Talk:Longevity myths/Archive 1

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) "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)
 * Well, no. That's the whole point.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borr (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2004


 * 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2004

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


 * 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 ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 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)

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. DS 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.173.30 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2005

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.173.30 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2005

Re; Longevity myths
Removed this text by User:193.203.149.125 from the article: seemed unencyclopedic.


 * "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" --Sum0 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 {yak ł 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 --Sum0 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 {yak ł 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 {yak ł 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)

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)

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 <span style="color:#006688;font-family:arial, helvetica;">Young {<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;font-size:x-small;">yak <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;">ł <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;font-size:x-small;">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)

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)

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. - A M K 1 5 2 (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)

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. Ryoung 122 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). ''


 * 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. Ryoung 122 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. Ryoung 122 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, not exactly, please review WP:OWN, major changes are actually usually proposed in talk or inserted straightway by being WP:BOLD. Anyway my further comments are at Talk:Longevity claims. JJB 18:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * JJB is right, he doesn't have to notify the article creator to make any changes. Only if the changes are against previously-established consensus should he discuss the changes on the article talk page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Witness Lee number
The third Lee plateau was inserted into WP twice, first as 200 by an IP, then as 250 by Ryoung. Googling yields mostly mirrors. I unintentionally saw and used the 200 number more widely first before realizing there may be an error. The simplest resolution is if Ryoung has the original source handy for verification; otherwise, though it is likely that consensus would favor 250 in the absence of verification, it would still technically be a matter in need of verification someday. The question is not, of course, to be decided on the Biblical data, but on what Lee concluded from it. (I note that Shem (allegedly) lived 502 years after the flood, totaling 600, in an era of 500s; Miriam and Aaron exceeded 120 in what is presumably an era of 120s, unless the "fall" is the death of Moses and not say the golden calf; and several ages in the Septuagint (as per the new template), which Lee perhaps neglected, also exceed the era plateau.) JJB 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it looks like Ryoung already did, in what appears to be his thesis, page 65. Editing accordingly as a footnoted 250. I'll distribute the paragraph more widely when comfortable. JJB 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


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

Second of all, the numbers can be deduced from the Bible directly: Peleg lived 239 years, so "200" is clearly incorrect. Ryoung 122 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)

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,
 * In other words, you seek to hijack science with creationism. Ryoung 122  06:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

but seek to weight this coverage properly with other traditions. As a related proposal, it seems to me that rather than an in-text list of Biblical longevity, a new template "Biblical longevity" would be preferred. This would allow text to flow around the otherwise sparse data; it would allow smaller font and a narrow table; and it would also be transferable to some of the shorter patriarch articles to give an indication of their statistical place within Biblical longevity narratives. It would only have 3 columns, for name/link, age, and LXX age when different. I don't see any drawbacks to this idea. OTOH, I can imagine that renaming might need a bit more demonstration of consensus first. I will also experiment with some rewordings under WP:BRD to see how they look; I would ask that anyone who cares to revert do so on an edit-by-edit rather than bulk basis. JJB 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Guidance on use of word "myth" is being thoroughly ignored.
 * 2) 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.
 * 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. Ryoung 122 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)
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) "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.
 * 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. Ryoung 122 08:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * 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. Ryoung 122 06:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * 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. Ryoung 122 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.
 * 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. Ryoung 122 08:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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".
 * 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. Ryoung 122 08:24, 1 May 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? Ryoung 122 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, 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, 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? Ryoung 122 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. Ryoung 122 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, 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 Content forking and Naming conflict in order to fully understand the official policy. This article qualifies as a spinout (see Content forking, 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 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)

Redirect Policy
Wikipedia uses redirects when there is more than one common expression for basically the same thing. This is not the case here. The "redirects" you are proposing are entirely invented by Wikipedia editors and not in use in the reliable sources. Therefore, redirects are not needed. Ryoung 122 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed recategorization
I cracked open my 1983 Guinness on this issue just now, and I found my first independent categorization of the reasons for longevity narratives. It mentions four categories, but is not entirely clear what they are, so I hope I've gotten them right in the excerpt below. JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. JJB, this is the WHOLE problem with you. Here you are editing this article and you FINALLY do some research, AFTER the fact. Also, everything you do seems to be revolving around you: "my 1983 Guinness," "my first 'independent' categorization."
 * Also, you clearly misunderstand that the longevity myths did begin as myth: stories meant to explain the past or the way things are today. In fact, the below "four categories" are more appropriate to the longevity claims article, as this is dealing with people in the present or recent past, and with reasons that are often individual, not collective. Ryoung 122 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cease your WP:OR about my state of mind. JJB 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"In late life, very old people often tend to advance their ages at the rate of about 17 years per decade .... Several celebrated super-centenarians (over 110 years) are believed to have been double lives (father and son, relations with the same names or successive bearers of a title) .... A number of instances have been commercially sponsored, while a fourth category of recent claims are those made for political ends .... Guinness 1983 pp. 16-19 JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)" For shorthand for the moment, we can call these four overadvanced, double-life, commercial, and political. Further, these are the "recent claims"; it is clear that that permits another set, which we can call historical claims, which this Guinness piece does not illuminate us toward categorizing further. The last two modern narrative rationales correlate nicely with sections already in the article, but the first two do not (and only have a couple cases each), and many modern claims or narratives do not fit any of these categories due to lack of evidence; this may suggest a fifth modern category, that for which no evidence exists suggesting the falsity of the narrative other than scientific odds (about which I will say more later). JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this is my first sourced assertion that the reliable sources do not categorize the arbitrary way in which we have done so for years. My natural question is: would there be a general consensus toward rearranging the article with this quote as a (first) guide, as described above? JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is your first sourced assertion of anything, you clearly need to do more research. Also, you are mistaking categories of longevity-claims for categories of longevity myths. "Overadvanced, double-life, commercial, and political" are all related to claims. None of these are related to ideas such as the Fountain of Youth, Shangri-La, etc. Ryoung 122 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please answer question (4) above et al. JJB 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That title word
Here's the number of times, by my count, that various words are used in this 4-page coverage to indicate the dubiety of a statement (we call them WP:WEASEL words WP:WORDS). Most frequent was "claim" (15 times), for all situations including Li at 256. Then "reputed" (13), "alleged" (7), "records" (6), "reports" (4), "celebrated" (3), "was said" or "hearsay" (3), "seemingly" (2), "false" (2), "case" (2); and 1 each for story, idea, double lives; vanity, fraud, exaggeration, credulity, uncritical, insulting; advance, prolong, point, attribute, ascribe, reckon; sponsor, publicize. JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, the RS uses the word "claim" for everything recent in both articles. I do not favor a merge, of course, because historical claims require separate treatment, as we've recognized (although this article was "claims" for awhile before the split). But of course this suggests what the word in the title might be after "longevity", such as "allegations", "reports", "statements", "cases", "stories", "ideas", "attributions", "ascriptions". Not that these are necessarily better (with or without an additional adjective), but they are backed up by a reliable categorizing source, while myths and narratives are not. JJB 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * JJB, you completely misunderstand what a "weasel word" is. Let's look again:
 * Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.
 * Words such as "alleged" are, in fact, used to AVOID supporting unverifiable claims. Thus, they are "careful" words, NOT "weasel words." Ryoung 122 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: for "WP:WEASEL words", please read "WP:WEASEL WP:WORDS". JJB 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These are not accepted cases. Therefore we have to treat them as claims, allegations, reports, and as myths and legends. You should see WP:NPOV. We cannot say these are true cases. What we can do is rule out clearly exaggerated cases based on scientific data and projections. We need to make a distinction between clearly exaggerated cases and those which may well be true. Many of the words you listed are not weasel words at all. Every "case" (ie. person) "claims", "alleges" or are "reputed" to be a certain age. "Reports" are generally news reports. Whether the case is true or false, it was still claimed/alledged/reputed.SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you may be thinking mistakenly I am somehow advocating for saying they are true. My point is that they are all claims, allegations, reports, and cases in one sense, but they are not all agreeably described as myths and legends due to WP:WORDS and due to their great diversity. Therefore I take your comment as support for any of the following titles: longevity claims (merger), or longevity allegations, reports, myths, or legends. Further, how do the reliable sources separate clearly exaggerated cases from those which may well be true? There is no accepted method. JJB 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding fact tags
It has come to my attention that Robert Young's 2008 master's thesis states (original page 34, footnote 55) that "Parts of this are based on an essay by Robert Young (i.e., me) and then posted to Wikipedia on Nov 22, 2005." That corresponds to this set of edits by Ryoung122 in 2005. The article framework to this day continues to rely very heavily on this "essay", without any sourcing; and the thesis cannot be cited as a source, because it fails to cite its sources, and it comes long after the WP unsourced assertions, as well as because of COI and RS issues. Accordingly, I will flag the sentences that originate in this "essay", suggesting that unfixed ones be deleted in a week or two and the article recast. Further, this "essay" (Ryoung122's first edits to this article) thoroughly recast the article's original purpose from "this article concerns unsupported claims and why the burden of proof must rest on them, along with a list of those that have failed to meet it" to "this article concerns the history of the mythology of longevity, as well as an explanation of the longevity myth phenomenon". This appears to change the subject, from a topic that is very close to longevity claims, to a topic that has never once been proven as notable. The fact that the very stated scope of this article (history and explanation of "longevity myths") has for 4 years never been cited as notable favors merger to longevity claims on the grounds that "longevity myths" (or whatchamacallit) is not a verifiably notable topic; and when it has been verified, it refers to things like steak sauce and hormones, far removed from the topic of the essay (which is still the de facto topic of the article). JJB 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case you could cite Robert Young's book instead [ http://www.amazon.com/AFRICAN-AMERICAN-LONGEVITY-ADVANTAGE-Comparison-Supercentenarian/dp/3639105702 ] SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * An analogy: Let's say that I'm an expert Scrabble(R) player and have some recognition as such from within the community interested in that game. Let's say that in 2005 I posted a totally unsourced essay to WP of over 1000 words describing my (expert) views on what IS and IS NOT a "word", and a list of categories I've personally developed into which I categorize claims of letter-strings that I perceive as really nonwords. Let's say that nobody really cares for 4 years to argue with me about it, and those that do find out that I rely heavily on my expertise and ability to defend my categorization against all comers, but that I never really get around to sourcing why my categories are rooted in actual etymological or linguistics sources (I rely on my own and my friend's published work, such as the national Scrabble(R) association dictionary committee). Perhaps I am also possessed of idiosyncratic notions such as that "pizzazz" is not a word, because it has not been recognized as such by the official Scrabble(R) dictionary, because there is no way to play a word with four Z's from a bag of tiles containing the official Scrabble(R) tile distribution; I do not accept arguments that "pizzazz" occurs in some dictionaries, or even that the official dictionary should be presented as an alternate POV, but only the idea that "pizzazz" is definitively proven not to be a word by the only group of people who care enough to maintain the word-nonword distinction. I make 9000 edits, almost all relating to word lists and articles on obscure, record-holding words and (I believe) nonwords, and continuing to reflect my unsourced views. Let's say that another editor discovers that the entire article on "nonwords" has for 4 years contained my wholly unsourced and unvarnished original research, supplemented occasionally by other people trying to help out, but with my idiosyncratic categorizations and rules fully intact as I see fit. What should happen next? JJB 21:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, JJB, this is all very interesting, but the issue of notability as you surely must know is one which is an unresolved issue here at wikipedia. And it seems to me, since you have seemingly abruptly changed the subject to whether this article can properly be called longevity "myths" to whether this article should even exist in the first place, at least in its present form, that there is another agenda at play here. What that agenda is, I have no idea.

But, as I said earlier, concerns about the perceived denigration of narratives which may be true, or some hold to be true, with the term "myth" can be simply resolved with a clarification of how that word is understood in a more technical sense. AS for the issues of notability, since this is hardly a resolved topic in terms of wikipedia policy, let's not be too hasty to try to apply that here. Your Scrabble analogy, like most analogies, doesn't really apply as it fails to reflect the weight of the subject here. There is much published literature on human longevity and claims of the past, as partly reflected in the notes at the bottom of the page. This stuff didn't simply pop out of Robert Young's imagination. SO while you may have a point about the need to source some of the statements, your vendetta-style approach in tagging every second sentence on the page seems designed more to instigate than to thoughtfully resolve the issues you have raised. Indeed, a cursory glance reveals that most if not all of the statements tagged can be readily sourced, including statements of opinion. So your threat to delete the offending sentences and "recast" the article seems to me a bit over-the-top as a solution to your perceived problems with the page.

IOW, your implication that this entire article is largely a recast of original, unsourced material by Robert Young is not only false, it's absurdly false, even if the structure of what he says is largely intact here.

So, let's step back from the brink here and make this a better page without tearing it to shreds in the process. Canada Jack (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I'm doing. Please don't read an implication in: what I said is that many sentences in this article are still original unsourced material by Ryoung122 after 4 years, and that I am making a standard WP:V challenge, which due to the endemic nature of the situation is more wide-cast than average. Please don't read an agenda in: an article based on an original unsourced research essay simply does not remain on WP in its present form when discovered. If your answer to my analogy question (in which yes, there is much weighty literature about what constitutes a "word") is that we should source the article, please help in doing so; but none of the present sources, and most of the apparent sources that might be added, are unlikely to prove that "longevity myths" is notably different from "longevity claims". Remember, I started out against merge before I discovered the policy violation. You yourself say there is much literature on "claims", rather than "myths". JJB 16:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

JJB, with all due respect, the article here reflects scholarly opinion, not the opinion of one Robert Young. You have a point that some of the statements require a source, you do not have a point that this is "original unsourced material by Ryoung122." And for you to put some sixty citation tags, many of which are along the lines of demanding a source for statements like "Most such claims are for ages of less than 200 years old, with the majority in the range of 140 to 160" which is something easily verified even here at wikipedia, or "Ascribing unique longevity to a particular 'village of centenarians' is common across many cultures" which is so laughably true if one knows any of the literature, indeed if anyone cares to read the numerous articles which appear claiming exactly that, tells me your goal here is not to sincerely improve this page, but to seek to tear it down. Especially when stuff which YOU have insisted be inserted, like "Both scientific studies and longevity myths indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past..." is ludicrous on its face - how can longevity myths possibly "indicate" the nature of human biology was different? What we can determine from these myths is the nature of human belief and culture, not the nature of human biology.(!) And this all plays back to your seeming refusal to acknowledge what is meant by "myth" in the scholarly sense.

