Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths

Where is the dispute?
The article. If you just take a glance at it you can see the notes on nearly every sentance.

Who is involved?

 * User:John J. Bulten
 * User:Ryoung122
 * User:Itsmejudith

What is the dispute?
This is arguably one of the biggest messes of an article I’ve ever seen. Problems with it are noted everywhere and looking through the talk and extensive archive it appears there will be no end to it. It is really just a bunch of POV pushing. You have a few editors, the most notable being JJB saying that the term “myth” is being misused and plainly are against religion being referred to as myth and you have Ryoung122, a gerontology expert who takes issue with religion being referred to as anything but. It seems like RNPOV would cover this pretty well but so far it hasn't.
 * To clarify, I'm against religion being referred to as myth nontechnically (judgmentally) rather than technically (within established nonjudgmental disciplines); I agree with RNPOV on this. JJB 05:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
I would personally split the article to resolve the issue. Create a page for Religious Longevity covering the various religious beliefs around longevity, and one for Disputed Longevity Claims which would claim the rest and is especially appropriate given that most of the article is contemporary by comparison. I would suggest this on the talk myself but I am certain given this all seems to be about one side winning over another I would be shot down.
 * This morning I think I made my best compromise proposal at Talk:Longevity claims. JJB 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
Push for a resolution rather than allowing this mess to continue.
 * Agreed for different reasons. JJB 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediator notes
I'm closing the case as stale. There hasn't been any real debate on the issue since June 2009. Ryoung122 responded to my offer of mediation help by expressing skepticism that mediation would solve anything. JJB has not responded, and is unlikely to, as he seems to have gone on an extended break, and hasn't regularly edited Wikipedia for months. It's worthy to point out that neither of these editors requested this mediation, but it was requested by an uninvolved third party. --  At am a  頭 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Laughing hard between thanks for Atama's sincerity and the staleness of the case. It turns out Atama notified "User:JJB" instead of myself because I use my initials in my sig (sorry!) and I just discovered this page. The primary former discussion was User:John J. Bulten/DR2 and the talk pages. Right now I am back in at WP, I have a path forward for the article, and Ryoung122 and I have not scraped too badly yet since my return, but there's no telling what will proceed. Open to anything within policy, JJB 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings,

The truth is, the "mess" was made by JJB, who is injecting Christian apologism (such as the idea that Noah really did live to 950 years old, because the Bible says so) into the article. This article is supposed to be written for an encyclopedia, reflecting a mainstream, secular scientific view, which is clear that humans have not been demonstrated to have lived much beyond age 120.

I agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but I see no progress as long as JJB is utilizing the wrong standard. This isn't the place to preach what you believe. Ryoung 122 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant replies to these charges already given at Talk:Longevity traditions. JJB 18:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not necessarily the case. Certainly the information must be encyclopedic, and should be verifiable. But saying that the article must "reflect a mainstream, secular scientific view" isn't completely accurate. Per WP:WEIGHT, articles should reflect all significant viewpoints, not only secular ones. The key is what can be verified by reliable sources. Declaring that Noah really did live to be 950 because the Bible says so isn't right, but it might be worthy to say that the Bible claims that Noah lived to that age (this is just an example, I'm not suggesting any actual content that should be added). Anyway, it sounds like there might still be something to be worked out through mediation, so do we want to have the discussion on this page or on the article's talk page? I'm fine with either, thanks. --  At am a  頭 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings,

I agree that mediation is a good idea. What I don't agree is that John J Bulten has attempted to establish mediation AFTER his edits, which did not seek consensus or find consensus first, has basically changed everything to his POV. Mediation needs to begin with the consensus POV, not the "coup d'etat" POV. Ryoung 122 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to discuss and/or implement specific objections to my edits, which have been gradual and have been previewed on talk when significant. I don't have a problem with reverting after a specific list of objections is provided, but there should be no wholesale reversion throwing out the improvements (similar to many R has admitted in the past) with the bathwater. JJB 19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Also, I attempted to establish mediation when I first was aware of it, as well as informally last year via article talk pages, so when my latest offer was met stonily, I continued my gradual improvements to the articles. JJB 19:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What is an improvement to one is a degradation to another. Ryoung 122 19:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Maybe we can call a halt to edits until something is worked out. It's easy to revert back if necessary, just because JJB has made changes, that doesn't mean those changes have to stay. --  At am a  頭 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests

