Talk:Longevity myths

What sorts of records

What sorts of records are accepted as adequate documentation ("demonstrated records") ? When did people start using those sorts of records ? Did those sorts of records exist over 300 years ago ? --DavidCary 21:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Well, no. That's the whole point.

"When were you born?" "It must have been a hundred years ago." "Can you prove it?" "Are you calling me a liar?!" DS 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

verbatim ?

Moved from article because much of the text is copied verbatim from the printed Guinness Book of Records . See http://207.178.248.67/editorial/boston/0801/080601.html for an example of a rewritten version of the same information.

---

Longevity myths have been around for as long as human records. As the Guinness Book of World Records stated in numerous editions from the 1960s to 1980s, "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity."

At the time those words were written Guinness had never acknowledged anyone as having reached the age of 114, but longevity has increased in recent years. The first three people to be acknowledged by Guinness as reaching 114 have all been subjected to doubt by others,and the first two people Guinness accepted as reaching 113 (both male though the 113-plus age bracket has since been shown on the order of 90% female) are both no longer regarded as having done so.

Even today with Jeanne Calment the recordholder at an indisputable age of 122, the facts remain clear:

Fewer than fifty people in human history have been documented as reaching the age of 114.

Fewer than twenty of those people who reached 114 have reached the age of 115.

Yet in the face of the ages that can be validated by investigation,we are still confronted with claims that the observed extremes have been far exceeded - longevity myths.

Leaving aside claims in mythology of lives into the thousands of years, and biblical claims like Methuselah, there have been reports for centuries that persist today of people decades, even generations, older than have ever been shown authentic.

A National Geographic article in 1973 treated with respect some claims subsequently disproven and retracted, including the notorious Vilcabamba valley in Ecuador, where locals pointed to ancestors' baptismal records as their own. Also in that article were reports of very aged people in Hunza, a mountain region of Pakistan, without documentary evidence being cited.

It is typical that extreme longevity claims come from remote areas where recordkeeping is poor, but generally observed life expectancy is rather lower than in the areas where genuine claims are typically found. The Caribbean island nation of Dominica was lately promoting the allegedly 128-year-old Elizabeth Israel (1875??-2003) but has a smaller population and lower life expectancy than Iceland, where the documentation is very good and the longevity record is 108.

The Caucasus mountain region of Abkhazia was the subject of extreme claims for decades, inspired by the desire of Stalin to believe that he would live a very long time, the most extreme claim there being that of Shirali Mislimov (1805??-1973). An earlier claim of similar lifespan from South America was for Javier Pereira (said to have been determined to be 167 years old by a dentist looking at his teeth!). There have likewise been a scattering of extreme claims from Africa, the most recent being Namibia's Anna Visser, who died in January 2004 at an alleged 125 or 126.

The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in 1933 that a Chinese man, Li Chung-yun, born in 1680, had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original).

In prior centuries there have been other claims, one of the best-known being Thomas Parr, introduced to London in 1635 with the claim that he was 152 years old, who promptly died and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Greater English claims include those of the allegedly-169-year-old Henry Jenkins (apparently concocted to support testimony in a court case about events a century before) and the supposedly 207-year-old Thomas Carn (died in 1588 by most reports).

Longevity myths did not come in for serious scrutiny until the work of W.J. Thoms in 1873, and the odd wire correspondent looking for a captivating filler reports extreme undocumented claims to this day: in early 2000 a Nepalese man claimed to have been born in 1832, citing as evidence a card issued in 1988. In December 2003,a Chinese news service claimed (incorrectly) that the Guinness Book had recognized a woman in Saudi Arabia as being 131.

Responsible validation of longevity claims involves investigation of records following the claimant from birth to the present, and claims far outside the demonstrated records regularly fail such scrutiny. The United States Social Security Administration has public death records of over 100 people said to have died in their 160s to 190s, but often a quick look at the file immediately finds an obvious error.

The work of sorting genuine supercentenarians is a continuous process, and a news story must never be taken for authoritative fact if no validation is cited.