AS for you point about this being based on an essay, even if that was true, unless the essay expresses novel concepts which only the author expresses, that fact is completely irrelevant. One can make the argument that a great many articles here at wikipedia are, in effect, simply essays uniquely written by their various wikipedia editors. Even if those essays reflect unpublished essays written by the editors, as long as the sources are present, there is no issue here of "original research." If it were otherwise, we'd have to reproduce pretty well verbatim articles from other encyclopedias to avoid your definition of "conflict of interest" or "original research." As it pertains to this page, there are statements here which may need attribution, but the concepts present on this page are not novel at all, and reflect, as far as I have read, much of the standard scholarship on the topic. So, far from this being any COI or V or OR, all we need on this page are a number of references.

In the normal course of events, this would not be contentious. But, judging by your comments on certain issues with this page, I sense you do not know the scholarship as well as you should to be in a position to loudly denounce what appears here and offer solutions, as you seem to be under the impression that the page reflects the personal opinion of one Robert Young. If you and Robert have some sort of issue with one another, that should not be brought to this page, as the real fixes required here are slight and relatively minor. Canada Jack (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 1
To longevity narratives, longevity folklore, or longevity stories. Second attempt; Talk:Longevity myths above resulted in extended discussion among partisans rather than consensus. Reasons for move, stated above, are WP:WTA, scope (I believe it should be a list of narrative categories), WP:UNDUE weighting resulting from former title, improper arbitrary relationship between article and longevity claims, and Google test. You can read for yourself the reasons against move, as I would hesitate to summarize them. JJB 13:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson

 * Strongly oppose tendentious move. These are myths; none of the replacements would include the Countess of Desmond. If JJB wants a different article, and can avoid making it a POV fork, he should write one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is already the tendentious POV fork, longevity claims is the separate article.
 * 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. Ryoung 122 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. Ryoung 122 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.
 * 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)
 * 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,
 * 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.
 * 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 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. Ryoung 122 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Using def 3 in Wikipedia is thoroughly against WP:WTA, 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)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking out JJBulten's recent edits, he has a HUGE interest in religion. The real problem here is that he is approaching this issue from an agenda-driven perspective. Wikipedia is NOT the place to argue about religious belief. Articles should conform to outside, reliable sources. For example, a scientific article:

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200421/000020042104A0614779.php

"Longevity narratives" and "longevity stories" are NOT used in the scientific literature, but are little more than something a kid made up.

Should we even be debating this? Ryoung 122 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada Jack

 * Strongly oppose I've read the above - and below - and it seems to me that JJB is missing the mark here. Robert has established that, indeed, scientifically many of these so-called "claims" are called "myths" within the literature and JJB's suggested title "stories" is too vague as to mean anything. Indeed, his attempts to find actual references which use the term "stories" is specious, he might as well use a similar technique to call them "incredible" or "unlikely." Further, there is a semantic distinction here which JJB is glossing over, and that is there is a particular use of "myth" which goes beyond the colloquial meaning. Perhaps the use of this particular word is the problem, especially when used to describe some Biblical figures? If that is the case, this is not the forum to insert personal religious dogma into a debate which uses a term that is found in sources and which is also commonly used in literature itself. Canada Jack (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack, but you may have missed some things I said. First, we've established that "longevity myth" appears in one Japanese paper that does not relate to this topic, while "longevity story" shows up in several reliable sources that do relate (and I'm not even trying hard). Second, I have repeatedly affirmed the definitions of "myth" and repeatly pointed out that policy requires that the word "myth" only appear in a context of sociology or mythology that is carefully framed by the article, which this article fails to do and which no sources have been brought forward to rectify: so use of that word is in fact the problem, whatever it describes (I suppose I'm a bit more offended that Countess FitzGerald is being regarded a myth than that Serug is). Finally, would you please source your assertions (just as I've asked Ryoung under WP:V), when you say that my "attempts ... is specious", and when you imply that the term "longevity myth" is found in (socio/myth) sources and is commonly used in literature? Doing so would greatly advance the debate. JJB 13:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, JJB, but your argument is largely specious. It seems to me you are making a rather large mountain over a tiny molehill of a problem. As for the use of "myth" I actually wrote part of a section of the Roswell UFO Incident on the incident as a "myth" - which in the narrative sense at least one scholar has called it. Calling it a "myth" here does not establish the claims are false; rather it makes the point that in a narrative sense, folklore can be either "fiction" such as jokes or cautionary tales, or "myths" which are "presented as fact and avowedly believed to be true by many group members [the author defines "folk" as in "folk narratives" as any group of people who share at least one common factor, where the group has some traditions it calls its own]... ...but are not treated as factual in the annals of the larger culture (e.g. mainstream histories, encyclopedias, and almanacs), ostensibly because they do not conform to the scholarly epistemological standards for assessing historicity within our society. (It should be noted that the defining criteria for stories of the second [myth] type are independent of the objective factuality of the narrative.)"

The article I quote from is "Analysis of the Roswell Myth: A traditional folk motif clothed in modern garb" by Charles Ziegler. The book it appears in is "UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth." The author makes numerous references to scholars who define "myth" in manner congruent with the usage on this page. I can supply those references if you wish.

I propose that instead of renaming this article, a simple explanation of "myth" might suffice to clarify the issues you raise here. Canada Jack (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, "calling it a 'myth' here does not establish the claims are false", technically, but according to WP:WTA, it does risk implying they are false, a POV to be avoided with "utmost care"! And if we expanded the scope to include acknowledged fiction (Lord of the Rings, Lost Horizon), the implication would need even more than the "utmost care" required by policy. But even if such a good source as your own appeared in the longevity literature, there are other contingent issues going on here that may block consensus and need resolution first. Keep bookmarked and let's be patient. JJB 18:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying that I am "technically" correct, then we have established that the use of the word "myth" within the article is correct. Is it then, as you state, misleading? I'd say the debate boils down to whether one could be misled here - you clearly think they can be, though I'm not precisely sure as to what this means to you. How about simply stating that a "myth" is meant as a belief held by groups of people, a belief that those people affirm is "true," but which fails to conform to what we would currently hold as scientific verifiability.

For example, the Bible states that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, an age both unverifiable and scientifically implausible. Yet many people assert that he in fact lived to be this age. If people did not assert it was true, then it would not be a "myth" in this sense, it would be a fictional tale, an allegory, or what have you. Like the Brothers Grimm tales, which we can all agree are not "myths" but "fictions."

So, what constitutes a "myth" here? Well, after documenting some one billion lives or so, science has not observed any humans to celebrate a 123rd birthday. Therefore, those who claim extended lives with a degree of certitude are by definition holding onto a "myth" as those claims have not been verified and are considered scientifically implausible. Further, those who claim lives within the range of proven human longevity yet have not any of what we would identify as standard elements of verification, yet assert certitude are also engaging in "myth." Even if the claim could possibly be true. And that is really what we see here - the difference between what is scientifically plausible and/or verifiable, and what is a myth.

In conclusion, all I see the need here is to clarify what is meant by "myth" here. And that can something along the lines of: ''Generally, a belief held by a group of people as being true (past or present) which is scientifically implausible and/or unverifiable. "Myths" are a classification of belief which are independent of the objective factuality of the narrative in question.''

(I stole the last few words from the essay I quoted from above.) Canada Jack (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, your comment suffers from similar flaws to those I note below. For instance, your first sentence jumps to an unfounded conclusion. You have not sourced your views of scientific implausibility, or "what we would currently hold as scientific verifiability", for those who may be skeptical against abuse of scientific claims. The Grimms were folklorists, not novelists. You confuse whether it is scientists or historians that document lives and verify records. However, we may finesse all this by considering a move to the previously overlooked "longevity traditions" instead. See below. JJB 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose against 'longevity narratives' and 'longevity stories'. Call me ignorant but I had to even look up the meaning of 'narratives' to see if it fitted the article. 'Narratives'/'stories' implies that they are short tales relating to people. Much of the article more closely focusses on countries rather than people and some cases are just names and dates as examples. Therefore I don't think either of these names are appropriate for the article. However I'm Neutral on a change to 'Longevity folklore'. I think 'longevity myths' is just as appropriate. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose No point changing a page which is generally understood to have it's intended meaning. I seriously doubt that a change to "narratives" would help the understanding of the average user. 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What phrase authorities use
Greetings,

Since WIkipedia's policies on reliable sources consider journal articles to be the first source to go with as the most reliable, let's see what phrase scientific authorities use:


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


 * A. Longevity myths

1. http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200421/000020042104A0614779.php

note this was written in 2004, and had nothing to do with me


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

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

this was writen in 2003, BEFORE this article existed


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

3. http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/16760618/The_hormonal_fountains_of_youth_myth_or_reality

this is using the term in a more recent, "informal" sense of "something widely believed to be true, but is not"


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

4. http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/11/1156

"John Morley (1) provides an elegant historical account of efforts to extend the human life span and search for immortality. He provides a perspective that includes both myth and reality. To emphasize the fact that extended longevity has always been a human aspiration, his account extends from ancient times to current efforts. The desire to attain immortality is also reflected in the promise of an afterlife by our major religions."

Again, the word "myth" is used, NOT "stories". Why are we even debating this? It's Ph.D. versus 15-year-old kids who didn't even bother to read anything about the subject before popping off at the mouth. Ryoung 122 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


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


 * B. Longevity narratives


 * C. Longevity stories (bolding added)

1. Guinness 1983: "The height of credulity was reached May 5, 1933, when a news agency solemnly filed a story from China with a Peking dateline that Li Chung-yun, the "oldest man on earth," born in 1680, had just died aged 256 years (sic)." Directly applicable, even though "story" is used in its news sense. JJB 10:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

2. The Guinness book of music facts and feats‎ - Page 58 by Robert Dearling, Celia Dearling, Brian A. L. Rust - Music - 1976 - 278 pages "... dated 1756), and the claims of the discovery of the elixir of life, would lend credence to the longevity story in those superstitious days, ..." "... confused reports, was born about 1660 and is still alive. If this seems incredible, what are we to make of his own report that he had discovered a potion which would prolong life indefinitely, as it had already prolonged his own for more than 2000 years? Among his other extravagant ..." These snippets seem very tantalizing, we'll see if it shows up at the library. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Is Abstinence from Red Wine Hazardous to Your Health? AL Klatsky - The Permanente Journal, 2007 - xnet.kp.org "For example, the truly fascinating resveratrol—longevity story involves up-regulation of a genetic system (the sirtuin genes) that influence metabolic processes promoting longevity. 18 Resveratrol has this effect and has shown the ability to increase longevity in several species." Looks directly applicable and verifiable, it's just that it matches such a subset of the whole topic (in this case, red wine). JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Bike for Life: How to Ride to 100 RM Wallack, B Katovsky - 2005 "We want to be able to hop on our bikes and do what comes naturally whenever the urge strikes, today or decades from now. So read the training and anti-aging strategies outlined in the book .... Have suggestions or a good cycling-longevity story to tell? Let us know at ...." Ditto. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Australian paper. "The boss longevity story surely comes from Manila": Mariano Santa Ana, age 117, Manila Diario, quoted in Northern Territory Times and Gazette. Reliable, verifiable, applicable: just the sort of thing I've gotten used to citing at WP. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

6. BBC. Good link. "My favourite recent longevity story is about an old Englishman." Ditto. One ref to the 106-year-old who lives on steak sauce, and one joke (story) about a nonagenarian. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Centenarians: the bonus years By Lynn Peters Adler, Edition: illustrated Published by Health Press, 1995 ISBN 0929173023, 9780929173023, 348 pages: Uses "story" 30 times and "myth" 0 times. JJB 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * D. Longevity folklore

Ryoung 122 21:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My first take from the free sources is that the driving motive said to be behind this article, namely, that stories about ages over 130 can be neatly categorized into a few recognized classes, just doesn't get coverage like virtually everything else I've put in WP. (Except for a certain 2008 thesis that contains categories too similar to this article to be of much use.) To me, that data would actually argue for "merge article back into 'claims'". That may look more and more viable the longer we play this little game. JJB 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) You see, I just don't think the article heads should be replaced with alchemy, medicine, hormones, cycling, red wine, steak sauce. What am I missing? JJB 11:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Well, time to move on to something else. My feeling right now, subject to change, is that the whole article should just be disassembled and alphabetized by geography. JJB 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * E. Longevity traditions (bolding added)

Pardon us all for being oblivious, but the perfectly good phrase "longevity traditions" has been overlooked and has much better testimony than anything else so far. Unlike the prior searches, this yielded much more material very quickly, the material is much more appropriate, and many more sources can be provided without the baggage of other alternatives: JJB 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Living in the face of death: the Tibetan tradition: "They summon forth the blessings of all the gurus in the lineage of transmission of this longevity tradition, as well as all Buddhas, bodhisattvas, dakas, dakinis, and Dharma protectors, etc., as well as all the human and transcended knowledge holders."
 * 2) Secrets of Longevity: "Chuan xiong. It has long been a key herb in the longevity tradition of China, prized for its powers to boost the immune system, activate blood circulation, and relieve pain."
 * 3) An end to ageing: remedies for life: "Taoist devotion to immortality is important to us for two reasons. The techniques may be of considerable value to our goal of a healthy old age, if we can understand and adapt them. Secondly, the Taoist longevity tradition has brought us many interesting remedies."
 * 4) Daoist Mystical Philosophy: "Although the fangshi were firm members of the medical and longevity tradition and although the poets made frequent use of Daoist expressions, the full integration of the immortality cult into the mystical tradition did not take place until the development of Shangqing Daoism in the fourth century."
 * 5) Proceedings, American Philosophical Society: "A key factor in the extraordinary success of Buchan's Domestic Medicine was that it combined in one book the regimen and longevity tradition with another popular tradition of the time, home treatment."

