to individuals without a population-related longevity explanation, where most sources refer only to one individual. In this case the seven "examples" cases and a few others would go back to claims, while groupings of lore-based claims would stay here.
   2. Another way of saying this is: historical compilations of longevity (Sumer, Torah, Pliny) confer notability on the compilers, i.e., the creators of lore categories; modern compilations of longevity, due to better verification, background the compilers (Eckler, GRG) and notability shifts to the claimants.
   3. Subject breakdown may be better as culture rather than myth type.
4. The attempt to create a longevity claims article to handle widely-believed lore has been vitiated by the classification (as arbitrary as other longevity articles) that only longevity claims of 115-130 with birth-death dates are considered, which relegates much of the lore back to "myths". So longevity claims does not list, for instance, Moses and Aaron, even though their dates have been estimated with the precision appropriate to the historical period. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

   There is no birthdate or deathdate for Moses or Aaron, and the purpose of the 'longevity claims' article was to list gray-area cases that do not meet the scientific standards of verification but come from societies that have advanced far enough to at least have a claimed date of birth. The whole point is that it is a transitional period. Obviously, Moses and Aaron came from an earlier period. Not even the Bible claims what day Moses was born or what day he died; further, his age of "120" is a symbol of "three generations" of forty years each, so his age is allegorical, not literal. He lived 40 years in Egypt before killing the Egyptian; 40 years in Midian, and 40 years in the wilderness.Ryoung122 08:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Unscientific Google: "longevity story" 3.83M, 173 exact; "longevity claim" 2.25M, 181 exact; "longevity myth" 771K, 119 exact; "longevity narrative" 349K, 15 exact. Favors "longevity stories", which is closer to but still does not have the damping effect of "myths". — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

   Comment: Unscientific indeed. Checking the Google results, we find articles such as this:

   http://independentsources.com/2007/08/30/death-in-the-golden-state/

   Which are NOT related to the topic of extreme longevity in any way. In fact, the use of the word "story" here refers to a journalistic report, not an actual belief.

   Further, most of the "longevity narrative" hits are mirrors of Misplaced Pages's "longevity myths" article and are terms that have been inserted by Wikipedes, not based on actual source citations.

   Even one that mentions "Abraham" isnt' talking about what you are saying at all:

   PSCFbooks6-93

   One thinks of the description of Abraham's death where longevity, narrative unity and community are all reinforced: "Abraham, died in a good old age, ...

   www.asa3.org/aSA/book_reviews/6-93.htm - 110k - Cached - Similar pages

   Here, the word "narrative" is being used to describe the story or narrative of his death, not a narrative of longevity.

   And the most clear use of "longevity narrative" comes from a quack site.Ryoung122 08:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Replies

When i first saw this proposal I worried a bit about changing the name on an article that has been that way for years. But after presenting your case I can see that Longevity stories would be a good idea. Using the term narrative sounds a bit academic although it sounds the most neutral, and "claims" sounds a bit contentious in the same sort of way as "myths". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme, BTW, article history is unclear, but it appears both titles and scopes have shifted consistently over the years, particularly in the "myths" and "claims" articles. JJB 05:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the move to "Longevity narratives". "Narratives" sounds more academic than "stories" and less controversial than "myths". I oppose the change, see comment below. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Stories" is not an option--this article is not about what you read to your child at bedtime. "Narratives" completely misses the point: that these are myths..."stories" widely believed to be true for reasons that often involve religious, spiritual, or faith-based "narratives" but which go against the scientific evidence. It's a shame that in 2009 scientists have to defend the use of the word "myth," which has already been explained that is not meant to be offensive...for example, "creation myth" is a story meant to explain why the Earth or world was created. Do you really think it took 7 days for that to happen?Ryoung122 06:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung, I believe you have mistaken me for someone else. I have made a plain case for a move on WP policies, and established a nascent consensus from two others, also based on policy. But your comments affirm your stated, unsourced beliefs (a) about what I believe; (b) about the definition of "myth"; (c) about the word "myth" having somewhere (where?) "already been explained that is not meant to be offensive"; and (d) about the word "myth" being supported by "literature and outside sources" (by which, of course, you must certainly mean sources independent of your circle, because you would never be trying to give undue weight to your own views without heeding WP:EXPERT, right?). This evidence suggests you may be confusing WP policy with personal beliefs, and/or neglecting their differing weight in establishing WP:CONSENSUS.