ONE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED SENTENCE is from the Guinness Book.NOTHING ELSE.To call this article copyright infringement is outrageous harrassment!--Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

---

Why This Article from the-signal.com and Longevity myths both refer to the same mathematical error? "The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in 1933 that a Chinese man, Li Chung-yun, born in 1680, had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original)." Optim 00:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually,the Boston article didn't pick up on the mathematical error.(1933-1680 is of course 253 so even if he HAD been born in 1680 he could not have been 256).The point is,my article text is NOT an infringement on the Guinness Book text...Bcorr claimed on the "Copyright violations" page that much of the second half of the article is verbatim from the Guinness Book when the only quote from the Guinness Book,clearly identified,is near the top!The Guinness Book text (1960s-1980s) on Li Chung-yun is The height of credulity was reached on May 5,1933,when a news agency solemnly filed a story from China with a Peking date-line that Li Chung-yun,"the oldest man on earth",born in 1680,had just died aged 256 years(sic).It was modified somewhat thereafter and the reference last appeared in 1994.I have every edition of the Guinness Book since 1970,and did not use their words in referring to anything in the article,except for the one quoted sentence.--Louis E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

OK,ThanksLouis.ICheckedThe1966HardcoverVersionOfTheGuinnessBook(pp.12-123)AndIStandCorrected.OfCourseThatIsWhyItIsCalledPossibleCopyrightViolations.ThanksBCorr ¤ Брайен 21:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since life expectancy is basically an averege,

IMHO "where the  life expectancy is rather lower" is not a valid argument. In most under developed areas life expectancy is very low due to large numbers of infant deaths

HussaynKhariq 05:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is NOT correct! Life expectancy is based on median values, not averages. For example, suppose you have five people die at ages 0, 13, 41, 56, and 73. The AVERAGE is 36.6 (0+13+41+56+73)/5. The life expectancy, however, is 41--the median value. When added up to millions of people, there is still a difference, as you pointed out the infant mortalities tend to weigh down the AVERAGES but have little effect on the MEDIAN or 50% mark, which in most countries occurs in the 70's range.

A little more about statistics: only about 1 in 2 billion people can expect to live to age 115, and only 1 in 10 billion to age 120. So, do you really think age 167 is possible? I don't!Ryoung122 09:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Life expectancy is not only life expectancy at birth.Actuarial study records the proportions of people reaching various ages,and the average life expectancy remaining after various ages are reached.It's true that the life expectancy after childhood may exceed life expectancy at birth in countries with high infant mortality,but nonetheless the number reaching extreme ages is also small,and demonstrated survival curves for those within high ages show a high mortality rate that indicates against accepting extreme claims.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia articles do not get their names because the writers want to make a point but they get their names to provide the reader with factual information. Andries 22:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You missed the whole point! These aren't just unverifiable claims; many have been shown to be false. Moreover, there is a pattern of myth-making, rooted in paternalism, maternalism, nationalism, the "local villager elder," and of course the "fountain of Youth" and "Shang-ri La." Despite scientic documentation (see Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Odense Monographs) that high age claims are a function of illiteracy and lack of record-keeping (and disappear when record-keeping is in place for 100 consecutive years), people from lands such as India continue to make extra-ordinary claims, not realizing that Europe itself once did as well...but has now matured to "proven" longevity (except for Eastern Europe, where the myth of longevity survives).

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^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 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)

Abkhaz?

I had the impression that there was once a practice in the Abkhaz regions whereby one could avoid military conscription if one was of advanced age, and therefore people would often buy documents showing that they were actually in their 70s. Presto, an extra 50 years added to someone's age.

Or something.

Benito Martinez

New contender for the oldest living person.. Should be at Supercentenarian but 2 editors don't feel its valid. But Guinness is not THE authority. this is hypocritcal of them >>> "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity" It is they.. who are making money out of the disparate, the media savvy, and fallacious claims - indulging in the presentation of false/elitist 'record' system. dishonest u catch me?. Do they rule achievement history? max rspct 17:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In other words, Max Respect (an avowed Marxist), is advancing a case without proof, and then throwing in the red herring of profit-making. Guinness has millions of records, they are not making a profit off of a single "world's oldest person" record...Benito Martinez has no proof of existence before 1925, nor does he have any family tree that can establish his age in context.

Shigechiyo Izumi

Noticed that other pages are saying there is some dispute to his age but this page has him undisputed. Perhaps some consistency - SimonLyall 10:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The case IS disputed. The problem is, people who don't know what they're talking about keep corrupting the system.

Now I've been given a word that a child is using his imagination - and I've come to put a stop to it! Anyway, How can this be possible?:

The longest working career for a person ever recorded is th 98 years worked by Shigechiyo Izumi, who began his career goading draft animals at a sugar mill in 1872. He retired as a sugercane farmer in 1970 aged 105.

