Jump to content

Talk:Longevity myths: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GreenC bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,260,199 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 87: Line 87:


{{reflist-talk}}
{{reflist-talk}}

== Kirk Campbell of Scotland, "258" ==

I remember reading on Gerontology Wiki that Kirk Campbell died in Edinburgh on 6 June 1859 at the claimed age of 258. Of course, it’s a load of old baloney, but I thought it should get a mention. [[User:00sClassicGamerFan|00sClassicGamerFan]] ([[User talk:00sClassicGamerFan|talk]]) 22:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:25, 9 May 2022

Error: The code letter old for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Longevity myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Longevity myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?

Under "Other" in "Modern extreme longevity claims", the first bullet point says:

  • Albrecht von Haller allegedly collected examples of 62 people ages 110–120, 29 ages 120–130, and 15 ages 130–140. Switzerland

The "Switzerland" at the end doesn't make sense. Is it a careless mistake of some sort? UnsignificantEditor (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think that was to indicate von Haller's nationality at least, if not also the territory from which he drew his data, having read his wiki article.Cloptonson (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Living?" and "likely dead"

These notes in the table should be removed, as they're all based on WP:OR and violate WP:BLP. Reporting that a living person is "likely dead", without any reliable source to support it, is unethical. Pburka (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the problematic OR with the last date they were reported to be living. Pburka (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Use of the Word "Myth" is Biased, and Apparently Meant to be Insulting

Had the writer titled this article "Longevity Stories," or "Ancient Longevity Accounts," then there would be no dispute.I believe that the author was fully aware of this, and deliberately categorized religious accounts as 'myth' and is using obfuscation when challenged on the use of the word. By having a floating meaning of the word 'myth' the author seeks to continue to be denigrating towards religion. Even if there is a technical definition of the word 'myth' that may be used with a pretense of being accurate, it is admitted that when the word 'myth' is used, it is meant that something is not true; and I'm sure the author of this article is fully aware of this fact. If the same word 'myth' were used to categorize evolution, such as "The Myth of Evolution," then there would be a firestorm of challenges that would have resulted in a very quick retraction of the use of the word myth to describe evolution although technically evolution is a myth.

Proof: Mirriam Webster Dictionary, Definition of myth 1a: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. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

The Bible's use of the word 'myth' to describe genealogies means nothing when one considers that the Biblical author could be speaking of genealogies of other belief systems such as the Roman claim that Roman emperors descended from Romulus, or Aeneas. The Romans were occupying Judea during the time Timothy called geneaologies "myth." The Biblical writer could have been biased, but that does not make the use of the word 'myth' a fair one, even from a Biblical person, when it is not challenged in the Bible by a person of another faith. There are other religions mentioned in this article which are accounts that are taken seriously by the followers of of the very religions this article seeks to denigrate with a pretense of being written by a clueless, oblivious, naive (some people would say 'innocent') writer.

Remedy: Change the title of the article such that it is not biased towards any group. To call religious accounts a 'myth' is biased towards atheism. To say that these accounts are true are biased towards every religion even though each may actually believe that their counterparts are not true. The word "accounts" is better than myths because it allows religious and humanistic points of view to argue their position in history without having an article making a declaration of his/her atheistic beliefs as if those beliefs are fact. If there are no 'modern' accounts that something happened (even though there are ancient ones), then equally, and opposite, it must be admitted that there is no modern account that something did not happen. Not to mention all of our accounts will seem ancient to some group of people in the distant future. If we follow this author's point of view then we may as well get a head start and say that cars are a myth since when fuel runs out, people will be back to riding horses.

Trounds2 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Tyrone Rounds [1][reply]

There is no "the writer" - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort with many writers. We know what a myth is, and the word is correct, as evidenced by its use in reliable sources.
You lost the rest of your credibility when you wrote "evolution is a myth". This is a science-based encyclopedia. You will be better served at a myth-based encyclopedia such as Conservapedia. Maybe the Talk pages there are more tolerant of endless blathering too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of 'myth' is not meant to offend the religious, and it shouldn't. For example, many Christian scholars agree that the extreme ages of certain individuals in Genesis are an indication that Genesis was written to be interpreted as mythological. See, for example, here (this article, by a Christian scholar, is used as a source in the Longevity myths article here). -- Pingumeister(talk) 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for changing the name.
1.) Why presuppose the biblical accounts to be "myth"? As Trounds2 said, it's biased towards scientism/naturalism. Here's another possibility: the biblical lifespans are intended to be taken literally, not mythically. And here's a further possibility: the numbers found in the bible are accurate. It's not impossible. Science cannot (and doesn't attempt to) prove the uniformity of nature. Science cannot (and doesn't attempt to) disprove the existence of the supernatural or the preternatural, or the possibility of miracles. "Scientism" (the belief that science alone can explain everything, or that everything ought to be explained in naturalistic terms) is not science; it's philosophy. (Bad philosophy, i.e. superstition.)
2.) Setting aside the religious figures, why are the ages of Yellow Emperor, Emperor Yao, Emperor Shun, Taejo of Goguryeo, Manuchehr, Lohrasp, Goshtasp, and Piast Kołodziej listed as "mythic"? Their reputed lifespans are not altogether incredible even if we presuppose naturalism (which I don't suggest we do).
3.) Even for cases where the numbers are (literally) false or otherwise inaccurate, I'm hesitant to label them all as "myth". Because the word "myth" is very poorly defined to begin with, but I think "myths" usually involve high levels of symbolism and are based in little to no historical reality. Compare that with the recorded lifespans. Some of this might not be "myth" but mere exaggeration. Others might be genuine myth. But they're probably not all "myth".
4.) Maybe this was just poor planning, but why is that modern cases with purported ages above 130 are placed here in this section of the "myth" page, whereas cases with purported ages below 130 are placed on the list on the separate "Longevity claims" article? This seems awfully suspect. So we're defining "myth" to mean any age above a certain cutoff number--a number arbitrarily chosen by the editors? 2601:49:C301:D810:70CB:FE12:C6C6:ABB1 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

Kirk Campbell of Scotland, "258"

I remember reading on Gerontology Wiki that Kirk Campbell died in Edinburgh on 6 June 1859 at the claimed age of 258. Of course, it’s a load of old baloney, but I thought it should get a mention. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Longevity_myths&oldid=1087033033"