 * 1) I think the first thing that offends Ryoung122 is my deletion of the (ahem) OR POV that all claims to age 131 years, 0 days, are myths. (The number 131 is math abuse per my comments.) I will cheerfully and surgically undo my changes on this point to Longevity claims with Atama's permission, to salve that objection temporarily without losing the sources and organization I added. JJB 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ which, due to interim undo, amounted to an undo to my version while leaving 9 sentences variously distributed throughout R's version that incorporated this POV, as shown here. JJB 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC) R objected to this compromise at User talk:TFOWR after I did it, so I asked him at his talk what baseline he wanted to start from; this question overlaps request 3 below. Requests 2, 4, 5 are still presumably noncontroversial. JJB 05:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd also like to proceed with overwriting/moving 4 grafs and adding 2, from the 24 September research below, into Longevity traditions (you'll excuse me if I use the redirect name rather than the anti-WP:RNPOV current name). This type of data has never been contentious and occasionally received graciously by Ryoung122. I'll give 1 and 2 another 24 hours if I don't hear from you. JJB 04:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ to both forks in this article (mine and his). JJB 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) User:NickOrnstein, one of the group, has just echoed Ryoung122 by reverting the whole article back to 10:45, 18 September 2010 DerbyCountyinNZ, thus deleting much work, many new sources, improvements by User:Active Banana, and with no differentiation between good edits and what he thinks is OR. I used up my 3RR's with Ryoung, so what should happen to the article? Yes, technically I'm secure in the knowledge that my work remains in history, but shouldn't the loss of sources be reverted? I'll find a basic user warning for Nick also. JJB 20:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Since Ryoung122 reverted the other article (longevity claims) twice and Nick once, I used up my third revert on that article too just now and will give Nick another warning. FYI. JJB 20:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC) And of course, Ryoung122 today after 24 hours did the fourth revert on myths, so that both are now "his" version. Anyone who thinks I'm pushing edit-warring close should consider him as well. I do think this needs attention first before any of the other issues. JJB 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC) ❌ due to ceasefire and to "Editor influx" below. Instead, building a consensus with the new editors, who have deletionist tendencies. JJB 02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Since User:Active Banana challenged a source based on its publisher, providentially another source by the same author (and different publisher) says much the same thing; this would change a clause in the lead to: 'The phrase "longevity tradition" may also refer to "purifications, rituals, longevity practices, meditations, and alchemy" '. As a swap-in this should pose no trouble although we will naturally be discussing the lead structure more generally, so I'll give it 24 hours too. JJB 05:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ to both forks as in 2 above. JJB 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Next slate of adds below (26 September) for permission or another 24-hour wait. Note that St. Kevin was misspelled Coempene (for Coemgene) in a scan of Custance (and thus the article), and source "jp" is already in the article. JJB 03:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ to both forks. JJB 05:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) And same conditions 28 September. I'm starting to get only a teeny bit concerned about when y'all will get back to this page because I'm running out of noncontroversial edits. Note below that we are now talking about which sources are better when some sources are GRG/WOP and thus within R's WP:COI, which can be a sore spot. Also the section that goes right now in "traditions" would not necessarily remain there; under my other proposals, Jon and Hulda are complete claims, while the 111-year-old is an incomplete modern claim (YMD age does not convert into year-and-day age), so I would hope that discussing moving them would be part of this process. Also the inline tags overlap the table, which is an issue but it needs to be remedied by R providing the sources for verification that he is very likely to have access to. If I continue to get antsy, I will need to make other proposals, to which I will give sufficient advertising time of course. JJB 16:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ but now I am antsy. JJB 16:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) The next step, hearing no discussion, is for me to take the noncontroversial improvements from the content fork and put them in the main article. JJB 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC) ✅ in conjunction with "Editor influx" per below and new consensus-building. JJB 02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