And this article is out of date!:

Copyright 1987 Asahi News Service Asahi News Service

APRIL 6, 1987, MONDAY

LENGTH: 391 words

HEADLINE: JAPANESE EXPERT DEBUNKS IDEA OF 'VILLAGE OF 100-YEAR-OLDS'

DATELINE: TOKYO

BODY: A Japanese expert on aging says reports that the oldest Japanese man died earlier last year at the age of 120 are false -- he was only 105.

The true age of Shigechiyo Izumi, who died in February 1986, was discovered through research in his family's registration records, says Toshihisa Matsuzaki, director of the Department of Epidemiology at the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology.

At an April 4 meeting of the Japan Association of Medical Sciences, Matsuzaki also denied there is any village in the world made up mostly of people well over the age of 100, including a Japanese village with such a reputation.

There is no such thing as the village of centenarians, Matsuzaki says.

The village of Yuzurihara in Japan's Yamanashi Prefecture has a reputation as the home of many old people who go about their daily work with the vigor of those much younger. But Matsuzaki says statistics show that of the village residents over the age of 65, fewer of them are 90 or older than the national average.

The village is dubbed as a senior citizens' village only because many young people left for the city, he says.

Matsuzaki also casts doubt on other villages in the Soviet Union and Equador that have similar reputations.

He says there is no one age 110 or older living in a village in the Georgian Republic of the Soviet Union known as the home of the world's oldest people. He says half of the village residents claiming to be 90 or older gave false ages.

Matsuzaki quotes a Soviet medical researcher as saying, It is a fairy tale that people 130 or 140 years old exist.

Matsuzaki suspects that Georgian men may have reported false ages to escape military service. One reason he is suspicious is that more men than women are 100 or older in the Georgian Republic, in contrast to global statistics that show four times as many women than men reach that age.

Citing research done by American scholars, Matsuzaki also labels a myth the idea that the village of Vilcabamba, Equador, has many residents well over 100 years old.

Matsuzaki quotes the scholars as saying that all the people over the age of 90 gave the wrong age and that those who claimed to be over 100 were actually 86 years old on the average. The age claimed by one person would have made him five years older than his mother, Matsuzaki says.

Re; Longevity myths

Removed this text by User:193.203.149.125 from the article: seemed unencyclopedic. --Sum0 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Re; Longevity myths.

'When the medical world began studying longevity seriously in the 1960s, scientists flocked to Abhazia, Georgia, the Hunza, and Vilcabamba, Ecuador, sites renowned for the long life spans of their residents. In 1978, Dr. Richard Mazess published a study claiming that in Vilcabamba everyone was exaggerating their true ages. Since proper birth records did not exist, he based his premise on a genealogical survey of families in Vilcabamba, combined with baptism records that are for all purposes illegible. Whether his conclusions are correct or not, they were accepted as fact.

Mazess, who is a specialist on osteoporosis, had come here to study the remarkable lack of the disease in Vilcabamba. His studies were never really finished, since he became totally absorbed with the exaggeration thesis. He stated that only one centenarian in a population base this size was out of the ordinary. Two 100 year old residents here would be more than a miracle and deserve ample study, At that time, 15 people in the valley claimed to be over a hundred. Mazess said they were all liars. He listed ten people he considered to be between 85 and 95, and who claimed to be centenarians. Of that list, two people are still alive. Since the list was made in 1978, it would seem that Dr. Mazess has an obligation to do more research around Vilcabamba. However, he is now "retired" and still too busy to follow up his original report. In fact, hardly anyone in the scientific world is interested in the theme of natural longevity any more. The fad has passed and laboratory advances have made field work superfluous. Dr. Alex Leaf, who came here with National Geographic, now quotes Richard Mazess as the authority on the old liars from Vilcabamba, and spends all his time researching fish oils. Perhaps fish oils are the salvation of humanity, and certainly it is more convenient than a trip to southern Ecuador. But there is still a whole lot to leam here in Vilcabamba that will never be discovered in a lab. http://www.vilcabamba.org/article.html

The above claim and link is an example of a "fountain of youth" myth (i.e. quackery). The motivation is to convince unsuspecting victims to buy something, such as mineral water. These myths are always based on some unproven claim, and often involve a paranoid take, such as "what they don't want you to know". Believe me, there is absolutely no substance to the Vilcabamba myth.R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

'...