Use of the term "Myth"
The argument that the term "myth" is not appropriate for this article is based, it would seem, on two false premises: 1) The word "myth" suggests "fiction," when some of the so-called "myths" here may have been real, therefore it is POV to use that term and not a more neutral term like "story"; 2) Because many of the so-called "myths" on this page have no source which actually uses that term to describe them, it is OR to describe them as "myths." However, both of these premises are demonstrably false, and as I have indicated above, narratives, if they are held to be seen as "true" by a group of people but which are scientifically implausible, are routinely called "myths" or "myth narratives" in a generic sense, even if some specific tales are not called "myths." In other words, just because, for example, if we couldn't find someone who called the Gettysburg Address a "speech," doesn't mean we can't describe it as a speech. If we have a common definition of "speech," we can call it a speech. Here, if a story fits the readily found definition of "myth," we are not required to locate someone who in fact called story X a "myth," it is a "myth" if it fits the definition of "myth."

So, what is a "myth"? The usage on this page is quite obvious - it is a "myth" in the sense used in cultural anthropology, which this article, quite clearly, is an example of. If there is a failing in the text on the page, it is in that it lacks an explicit description of this usage, thus leading to the somewhat understandable mistaken confusion over whether it is "POV" to call some claims "myths," as a common colloquial definition of "myth" is "untrue story." As I alluded to above, Charles Zeigler touches on issues of myth narrative in discussing the Roswell UFO incident. In his introduction, he says that, without prejudging the veracity of the incident, "it can be treated and analyzed along lines that have become well established in cultural anthropology." So, to call Roswell a "myth," even though many people steadfastly believe aliens were involved, in no way suggests the incident was false, just that it fits the criteria of "myth" simply because some claims here are scientifically implausible. He says a "myth," generically, is "a narrative that some people within the society say they find credible. In other words, a myth necessarily has (or had, in the case of antique myths) a constituency of true believers who, by virtue of a shared avowal of their belief, constitute a subculture." In the case of Roswell, authors who claim aliens call their investigative works "non-fiction," while skeptics say they lack true investigative rigour and are not "true."

Can we apply what is true in calling Roswell a "myth" to claims of long life? Of course we can. Because we have a) current believers of a narrative or past believers of a narrative and b) a scientific consensus on what is plausible, or what is considered "verified."

The definition of "myth" is directly applicable to the claims on this page even if not all sources describe particular claims or beliefs as "myth." All we need is to determine what is scientifically plausible and whether the claim fits that definition or goes beyond it. So, if a group of people say that Mr. X is 150 years old, since this is beyond scientific plausibility (and that is simply what science says is plausible or not), and we have people saying it is true without proof, this fits the definition of a myth narrative.

So, in conclusion, there is no need to change the name of the page, nor to amalgamate it with "longevity claims" as there is a distinct category of claims on this page - claims which are scientifically implausible and/or unverifiable with past or present believers.

The proposed remedy is extreme as it seeks to largely tear up the page when several minor fixes would address the deficiencies on the page. Those fixes include: spelling out what is meant by "myth"; adding more references from the voluminous literature on the subject. Canada Jack (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, pardon me for correcting your strawman arguments.


 * 1) The correct argument is: The word "myth" per WP:WTA must be used in a proven sociological or mythological context, which is not done. You admit this lack of sourcing. If anyone were to actually insert sources demonstrating that the categorization of longevity stories into Ryoung122's categories is established within sociology, and those inserts stood consensus, this might greatly relieve that issue, as you suggest; but no one has done so for weeks since I raised the policy issue.
 * 2) The correct argument is: Based on WP:V we have no verifiable proof that we can make the sweeping jump from the specific cases to the general category of calling everything on this page by the tainted word "myth", and no verifiable proof that any of the cases are treated as myth in sociological literature. What has been presented only shows that the word "myth", not even "longevity myth" except in one case, is occasionally associated in passing with evidences of extreme longevity. The meaning and implication of the word "myth" is what is disputed, unlike the word "speech"; so we cannot assume something is a myth unless positively identified as such in sociological literature. In fact, even the idea that America is a democracy, or a republic, is "a narrative that some people within the society say they find credible" and therefore a myth, unless Zeigler's unstated assumptions are stated. Again, sources in longevity relevant to this question have not turned up; those that have turned up generally do not support the basic idea.
 * Note, I don't think I said the word "myth" itself is specifically OR, because I accept that, within WP:WTA limits, it may have use, and the question is whether those limits are being applied. On the other hand, though, a cursory review of Ryoung122's edit history reveals that he considers the word "narrative" to be very strong OR, significant enough that it must be taken out and shot every time it appears (and often when it doesn't, as I've documented). But "myth" is the word to avoid, and "narrative" is as unobjectionable as "speech". So your second argument might better be addressed to him.
 * 1) I've seen scientific sources that comment on the plausibility of claims, but there is no evidence that they have any obvious plausibility bar such as is constantly alluded without sourcing. Scientific literature I've consulted suggests that there is no bar, there is only an increasing unlikelihood with time. For instance, if reaching 130 is trillion-to-one odds (an unsourced statement of Robert Young's), and if a trillion people have lived on the earth (as a very rough guess), then it's likely that one to three people have reached 130 (as a very rough mathematical calculation); sorry, but evidence suggests to me that Ryoung has misapplied the math. There is no bar at 131 or later. There is also the issue that the past is obviously different from the present and science does not comment very much on how that applies to longevity. So all this handwaving reference to your certain knowledge of what science says is plausible (wholly different from what history says is verified) requires sourcing.
 * 2) The fact that Ryoung122 changed the entire scope of the article in 2005 based on an essay that to this day remains essentially unsourced research of his own (if you will, original), and that the categories within this article are not established anywhere in sociology, requires addressing appropriately. Where is "Shangri-La", he asks? In good faith, it is retained but relegated to a brief mention of the fiction in which it appears, because no reliable source has indicated that "Shangri-La" is a category of longevity myth rather than just a novel. The rest of the structure fares similarly. If you want to help, let's both cut back on the talkpage and work on sourcing. JJB 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

''Jack, pardon me for correcting your strawman arguments. The correct argument is: The word "myth" per WP:WTA must be used in a proven sociological or mythological context, which is not done. You admit this lack of sourcing.''

This is no "strawman" argument, JJB. Your premise on changing the page title or merging it with "claims" is that the use of "myth" is POV and not supported by sources. My argument was that all that was needed here was to define the term "myth," the usage of the term is not "POV," and no sources are required to declare the particular "myths" as being "myths," as the definition is an understood and readily applied definition.

So, what does your link to WP's guidance on "myth" say? Well, it certainly does not say anything you claim it says per "must be used in a proven sociological or mythological context." What it does say almost precisely mirrors what I have said all along and the remedy I have proposed - define the formal meaning of "myth" - is precisely what the section you yourself have supplied a link for says.

When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology or mythology. And what is this "formal" definition? All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth.

You still demand that this "context" must be "proven." Yet, WP itself makes no such requirement. Why? Because any belief by a group of people which is scientifically implausible is by definition a "myth." All that WP requires is that we supply that usage is in a sociological/mythological context. Which is my solution here - to define the term more carefully in the lede. And which is all the WP requires, your incorrect claims notwithstanding.

You admit this lack of sourcing. I admit some claims here need sources. I do not "admit" that we need to supply sources calling particular stories or what have you "myths." That is not required by wikipedia as long as the usage of the term is defined.

If anyone were to actually insert sources demonstrating that the categorization of longevity stories into Ryoung122's categories is established within sociology, and those inserts stood consensus, this might greatly relieve that issue, as you suggest... Nice try, JJB. There are citations which could use sources. However, on the over-arching issue of the need to supply a source for everything which is supposedly a "myth" here, I have never stated that was needed, indeed, I am arguing the reverse.

The correct argument is: Based on WP:V we have no verifiable proof that we can make the sweeping jump from the specific cases to the general category of calling everything on this page by the tainted word "myth", and no verifiable proof that any of the cases are treated as myth in sociological literature.

And here, your house of cards collapsed. Since I have established - by your own link - that WP merely requires a close definition of "myth," your comments above are irrelevant. You betray your lack of understanding of the formal meaning of "myth," and a casual dismissal of my solution to that problem which WP itself instructs by calling the term myth "tainted." IOW, there is no "requirement" to have the literature "treat" cases as "myth," the only "requirement" is to establish the definition as stated above, and further clarify what scientifically is considered implausible in terms of longevity, which would be "context."

In fact, even the idea that America is a democracy, or a republic, is "a narrative that some people within the society say they find credible" and therefore a myth, unless Zeigler's unstated assumptions are stated.

Which is why all we need is to state them. Besides - talk about "strawmen arguments" - there are few who would question the premise that America is a democracy/republic in the mainstream media or elsewhere. The claim, in other words, is not considered implausible, and therefore, by definition, is not a "myth." A better analogy, per Ziegler, is whether we can claim that a UFO report is a "myth" if no one has published an article specifically describing UFO incident X as being a "myth." Since reports that aliens have or are visiting earth are generally considered implausible and unverified, yet people believe that aliens are or have visited, we can therefore call such claims "myths" as long as we define the formal use of the term so as not to suggest the specific claim is "false."

''On the other hand, though, a cursory review of Ryoung122's edit history reveals that he considers the word "narrative" to be very strong OR, significant enough that it must be taken out and shot every time it appears (and often when it doesn't, as I've documented). But "myth" is the word to avoid, and "narrative" is as unobjectionable as "speech". So your second argument might better be addressed to him.'' That's because "narrative" doesn't have the same meaning as "myth" and "myth" is the term which best applies to implausible claims. "Narrative" for example can refer to fairy tales and jokes. The term is not specific.

''Scientific literature I've consulted suggests that there is no bar, there is only an increasing unlikelihood with time. For instance, if reaching 130 is trillion-to-one odds (an unsourced statement of Robert Young's), and if a trillion people have lived on the earth (as a very rough guess), then it's likely that one to three people have reached 130 (as a very rough mathematical calculation); sorry, but evidence suggests to me that Ryoung has misapplied the math. There is no bar at 131 or later. There is also the issue that the past is obviously different from the present and science does not comment very much on how that applies to longevity. So all this handwaving reference to your certain knowledge of what science says is plausible (wholly different from what history says is verified) requires sourcing.''

Here you reveal your ignorance on what we can do here at wikipedia. The term "plausible" does not eliminate from possibility a claim is true. It simply states that, scientifically, it is likely not to be true. As for your comments from the past, that is your personal speculation. That is a POV comment. As science simply is applying what is known to what is unknown. SO, in assessing the credibility of ancient claims, based on what is known about longevity, those claims are implausible. It, again, does not eliminate from possibility that some claims may be true. Which is why we simply define "myth" as claims which are believed but which are considered implausible. You may have a bit of wiggle room on when a claim becomes implausible, whether it is 130 or 122 (the oldest proven) or, generally, claims above 110 without documentation. But 175? 200? These are, as science understands it, implausible claims.

The fact that Ryoung122 changed the entire scope of the article in 2005 based on an essay that to this day remains essentially unsourced research of his own (if you will, original), and that the categories within this article are not established anywhere in sociology, requires addressing appropriately.

And you have identified inappropriate solutions. So, before you continue on your solutions, gain consensus. You have none here. Canada Jack (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
No move Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (I.e., no consensus.) JJB 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To longevity traditions. Third attempt; Talk:Longevity myths and Talk:Longevity myths above resulted in extended discussion among partisans rather than consensus. In good faith, it appears that this move resolves much of the concerns expressed from both sides of the debate above. JJB 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, for the following reasons. JJB 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Article has been flagged as failing guidelines on words to avoid for three weeks, due to utter failure to establish context within sociology or mythology. "Longevity traditions" has no baggage as a word to avoid.
 * 2) No source supporting the current title was inserted in these three weeks. But many sources exist for the noncontroversial phrase "longevity traditions". See Talk:Longevity myths.
 * 3) Google test: "longevity myth" 771,000 hits; "longevity tradition" 1,340,000 hits; other titles also outpace "myth", even though "myth" has had several years of significant mirroring.
 * This is actually incorrect. Those are the results if you don't use quotation marks. "longevity tradition" brings up 198 results. "longevity myth" brings up 950 results including a paper in a scientific journal. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, my statement was correct, but your statement did not account for duplication in the quotemark results. "Myth" tops out at 92 unduplicated: ; "tradition" at 91: . I said below both were around 100. In other words, "myth" gets no boost from having been on WP so long; and that scientific paper from Japan does not apply to the attempted sociological scope of this article. JJB 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The original stated scope of "longevity myths" is now redundant with another article; and the stated scope as changed unilaterally in 2005 has never been proven in four years to be a notable scope. Nobody has thought to challenge the utter lack of reliable sources under WP:V until now.
 * For the gory details, the original stated scope of "longevity myths" was "unsupported claims and why the burden of proof must rest on them, along with a list of those that have failed to meet it": and all this is now the current scope of the properly titled longevity claims article. So the original meaning attributed to "longevity myths" now has its own better-titled article. But the stated scope here was changed unilaterally by Ryoung122 to "the history of the mythology of longevity, as well as an explanation of the longevity myth phenomenon". While this might be construed as a suitable topic for this title, the same user simultaneously inserted a long, wholly unsourced "essay" (Young's term) about this topic, which remains essentially unsourced today after 4 years, and is still the backbone of the conglomerated article (thus all the fact tags, which refer to one basic essay insertion). The essay created original unsourced categories of myth such as "Shangri-La" (from a fictional novel, not a myth) and "village elder" (not proven in any source to be a myth category), yet it adds no reference to William Thoms, a significant figure in "the history of the mythology of longevity". So the new "meaning" attributed to "longevity myths", left untouched by WP silence for 4 years while mirrors were accumulated, has no real basis in reliable sources; but reliable sources for the phrase "longevity traditions" are easy to come by, as above.
 * 1) Finally, the term "tradition" has been used in connection with longevity many times in a 2008 master's thesis by Robert Young, whom Ryoung122 self-identifies as. Young stated his thesis was based in part upon his insertions to this WP article (thesis p. 34, footnote 55), so the thesis cannot serve as a source; but even one who greatly popularizes the (relatively original) phrase "longevity myth" makes good use of the word "tradition".
 * Strongly oppose The previous proposal garnered 3x strongly oppose 1x oppose/neutral and 2x support. Looks like consensus to me. 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend, WP:CONSENSUS is determined by strength of arguments. Did you bring yours? This is not the previous proposal, and nobody else has proposed how to fix the policy violations. JJB 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I, and other users, have given their reasons above, reiterating them is only likely to lead to yet another "extended discussion". Unless those that were previously opposed are now in favour then we are no nearer consensus. In which case it will probably be necessary to request arbitration from an independent third party. 01:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for that, as there is not consensus to keep either. JJB 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose again. Neither Walter Williams nor the Countess of Desmond is a "tradition". If JJB wants to improve the article, he could put her under Ireland, where she belongs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the Countess article has long used "tradition" in the text. Are you actually defending both of these articles having "myth" in the category list, where there is zero context, contrary to WP:WTA? Also, you may not have noticed my other improvements to the article, but adding Ireland is fine (why didn't you make this easy, noncontroversial change?) JJB 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about the categories on other articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, granted, but all the articles suffer the same contextualization need. JJB 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose


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


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


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


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


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


 * In conclusion, since there exists a counter-argument, based on WP policy which concludes that all is required here is a) define "myth" in the formal sense, with "context" detailing what is considered scientifically plausible and b) supply more citations, and that I count more opposing your move than supporting it, you have no consensus to alter the article in the manner you propose. Canada Jack (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you source the idea in sociology that Ryoung's categories are established myth categories, and source the scientific implausibility, to remove my skepticism that they are unlikely to source appropriately? You misinterpret Google's search with unjoined terms, as there are only about 100 joined-term uses of either phrase, but a good chuck of "myths" are mirrors to WP's use of the word, which (duh) explains why this article's unsourced examples have become associated with the term. But see above for Ryoung's best efforts to source "myth" (unjoined), and my much more fertile offhand first attempt to source "longevity tradition" (joined), to answer your speculation. Finally, you assume the article is sociological in the first place, and then use that assumption to state that "tradition" cannot replace it. But I have no doubt sanity will prevail. JJB 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't you source the idea in sociology that Ryoung's categories are established myth categories, and source the scientific implausibility, to remove my skepticism that they are unlikely to source appropriately?