24 September

 * Roman
 * According to one tradition, Epimenides of Crete (7th, 6th centuries BC) lived nearly three hundred years.
 * Christian
 * St. Shenouda the Archimandrite, a Coptic saint, lived c. 348–466 (117+ years). He died on and is remembered on 7 Epip on the Coptic calendar (Sunday, 14 July, Julian).
 * Great Britain
 * Mrs. Eckleston of Philipstown, King's-county, was stated to be 143 (1548–1691).
 * Margaret Melvil, who reportedly died 1783 aged 117, Jane Lewson, who reportedly died 1811 aged 116, and Mary How, who reportedly died 15 July 1751 aged 112, were each known for growing new teeth in old age.
 * Controverted traditions
 * Katherine FitzGerald, Countess of Desmond, was age 140 according to contemporaries Fynes Moryson, Francis Bacon, and James Ussher. Records of Cork County historian Dr. Smith agree on the age. Walter Raleigh added that she was married in the reign of Edward IV (1461–1483). A pedigree at Lambeth compiled by George Carew places her death in 1604. This was probably after a new patent on her land 10 May 1604, which she apparently appealed. Records discovered later, showing that her husband was previously married through 1528 and then gifted land to her father in 1529, suggest that she was not married until 1529 and that her age was overrated by nearly forty years.
 * Saint Mungo or Kentigern, patron saint of Glasgow in Britain in the Middle Ages, was stated by biographer Joceline to have died at 185. Alexander Forbes recommends deducting 100, giving relatively consistent dates of ~518? – 13 January 603.

26 September

 * Polish
 * Piast Kołodziej, king of Poland, died in 861 legendarily aged 120 (birth ~741).


 * Christian
 * St. Kevin of Glendalough died in 618 legendarily aged 120 (birth ~498).


 * Switzerland
 * Swiss anatomist Albrecht von Haller collected examples of 62 people aged 110–120, 29 aged 120–130, and 15 aged 130–140.


 * Controverted traditions
 * St. Patrick died in 491 aged 122, according to James Prichard; the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia assigns him to 387 – 17 March 493 (105+ years).
 * Apollonius of Tyana died in 99 AD aged 130 by one account, but his primary biographer, Philostratus the Elder, assigns him to 3 BC – 97 AD (98+ years).
 * Galen reportedly died in 271 aged 140. Vivian Nutton gives his birth as September 129 and his age at death as 87 (216+ AD), following the text of John the Grammarian and Ishaq.
 * Attila reportedly died c. 500 aged 124; more accurate dates are c. 406–453 (46+ years).

28 September

 * Longevity claims/Past claims

Swedish death registers contain detailed information on thousands of centenarians going back to 1749:
 * Longevity traditions/Sweden
 * Jon Andersson died 18 April 1729 and his death register states he was born 18 February 1582 (147 years, 59 days).
 * The maximum age at death reported between 1751 and 1800 was 127.
 * "The oldest old female in Sweden ever registered and verified was a woman called Hulda who died in 1994, 112 years and 105 days old. The second oldest woman died in 1986 and was 111 years 2 months and 28 days old."
 * Dorothea Andersdotter died in 1860 at the registered age of 110, but the omission of age in months and days was atypical.

Proposed Compromise
I'm going to say this: words do mean something. However, just like renaming "retarded" children "special" didn't mean they were now fully functioning members of society, so renaming longevity "myths" "traditions" is just politically-correct wordplay. It's also unsourced or poorly-sourced, with the only sources appearing to be mirrors of Bulten's work on Wikipedia, or sites trying to sell longevity products.

The first thing that needs to happen is Bulten needs to take about a week off, and let other parties consider making changes which are against consensus and against outside sources. Simply building friendship alliances on Wikipedia doesn't make you right. It makes you corrupt. Ryoung 122 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Limited revert as I said above is fine. But I must point out R's fascinating projection here. See for instance Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia where I documented last year that in fact "myths" has proceeded, to a degree I've never seen elsewhere, "with the only sources appearing to be mirrors of [Ryoung122's] work on Wikipedia, or sites trying to sell longevity products." The article has not been "traditions" for more than a few days in the last 1.5 years so I don't know why he thinks "traditions" or my sources arise from mirrors, as there is abundant evidence to the contrary. JJB 19:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you check the history, you will find that the article "longevity myths" existed BEFORE I started editing Wikipedia.