Your responses also suggest to me that: (1) You may not be familiar with the "no personal attacks" policy and the living persons policy that both prohibit making negative statements about fellow Wikipedians (I have accordingly deleted one of your sentences about my state of mind that I saw no way to construe as other than attack; such deletion is appropriate under WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable, and if you wish to reinstate your comment, please source any information you have about my state of mind). (2) You perhaps did not read WP:WTA#Myth and legend, the well-established guideline carrying this point, or you perhaps did not find it worthy of response, either of which may reflect a misjudgment. (3) You have not perhaps learned the use of the "interrupted" template, or the use of talk page formats that make it clear to others who speaks each paragraph (though I gave you this hint on another page). (4) You may believe that digressions into pornography and 7-day creationism are appropriate (incidentally, if you wish to know my views on 7-day creationism, I would appreciate knowing that I will be heard before I speak). (5) You may believe that you have the forum to declare what is "not an option" and to decide whom you may tell conditionally to "leave", essentially on sight. (6) You also appear free to contradict yourself by using the word "story" twice to describe these topics after declaring it is not an option for describing these topics. (7) On the key point, what the reliable sources say, I will not doubt your familiarity with the sources, but that familiarity may put you too close to the topic to notice missed assumptions that need to be stated for readers. In this case your stated beliefs, enumerated in the previous paragraph, all need reliable sourcing to demonstrate that they are admissible arguments on WP (particularly your beliefs about my state of mind).

As I've hinted, I highly regard Ross Eckler's work here, and I do not think I would be facing such obstacles from him. I'm also glad that your edits in response to mine were not too extreme, and so we should be able to resolve open issues via talk. But you may not realize that your communication style may hamper your ability to carry your arguments for the above reasons, and so I felt it necessary to explain this at length. Anyway, the question of the move will be determined by consensus, reflecting weight of argument, and in accord with policy, and if you would like to contribute to that discussion, a good first step might be to give some places where the word "myth" is defended and distinguished from its common definition "an unfounded or false notion" (Merriam-Webster), from independent sociologists and mythologists, and where this entire article might possibly be grounded in such sciences rather than being the typical haphazard collection of WP mindspillage. JJB 05:21, 29 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages just become a blog?Ryoung122 08:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Against the consensus of four other editors, Ryoung has reverted several of my changes. He has also reinserted a personal attack, claiming that I admitted to it, and has again made a mess of the talk page by use of what the guidelines regard as interruptive comments. I will need to sort this all out at another time for other editors. JJB 09:08, 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 Misplaced Pages's purpose, 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)

First of all, the length of time this article has remained under its current name has nothing to do with whether it should be changed. Standards change all the time, and just because this article has escaped the attention of more experienced editors does not mean that it should just stay this way. Second of all, Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid states "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Misplaced Pages is no exception. However, except in rare cases (e.g., urban myth), informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. Avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean "something that is commonly believed but untrue"." Whether these "myths" are true has nothing to do with this discussion... you can have all the proof in the world that the human lifespan is 122 years, but that is not the point of this debate. The point is whether or not we should change this page to reflect the common naming conventions that are followed on the rest of Misplaced Pages. After careful consideration, I am changing my vote. I think that articles such as Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Hindu mythology, are proof that the word "myth" is commonly used on WP when referring to "historical narratives". Regardless of RYoung's grandstanding, I think he is (GASP) right, and I have changed my vote from support to oppose. Also, WP:NPOV only applies to articles which are general and broad in scope, and does not apply to articles with a specific focus (see Christ myth theory or Criticism of Christianity). Articles which are focused solely on presenting one side of the debate do not need to present the opposing viewpoint because that can be covered in a separate article (such as Christian apologetics). So... I think the name "Longevity myths" is appropriate. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On my talk, Ryoung122 said:

Can we start with the basics:

1. "Narratives" is too generic. Any story about longevity, true or not, would be included. The VERY PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE STORIES ARE NOT TRUE ....

2. Some of these claims have already been proven false...what about those?

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)

Discussion toward consensus

I think all the editors involved here should thoroughly read Misplaced Pages:Content forking and Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict in order to fully understand the official policy. This article qualifies as a spinout (see Misplaced Pages: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)

Thank you for listening to policy with an open mind, but I believe you are being swayed by the fact that other articles don't follow policy either, that is, they contain "myth" in the title when the proper context has not been set. Anyway we'll see how it plays out. JJB 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Maybe longevity folklore would be better, considering the Thoms tie-in. JJB 07:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "longevity folklore" would certainly be more NPOV and should satisfy both sides.--Gloriamarie (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am actually hapier with Longevity narratives. Longevity folklore wounds like it is folklore, in some cases in this article it is, but in other cases it is more based on religion. Using stories or narratives does however open up the possibility of longevity in fiction appearing in here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

JJB, I have given my opinion. My suggestion to you is to list this article on Misplaced Pages: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)

Questions for Ryoung122

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)