Clearly, you are playing the "obtuse" game JJB. As I have shown, quite clearly, WP policy is that you don't need to "establish myth categories." All we have to do is define the term and establish the context. Obviously, you don't agree, but my counter-argument, thus far, carries more weight as more editors here agree there is no need to change the article title or merge with another article on "claims."

So far, you lack consensus, so unless that changes in the near future (i.e., more editors agree with your proposals) we shall a) revert most of your non-agreed-upon changes, and b) make the amendments as per my suggestions. IOW, JJB, you have thus far lost the argument. Canada Jack (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am blithe in my knowledge that you are not the referee, and that the paucity of your arguments is being laid out in full in this one section for all to see. My !vote count is still 4-6, which is not consensus for you either. I'll be happy to post additional fact tags to indicate where you can get around to your sourcing (I'm doing mine), which will permit me to get around to challenging notions such as the idea that there has ever been something named a "village elder myth" anywhere in the world not informed by WP. I think I'll post that one to User:Shii/Hoaxes. JJB 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's not a hoax; it's published research. Also, if choose to use another name, fine...do some research and you will see that many, many claims to extreme longevity are publicized on a LOCAL level, whereby the claim is made to be the oldest person in the village...not the nation or world. The point is that the motivation for this myth is not worldwide or nationwide attention, but local attention...is that too difficult to understand? Ryoung 122 17:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The above speaks volumes. Thanks for engaging in this process. Sorry you failed to achieve consensus. Deal with it. Canada Jack (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to a month ago
Greetings,

This page has become so corrupted by the edits of a single editor that I'm reverting back to almost a month ago. Please discuss.

I have several problems with the editing over the course of the past month.

1. Where did "Shangri-La" go? It's easy to find the idea that a "place" is responsible for extreme longevity: this even exists in the modern-era verson of "Blue Zones" and the unscientific focus by the media on particular, exotic locales associated with longevity (such as Icaria, Greece). There are dozens of references to places such as Vilcabamba or Hunza.

http://www.aarpinternational.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=584699

note the phrase

"The search for formulas to halt the passage of time or to better withstand its ravages, which has long occupied scientists, philosophers and other mortals, could lead in the end to a "sacred valley" in Ecuador - Vilcabamba - where myth and reality weave the secret of longevity."

This is written by the AARP! JJ, do you think THAT is unreliable as a source?
 * It does not appear to be written by sociologists or mythologists. Why not add it to the article and I'll check it for source conformity and placement? JJB 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Ryoung122 is the one who said "Please discuss", it appears from his other comments that the crux of this concern for him is his belief that those cases he calls "Shangri-La" and those cases he calls "nationalist" should be kept segregated, on the grounds that there is a significant difference between nonnational and national regions. It is possible to bend over backwards to rearrange the material to permit this arbitrary, forced-seeming distinction, but because Ryoung's views about the proper structure of the article themselves are seemingly wholly unsupported, it would be best if he could supply an independent source that states that nonnational versus national regions are significantly different categories of tradition. JJB 11:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

2. A shift more to Biblical longevity. This article really isn't about Christian myths of longevity alone: it's about the universal tendency of human cultures to create myths to explain ideas of longevity.
 * I have permitted some of the cutting back of prior Biblical content by PiCo. Please use the "lopsided" inline template to indicate any overweighted statements. JJB 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the Biblical content went from 8 grafs 37 lines in Ryoung's version to 3 grafs 27 short lines in mine. 1 of the 6 photos and 1 of the 2 templates I added to this article also appear, which does not justify the statement "a shift more to Biblical longevity". I also added very appropriate details about the Shahnameh, Ripley, and the history of the fountain of youth, which were overlooked by Ryoung for years. Since there is no specific edit Ryoung122 objects to, I can hardly respond any further in good faith without more information. JJB 11:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Insertion of cases more in the "longevity claims" range.
 * Please move any such cases to that article. JJB 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are again no specifics, and since "more in range" to Ryoung apparently means 113-130, I don't know what this has reference to. In lists, I inserted a few cases he considers borderline among the Sumerian, Biblical, Persian, Brazilian, and Ripley's claims, and I added Taejo, who is now also comfortable at the claims article; I also deleted Camoux, Visser, Miyan, and Israel (clearly claims not myths), which were restored in his reverts. If Ryoung122 believes there is nothing mythic or traditional whatsoever about Taejo or the Brazilian or Ripley's cases, I will be happy to agree and drop these, some of which are otherwise good examples of countering American bias. JJB 11:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Insertion of original research.
 * Please flag with the "or" inline template. JJB 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are again no specifics, and since I usually source everything or accept WP content from other articles in good faith, there is nothing I can do here. However, I can note that by Ryoung's reversions (he even admits throwing out everything with the bathwater at one point), he reinstates some of the very content he objects to, such as the Biblical overemphasis previously present, the additional clearly misclassified claims under 130, and the significant and demonstrable original research (as I have tagged at several different times). I can only conclude that his continued reversions are not in the interests of improving Wikipedia. JJB 11:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, some may like the other version better, but these four issues must be dealt with.

Finally, regarding "essays": when Wikipedia was started, articles were often written by one editor as a starting point. As much as I'd like to take credit for things, it is clear that ideas such as the Fountain of Youth, Shangri-La, etc. existed long before I did. I merely making sure that this article was organized in such as way that the reader could get some sense of the various reasons/rationales for age inflation. Because editor JJBulten has not bothered to do enough research on this subject before he started his massive, POV edit campaign which overturned almost four years of consensus, the article has become degraded.

Now, I admit, I like some of the things added since. But they have been added way too rapidly and in an attempt to force a new consensus, based on original research, through use of speed and volume. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Ryoung 122 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I have had nothing to do with this article, I am concerned that a single editor sees fit to make wholesale changes to at least 2 articles (the other being Longevity claims which I was watching) without prior discussion and having not been involved previously in editing them. This would seem to be too much WP:POV, against WP:Consensus and, given the extraordinary number of tags in this article, a lot of WP:OR. Not the way i though wikipedia was supposed to work.  02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We are far from consensus, yet one editor is tearing up the page. Let's get the old version here, discuss the issues, come to a consensus, then proceed on that consensus. Canada Jack (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am preparing an RFC. Unlike you three, PiCo has made particular edits to particular sections, and I have made responsive edits toward building consensus. I repeat, if you have particular concerns with particular points, please edit those; if you have particular sources to include, please include them. Derby, you might recognize that even Ryoung regards many of my changes as improvements; so please be specific about your concerns. I don't think it appropriate to lay charges about who doesn't know how WP is supposed to work. The fact tags, as stated, relate to one unsourced, original essay (which just happens to have been in this article for four years) that needs sourcing, but I'll be happy to wait 100 days for sources if that is the agreed solution. There is much more, but suffice for now. JJB 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I reverted again because I see little or no effort to build consensus. I noted that there are many parts we agree on (for example, adding pictures of Thomas Parr is acceptable to me) although I wouldn't say that it is simply just "four" parts that are an issue. In JJB's latest editing, we find the word "longevity myths" tagged as "original research" (when I produced demonstrated examples of its use in scientific journals that had nothing to do with me). In addition, the "Shangri-La" section was deleted (although it is clear from outside sources that this type of longevity myth is a major source of age inflation).Yet, JJB went on yet another stacked-deck editing spree with little or no regard for the FACTS, which exist outside of Wikipedia.

JJB, let's address the major issues, such as STRUCTURAL changes, before major edits are done. This shouldn't be about cherry-picking material to support your particular viewpoint.

And, I offered to REFRAIN from editing this article for a month if you did as well; I have seen no evidence of your stopping this editing spree which other editors have noted appear to be "tearing up" the article rather than building consensus.

The crux of the issue is NOT your self-perceived need to write your own essay. If you want to do that, fine: go get it published. But until then, this article, and your editing, should reflect the reliable sources outside Wikipedia that are available. Ryoung 122 22:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend, (1) Reverting back a month ago is very misguided per WP:WAR, and you will not find yourself supported in this. —This is part of a comment by John J. Bulten/Friends   which was interrupted by the following: Actually I fully support this. The changes are too extensive and too many were made without any discussion.  02:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to pick out the changes you want made to the present copy instead. (2) "Longevity myth" is still OR because you have not found the phrase in the sociological context which WP:WTA demands, as others admit. (3) Shangri-La was enfolded into the nationalist section; this seems negligible because there is no such thing called a "shangri-la longevity myth" or a "nationalist longevity myth" outside your own head. (4) You have failed for 3 weeks to insert a single cite, in the article, to the facts you allege. (5) And wouldn't it be nice if you got around to sourcing the major structural changes you made to this article in 2005 in pursuit of your particular viewpoint? (6) And would you mind telling me where you extended an offer to me to refrain from editing? If you could improve and source the article rather than throw out all my improvements yet again, your editing would be highly called for right now. (7) Not a soul besides you has made a major challenge to my edits other than retitling the article. Significant disagreements with ErgoSum and PiCo were resolved by ordinary WP discussion. (8) I find it ironic that you are speaking of self-perceived need to write an essay given the history above. (9) My editing so far has been properly sourced and/or taken from elsewhere in WP, as standard practice. If you disagree, feel free to add a "citation needed" tag to any of sentences that originated with me, just as I have felt free. JJB 01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

JJB: Me and several other editors have requested, with respect, you cease this wrecking-ball approach to the page. And count me as the third person who suggests that we revert from where we started, agree on changes and then proceed.

And let's get bold-faced misrepresentation straight: "Longevity myth" is still OR because you have not found the phrase in the sociological context which WP:WTA demands, as others admit.

This is, as I have shown ABSOLUTELY WRONG. And it is time for you to stop pretending anyone "admitted" to this. WP policy is to DEFINE THE TERM "MYTH" AND TO SUPPLY THE CONTEXT ie. Define the sociological context, which, in this case, is define what is scientifically plausible.

You have been shown to be utterly incorrect in your assertion that "myth" has to be found in the sources which describe the so-called "myths" on the page. Wikipedia policy, the very one you link to only demands the term be carefully defined and used in context. Period. It says NOTHING about "finding the phrase in the sociological context, it simply states that that context must be stated. Which is an entirely different thing, your increasingly non-nonsensical claims otherwise notwithstanding. Canada Jack (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * JJB: The point of the "Shangri-La myth" is that the rationale or explanation for longevity is based on a PLACE ('the grass is greener on the other side'). In one version of this myth, it's believed that people actually have to live in these areas to achieve similar longevity. Often this is on a sub-national level: for example, the HUNZA valley in Pakistan; Vilcabamba in Ecuador; the Caucasus region of the USSR. This was not a "nationalist" myth because the long-livers came from only specific regions of the country, not the entire country. The "nationalist" myth of longevity is that people live long because of their nationality.

Can I make that any clearer? Also, we can see that the use of the term "Shangri-La" is more than just my idea:

http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitylegends/p/hunza.htm

Thus, you are wrong again. Ryoung 122 08:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Permit me to take this occasion to state that my nonresponse to certain accusations (such as being "wrong again" or the boldface accusations prior to that) does not indicate any validity to those accusations. Rather, it appears to me that debunking the accusation and ignoring it have about equal efficacy. For example, in this case, I might debunk by simply observing that an "About.com" article, using the weasel words "some say" to link Shangri-La to Hunza without any mention whatsoever of "myth" or any reference of any kind to Ryoung's original categorization matrix, is hardly a probative source. In other cases where I stand accused, of course, I might just ignore the statement. But I am disappointed in either of these methods achieving much improvement, so I am ambivalent between them.
 * Oh yes. I should repeat that reverting to a month ago, when one has admitted many improvements were made in the interim, when the version reverted to copies an otherwise nonexistent structure that one has a monetary investment in establishing, when one refuses to distinguish the problematic edits from the agreeable ones, all creates very bad energy for one. Specifics have already been discussed. JJB 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made many improvements
Which of them are you reverting me for? (Ryoung, if you specifically state which of my edits you disagree with, we can reach consensus. If you continue to refuse to be specific, I will just continue to improve the article and note your lack of contribution toward consensus. It would also help if you answered my 10 questions above, in their place. Thank you.) JJB 00:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of substantive replies to my various questions from anyone, I must state my conclusion that it is proper to continue improving the article along the same path, even in the face of regular reverts by Ryoung to a version of one month ago (plus two insignificant edits), which are contrary to the recommendation that reverts should not be based solely on claims of alleged consensus for the old version. I note one attempt by Ryoung to state four generic objections, which in good faith I have attempted to respond to twice, even though it seems to add a very unnatural tinge to the article; a close reading of his objections might even sustain the view that his own reversions are contrary to his stated views about the article, as demonstrated above, not to mention that he admits reverting against what he considers significant improvements. Until and unless someone can give a substantive, specific reply why a month of improvements should be reverted (or some other alternative arises), I must consider that Ryoung's reversions are contrary to the Wikipedia process. Please answer the questions, such as stating specific cases where my edits may be OR or POV. JJB 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Truce, please
JJB and RYoung, I think this debate has escalated into an all-out war. The quality of this article has suffered, and now it is littered with OR and CN tags, which serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Whoever added these tags should remove them, and add the Original research instead.