Here's a proposed compromise:

If the primary focus of the person is NOT their age, but a religious aspect (such as Noah), we could put them in "longevity traditions".

If the primary focus of the person is claiming an extreme age (far beyond scientific validation), then we put them on "longevity myths." For example, Shirali Mislimov and Old Tom Parr are examples of longevity myths, stories constructed around longevity.

One could also argue that Noah is a longstanding tradition (regardless of his age) whereas the other two cases are known ONLY for age.

I think that is a reasonable compromise.

I'm willing to abstain from editing for a set period (say, 24 hours, 2 days, even a week) if you do the same. This does NOT apply to talk pages; it applies to articles only. Let's see what third-party persons have to say.
 * As to this last graf, which I didn't see, it doesn't help much if you have users like NickOrnstein willing to ignore policy and follow you over the cliff reverting wholesale. JJB 20:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung 122 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was created by Louis Epstein in 2003, a friend of Robert Young who shares his views. The first challenge to use of the word "myth" was 24 Dec 2004 ("unprecise and POV"). (ADD: Interestingly, here Ryoung122 apparently refers to himself as "article creator", since Epstein had essentially retired WP by then; here he refers to them both so. JJB 05:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)) In 2005 Ryoung122 almost completely rewrote the article based on his own original unsourced research. In 2009 I tagged dozens of sentences that came from his other Internet version of the same essay he inserted in 2005 ("Young 2008"), and I have been systematically and gradually (when active) removing or sourcing these sentences. So article creator is irrelevant.
 * How to determine whether someone is known for age or for religion is a very slippery question. Further, whether the likes of Mislimov and Parr are myths has been questioned for years before I came, as no source says so except Young 2008, which fails to cite its sources on this point.
 * I have always argued (like GWR, and GRG when they feel like it) for objective categorization criteria. Thus my compromise just before mediation got started is essentially: Call it a tradition (not myth, yes, that's another question) if the person's death or last update was before fall 1955, the beginning of GWR's publication of supercentenarian records AND if it lacks complete birthdate and deathdate (both an exact day). Call it a claim if death or update is after fall 1955 OR if it is earlier but contains complete birthdate and deathdate. Also, all claims verifiably controverted by reliable sources (often primary) would be traditions; right now those are called "withdrawn" claims even though the claimant doesn't generally withdraw them (I proposed "controverted").
 * The upshot is that Ryoung122 need only permit 4 cases claimed at 131-135 and 1 case of 157 to be added to the article, and to move the withdrawn cases and about 9 other historical cases to the traditions. The second part should not be sticky for him, but the first part (anti-131 bias) has been the only real constant in these articles (I must add that a couple other editors support Ryoung irregularly on this who are also part of the Yahoo GRG group, while the occasional stragglers who come to the article fresh generally question the 131 cutoff). I think this is a real compromise because there is an easy edit path to it, it (finally) complies with WP:RNPOV, it calls for very little sacrifice on R's part, and it's objective and free from argument-inducing squiggliness. JJB 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Louis Epstein is more a rival than a "friend." Get your facts straight. Ryoung 122 20:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's unacceptable. First off, the idea of "myths" didn't begin in 1955; they began in time immemorial. Even before Guinness began in 1955, the scientific idea of age verification dates to at least the 1870s, with William Thoms, who noted that ages in folklore didn't match ages in life insurance policies.

Second, the idea of the colloquial myth is not the whole or main point here. The main points about longevity myths are in fact two:

1. They are not true 2. They are a product of a cultural need to believe that we humans live longer than we really do, because it defers the idea of our own death.

Can we not be honest about this? Must we continue to overlay a fantasy drug of immortality onto the reality of human mortality? Ryoung 122 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have, for the nth time, demonstrated that you are using the colloquial, antipolicy definition of myth ("they are not true") rather than the definition from sociologist/mythologist discipline that makes no judgment of truth (WP:V). There may be some wiggle room for Thoms, but I don't see much, because his work was not picked up full-time until 1955, these articles ignore most of the claims he worked on, and you seem to be getting away from the objective-standard approach yet again. JJB 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When the term "Longevity miths" was created it didn't have any religious conotations, and it is with this expression that "false, dishonest or idiot" cases of people who claim to be more than 130 years old are called by gerontologists. If other discipline of science defines "myth" to another meaning, I don't believe it doesn't matter in this context. And I really don't believe that this discussion should be done here in wikipedia. There are gerontology meetings and discussion sites to discuss this subject.