Unnecessary Sentence

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." 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 Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. --128.151.86.184 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right for the wrong reason. The old concept of evolution taking "millions of years" has given was to "microevolution"...the understanding that evolutionary change happens far more rapidly than previously thought. It is now thought that homo sapiens could have evolved into a separate species in just 150,000 years, not millions...and the changes made in 10,000 years are significant. So no, we are NOT the same as we were in 8000 BCE. However, the statement added appeared to be from a religious apologist, and so should be removed.Ryoung122 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Knew I'd get that sort of thought from someone, but would you mind logging in next time, and not putting your new section at the top of talk? Thanks. There are a couple problems with the IP's thought. First, just as I didn't provide a source (and admit it), you didn't source the flat claim that humans now are exactly the same as 10,000 years ago (and many not realize it). To oversimplify, I understand that evolution teaches that 1 million years ago men were essentially monkeys, so at 10,000 years ago you have 99% man 1% monkey, which is different enough to warrant the disclaimer. (If 10,000 years is a nanosecond, then 10 billion is a millisecond, right? Please do not exaggerate.) Second, you assume that these people lived no more than 10,000 years ago, which seems to arise from the assumption that no written history exists prior to 10,000 years ago, which does not seem to accord with history as I understand it either. Third, this article has a significant section on the Bible and Adam in exactly the context of special creation. Kind of silly to talk about Adam and not Creation, as this is an article about religious beliefs; the people who wrote the Bible believed in creation and thus believed in the possibility of biological change producing past longevity, just as millions do today. Fourth, you join the whole debate by implying that creationism and evolutionism are not parallel or that one is more scientific (or religious) than the other, and that's a fun rabbit trail for someday when you want to fix (what I perceive as) the errors in that philosophy, but that won't help build WP much.

Anyway, the point is that, thinking it over, I realized I really need a bit more consensus before posting that thought to too many articles. We really need a boilerplate in the 38 articles on Biblical alleged supercentenarians that conveys some thoughts like (1) today the record in 122, but (2) that far back who knows, and (3) here are some POVs about the phenomenon of Biblical supercentenarians. On (2) particularly it seems that with known longevity of trees and various animals, with evolution being fixated on change over time, and with the Bible and fundamentalists proposing reasonable data (unlike the Sumerian King List), we cannot say human longevity has always been 122ish or less without really good sourcing of claims of historical knowledge, such as those you made unsourced. I simply thought it very fair to observe that both sides believe in past biological (and environmental) change and so any proleptic conclusions are inappropriate. My first inadequate draft of boilerplate for many of the shorter Bible articles is below. Thoughts?

==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=]|title=The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings|page=159|date=1976|publisher=]|location=]|quote=Such an interpretation would have made Enoch only five years old when his son was born!}}</ref>

I just wanted to point out that your statement of "that evolution teaches that 1 million years ago men were essentially monkeys, so at 10,000 years ago you have 99% man 1% monkey, which is different enough to warrant the disclaimer." The use of the term "monkeys" is a misnomer. Humans evolved from "apes" (semantics, yes I know), and last shared a common ancestor with apes 5 million years ago. Modern humans evolved into a separate species about half a million years ago. Your assumption that humans were 1% "monkey" a million years ago is not entirely incorrect, but it is not exactly right. The line between species is nebulous, and in fact many people would argue that humans are essentially "monkeys" even today, and that there is little difference between apes and men. Your statement that 1 million years ago men were different enough for us to say we cannot reasonably assume the length of their lifespan, is wrong in two ways. 1- Homo sapiens didn't exist a million years ago. 2- We can reasonably assume that lifespan has not changed drastically between species, considering the mostly similar traits between them (e.g., you wouldn't have an immediate ancestor species living 50 years while their offspring species lives to be 500 years, it just doesn't work that way).

Regardless of the implications of evolution, it is rare for any species to live beyond 100-200 years. Most long-living species are either trees or reptiles with slow metabolisms. In fact, most of the evidence points to the fact that humans lived shorter lifespans in the past, not longer. So to imply that evolution supports the claim that humans had longer lifespans in the past is completely false in every way. Simply saying that evolution implies that humans had "different" lifespans in the past seems like a dirty way to force evolution and creationism into the same bed, when clearly they disagree. I'm not here to argue over whether creationism is scientific, or whether evolution is religious, I'm just here to let you know the statement "However, both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past" is misleading without including the fact that evolution supports the exact opposite of creationist claims. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did say I was oversimplifying. I did not imply that evolution supports longevity claims, but that the issue can be finessed because both interpretative schemes teach that biology is not constant and nothing really can be said definitively.
• Doesn't evolution teach that forms with a "life"span of 0 years evolved into all the forms extant today, including trees that reach circa 5,000 years?
• If many people think there's little man-ape difference, why aren't ape longevity claims in this article?
• If many people think there's little man-ape difference, then why do we set the Homo sapiens bar at .5 million years?
• Since science demonstrates that much larger lifeforms were once very prevalent, why would it automatically rule out much older lifeforms, which cannot be proven or disproven except by documentary or tree-ring-style evidence?
• So what sentence do you propose as an alternative to provide the necessary balance that science knows nothing about whether the dinosaurs' environment or the history of ultraviolet could have contributed to greatly increased lifespans in the past?
• If the two cannot be harmonized ("same bed"), we can say those within the "mythos" believe X, while reliable sources within the scientific POV teach that no Homo sapiens could ever have lived for more than X years. Surely you have such a source? Finding such is the tenor of my suggested finesse. Thank you. JJB 20:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point about similarities between apes and men. Also, science does not "rule out much older lifeforms". My point was the evidence suggests that the human lifespan has increased during recorded history (with the exclusion of many of the "mythical" claims made included in this article). Actually, it has very little to do with evolution. Evolution has no stance regarding the lifespan of humans, it is merely a theory of the origin of species. What the sentence should say is "However, both science and longevity narratives indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past. Science claims human life expectancy has increased overall since the stone age (see Life expectancy), while longevity narratives suggest that life expectancy has decreased." This would be a more accurate statement. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, longevity has much to do with evolution. It's not my job to educate you, but you need to read up on recent (last 20 years) evolutionary theory before making comments such as these.Ryoung122 06:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Yes, that is a much more accurate statement, even better than my version. I'm glad we could reach an agreement. Meanwhile, my point about apes and men... if you believe in evolution, then you consider humans as part of the family of apes (or the larger order of primates). Apes are not part of this article because this article is about human longevity, not about chimps and bonobos, which are a different species of apes. If you read the articles ape or primate, you will see that humans are included. So... my point was, (according to evolution) humans are simply another species of apes. We set the bar at .5 million years because that is when the species of modern humans is thought to have separated from their ancestors. If you wanted to start an article about the longevity of apes, then you could include chimps with humans, but that is not the scope of this article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures, sub-sections