Or even better, how about you fix it yourself? If you have access to verifiable and reliable sources, then please do what you must. Otherwise, delete the information and leave it at that. On the other hand, if anyone had bothered to do a simple google for most of these claims, you would probably find sources which support the information. Which is why I seriously doubt the intentions of whichever editor added these tags, and it seems to be a indication of (gasp!) bad faith on their part. Columbia issued a postage stamp of Javier Pereria for christ's sake! I dont' care who added these tags, it an obvious indication of someone who is trying to push their POV into this article.

Whoever did this, cares nothing about the quality of this article and is simply trying to prove a point. What that point is, I don't know and I don't care. But this is making me sick, and if this keeps up I am seriously considering filing a RFC if everyone doesn't grow up and start working together. This is getting to the point of childishness. Quit the edit warring, stop the bickering, and start doing some actual work for a change, instead of merely posturing over who is right.

As far as I'm concerned, you're both wrong. JJB, if you would like to present "your side" of the debate, fine! Go ahead! Add your sources about how people lived to be 300 years old. RYoung, ditto. If you think his sources are wrong, add yours stating how ridiculous it is that someone could claim to be 300 years old. Theres no reason why this article can't present both sides of the debate, and in fact it is required that it should. But if you can't reference it or verify it, then don't say it. Feel free to delete anything that doesn't have a reference if it offends you that much.

JJB, as far as the name of the article is concerned. I think you should admit defeat. "Myths" is the obvious choice, and is the most recognizible choice. Despite your claims of using Google to find over one million hits for "longevity traditions" I only come up with 60 (vs 2,000 for "longevity myths"). The problem is you need to put your search terms within quotes, or google will find every page that contains both the words "longevity" and "traditions". "Longevity myths" is clearly the most commonly used title, so please.... accept that you are wrong. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  01:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. 03:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My response to the comments above, which chronologically preceded some comments below, begins below. JJB 21:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: All of those flags were done by JJBulten, I didn't do any of them. I am 100% innocent. I have used mass-revert because JJB has not yet accepted my offer to begin with material that is the least contentious first. When he does, I will not need to do so. Right now, his "work" has the tone of Congressional pork-barrel legislation. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place where we are forced to accept lesser-quality as part of a "total package". Ryoung 122 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryoung122, please provide a diff to this offer so that I know what its details are. Also, please state which parts of my work are lesser quality so that they can be adjusted. You may not have noted that I just made some guesses this morning as to what you think is lesser quality and deleted/rearranged those passages. Beyond that, in good faith, I have zero evidence of what you may think is lesser quality. JJB 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion about what to call this page has been rhubarbing on for weeks. Please come to a concensus, or let me arbitrate a decision what to call this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) (Wikipedia administrator) 09:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

JJB to Anthony and Ergo

 * I don't know where to seek mediation, as I went to WP:COIN, and two other editors made a finding of COI, but nobody felt like any further action was necessary.
 * Comment: this was a bad-faith diversionary tactic...attempting to make this discussion about ME rather than the facts. The FACTS speak for themselves. However, you have repeatedly made false statements and insinuations and have not apologized for them. Ryoung 122 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith about my report, please; the facts about it were that two other editors found ongoing COI, yet no action was taken. Ryoung122, please state a proper dispute resolution method you approve of for resolution. Also, please state which allegedly false statements or insinuations I have not apologized for, as I believe I responded to any significant claims of yours that I made such. JJB 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthony, please pardon me for not accepting your offer of mediation for now, since I am doubtful about your previous close of discussion (though if you have comments about WP:COIN I'm very interested). I suppose that the Mediation Cabal might work IF Ryoung were to agree to it. I must naturally request that my edits remain during mediation until and unless Ryoung (or another) lists specific problems or concerns with them (for good-faith discussion toward consensus), because: Ryoung has admitted they contain many improvements; his reverting everything along with what he considers the bathwater is a five-second dismissal of uncounted hours of actual, normal WP sourcing work; he has had four years for what I consider his OR, while he just switches off what he considers my OR; and he has not made a single serious improvement to this article all month (that I can see), though he has certainly spent some hours finding sources and complaining about them on various talk pages. Perhaps he thinks that COI prevents him from adding good sources while it permits him to revert good sources others have added, I don't know how to account for this behavior.
 * To Ergo, I believe the quality of the article has improved, and particularly, even tagging the sentences that have remained as (potential) OR for 4 years improves the article (tagging is better than remaining unsourced). The sentences in question are tagged separately because they all originate from Ryoung's 2005 "essay" (with invisible page number citations to Young's thesis; a few tags inserted at other times have no page numbers). As to fixing it myself, I have been. I don't care to take the effort of listing diffs now, but you can easily see from the history that some of my edits replace Ryoung sourcing with true sourcing and remove some of these tags. I have been working steadily on improvements, as my unanswered questions above also show. I'd love to delete all the tagged info outright, but I don't see consensus for that, and Ryoung once said that he would like 100 days to source any contested sentence, so I have been patient. I have been doing some odd googling for sources, but have not taken the time to do it as a fulltime job, because it's not my job to source Young's relatively unsourced thesis for him. Maybe I can do Pereira next, though I had zero interest in singling out that claim until you mentioned your find.
 * If this were editing to prove a point, I think you would be able to see that from my history. Instead, you will see that I am working on improvements, as when you and I achieved harmony on a particular phrasing above (PiCo later removed it and I did not contest that). I suppose the large number of tags looks pointy, and I am technically not opposed to changing them all to invisible footnotes with one head tag, so long as it preserves the list of sentences belonging to Ryoung's 2005 unsourced "essay" that have not yet been mitigated.
 * Your statement "sources about how people lived to be 300 years old" is ever so slightly ambiguous, so I will clarify. The basic WP principle is that this article contains certain claims about living beyond 110 (the definition of supercentenarian) and discussion of those claims. WP does not make those claims, it just reports them; and, simply, I don't want your sentence to be misread as suggesting that I think WP should make those claims (or, as Ryoung suggests, that I have made them myself). Again, if you look, you'll see that I have been adding those sourced claims appropriately and informatively. And Ryoung has failed to add a single source, and those he mentions on talk seem very off-point, although I have found ways to add one or two of them myself. I affirm your proposal for what we should present or not say or delete, and in fact have been waiting all month for those sources "stating how ridiculous it is that someone could claim to be 300 years old" (eventually I added some scientific sources suggesting that setting a cutoff point itself is the ridiculous behavior, and there are more; but I saw none affirming a cutoff point).
 * The evidence does not favor backing off from requesting a move, for compliance's sake, in some other polite way. First, the "vote" remains 6-4 by my count: no consensus. Second, your unsourced statement of thousands of "longevity myths" cites is probably a Google exaggeration based on estimated mirrors; see above where I sourced the real numbers as 92 vs. 91. Third, this exaggeration only reflects the fact that a vast number of "myth" mirrors stem from Ryoung's wholly unsourced 2005 insertions. (The User:Shii/Hoaxes page normally considers this as evidence of hoaxing. See User talk:Shii/Hoaxes for 26 phrases originating from Ryoung that have exactly zero Google support outside his 2005 insertions.)
 * Yet another FALSE accusation. There is no "hoaxing" here at all, nor has there been any attempt at "hoaxing." I am not responsible for third-party sites, but if they choose to copy my work, might it be because they consider it a reliable source? Ryoung 122 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looking closer, we see that it was JJB that listed this as a "hoax":
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shii/Hoaxes#Longevity.2C_ticklish_situation
 * Citation of one's own accusation is a circular argument, and thus invalid. Ryoung 122 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, for example, there is an accusation that I made an accusation, but it is clear that I never accused hoaxing, nor has there been any attempt at accusation. I listed the evidence for comment at a WP hoax talk page, and stated that IMHO, the evidence is what regulars at that page normally consider hoaxing; but this situation is far from normal, so I did not list it as a hoax as I have frequently done in clear-cut cases. The third-party sites copy "your" work because they think Wikipedia is a reliable source, which it isn't. Funny how quick Ryoung122 is to find circular argument in his interpretation of my words, when there is none such in the plain meaning of my words. If you would like me to apologize, Ryoung122, I apologize that I did not take the time necessary to make my words clear to you. Please state what else I can apologize for. JJB 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is, not counting mirrors of Ryoung's mind, "traditions" (like other versions) has the clear upper hand. Fourth, there is also a scope problem in that the WP:RS do not use either "myths" or "traditions" in the sense that Ryoung does, which I have started to note with the fully sourced sentence I recently added to the lead; this problem is too complex to briefly summarize adequately here, though. Anyway, I need not fight on the title for now; I trust that, as the article continues improvement by using normal edit cycles, as opposed to wholesale reverts of all my improvements, we will eventually get to the point of agreeing on what we're writing about sooner or later. JJB 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

More toward truce

 * Comment: —Preceding unsigned word added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs)
 * If its any consolation, I think you (JJB) have been more civilized and open-minded than Ryoung. But I suggest letting someone (such as Anthony) arbitrate what to call this page. My opinion is that it should stay how it is, but it wont bother me any if the name changes. And if it bothers you that much, yes you should delete the unsourced additions, and just start fresh. Re-write the whole article, if thats what you think it needs. And when you're done with it, if you've done it correctly, you just might have a GA or FA quality article. I would say more but I'm pressed for time. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Rewriting, and negotiating on talk, is proceeding as well as time can permit. But I really don't know how to take on my own shoulders all the additional work of guessing what kind of truce Ryoung would accept (in addition to doing all the work of guessing what problems he has with my edits), as he does not answer my questions about these things. JJB 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Javier Pereira
I have just wikified the Javier Pereira reportage, and comparing the prior version with mine affirms many of my points about problems in this article. (1) Prior version had complete lack of context, one sentence, not even identifying Colombia or linking to Pereira's article. (2) Complete lack of reliable sourcing; even the main WP article relies only on tertiary sources and (probably) OR. (3) Complete imbalance, focusing only on the debunking point (that the claim was based on a dental exam, not in the main article), without any other side presented (such as actual medical testimony quoted in Time, or Pereira's alleged memories of 1815). (4) Complete inability to source the key debunking point. While the unsourced deathdate in his article was rapidly googled to the Boston Globe, the claim that the age relies on a dentist is unfindable. Here is "'javier pereira' colombia dentist", with zero relevant hits that I can see. (5) Origin in unsourced research original to WP. It is natural that those three terms get zero relevance, because they have apparently never appeared on the same WP page before ("colombia" was missing from this article all that time). In other words, whoever inserted the original "dentist" claim into WP (any bets?!) had zero internet support for doing so, even though generic discussions of Pereira's medical exams without the word "dentist" appear sufficiently.

In short, this Pereira sentence was inserted by someone familiar with the case who (for whatever reason) utterly failed to apply WP policy to tell others anything about finding that case, who was set on the article unbalancedly talking about the debunking but hardly even about the claim, and who relied on information not verifiable to any reliable source (we call that original research). It has remained uncorrected all this time. And this is typical of a majority of sentences in this article. Has anyone yet figured out how abysmal the article has been for four years, and why there is a need for drastic measures, such as deletion of all tagged original research, as Ergo proposes above? Or am I overdoing it? JJB 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I would have lost my bet, because the insertion was by an IP self-identified as Louis Epstein. Since Epstein has essentially left WP, I note only that his POV of longevity and his inacquaintance with WP consensus procedure seem very similar to those of Ryoung122's, but Epstein's recognition of when to back off from a losing battle is not a trait shared by Ryoung122, and merits some respect. The inacquaintance also sufficiently explains a small number of the other chronic problems with this article. JJB 16:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: the above comment is highly offensive. This is not about "recognition of win to back off from a losing battle." Louis Epstein was mostly right. If he left, it reflects badly on Wikipedia. At its core, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"...be they uneducated, knowing nothing about the subject, or whatever. Too often, articles reflect who has the most time on their hands or who is going to be the most fanatical about something. Louis may have "lost" the battle on Wikipedia, but he remains influential in the outside sources, such as:

http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/rej/12/2

Supercentenarians Table

Global Mortality Rates Beyond Age 110 Robert D. Young, Louis Epstein, L. Stephen Coles Rejuvenation Research. April 2009, 12(2): 159-160. First Page | Full Text PDF | Reprints & Permissions

In other words, both myself and Louis Epstein continue to have our work PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL ARTICLES. Thus, your accusations of "original research" are spurious. Anything that's been published in a reliable source is not "original research" on Wikipedia.