 * "Miths" was only an euphemistic way to say "untrue". If the word "miths" harms someone's feelings you can change "Longevity miths" to "Longevity fakes" which is more correct, but the biblical cases must remain there, because they were so untrue as the cases of the present.Japf (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are so far off the line, it's not even funny. I thought my compromise was very reasonable. Your knowledge of the subject is atrocious. Just because you don't know the history of the research doesn't mean there wasn't any. Even Alexander Graham Bell wrote a paper on this. Ryoung 122 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I see a scattering of issues here, and usually what I try to do with a mediation is to first review the conflicts as I see them, then try to summarize them into points. Then we tackle each point one at a time to come up with some form of resolution. We're at a disadvantage going into this because there's a lack of focus; looking at when this mediation request was first filed, initially the dispute as defined was "the article" and it was stated, "Problems with it are noted everywhere and looking through the talk and extensive archive it appears there will be no end to it."

So what I can do is go through the talk page and its archives to come up with my own set of points, or ask if you can outline them yourselves. Either way works for me, although if I do the research myself it might take awhile. I did do this once before, but that was 9 months ago, and my memory isn't perfect (and I wouldn't doubt that the situation has changed anyway). Perhaps doing both might be helpful, if anyone wants to list your biggest concerns, please do so, but try not to engage each other if possible right now (think of it like a court case, where the defendant and plaintiff make opening statements without interruption).

Another note, I'm not here as an administrator, so I won't be addressing behavioral complaints. If people are edit warring or slinging personal insults or outing each other or anything of the sort, I'm not interested in addressing that. Mediation is for content disputes (it's like the opposite of WP:ANI). If it turns out that behavioral problems are the reason for the conflict and not a simple differing of opinion then I'm declaring the mediation a failure.

I'm also not here as a regular editor to give an opinion on what I'd prefer to be in the article. My intent is to be impartial and not endorse any particular content, but to try to help you both come to an agreement. I'll certainly make suggestions about what guidelines and policies might apply in a dispute, and whether or not something is in compliance or violation. But nothing I say is law, and anything you agree to is voluntary.