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)

Mm, not exactly, please review WP:OWN, major changes are actually usually proposed in talk or inserted straightway by being WP:BOLD. Anyway my further comments are at Talk:Longevity claims. JJB 18:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

JJB is right, he doesn't have to notify the article creator to make any changes. Only if the changes are against previously-established consensus should he discuss the changes on the article talk page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Witness Lee number

The third Lee plateau was inserted into WP twice, first as 200 by an IP , then as 250 by Ryoung . 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)

Never mind, it looks like Ryoung already did, in what appears to be his thesis, page 65. Editing accordingly as a footnoted 250. I'll distribute the paragraph more widely when comfortable. JJB 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Shem was born before the flood, so falls within the "less than 1,000" limit.

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)

Since we agree on the correct edit and it does not rely on the subtleties of my points that you do not allude to, I need not comment further. JJB 09:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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)

Pmanderson

• Strongly oppose tendentious move. These are myths; none of the replacements would include the Countess of Desmond. If JJB wants a different article, and can avoid making it a POV fork, he should write one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hi, this is already the tendentious POV fork, longevity claims is the separate article. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

  That is NOT true. This article existed first. Longevity claims is the fork which I created in an attempt to satisfy the issue that claims on the cusp (i.e, 115 to 130) could possibly be true.Ryoung122 16:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  Two prongs, one fork. JJB 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Y'know, I think your comment really demonstrates the basic problem: you seem to want the 130 cutoff to separate "possibly true" from "definitely not true". But it's not WP's job to decide those categories, per the first sentence of WP:V. It's WP's job to report the sources accurately. That means either "sourced claim and sourced evidence found against", or "sourced claim and no evidence found against except sourced modern science". When you realize this you may turn the corner. JJB 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, it is YOUR comment that demonstrates the problem. My national-award-winning thesis is outside research; your comments here are a violation of the WP:NOR policy. Therefore, I am going to start a section that quotes journal articles and see what they say.

Second, regarding WP:V and WP:RS, there is a concept that states "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." Now, forget me for a moment and do a search among scientific journals...any journal article written in the last 20 years agrees on Jeanne Calment as the recordholder for human longevity. Therefore, a claim to age 140, 150, etc. is akin to a "UFO report" or reports of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc. While there can be articles on these subjects, Misplaced Pages should reflect that scientific authorities consider claims such as these to be fiction, not fact.Ryoung122 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Countess is a longevity claim and should be listed there, but the unsourced POV assertion that her case is "scientifically impossible" (which is not how that term is used in science) has prevented that. Similarly your unsourced POV assertion does not persuade me that Walter Raleigh and the rest were perpetuating a "myth" but not a "narrative" when stating the countess with the 90-year-old daughter was 140 instead of some other age. The issue is that her case was claimed; it was not debunked at the time; science does not debunk it today (see above); and that's what WP should report.

  And if you sourced her, it still wouldn't be enough to change the title. The POV issue, as my unanswered questions imply above, is that the arbitrary groupings we invented for this article are actually sourced by sociologists independent of WP: Google suggests that the arbitrary "village elder" or "Shangri-La" (a fictional book) categories have no use whatsoever among scientists. I don't recall us describing Alexander Hamilton "myths" in his article even though "myth" appears in one of his source titles! JJB 09:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  We would be perfectly entitled write of Hamilton myths; there was considerable myth-making about Hamilton, and some of them we assert as facts. But that's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pma, but that's the issue, we're entitled to write about "longevity myths" if we found any in a socio/myth context, but instead we find almost all the sourcing in news, science, and basic history contexts! Not only is the concept that "longevity myths begin at 130" wholly OR, so are several of the narrative categories used as subheads in the article. Sources here do not support the title. JJB 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: JJ Bulten, you are confusing the informal use of the word myth with the formal. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below

No, sorry. Please answer my question above about how you independently sourced my state of mind, instead of performing ostensibly original research about it. JJB 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Informally, a myth is something widely believed, but is not true. For example:

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_news/50/six-eco-myths-debunked.html

A formal, scientifically recognized myth is (from Merriam-Webster):

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

The patriarchal myth of longevity (for example, Methuselah lived to 969) is a traditional story that is allegedly historical (but for which no evidence exists to prove it, and the claim is beyond scientific possibility) — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below

Please source that last clause as requested in my questions for you above. JJB 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

and it serves to "unfold part of the worldview of a people" AND helps to explain a "practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." In this case, the Methuselah myth helps to explain that the early people in the Bible lived a long time, — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below

Does it? How long? Who says so? Believe this is contained in question 3 above. JJB 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

but their life was shortened due to sin (note Genesis 6:3; also note the ages after the Flood and that Methuselah died the year the flood came).