Can I be more clear: according to the core concepts of Wikipedia, such as WP:RS, journal articles are supposed to be given highest priority when considering sources. Yet you give yourself priority over published research. That indicates to me that you, sir, are the problem, not Louis Epstein and not myself. I am here because I believe in educating the next generation. Like Galileo, five hundred years from now, history will view me as on the correct side, not you. Ryoung 122 21:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone have a comment about my main points, after this digressive tangent spun off of the throwaway last clauses of them? Thanks. JJB 22:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise
Greetings, I do not think that JJBulten has yet understood what I am doing. Mass-reversion does not necessarily mean I oppose all new material. However, it does mean that the sum total of the newer edits are so unconstructive as to require a start-over point.
 * Ryoung, thank you for attempting to get closer to the issue. Please realize that mass reversion is frowned on at WP; that using mass reversion to create a "start-over" point (really a point identical to the article structure ever since you began work on it 4 years ago) is highly deprecated in favor of pointing out individual problems with the new edits; and that I am shocked that you have two partial supporters for mass reversion, as such support is problematic itself and far from normal. I appreciate the explanations below, which come close to stating problems with the new edits (although it is really just a continued defense of your own old edits). But I will also illustrate the problems with your requested structure and lay out what efforts you need to make if you want to retain it in accord with WP guidance. When another editor makes numerous well-sourced edits, many of which you agree with, proper procedure is to delete or edit the parts you don't agree with, so that discussion can be laser-focused in a way that mass reversion simply fails to do (while also escalating other issues). JJB 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already mentioned that I don't mind:

A. pictures

B. addition of king lists

C. addition of examples of national or ethnic longevity
 * Thanks, I'll take that as a confirmation that I should reinsert the content I deleted in an attempt to guess what you objected to, as that content is essentially item C in this list. JJB 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

However, there are a few areas that I consider that should NOT be compromised:

A. the main structure of the article
 * Since you mention "a few" but then list only one, I take it that all of the "areas" relate to this one concern for your structure, which as I've said is the structure of your 2005 "essay". JJB 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this clear to JJBulten: this article intended to explain the various kinds of longevity myths or traditions.
 * The intent of this article is now in dispute, so your statement is not supported. Permit me to quote the history. Article was created by Louis Epstein (User:12.144.5.2) on 2 Oct 2003 with title "longevity myths" and much unsourced personal research of Epstein's: a typical good-faith contribution from someone well-familiar with the research, but not the WP policies. The title was challenged on 24 Dec 2004, changing lead to "longevity claims", for exactly my reasons ("unprecise and POV"), and in accordance with the WP:WTA#Myth stylesheet at that time. Title was matter-of-factly restored by Epstein on 1 Feb 2005, perhaps not recognizing the challenger's claim that the title was POV; the very proper challenge was not prosecuted after Epstein's extracurricular undo. In this edit, Epstein also stated what he believed was the scope of the article (below). User:Ryoung122, in his first edits to the article in Nov 2005, totally recast it, changing the scope to what he believed it was (below), and creating a detailed but wholly unsourced categorization structure for the article. Since then, the scope continued to be informed by the (POV) requirement that the scope requires (known) age exaggeration, in a realm in which it is not WP's job to judge or know; and by the (POV) requirement that there exists an accepted categorization of these claims; and Epstein or Young has never been far from the article (except for irrelevant reasons). JJB 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Epstein scope 2004: unsupported claims and why the burden of proof must rest on them,along with a list of those that have failed to meet it.
 * Young scope 2005: the history of the mythology of longevity, as well as an explanation of the longevity myth phenomenon.
 * Young scope 2009: Each category of myth is based on a different motivation for age exaggeration.
 * That is, the intent or scope of the article, unstated or stated, has always been informed by Epstein and/or Young, supported only by silent consensus and occasional unresolved disagreement. I doubt that, until a month ago, there has ever been a true WP discussion about what the scope should be. The Epstein scope is relatively straightforward (it is easier to determine what falls within the scope), but is now also pretty much the scope of the second article, longevity claims. The bigger problem, with the Young scope, which WP must now deal with, is illustrated in that there is no "longevity myth phenomenon": this phrase, like 25 others I identified as originating with Young (at the hoax talk page), has zero Google hits outside of mirrors of this WP article. That is what we call open-and-shut original research (wholly unlike my fully sourced edits which you have called OR). There is one hit for "mythology of longevity", a review of Boia's 2004 book; but that only suggests that Young's giant tree of "myths" (below) may partially rely on Boia, and so that might commend the view that, for WP purposes, any discussion of this term "mythology of longevity", which has no evidence of having any reliable sourcing other than Boia, should go in the Lucian Boia article. The 2009 scope is equally wiggly, and has the POV problems already noted. JJB 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, the very fact that you think there should be an article about (your) categories of longevity traditions, in the first place, is wholly unsupported by independent reliable sources, which would need to demonstrate that this categorization has an accepted existence in the literature. This lack of reliable sourcing for the scope of an article generally flunks it at WP:AFD, especially when there is a clear merge target at longevity claims. However, AFD would be misinterpretable at this stage, and I have proposed above a possible demarcation of scope that would retain this article, for which I will now make a formal proposal: JJB 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bulten scope: claims of supercentenarian human longevity supported chiefly by tradition, and claims lacking either age in years or death date. JJB 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very straightforward in that requiring both age in years and death date is an easily demarcated minimum for inclusion in longevity claims, and reliably sourced (sociological or mythological) demonstration that the claim arises from tradition is an easily demarcated minimum for inclusion here. (Obviously discussion of those traditions is included, and generic or specific scientific reasons for doubt would be included in such discussion.) But the whole problem with retaining the Young scopes is that there is no accepted categorization of these claims. (One may appear in Boia, but it has no proof of widespread acceptance; and one does appear in "Young 2008", but Young 2008 not only is unaccepted, but also does not cite any sources and would fail WP:RS on several counts.) JJB 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, provide reliable sources for each of your categorizations. A few examples will be noted below. JJB 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The exact name is not as important as the idea. Let me go over these again:

1. Patriarchal: this is not just "religious" but is more genealogical in focus. Before written history, there was oral history. Oral myths and traditions told stories of ancestors. I find it interesting that, in the Bible, when ages were actually written down, the ages claimed were not so extreme: King David lived 70 years; the oldest age mentioned in the New Testament is Anna, 84 years old. Extreme ages in the Bible only exist in the pre-written record era.

Yet the focus here is NOT the Bible, Christianity, or Judaism. Whether Sumeria, Japan, or what have you, most cultures that maintained lists of ancestors had inflated ages the further back in the past one went.
 * The phrases "patriarchal longevity myth", "patriarchal matriarchal myths", and "patriarchal myth" itself when associated with "longevity myth", all originate with you. To defend this category, you would need to show that some independent reliable source has taken note of "longevity traditions" (by whatever name) and of an accepted subcategory of traditions called "patriarchal", "genealogical", "oral", etc. (You would of course also need to ensure that all POVs are represented about when the Biblical records were written down, although that may largely have already been done.) You would also be interested in showing that some independent reliable source (not just Witness Lee) had noted the alleged age inflation the further back one goes; the Shahnameh begins with three reigns of 30-40 years before it has the 1000-year reign. This proposed category 1 might be easier than some of the others due to closer ties between the claims. If there is no such source, then each specific claim cited would need a reliable source demonstrating that it arises from a single, easily demarcated, common thread (e.g., "possible oral history"); then it would not be OR to use a subhead to state that all the categories in the hypothetical section happen to be possible oral histories, because that would then be sourced. This is the bare minimum for supporting this chapter of the framework, and the same applies for each of the rest. JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Village elder: the idea that a local in a village is an extreme age; this is often based on status. Thus, the issue is one of STATUS.
 * The phrase "village elder myth" (and its always being the "second longevity myth") originates with you. Further this concept itself is one of the clearest that originates with you: it may well be that you have some familiarity with claims that can be categorized by the very vague words "a local in a village" and "status", but I have seen absolutely nil that any independent reliable source thinks along these lines. To defend this category, you would need to show that some independent reliable source has taken note of "longevity traditions" (by whatever name) and of an accepted subcategory of traditions called "village elder", "status", etc. If there is no such source, then each specific claim cited would need a reliable source demonstrating that it arises from a single common thread (in this case I do not recommend one because I see no way to unblur this category with specific, unambiguous language); if you found one, then it would not be OR to use a subhead to state that all the categories in the hypothetical section happen to be within that category, because that would then be sourced. I trust my repetitiveness makes the point clear. JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Fountain of Youth: the idea that one can live longer by drinking water from a fountain, taking a substance, etc. This is often associated with alchemy and quackery.
 * The use of the phrase "fountain of youth myth" when associated with "longevity myth" originates with you. (You might have noticed that my edits to that section bring in content from the widespread and easily documented fountain of youth traditions going back to Bethsaida, which you have neglected to insert for years.) The problem, though, is creating a giant alchemical/medical category and claiming it is all known (in accepted sources) as fountain of youth mythology. To summarize the above steps, please source the idea that all alchemical/medical/dietary claims are easily categorizable and demarcable, and/or find a common element easily recognized and stated in the sources for all the claims, and state that. I could claim that Li or Muslimov was a fountain of youth case as well as anyone else who cited diet, but that claim is unsourced OR. JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

4. "Shangri-La": the idea that longevity is associated with a particular PLACE, such as Vilcabama, the Hunza Valley, or Shangri-La. Clearly, this can be seen in the USSR: extreme longevity was claimed for peoples in the Caucasus (whether they be Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, etc.). Note that in Vilcabamba, it was claimed that if Western tourists visited the site, they would live long too. These stories often have to do with the European idea of the Grand Tour. Note this myth continues with recent popular books such as http://www.bluezones.com/
 * No, I didn't note that claim about Vilcabamba, because I have no quick access to 1973 National Geographic! Nor do I have any idea where to start with your throwaway references to Grand Tour and Blue Zones, as they do not appear in the article. Nor do I understand how "place" is acceptably differentiable from "nation" (as if "nonnational place" is a significant other entity). Nor have I seen any independent reliable sourcing categorizing or grouping these traditions together. You get the drift, and I need not repeat for the rest of the set. I trust that, since you are now attempting to state your concerns more exactly, that you can put up with any ellipsis on my part, or not spelling out every detail completely myself. Thank you. JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, who is trying to make money here? The GRG.org website is non-profit; the blue-zone website is for-profit. Enough said.
 * Am I correct in stating that a book by Robert Young, based on a thesis available on the internet and in part on an essay published to Wikipedia, sells for $101? And that the ideas in this essay are exactly what you intend to continue promulgating as the position of Wikipedia, as you have for 4 years? And that you have read WP:COI? Did I misunderstand? My apologies for any offense, because I don't know any quiet way to talk about this. JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Nationalism: the claim that someone lived a long time because of their nationality. The place is not the issue, the nationality is.

6. Ideological myth: the claim that someone lives a long time because of the way of the government (i.e., Communist, capitalist). For example, Castro has promoted Cuba as an island of longevity:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003677182_cuba23.html

However, I consider this too closely associated with #5 to need separate billing, thus I combined it. However, if you want to separate it, go ahead.

7. Spiritual practice: this pertains to the idea that one can attain long life through spiritual practice, such as meditation. However, the ages claimed (such as 256) are often not based on reality. This number is a multiplier of the number 8 (32*8) and is more a symbol than a real number. Others, such as the Swami Bua, have changed their age repeatedly.
 * Too bad you didn't source anything to do with this Swami Bua; nor the significance of the number 256 (which has no credibility as being a hypothetical origin of Li's age unless the 1827 congratulatory "150th" message sourced to Time was fabricated within weeks of Li's death in 1933). JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Others...I meant for people to expand this. This includes ideas such as the myth of Confederate longevity, and the local family myth (longevity may run in families, but great-great grandpa really didn't live to 110). In my own family, my "100"-year-old great-grandfather died at 87. Many, many families have had longevity myths that turned out not to be such.

I consider these all myths not simply because they are not true,
 * I'm sorry, but after all these years you still deny the first sentence of core policy WP:V: we do not write articles about claims which some people thought are true from the POV that none of them are true (with only fringe exceptions). We state the scientific reasons and the people's thoughts both, and properly weight them. (P.S. I see that on my talk you are attempting to get closer to the scientific reasons; but you're not close yet, and when you get around to sourcing and inserting your thoughts, I will respond then.) JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

but because they are shared cultural traditions. This is different from the age misreporting of individual claims, which often is motivated by:

A. error B. pension fraud C. individual vanity or seeking attention

Thus, if you wish to create a combined article that ADDS YOUR MATERIAL BUT DOES NOT DELETE MINE, WE CAN BE CLOSER TO REACHING CONSENSUS, and work out the individual details. But right now, what we have is a "fork"...you basically created another article, based on original research, and threw out the version that was based on published research.
 * Please tell me when I deleted or threw out significant material of yours without a rationale, as you imply. I don't do that, you may be thinking of someone else who deletes and throws out significant material of others without a rationale, maybe someone you have more experience with. JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung 122 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add "exhibitionism" that is something I won't object to.
 * I see no difference between exhibitionism (which you consider a potential tradition) and individual vanity (which you don't). This is an example of the whole reason that categories of traditions must be attributed to independent reliable sources. JJB 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Longevity
The ancient Egyptians used a 365 day solar calendar, not a lunar one, as the Sun God was one of their most important deities. Semitic people for the most part did indeed use a lunar rather than solar calendar, but not the Hebrews, as the historical Moses was likely educated in Egypt, not among the semites. In other words when the account says someone was nine centuries old, they meant NINE centuries old. Moreover, the ancient Babylonians invented virtually all modern measurements of time, and they knew the earth was round, as did the writers of the Bible, who learned how to write in Babylon. Okay maybe not learn; that is where they perfected Hebrew script.

67.148.120.90 (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747


 * The exile to Babylon is very late compared to the patriarchs, and semitic scripts originated long before that (the Isrealites did not use Egyptian scripts, as suggested by the proto-Sinaiatic finds [NBD: IVP]). Besides, by this point they had switched language to Aramaic from Hebrew. The genealogies are not complete anyway.— Kan8eDie (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise (version II)
Greetings, I do not think that JJBulten has yet understood what I am doing. Mass-reversion does not necessarily mean I oppose all new material. However, it does mean that the sum total of the newer edits are so unconstructive as to require a start-over point.
 * This appears to fully duplicate the previous section except for about one thought, which I respond to below. JJB 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already mentioned that I don't mind:

A. pictures

B. addition of king lists

C. addition of examples of national or ethnic longevity

However, there are a few areas that I consider that should NOT be compromised:

I. the main structure of the article

Let me make this clear to JJBulten: this article intended to explain the various kinds of longevity myths or traditions. The exact name is not as important as the idea. Let me go over these again:

1. Patriarchal: this is not just "religious" but is more genealogical in focus. Before written history, there was oral history. Oral myths and traditions told stories of ancestors. I find it interesting that, in the Bible, when ages were actually written down, the ages claimed were not so extreme: King David lived 70 years; the oldest age mentioned in the New Testament is Anna, 84 years old. Extreme ages in the Bible only exist in the pre-written record era.

Yet the focus here is NOT the Bible, Christianity, or Judaism. Whether Sumeria, Japan, or what have you, most cultures that maintained lists of ancestors had inflated ages the further back in the past one went.

2. Village elder: the idea that a local in a village is an extreme age; this is often based on status. Thus, the issue is one of STATUS.

3. Fountain of Youth: the idea that one can live longer by drinking water from a fountain, taking a substance, etc. This is often associated with alchemy and quackery.