 Indeed, dietary moderation is a consistent feature of the

lives of the superwrinklies. Protein and animal fat typically play a minimal role in their menus. In Sunchang, for example, rice and boiled vegetables are a staple. "The white-rice- and-vegetables-dominated diet consists primarily of carbohydrate, while remaining low in fat," says Dr. Park Sang Chul, who heads the World Health Organization's aging-research center in Seoul and has spent three years studying the residents of Sunchang. "Low fat content is one of the more crucial keys toward longevity." The story is similar for the locals of Hunza Valley, says Khwaja Khan, a physician in the Hunza town of Karimabad who has treated many of the valley's eldest residents. The Hunza, Khan says, were cut off from the outside world for centuries by the 7,000-meter Himalayan peaks ringing the valley, and until recently were forced to subsist on a spartan menu of apricots, walnuts, buckwheat cakes and fresh vegetables. Many cross the century mark, and a few motor on for another 10 years or longer. ... http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/printout/0,13675,501030721-464472,00.html

While low fat content is probably a good thing to keep one going, I do wonder what they would have to say about Jeanne Calment, who finally gave up smoking at the age of 117. Some people just get good genes. thefamouseccles 03:23, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Biblical accounts

I'm playing devil's advocate now (though I suppose that since I agree with it I must be somewhat diobolical), but if we're going to classify all of these as myths due to an inability to verify them scientifically, shouldn't we toss all the Biblical claims in this boat (Ark?), too? I think someone said previously that we should make this "longevity claims," and I agree if only for the purpose of consistency, if not also because it's unwise to use Wikipedia to make that sort of NPOV statement about a claim's reliability. I think the Biblical example shows us that no matter how silly something seems from a non-believer's standpoint, there is someone out there who won't classify it as a myth. Sometimes a few billion. Fearwig 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has recently added an analysis of biblical accounts of longevity--the problem I see is that it's, well, analysis. Is this studied in sources, or is it OR? Fearwig 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the "years" that Methuselah and others supposedly lived for were really months and that the confusion was caused by an error in translation. We don't know for sure what sort of animal a Leviathan really was; so how can we be sure we have translated this part of the Bible correctly? A life span of 930 years is not at all believable based on current evidence. Treat this as months and divide it by 12, and we get a more plausible life span of 77 years. --B.d.mills 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pul-leeze! Quiz with the lunar-cycle apologism. Two wrongs don't make a right. If these patriarchs were having children at '65' and you divide by 12, what age do you get? No. The book says 930, it means 930. Much the way the characters in Lord of the Rings are thousands of years old. It's fantasy. Quit trying to make it factual when it's not. R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed al Wasimy

1875-living? http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_al_Wasimy

And you honestly do believe all this? Extremely sexy 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Longevity records from antiquity

The claims by the Romans of certain people living a long time is dubious. Roman names did not have a lot of variety; many Romans would have shared a name. How can a Roman emperor be sure that a hypothetical Quintus Maximus who is alive at the time of a Census is really the same Quintus Maximus who was born 150 years ago? --B.d.mills 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above section misses the entire point of the article. The point of the article is that people tended to make up 'myths' about longevity, and that these myths can be defined by the motivations that give rise to them and the factors that cause them. People adding in their two cents is diluting the purpose and focus. Also, there is a 'longevity claims' section for alleged records. This isn't about records; it's about oral history. R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So adding (with sources, of course) the claim of the Sumerian King List that several semi-legendary kings ruled for thousands of years (which ones I can't tell you -- my copy of the book is at home & I'm not there), or Pliny's claim of several people living more than 100 years would be unwanted? -- llywrch 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Myth categories

Greetings,

Please note that the myth categories, though all well-delineated, may not be 'rigid' in an either/or sense. It is possible for a myth to fit into more than one category. Someone may be a patriarch, a village elder, and a religious figure. However, these all still differ in that, for example, a village elder need not be a patriarch (esp. if a woman!) and a religious figure also may not be a patriarch (esp. in Eastern religions which stress individual paths). Note also we may see an overlap between nationalism, ideology, localism, Shangri-La, and Fountain of Youth. However, although a myth may have more than one origin, we can find examples of longevity claims that are unique to each particular myth category.