There is also a third and fourth definition:

1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: parable, allegory2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone  ; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b: an unfounded or false notion3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence4: the whole body of myths

By definition 3, Catherine, Countess of Desmond has a wholly unverifiable existence. — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below

Um, this will not go over well for you. Katherine FitzGerald, Countess of Desmond, was portraited two or three times, and the reliable sources in that article include Notes and Queries, and wasn't that founded by William Thoms, whom Robert D. Young states to be his inspiration in his 2008 thesis, and who may have thus unwittingly verified her? So not only is there verifiable existence, but also definition 3 is the very one which WP:WTA#Myth and legend tells us to avoid thoroughly. What is your source for this being classified as "myth" by independents, as asked above? JJB 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the "informal" use of the word myth, this story is not "widely believed to be true" and thus cannot be definition 2. Thus, the article maintains a use of definition 1 for the general and definition 3 for the individual.Ryoung122 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Using def 3 in Misplaced Pages is thoroughly against WP:WTA#Myth and legend, and using def 1 without socio/myth context is also rejected, and this article does both. JJB 18:29, 7 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Canada Jack

• Strongly oppose I've read the above - and below - and it seems to me that JJB is missing the mark here. Robert has established that, indeed, scientifically many of these so-called "claims" are called "myths" within the literature and JJB's suggested title "stories" is too vague as to mean anything. Indeed, his attempts to find actual references which use the term "stories" is specious, he might as well use a similar technique to call them "incredible" or "unlikely." Further, there is a semantic distinction here which JJB is glossing over, and that is there is a particular use of "myth" which goes beyond the colloquial meaning. Perhaps the use of this particular word is the problem, especially when used to describe some Biblical figures? If that is the case, this is not the forum to insert personal religious dogma into a debate which uses a term that is found in sources and which is also commonly used in literature itself. Canada Jack (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks Jack, but you may have missed some things I said. First, we've established that "longevity myth" appears in one Japanese paper that does not relate to this topic, while "longevity story" shows up in several reliable sources that do relate (and I'm not even trying hard). Second, I have repeatedly affirmed the definitions of "myth" and repeatly pointed out that policy requires that the word "myth" only appear in a context of sociology or mythology that is carefully framed by the article, which this article fails to do and which no sources have been brought forward to rectify: so use of that word is in fact the problem, whatever it describes (I suppose I'm a bit more offended that Countess FitzGerald is being regarded a myth than that Serug is). Finally, would you please source your assertions (just as I've asked Ryoung under WP:V), when you say that my "attempts ... is specious", and when you imply that the term "longevity myth" is found in (socio/myth) sources and is commonly used in literature? Doing so would greatly advance the debate. JJB 13:03, 10 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 ... ...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 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)

Hmm, "calling it a 'myth' here does not establish the claims are false", technically, but according to WP:WTA#Myth and legend, it does risk implying they are false, a POV to be avoided with "utmost care"! And if we expanded the scope to include acknowledged fiction (Lord of the Rings, Lost Horizon), the implication would need even more than the "utmost care" required by policy. But even if such a good source as your own appeared in the longevity literature, there are other contingent issues going on here that may block consensus and need resolution first. Keep bookmarked and let's be patient. JJB 18:40, 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)

Jack, your comment suffers from similar flaws to those I note below. For instance, your first sentence jumps to an unfounded conclusion. You have not sourced your views of scientific implausibility, or "what we would currently hold as scientific verifiability", for those who may be skeptical against abuse of scientific claims. The Grimms were folklorists, not novelists. You confuse whether it is scientists or historians that document lives and verify records. However, we may finesse all this by considering a move to the previously overlooked "longevity traditions" instead. See below. JJB 21:00, 13 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)

Proposed recategorization

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)

Comment. JJB, this is the WHOLE problem with you. Here you are editing this article and you FINALLY do some research, AFTER the fact. Also, everything you do seems to be revolving around you: "my 1983 Guinness," "my first 'independent' categorization."

Also, you clearly misunderstand that the longevity myths did begin as myth: stories meant to explain the past or the way things are today. In fact, the below "four categories" are more appropriate to the longevity claims article, as this is dealing with people in the present or recent past, and with reasons that are often individual, not collective.Ryoung122 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please cease your WP:OR about my state of mind. JJB 22:54, 9 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)

If this is your first sourced assertion of anything, you clearly need to do more research. Also, you are mistaking categories of longevity-claims for categories of longevity myths. "Overadvanced, double-life, commercial, and political" are all related to claims. None of these are related to ideas such as the Fountain of Youth, Shangri-La, etc.Ryoung122 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please answer question (4) above et al. JJB 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That title word

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)

JJB, you completely misunderstand what a "weasel word" is. Let's look again:

Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.