4. "Shangri-La": the idea that longevity is associated with a particular PLACE, such as Vilcabama, the Hunza Valley, or Shangri-La. Clearly, this can be seen in the USSR: extreme longevity was claimed for peoples in the Caucasus (whether they be Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, etc.). Note that in Vilcabamba, it was claimed that if Western tourists visited the site, they would live long too. These stories often have to do with the European idea of the Grand Tour. Note this myth continues with recent popular books such as http://www.bluezones.com/

Now, who is trying to make money here? The GRG.org website is non-profit; the blue-zone website is for-profit. Enough said.

5. Nationalism: the claim that someone lived a long time because of their nationality. The place is not the issue, the nationality is.

6. Ideological myth: the claim that someone lives a long time because of the way of the government (i.e., Communist, capitalist). For example, Castro has promoted Cuba as an island of longevity:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003677182_cuba23.html

However, I consider this too closely associated with #5 to need separate billing, thus I combined it. However, if you want to separate it, go ahead.

7. Spiritual practice: this pertains to the idea that one can attain long life through spiritual practice, such as meditation. However, the ages claimed (such as 256) are often not based on reality. This number is a multiplier of the number 8 (32*8) and is more a symbol than a real number. Others, such as the Swami Bua, have changed their age repeatedly.

8. Others...I meant for people to expand this. This includes ideas such as the myth of Confederate longevity, and the local family myth (longevity may run in families, but great-great grandpa really didn't live to 110). In my own family, my "100"-year-old great-grandfather died at 87. Many, many families have had longevity myths that turned out not to be such. If you want to add "exhibitionism" that is something I won't object to. Obviously, the essay I wrote was open-ended: it started, but did not finish the subject. It was intended for expansion by others.

I consider these all myths not simply because they are not true, but because they are shared cultural traditions. This is different from the age misreporting of individual claims, which often is motivated by:

A. error B. pension fraud C. individual vanity or seeking attention

II. An understanding that, myth or no myth, claims to ages much beyond 120 are generally considered outside the realm of science.

What remains open for discussion:

I favor including individual examples of claims to 130+ on this page. If you want to change it to 140+, I don't see why this needs to go higher as age 130 is already 7+ years beyond any proven age, ever. Also, since most longevity claims are only exaggerated 1-15 years, most longevity claimants are dead by 130 (115 is the average maximum age in a given year; 115+15=130). Thus, claims above 130 seem to go more into a suspension of disbelief (UFO-level, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, etc.) rather than a simple age misreporting error, or forgetfulness.
 * I have said from the start that I am willing to consider any sourced scientific commentary to the effect that ages beyond some cutoff are generally considered outside the realm of science. Name-drops to you would not do the job, of course, due to the triviality of name-drops in general. When no source was forthcoming for some time, I began to insert scientific sources to the effect that there is no such cutoff. It would be interesting to see if science disputes science. JJB 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you attribute potential desire of 140+ to me. I have said from the start that 110, the def of "supercentenarian", is the only outside-accepted cutoff I know of. Your statement about claims above 130 appears to be projection, that is, a description of your own thoughts, because I have no idea how you intend to source it. JJB 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thus, if you wish to create a combined article that ADDS YOUR MATERIAL BUT DOES NOT DELETE MINE, and that removes false "original research" accusations, WE CAN BE CLOSER TO REACHING CONSENSUS, and work out the individual details. But right now, what we have is a "fork"...you basically created another article, based on original research, and threw out the version that was based on published research.

I will give you one more chance to get it right before I make my own version.

Ryoung 122 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed your last sentence here for a bit. I have no idea what you are promising (or threatening), or what you are giving me a chance to do. I have stated that WP guidance indicates that you have a sourcing duty that you are apparently shirking. It also appears to me that the version you keep reverting to is already your WP:OWN version. I have also made every attempt to respond, in the article editing, to any specific deficiencies you charged in my edits; and of course I have sourced my edits, as I have no original research to contribute to the article. You also accuse me of forking, OR, and creating a different article, yet without any evidence; while I have fully evidenced my demonstrations of your own unsourced research. It is also my experience that people who keep waiting on others to "get it right" do not actually know what they want and are waiting on others to guess that; but that is tangential.
 * In good faith, I am happy to replace the "OR" tag with the fact tag (even though OR has been evidenced); but Robert, nobody gets to let unsourced challenged material stand on WP, that's a cardinal rule of the cardinal policy of WP:V; and your 4 years is a vast overlooked anomaly in verifiability procedure. (In fact, we might eventually give you a longevity award for OR on WP! After we verify you, of course.) As already said, I have not deleted your content, with occasional sentence-level exceptions with fully supplied rationales and, usually, better and sourced sentences. I think your statement refers to my reorg of your headings, but Robert, you know what burden of proof is because you deal with it every day, and now it's on you.
 * Also, with the good-faith changes I made earlier today, even your categorization essentially still stands (although I don't think it will much longer); I am also tweaking the "others" "category" to reflect your thought as well. Since you seem to like things spelled out, I will demonstrate:


 * 1) Patriarchal = 2 Patriarchs
 * 2) Village elder = 5 Village elders
 * 3) Fountain of Youth = 4 Alchemists
 * 4) "Shangri-La" = 6.1 Regionalists
 * 5) Nationalism = 6 Nationalists
 * 6) Ideological myth = 6 Nationalists (combined by you)
 * 7) Spiritual practice = 3 Religious
 * 8) Others
 * 9) Confederate longevity = (now separate section of) 6 Nationalists
 * 10) Local family = (now separate section of) 6.1 Regionalists
 * 11) Exhibitionism = 7 Exhibitors (you called this "Barnum")
 * In short, with the tag change and the slight reorg, I have technically fulfilled your (POV-stated) request for "a combined article that ADDS YOUR MATERIAL BUT DOES NOT DELETE MINE, and that removes false 'original research' accusations". If you know of specific material of yours that I deleted, or if you know of specific ways in which the article as I have edited it does not comply with your request, you have the burden of saying what that deletion or noncompliance is. Now let's "work out the individual details" rather than whatever amusing spectacle is intended by your statement "I make my own version". Thanks. JJB 02:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I took a step back to think about it, and I still have a problem with some issues:

A. 'Alchemists'...Alchemists tried to do things such as "turn lead into gold," not simply find an "elixir of life". Thus I think the "Fountain of Youth" title is more appropriate. No one would confuse "Fountain of Youth" with turning lead into gold.

B. Unsourced/original research: A lot of your material is simply things you made up. My material has already been published twice and won a national award. While I'm not supposed to cite myself, I find it unfair for you or others to claim that "I can't find a source for this" when there is one. And let's not forget that my material had sources as well.

Ryoung 122 19:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and your patience! I have no problem recasting or even deleting the generic term "alchemists" on the grounds that (as I would freely admit) maybe not all the claims would be lumped under that head. I do have a problem (of course) using the similarly generic term "fountain of youth" to head the whole section, on the exact same grounds. Since you used "potions" repeatedly, I am throwing that into the mix.
 * I am disappointed you continue the nebulous charge "simply things you made up" without stating what I made up. In my previous edits I did note two or three sentences of mine that were more summary research than direct-source research, which is typically acceptable on noncontroversial articles, but which I deleted here upon recognizing them, for simplicity. But I don't simply make things up and put them on WP; you may be thinking of someone else. JJB 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

JJB digression re thesis
The multiple problems with using the "myth" section of your thesis as a source for WP are as follows. First, that section was an unsourced WP essay for 3 years before it became a thesis, so it can hardly be said that the thesis is the source;
 * I disagree. Anything in my thesis was written by me and only by me...articles on Wikipedia continue to be modified, edited, and reworked by others. Further, the thesis version incorporated some of the earlier essay, but is not the same. Ryoung 122 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 is the only source, who BTW irrevocably gave the rights and control over his essay in 2005 to the WikiMedia Foundation, under the WP:GFDL.
 * That's nonsense. According to WP:GFDL, only what is 'published' on Wikipedia is given over to Wikipedia. Free use does NOT surrender one's rights and control to the original essay, which in fact I wrote at home before it was posted here. Ryoung 122 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Second, the dual publication and the obscure award do not themselves defeat the presumption of self-publication; the university and the bookseller exert no obvious responsibility for or editorial discretion over the views of Young, even if university staff assisted in the thesis's acceptance.
 * That is absurd. My thesis underwent 23 revisions and was edited by three persons with Ph.D's. What you are saying is simply not true. There is no presumption of self-publication, as I did not publish this myself but others published it. Ryoung 122 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Third, all such publications of the "Young framework" fail the basic reliability of sources criterion, because the framework makes sweeping (extraordinary) characterizations not reported by any other source,
 * You're completely wrong. FALSE. As you yourself mentioned, you just started reading this material very recently. Your lack of knowledge of the subject is obvious. Ryoung 122 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

which give no evidence of representing anything other than one observer's view. Fourth, the "myth" section of the thesis cites very few of its own sources (and I believe I already culled all of the usable ones, and to say that Witness Lee was the best of them isn't saying much)
 * Another POV comment. Besides, the Witness Lee material was an example of apologist explanation, and not intended to be viewed as scientific in any way. Ryoung 122 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

, so it does not evince its own reliability, unlike (arguably) other sections of the thesis.
 * So material you just made up yourself is more reliable than a national-award-winning thesis? Complete B.S. Ryoung 122 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And then, even if we tried to overcome all of this to rehabilitate your framework into a source, we'd need to establish that (WP:SPS) Young's "work in the relevant field has previously [before 2005] been published by reliable third-party publications"; and to observe the caution that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so"; and to fight an uphill battle establishing compliance with the requirements of WP:SELFPUB (all of which look like apparent failures, except authenticity); and even then we face WP:BLP issues, in that when a living person claims to be over 122, for WP to contradict that person outright is called libel and is potentially a crime, and the WMF has extreme distaste for that, especially if no scientific sources are forthcoming to contradict the claim outright.