Also, if someone wants to propose a new category, please do so on the message board. Some gratituous additions have missed the point of this article. The longevity claims article is more appropriate for actual possible claims, such as ages 113 or 115. This article deals mainly with those cases which are scientifically impossible, but are still made for reasons of nationalism, religion, wanting to life forever, etc. R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

One of these categories should include the genealogies in Genesis. Those people were said to live 800+ years. Not that I believe it, or am a christian, but I feel it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.128.28 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Jimmu reference innapropriate

Including Emperor Jimmu as an example of Longevity Myths is logically incorrect. Emperor Jimmu was never claimed to have lived particularily long (75 years is hardly a remarkable lifespan). While Jimmu's existance itself might be a myth, his lifespan is of no extraordinary note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.84.2 (talk • contribs)

It isn't indeed: I agree with you. Extremely sexy 10:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: some Japanese emperors were stated to have reigned for over 100 years, and the purpose of the age-exaggeration was to extend the 'reign dates' of Emperor Jimmu Tenno back into time. Most modern Japan historians believe that, if he existed, he lived some 1,000 years later. The Japanese-emperor cases are relevant because they offer one reason for age inflation.74.237.28.5 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, in this case the extension of age of the in-between emperors was made in part to back-date Emperor Jimmu's status further in the past.Ryoung122 07:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Francisco

Any thoughts on expanding the list of exaggerated claims? There's a claim of the oldest American that is all over the Genealogy websites, if you research surname Francisco, you will find most Americans will try to link into "Old Henry" Francisco, who, according to a 1939 Ripley's Believe it or Not article, was the oldest soldier in the American Revolution enlisting at age 91 in 1777, making him born in 1686 with a death in 1820, at 134. Check it out http://whitehall.bloatedtoe.com/henry-francisco.html Through The Lens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.240.220 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia's policy:

      Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia itself evolves, and that devolution has become the norm, as expert advice is refected in favor of popular opinion. How does THAT serve making this an "encyclopedia"? Or has Wikipedia just become a blog?Ryoung122 08:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia:Words to avoid states "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Naming conflict in order to fully understand the official policy. This article qualifies as a spinout (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, although it is still required to conform to the NPOV policy in general. But that does not mean it is not allowed to present the view that these claims are considered "myths" by some people. I think the real debate here is whether or not calling them myths qualifies as taking sides. Many people consider the word myth to mean not just something that is false, but also to mean a "traditional story" (see Myth). The articles Tornado myths and 10% of brain myth, which are uncontroversial yet seem to implicate that myths are untrue (informal use of the term). While Urban myths redirects to Urban legends (the more commonly used term). National myth, Deluge myth, and Founding myth are all formal uses of the term, which do not imply that these are falsehoods, simply "historical narratives". Whether the article is named "longevity myths/legends/narratives", the point of this article is to discuss the legendary stories regarding human longevity. The formal use of the word "myth" is to describe "legendary" accounts, whether they are true or not is irrelevant. The use of the word "myth" in this context is acceptable and conforms to the NPOV policy. Now, if anyone wants to debate whether the tone of this article conforms to the NPOV article, that is certainly up for debate. However, I have wasted enough of my time, and managed to violate my own policy of avoiding controversial edits and/or discussions, so I will leave it at that. I'm done with it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Requested moves, and posting messages on the talk pages of the WikiProjects attached to this article (and even other projects that might have a related interest in this topic) seeking feedback from other editors. Four users does not make a consensus. Seeking outside opinions might break the stalemate we seem to have here, and would be more productive than the four of us rehashing old arguments over and over again. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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.[citation needed]" because it adds nothing to the article and is inaccurate. We are talking about people who lived, at most, 10,000 years ago. Biology tells us that humans now are exactly the same as humans 10,000 years ago; 10,000 years is less than a nanosecond in the human evolutionary time-line. Mentioning creation in this article is ridiculous, as creation is a religious not a scientific belief, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --128.151.86.184 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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 [1], then as 250 by Ryoung [2]. Googling yields mostly mirrors. I unintentionally saw and used the 200 number more widely first before realizing there may be an error. The simplest resolution is if Ryoung has the original source handy for verification; otherwise, though it is likely that consensus would favor 250 in the absence of verification, it would still technically be a matter in need of verification someday. The question is not, of course, to be decided on the Biblical data, but on what Lee concluded from it. (I note that Shem (allegedly) lived 502 years after the flood, totaling 600, in an era of 500s; Miriam and Aaron exceeded 120 in what is presumably an era of 120s, unless the "fall" is the death of Moses and not say the golden calf; and several ages in the Septuagint (as per the new template), which Lee perhaps neglected, also exceed the era plateau.) JJB 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. Cheers, CP 04:17, 8 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)

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)

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). 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)

Scientific Journal Use:Longevity Myths

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:

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

B. Longevity narratives

C. Longevity stories

D. Longevity folklore

Ryoung122 21:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)