Words such as "alleged" are, in fact, used to AVOID supporting unverifiable claims. Thus, they are "careful" words, NOT "weasel words."Ryoung122 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: for "WP:WEASEL words", please read "WP:WEASEL WP:WORDS". JJB 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

These are not accepted cases. Therefore we have to treat them as claims, allegations, reports, and as myths and legends. You should see WP:NPOV. We cannot say these are true cases. What we can do is rule out clearly exaggerated cases based on scientific data and projections. We need to make a distinction between clearly exaggerated cases and those which may well be true. Many of the words you listed are not weasel words at all. Every "case" (ie. person) "claims", "alleges" or are "reputed" to be a certain age. "Reports" are generally news reports. Whether the case is true or false, it was still claimed/alledged/reputed.SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you may be thinking mistakenly I am somehow advocating for saying they are true. My point is that they are all claims, allegations, reports, and cases in one sense, but they are not all agreeably described as myths and legends due to WP:WORDS#Myth and legend and due to their great diversity. Therefore I take your comment as support for any of the following titles: longevity claims (merger), or longevity allegations, reports, myths, or legends. Further, how do the reliable sources separate clearly exaggerated cases from those which may well be true? There is no accepted method. JJB 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What phrase authorities use

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

It appears that this is intended in response to my question (4) above, except that I had asked that it be answered in its place, and I had asked for sociologist/mythologist sources instead of scientific sources on that question. But as long as we're grasping at all straws, I'll throw in my hat. JJB 10:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A. Longevity myths

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

"Journal Title;Clinic All-round .... Abstract;They were proud of the longevity for both men and women in Okinawa Prefecture before, however, in the average life span in 2000 in statistics by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the ranking of men was lowered greatly from the 4th place in 1995 to the 26th place, though the ranking of woman kept the 1st place in Japan. This seems to relate to the fact that the traditional life style in Okinawa suitable for the longevity has been lost." If it's a fact that there was a lifestyle suitable for longevity, where is the myth? Does not seem to relate to this article. Too bad, because this was the only one that used the words "longevity myth" together. Article itself not available under WP:V. JJB 10:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

2. http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200318/000020031803A0517232.php

this was writen in 2003, BEFORE this article existed — Ryoung122 — continues after insertion below

"Journal Title;Clinic All-round .... Abstract;The humans have challenged to the impossible dream through alchemy in the West and immortality in the East. In search of the medicine for perennial youth and long life, the first Qin Emperor sent Johuku to Japan by his ship ...." OK, categories of alchemy and medicine, good, then it drifts off. Like the previous article, does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal or to be publishing in the authors' native language, and also fails WP:V. JJB 10:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

which fails WP:WTA. "In this review each of the hormones that have been suggested to play a role in rejuvenating older persons, ie, the so-called 'hormonal fountain of youth' is briefly discussed." Also they are talking about scientific search for rejuvenators, which is not this article's scope, unless someone knows of a notable sociological myth that such hormones have been found. I might could possibly see this going into a new section of the article, if only it were verifiable. JJB 10:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Hmm, interesting, but this is commentary about another, unavailable article, "Morley JE. A brief history of geriatrics . J Gerontol Med Sci. 2004;59A:1132-1152", which would be nice to have to see what words it uses. Are either of the authors sociologists or mythologists? And who's 15 here? JJB 10:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

B. Longevity narratives

C. Longevity stories (bolding added)

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)

D. Longevity folklore

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)

E. Longevity traditions (bolding added)

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:

1. Living in the face of death: the Tibetan tradition: "They summon forth the blessings of all the gurus in the lineage of transmission of this longevity tradition, as well as all Buddhas, bodhisattvas, dakas, dakinis, and Dharma protectors, etc., as well as all the human and transcended knowledge holders."
2. Secrets of Longevity: "Chuan xiong. It has long been a key herb in the longevity tradition of China, prized for its powers to boost the immune system, activate blood circulation, and relieve pain."
3. An end to ageing: remedies for life: "Taoist devotion to immortality is important to us for two reasons. The techniques may be of considerable value to our goal of a healthy old age, if we can understand and adapt them. Secondly, the Taoist longevity tradition has brought us many interesting remedies."
4. Daoist Mystical Philosophy: "Although the fangshi were firm members of the medical and longevity tradition and although the poets made frequent use of Daoist expressions, the full integration of the immortality cult into the mystical tradition did not take place until the development of Shangqing Daoism in the fourth century."
5. Proceedings, American Philosophical Society: "A key factor in the extraordinary success of Buchan's Domestic Medicine was that it combined in one book the regimen and longevity tradition with another popular tradition of the time, home treatment."