In short, to say "there is" a source but COI prohibits you from citing it is to blame COI for what is a more endemic problem: if anybody tried to cite Young 2008 as a source, it would fail for all these reasons other than COI. Accordingly, please continue to list any other issues, such as OR, that you may have with the article as it stands. JJB 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Ryoung122 has made other edits without commenting here, it is reasonable to presume that compromise has been reached on the current baseline, stable for 2 days. Accordingly, I will come back later to deal with the tagging issues, such as by deletion or sourcing. I will also presume that Ryoung122 is familiar with the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which should be invoked for future disagreements. JJB 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I decided to step back a bit to give everyone a chance to cool down. That does not mean I think you are right or that your approach here was the correct one. I am somewhat pleased you decided to "compromise" (give a little) but your lawyerly arguments in this section are far from what Wikipedia should expect to see when it comes to "assuming good faith." I also note that many talented persons have ceased contributing to Wikipedia because it simply a battle of wills, rather than a consideration of how to improve the material.
 * Also, my essay was an attempt to unify into one subject the various myths of longevity which have been covered in the scientific and popular literature for centuries, if not millennia. The only think new here was an attempt to unify the material into one place. It is not difficult to find evidence, for example, of the "fountain of youth" or Shangri-La myth of longevity:
 * Healthy aging: a lifelong guide to your physical and spiritual ... - Google Books Result
 * by Andrew Weil - 2005 - Health & Fitness - 293 pages
 * SHANGRI-LAS AND FOUNTAINS OF YOUTH Never had Shangri-La offered more concentrated loveliness to his eyes; the valley lay imaged over the edge of the cliff, ...
 * books.google.com/books?isbn=0375407553...
 * Obviously, this is a different essay, and a different way to arrange the material. It's simply synthesis. Ryoung 122 20:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to add back some material from the old version. This will allow you to keep your new material without having to undo it. Ryoung 122 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Paradigm moving forward
In that case I can cease the point-by-point debunking of digressive issues (unless you would like to discuss the very dry basic principles of logic at any point), and move to conclusive paradigms. JJB 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Normal editing cycle has returned. I will be adjusting some of your edits via WP:BRD (not a full revert of course) and initiating separate discussions, and I trust you will provide me the same grace. JJB 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The proponent of a claim has the WP:BURDEN of proof. Claims unsourced in the article may be deleted. If you believe a source should be added and that you would have WP:COI in adding it, you have the duty of stating the desired add clearly on talk, instead of just making offhand dismissive references to Andrew Weil. JJB 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I will respond to your future edits by my own edits and focused discussion. I will not be responding to further unfocused discussion unless it relates to specific edits. For instance, as a final side barb, you seem to have no regard for etiquette principles such as avoiding obscenity, avoiding original research about my state of mind, and avoiding generic unproven accusations, even after you have been asked directly to cease, so I don't think further asking is effective. JJB 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Particularly, if you make statements I find accusatory that lack any explanation of how I might be able to recognize what specific edit sentence is being accused, I will ignore them rather than ask for specifics, such as for where you accuse me above (again without references) of just making up material myself. JJB 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) If you desire to prove the alleged reliability of Young 2008, your job is to go to WP:RSN, or to persuade another editor to insert it as a source. Otherwise it remains as inadmissible as any other unreliable or unsourced research, as consensus has demonstrated. JJB 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Invisible tag in lead
Under WP:BRD I reverted Ryoung122's deletion of the invisible tag, which he summarized as "removed baseless assertions"; while doing this, I did not restore the words "original research or", which seem to be offensive to him. It is possible Ryoung122 does not understand the purpose of the invisible tag, which is merely to provide editors information on where the unsourced material originated (viz., either the 2003 article creation by Louis Epstein, two later edits by him, or the 2005 article revamp by Ryoung122 and (nearly identically) the 2008 thesis by Robert Young that remains unsourced in relevant part). Further, this tag explains the invisible page number references I inserted in the other tags throughout the article. Since nobody will see the tag other than editors who wish to get involved in the editing and discussion, and since all assertions are well-based (although it is possible Ryoung122 does not see this as to the OR assertion), the edit summary is insufficient for sustaining the deletion. Of course, removing all the unsourced info at once is also a viable option making the invisible tag unnecessary, but I doubt Ryoung122 is quite ready for that eminently necessary eventual step yet. JJB 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have an appointment and will not get to comment on the deletion of the individual cases section until later. I trust that there will be no edit warring on that deletion until we have time to discuss mutually? Adding "underconstruction" just in case. JJB 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So while you have repeatedly made changes to this article without attempting discussion (in the first instance) or accepting other users attempts at discussion (on many occasions since) you now ask that others do not do the same because you are unavailable? Isn't that, to say the least, rather ironic? 23:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the tag? Did you read paradigm 3 above? JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic recanted?
The debunking of the National Geographic article, mentioned herein as to Vilcabamba, Hunza, and Barzavu, is presumably sourceable to another NG article that is said to have "recanted" the first. If someone could provide the year and month of this article, it is probable that I can run with that and locate and source the actual text appropriately. Please see what you can find out, thanks. JJB 04:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Individuals section
Here's the issues with the section added back by Ryoung122 and which I deleted again. (In April I had moved this section to longevity claims, but he deleted it there and neither of us had restored it in either place until now; naturally I still favor inserting it there.) JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC) In short, and under WP:BRD, it is now appropriate for Ryoung122 to provide sources for any of the unsourced data in this table desired for this article, plus sources that consider some age cutoff as indicating mythicality, and sources that state what was discredited, disproven, or unbelievable. We would also need rationale for why nobody else should appear in such a table, or else a fix for that issue (rush list of candidates: Jimmu, Taejo, Bua, Kentigern, Servatius, Shenouda, Epimenides (assuming DOB/DOD sourceable), Magee, Smith, Geronimo, da Silva (x4), Du, Pereira, Martinez, Carn, Jenkins, Fitzgerald, Khakimova, Dzhukalayeva, Williams, Yaupa, Huppazoli). I sure hope we won't see a reinserted unbalanced table with the request that someone else do the work of collating and formatting all the other names, dates, and geographies, simply to retain the table as it appeared before I arrived, as if putting in an unbalanced list and asking others to balance it is somehow NPOV. Better to have no table at all. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) First, of course, this info would go into claims based on its content and style, except for Ryoung122's wholly unsourced and arbitrary idea that 131+ (n.b., not 130+) is a cutoff for mythicality; he alluded to this idea on my talk with a wholly original-research mathematical argument which was so vaporous (don't make me embarrass you) that it appears to have been used in the thesis only in a de-aired (and thus still unsourced) form. If he could come up with scientific sources stating that human ages above some cutoff are impossible (contradicting my own inserted scientific sources), as I've asked for more than a month, then it would make more sense to have a cutoff; but there is no brightline distinguishing these cases from the 113-131 cases. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Particularly, most of these cases are not myths in any sociological sense; they have never been presented to or from any cultus as widespread folk beliefs. And WP is not capable of judging whether they are "myths" in the sense of being untrue; WP is only permitted to republish claims about their veracity. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not so. Did you even bother to read the articles on Old Tom Parr or Zaro Agha or Shirali Mislimov? All of these became individual myths in the sociological sense. We all see here
 * http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1012645
 * that "Moloko was believed to be the oldest person alive by the people of Limpopo"...note the use of terms in this and similar reports like "the whole village" and "believed". Ryoung 122 08:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) As to style, it is rather silly to have a single table of dated and geographized claims when all the other such tables appear in the claims article. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, you willfully disregard the main point: the "longevity claims" article was created because some claims are in the gray zone of unverified but not outlandish, while others clearly are little more than sociocultural mythology. There is a huge difference between a claim to age 117 and a claim to 157. Ryoung 122 08:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Further, such a table is extremely unbalanced, because it only contains the 7 claims which happened to have gotten lumped into that table by the time I came along, and not any of the other claims found in this article either before or since, even though DOB/DOD and geography can be reasonably supplied. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A table like this can be expanded over time. Ryoung 122 08:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Li, Muslimov, and Parr already appear elsewhere in this article. Since they are claims that also have arguable traditional elements, I think (and thought) it appropriate for them to appear in both articles, with the different styling appropriate to each topic. But adding them to an misweighted table is inappropriate, because their details (if retained) should be moved to their extant paragraphs. Again, Ryoung122's idea that Li should be omitted from longevity claims when Guinness calls his case a "claim" is clearly favoring presuppositions over sources. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They appear elsewhere in the article because they are myths. Also, there is an overlap between "myth" and "claim" (think Venn diagram). Not all claims are myths, but some are both. Ryoung 122 08:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I have already favored listing Li at 199 (his own claim) rather than 256 (the gov's claim) for obvious reasons. (Unless the Chinese government is the more reliable of the two!) JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The other four (if retained) should appear, if anywhere, under current or new geographical sections, as (arguably) carrying on traditions of those countries. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You could mention both. Wikipedia preaches pluralism. Also, an individual claim can be co-opted into larger mythology: since the number "256" has special significance in Daoism as a multiple of the number 8, it makes sense that the larger, nationalist myth claimed he was "256" even if the original personal claim was "199." Ryoung 122 08:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course the whole idea that some traditions are "nationalist" and others are not is sourced to the 2005 WP essay and has the problems related to that as well. But the fact that none of these are really sourced to "nationalism" (or any other category) is still an arguable case for inclusion only in "claims". JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The problem, though, with retaining and moving the data herein (and the reason I didn't) is that essentially none of the nonnews data is sourced! The articles on Li, Muslimov, Aga, and Parr do not seem to source anything more than what was already in this article (e.g., Li's ostensible provenance from Qing China is unsourced); and there is no info whatsoever on Thomas Newman, and the burden is on the inserter. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) My deletion of the news-sourced Temo (and, I believe, Rashidova) was already tacitly accepted, I thought, as there is nothing connecting Temo to the topic of "myth" or "tradition" in any serious way; her DOB doesn't even have a "?" in Ryoung122's insertion! JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out; it does now. I was not the one who created the Temo listing. And her individual case is a good example of the village elder longevity myth. Ryoung 122 08:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course the weasely, ungrammatical, and wholly unsustainable description "either considered discredited, disproven, or simply not believable" has no basis in any reliable source. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You misppelled "weaselly":
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weaselly
 * Neither is the sentence ungrammatical. This has been sustained for years, and there are many sources to support the description that YOU have a problem with. Ryoung 122 08:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The overlong subhead should have been "Individuals" or similar, due to parallelism and balanced TOC. JJB 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't decide WHEN it is appropriate for me to provide material, or not. Any material or citations I provide is voluntary. Your comment is not conducive to getting along with others.
 * As for the table, the table was clear: ANY claim to age 130 or over would be a good candidate for inclusion. Think of this as something under construction: Rome wasn't built in a day. But better to have a table as a starting point and others can add more cases as they wish, provided they meet the criteria for listing (i.e. "my grandma is 130" doesn't count, the mythical claim has to have been published in reliable sources). Ryoung 122 08:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

General response

 * My response to the specific points above is contained in paradigm 3. My response to the wholesale reversion is, as per paradigm 1, to consider it a minor lapse in judgment rather than a reinitiation of edit war; thus I will enfold the new changes it contains (i.e., the table), and explain the BRD process more clearly, in case it was not understood. JJB 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Above I stated "it is reasonable to presume that compromise has been reached on the current baseline". You replied "I am somewhat pleased you decided to "compromise" (give a little) ...." and did not state any specific disagreement with viewing that version as the current baseline. You also stated to me, "I'm going to add back some material from the old version. This will allow you to keep your new material without having to undo it", which implied that you accepted keeping (all) the new material. It was thus reasonable for me to conclude we had reached a compromise, to declare cease-fire (not "victory", your word), and to invoke the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Thus I considered your edits to that baseline to be the "bold" change, to which I indicate the issues by partial "revert", which I did in two separate sections. That means we "discuss" (reach consensus about) that specific issue (i.e., the inclusion of a table) rather than tangential issues. During the discuss phase, the reverted version is expected to stand as a condition of invoking the cycle. Accordingly, it would be diplomatic and charitable of me to presume that your reversion resulted from a misunderstanding of the process and that you actually intended to use the process, because otherwise you would be carrying on an open edit war without any basis in process. JJB 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, at the moment I trust you intend to continue the compromise and consensus process; please reward my trust. JJB 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific discussion re table

 * As I said, I moved the table to "claims" in April, and you then deleted it there. So for this month and a half we have agreed on temporarily not including it in either article, though both of us obviously realized it needed to be resolved later. With Temo's death you decided to make an issue of reinserting it here: this is actually moving backwards, from a version we have agreed upon for that long period, to a version obviously not one we agree upon. Therefore the baseline position would be to continue not including the table because a standing agreement to postpone is much better than reawakening disagreement with the postponement. JJB 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However, because of the effort required to bring the table into compliance (it names 7 individuals and omits 25 others of the same class, each of whom requires individual research), and because it only adds unsourced data, even if we were to talk about including it, under paradigm 2 and WP:V, the burden of proof is upon you to source the unsourced data. During this period of attempting to source the data, because the table would break the WP:UNDUE weight guidance as is, it would appear the data sourcing would be better in the individual paragraphs already extant (a couple more can be created easily, which I will do). Since my version will contain all the data your "bold" contained on this point, since the only remaining question under BRD would be the form of the data (table versus paragraph), and since that last question is clearly resolved by WP:UNDUE in favor of paragraphing until sources arise, I consider this another attempt at compromise on my part and an eminently reasonable enfolding of your edits and restoration of normal editing cycles. JJB 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, according to the core WP:V policy, please source the unsourced statements, which I will now flag in the article. JJB 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Shangri-La" myth
Here's ANOTHER reference to the Shangri-La myth, published before I was born:

Davies, D., "A Shangri-La in Ecuador", New Scientist (1973).

I guess I just made it up, right, JJB? Ryoung 122 08:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is an edit request due to COI, please feel free to make the edit yourself, as others can enfold it and I don't know that anyone else would be able to make the original edit to your specifications. JJB 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another use of the word "myth" to describe longevity
Human Longevity, Individual Life Duration, and the Growth of the Oldest-Old ...

By Jean-Marie Robine, Eileen M. Crimmins, Shiro Horiuchi, Yi Zeng

"invalidating the longstanding MYTH that a man born in 1701 had reached the age of 113..."

Page 172

98.242.74.75 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If (you are Ryoung122 and) this is an edit request due to COI, please feel free to make the edit yourself, as others can enfold it and I don't know that anyone else would be able to make the original edit to your specifications. JJB 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Scope proposal
Since my scope proposal of 23 May above was met by silence, I am now prepared to edit the first sentence to conclude: "... are claims of supercentenarian human longevity supported chiefly by tradition, and claims lacking either age in years or death date." (Aside: The topic of nonhuman claims seems unnecessary enough to remain a separate subsection at Longevity, as the link between tradition/myth and nonhumans is too tenuous to sustain.) JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It it was met by silence, that may indicate that:

A. No one supported your proposal

B. You had enough issues on the table, no need to start yet another problem.

I'm just flabbergasted at your warlike mentality; you are editing this article as if this were a game of chess or a military field marshall advancing troops in a campaign. Like war, you are not stopping to consider the casualties and if the result is better than what existed before the conflict. I strongly urge you to SLOW DOWN and consider both your methodologies and your larger views concerning this area of reference. I am faintly impressed that, as you have read more, you have realized that you were wrong on some points...but not nearly enough. Please consider doing some more reading before attempting to force these massive changes again.

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung 122 08:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that Ryoung122's statement is somewhat responsive to my proposal ("The exact name is not as important as the idea", with request for category preservation), which if so would suggest further possibility to move forward. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This scope is clearly delineated and thus superior to the current text (which was intended as a temporary placeholder that simply repeats back "traditions about longevity", so that more reasonable discussion could occur later, meaning now); it is superior to the prior gray-area scopes mentioned above as well (except for Epstein's, which is now essentially the scope of the longevity claims article instead). If this can be accepted as the scope here, as seems promising, it will make very clear which individuals should be mentioned in either article or both, and the only scope issue remaining will be the 131-year cutoff issue above, appropriate for a new discussion later at the other article. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also move the last lead sentence to a new section "Categorization" after "Scientific status", where any sourced evidence of sociological tradition categories can be placed, starting with the Guinness data I alluded to above. While not all Ryoung122's original categories will necessarily be preserved in the final stable article, especially if no sources are forthcoming, the already sourced categorizations will bear out some of it as the remaining sections are brought into WP compliance. JJB 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedia is a process. There never will be a "final, stable article." Like some, you have misinterpreted your own importance, attempting to [WP:OWN]] an article. I have a lot of issues with your edits. Let's start with the PRESUMPTIONS.

1. "No one else is editing, so I must have a consensus." Get a life. You have bullied your way through the process, insisting on changes that were opposed by a majority, and unsourced. You only slowly are becoming familiar with the actual history of the subject (I must say that is a slight positive, but not enough).

2. Misinterpreting "give an inch, take a mile." I was expecting that by ceding some ground, you would do the same...but here you are pushing for further changes. I'm going back to square one, which was a far tidier and more succinct summation of the subject matter. Bells and whistles cannot replace knowledge and facts.

3. Ignoring major citations. I have already posted at least five journal article or book citations on "longevity myths" including the use of the term, yet you continue to add an "unsourced" tag. Don't bother adding tags if you are going to ignore information given.

4. I attempted to slow down to give people time to calm down, but you have continued at an editing pace which has not been conducive to making this a better article. This is not tennis. It's not about piling up points in a competition. This article should, in theory, be SCIENTIFICALLY grounded and, according to WP:RS, scientific material (as published in journals, for example) should be given greater credence.

Ryoung 122 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the above made no response that I can discern as to the specific edit request of changing "... are myths (in the sociological sense) and traditions about longevity" to the text proposed above, it appears that Ryoung122 has no preference between these two versions. Since he made a wholesale reversion to an earlier lead and presumably an earlier scope, this might be regarded as evidence of preference of something else, but under paradigm 1, I am ignoring this reversion charitably as an unintended lapse in process. Based on Ryoung122's comments to date, that is all I can glean about his views about this proposed edit; so if there is no preference, the edit can presumably be made at some convenient uncomplicated future occasion, i.e., when other entangling discussion has been resolved. JJB 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Also, since the move of the categorization sentence was new and was also not responded to directly, and since Ryoung122's whole approach is to prefer a categorization paragraph (as demonstrated by the original 2005 essay and other edits), that edit appears noncontroversial and can be inserted even earlier than the scope change. JJB 15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have completed the categorization expansion I proposed. It appears the scope change can be carried out in due time as well. JJB 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)