JJB 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Policy

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors and not in use in the reliable sources. Therefore, redirects are not needed. Ryoung122 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding fact tags

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

In which case you could cite Robert Young's book instead SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

An analogy

Let's say that I'm an expert Scrabble(R) player and have some recognition as such from within the community interested in that game. Let's say that in 2005 I posted a totally unsourced essay to WP of over 1000 words describing my (expert) views on what IS and IS NOT a "word", and a list of categories I've personally developed into which I categorize claims of letter-strings that I perceive as really nonwords. Let's say that nobody really cares for 4 years to argue with me about it, and those that do find out that I rely heavily on my expertise and ability to defend my categorization against all comers, but that I never really get around to sourcing why my categories are rooted in actual etymological or linguistics sources (I rely on my own and my friend's published work, such as the national Scrabble(R) association dictionary committee). Perhaps I am also possessed of idiosyncratic notions such as that "pizzazz" is not a word, because it has not been recognized as such by the official Scrabble(R) dictionary, because there is no way to play a word with four Z's from a bag of tiles containing the official Scrabble(R) tile distribution; I do not accept arguments that "pizzazz" occurs in some dictionaries, or even that the official dictionary should be presented as an alternate POV, but only the idea that "pizzazz" is definitively proven not to be a word by the only group of people who care enough to maintain the word-nonword distinction. I make 9000 edits, almost all relating to word lists and articles on obscure, record-holding words and (I believe) nonwords, and continuing to reflect my unsourced views. Let's say that another editor discovers that the entire article on "nonwords" has for 4 years contained my wholly unsourced and unvarnished original research, supplemented occasionally by other people trying to help out, but with my idiosyncratic categorizations and rules fully intact as I see fit. What should happen next? JJB 21:47, 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[REDACTED] 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)

Thanks, that's what I'm doing. Please don't read an implication in: what I said is that many sentences in this article are still original unsourced material by Ryoung122 after 4 years, and that I am making a standard WP:V challenge, which due to the endemic nature of the situation is more wide-cast than average. Please don't read an agenda in: an article based on an original unsourced research essay simply does not remain on WP in its present form when discovered. If your answer to my analogy question (in which yes, there is much weighty literature about what constitutes a "word") is that we should source the article, please help in doing so; but none of the present sources, and most of the apparent sources that might be added, are unlikely to prove that "longevity myths" is notably different from "longevity claims". Remember, I started out against merge before I discovered the policy violation. You yourself say there is much literature on "claims", rather than "myths". JJB 16:43, 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[REDACTED] are, in effect, simply essays uniquely written by their various[REDACTED] 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)

Use of the term "Myth"

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.

1. 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. 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; but no one has done so for weeks since I raised the policy issue.
2. 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. What has been presented only shows that the word "myth", not even "longevity myth" except in one case, is occasionally associated in passing with evidences of extreme longevity. The meaning and implication of the word "myth" is what is disputed, unlike the word "speech"; so we cannot assume something is a myth unless positively identified as such in sociological literature. 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. Again, sources in longevity relevant to this question have not turned up; those that have turned up generally do not support the basic idea.

   Note, I don't think I said the word "myth" itself is specifically OR, because I accept that, within WP:WTA limits, it may have use, and the question is whether those limits are being applied. 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.

3. I've seen scientific sources that comment on the plausibility of claims, but there is no evidence that they have any obvious plausibility bar such as is constantly alluded without sourcing. 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.
4. 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. Where is "Shangri-La", he asks? In good faith, it is retained but relegated to a brief mention of the fiction in which it appears, because no reliable source has indicated that "Shangri-La" is a category of longevity myth rather than just a novel. The rest of the structure fares similarly. If you want to help, let's both cut back on the talkpage and work on sourcing. JJB 20:18, 13 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[REDACTED] 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)

Reverting to a month ago

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is supposed to operate.Ryoung122 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I have had nothing to do with this article, I am concerned that a single editor sees fit to make wholesale changes to at least 2 articles (the other being Longevity claims which I was watching) without prior discussion and having not been involved previously in editing them. This would seem to be too much WP:POV, against WP:Consensus and, given the extraordinary number of tags in this article, a lot of WP:OR. Not the way i though[REDACTED] was supposed to work. DerbyCountyinNZ 02:04, 13 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)

I am preparing an RFC. Unlike you three, PiCo has made particular edits to particular sections, and I have made responsive edits toward building consensus. I repeat, if you have particular concerns with particular points, please edit those; if you have particular sources to include, please include them. Derby, you might recognize that even Ryoung regards many of my changes as improvements; so please be specific about your concerns. I don't think it appropriate to lay charges about who doesn't know how WP is supposed to work. The fact tags, as stated, relate to one unsourced, original essay (which just happens to have been in this article for four years) that needs sourcing, but I'll be happy to wait 100 days for sources if that is the agreed solution. There is much more, but suffice for now. JJB 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

• Support, for the following reasons. JJB 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Article has been flagged as failing guidelines on words to avoid for three weeks, due to utter failure to establish context within sociology or mythology. "Longevity traditions" has no baggage as a word to avoid.
2. No source supporting the current title was inserted in these three weeks. But many sources exist for the noncontroversial phrase "longevity traditions". See Talk:Longevity myths#What phrase authorities use.
3. Google test: "longevity myth" 771,000 hits; "longevity tradition" 1,340,000 hits; other titles also outpace "myth", even though "myth" has had several years of significant mirroring.

This is actually incorrect. Those are the results if you don't use quotation marks. "longevity tradition" brings up 198 results. "longevity myth" brings up 950 results including a paper in a scientific journal. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The original stated scope of "longevity myths" is now redundant with another article; and the stated scope as changed unilaterally in 2005 has never been proven in four years to be a notable scope. Nobody has thought to challenge the utter lack of reliable sources under WP:V until now.

   For the gory details, the original stated scope of "longevity myths" was "unsupported claims and why the burden of proof must rest on them, along with a list of those that have failed to meet it": and all this is now the current scope of the properly titled longevity claims article. So the original meaning attributed to "longevity myths" now has its own better-titled article. But the stated scope here was changed unilaterally by Ryoung122 to "the history of the mythology of longevity, as well as an explanation of the longevity myth phenomenon". While this might be construed as a suitable topic for this title, the same user simultaneously inserted a long, wholly unsourced "essay" (Young's term) about this topic, which remains essentially unsourced today after 4 years, and is still the backbone of the conglomerated article (thus all the fact tags, which refer to one basic essay insertion). The essay created original unsourced categories of myth such as "Shangri-La" (from a fictional novel, not a myth) and "village elder" (not proven in any source to be a myth category), yet it adds no reference to William Thoms, a significant figure in "the history of the mythology of longevity". So the new "meaning" attributed to "longevity myths", left untouched by WP silence for 4 years while mirrors were accumulated, has no real basis in reliable sources; but reliable sources for the phrase "longevity traditions" are easy to come by, as above.

2. Finally, the term "tradition" has been used in connection with longevity many times in a 2008 master's thesis by Robert Young, whom Ryoung122 self-identifies as. Young stated his thesis was based in part upon his insertions to this WP article (thesis p. 34, footnote 55), so the thesis cannot serve as a source; but even one who greatly popularizes the (relatively original) phrase "longevity myth" makes good use of the word "tradition".

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)

Strongly oppose The previous proposal garnered 3x strongly oppose 1x oppose/neutral and 2x support. Looks like consensus to me. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My friend, WP:CONSENSUS is determined by strength of arguments. Did you bring yours? This is not the previous proposal, and nobody else has proposed how to fix the policy violations. JJB 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I, and other users, have given their reasons above, reiterating them is only likely to lead to yet another "extended discussion". Unless those that were previously opposed are now in favour then we are no nearer consensus. In which case it will probably be necessary to request arbitration from an independent third party. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for that, as there is not consensus to keep either. JJB 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose again. Neither Walter Williams nor the Countess of Desmond is a "tradition". If JJB wants to improve the article, he could put her under Ireland, where she belongs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, the Countess article has long used "tradition" in the text. Are you actually defending both of these articles having "myth" in the category list, where there is zero context, contrary to WP:WTA? Also, you may not have noticed my other improvements to the article, but adding Ireland is fine (why didn't you make this easy, noncontroversial change?) JJB 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose

1.The usage of the term "myth," as long as the formal sense is defined, is well within the formal guidelines JJB himself points to. The only needed remedy required is to supply that formal definition (see above).

2.Since all we need to do is define "myth" as per WP policy, no source is required for the title. The objection is rendered moot.

3.The google test will also likely find more of the claims on this page under "myths" and more of other claims not considered "myth" by definition on the other search term, so one should not be surprised to see more of the latter. So the google test isn't very useful here. Besides, three quarters of a million hits is a significant number. JJB's test confirms that the term's usage is commonplace.

4."Myths" and "claims" are not interchangeable terms. The only real issue is when one can consider a claim as a "myth." And that is an issue of what, scientifically, is plausible. Many claims are at least partly plausible, so they properly belong with "claims," many others are clearly (scientifically speaking) implausible, so they belong here. At most, we have a gray area for claims around 120-130.

5."Tradition" is not defined the same way "myth" is defined. IOW, it lacks the sociological meaning that "myth" has so cannot easily replace "myth" for the purpose of this article's title.

In conclusion, since there exists a counter-argument, based on WP policy which concludes that all is required here is a) define "myth" in the formal sense, with "context" detailing what is considered scientifically plausible and b) supply more citations, and that I count more opposing your move than supporting it, you have no consensus to alter the article in the manner you propose. Canada Jack (talk) 17:38, 14 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? You misinterpret Google's search with unjoined terms, as there are only about 100 joined-term uses of either phrase, but a good chuck of "myths" are mirrors to WP's use of the word, which (duh) explains why this article's unsourced examples have become associated with the term. But see above for Ryoung's best efforts to source "myth" (unjoined), and my much more fertile offhand first attempt to source "longevity tradition" (joined), to answer your speculation. Finally, you assume the article is sociological in the first place, and then use that assumption to state that "tradition" cannot replace it. But I have no doubt sanity will prevail. JJB 18:48, 14 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)

• Start-Class Longevity articles
• Mid-importance Longevity articles
• WikiProject Longevity articles