Finally, please try your best to be civil, certainly express your opinions but try not to focus on one another, but to focus on the content. I already see a suggestion that one editor is "corrupt", let's not do that. Again I'm not the civility police and don't plan on threatening anyone but just for the sake of trying to succeed with this mediation, let's hold off. You both want this to work or you wouldn't be making the effort to be here. Anyway, as I said I'll go over what is in the archives for the article to try to get a handle on things. Thank you. --  At am a  頭 22:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Opening" statement from John J. Bulten
So long as Ryoung's COI and block history are kept in the back of the mind, I'll stick to content issues.
 * 1) Does sufficient material exist for an article titled "longevity myths", or should the article be retitled (e.g., to "longevity traditions")? Dec 2004 was the first challenge of the idea that the "myths" title was sustainable, and it was challenged repeatedly since. I prosecuted that challenge further Apr-Jun 2009. R could solve this by finding sources that use the word "myth" in its nonjudgmental, disciplinary, noncolloquial sense, but he has found none. At one time he said he would source everything within 100 days, and that has not happened. Japf above has made my case for me by demonstrating that gerontologists use the word judgmentally and colloquially, which is wholly contrary to WP:RNPOV and its predecessor language at WP:WTA. R has repeatedly said the article is intended to show these claims false, which is not WP's job. I have said we should source claims for and against each case.
 * 2) A subquestion is my view that Category:Longevity myths should be merged into Category:Longevity traditions. If you glance at them, you'll note that although R has permitted me to move many other articles to "traditions" (including Sumerian kings, Bible figures, shahs, modern folks, etc.), only the 20th-century supercentenarians are doggedly maintained as the "myths"! How can this category be sustained? ✅ per redlink, with consensus but without direct comment by R. JJB 10:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) When is a claim not a claim? That is, what is the long-disagreed criterion for the long-agreed fork between "longevity traditions"/"myths" and "longevity claims"? R says 131.000 makes a claim not a claim but a myth, even though this is contrary to sourcing, science, WP:NOR, and good mathematical sense. I say "claims" is a summary of all claims, and branches out into fully verified claims (list of supercentenarians, not in dispute), relatively verified claims, and relatively traditional claims. I have proposed objective criteria for removing the relativity, subjectivity, and arbitrariness of that "131" cutoff. My latest proposal (as I've said) appears to be the least work necessary to create an objective criterion. The criterion is that "relatively verified" means either full birthdate and deathdate or post-1955 update, and no significant controverting found in reliable sources. The minimum work necessary is for R to agree to admit 5 parties over 131 as "claims" (the only sticking point), and then permit 9 historical cases and most of the "controverted"/"withdrawn" cases to be reclassified as traditions (probably not a sticking point). R could solve this by finding sources that show that 131, or any other number, is significant to reliable sources. But he has not, because 131 is only a convention among the GRG, which he works with in some close capacity, apparently adopted due to math abuse; the only number ever found significant is 110, the definition of "supercentenarian", which goes way back to my friend A. Ross Eckler, Jr.
 * 4) What are the categories of "longevity traditions"? To repeat the hoax link, last year there were twenty-six phrases invented by Ryoung122 and seeded into WP in that one 2005 "essay" (his name) that "longevity myths" became, all of which had zero Google hits except for mirrors of his seeds. Last year R and I came to relatively close agreement on the outline, and that has not been a significant contention this year. The only questions to be settled are if the current outline still meets with his approval, and whether the sections should be deleted that are wholly invented by Ryoung122 in 2005 (with limited trivial exceptions) and never sourced ever since. Those sections (permalink) are: "Testimonies" lead graf; "Sumerian" final graf; "Religious" title and lead graf; "Potions" title and graf; "Village elders" title and whole section; "Political claims" lead graf; "Regional extension" title and section; "Familial extension" title and section. These essay grafs are not based on categories used by reliable sources (though some of their original titles were changed to align with categories actually used by GWR, Bowerman, or sources that actually use the phrase "longevity tradition"). (ADD: These tags are apparently the primary concern of the mediation requester. JJB 05:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC))
 * 5) What is the low-point cutoff for "longevity claims"? Again, GRG has arbitrarily chosen 113, even though they track 110-113 as well. R says there are about 900 verified supercentenarians under 113 and he does not wish to add all these to WP. My response has been that he is not required to, but there is no magic notability conferred at 113, though there is at 110 (supercentenarianism itself), and so these should be let in slowly on the paradigm that "table is not fully representative for claims 110-113". This is another arbitrary unsourced cutoff. But to say that "you can't be in WP until you're 113" is more WP:OR and not a notability criterion established by any source.
 * 6) Should "longevity claims" be sorted by "age at death or if living", or by "age at death or last update"? Guinness uses the latter, but WP's "age-as-of-today" functions tempt editors to sort by the former. The problem is that there is a tendency to invent a "limbo" category to be treated differently, and so, in fact, claims are currently divided (arbitrarily) into less than 2 years old; 2 to roughly 10 years old; and very old claims. Each are handled differently. However, "2" is just as arbitrary as 113 and 131, and is not used in reliable sources; GWR simply calculates and sorts all claims by age at last update, and properly so, because to assume the person is alive OR dead one day after the claim is WP:OR and both unnecessary and controversial (as bad as assuming people are lying). I proposed the tables be made consistent so that the default sort is by age at death or last update, and the age if living can be retained as an optional user sort. R presumably believes that if there is a 1950 living claim to age 110 then it would be overweighted to appear as "170 if living" simply because no reliable primary or secondary source has determined the death of the individual in 60 years. But if it is not a default sort value, there is no overweighting.
 * 7) Similarly, should "limbo" claims be combined with "living" claims? Obviously, because there is no objective reason to fault someone for not being news-reported in the last 2 years. IIRC, "limbo" used to mean 1 year instead, but a couple editors agreed to make it the equally arbitrary 2. Naturally this creates the busywork of editors watching for claims that have just hit 2 years stale so they can be downgraded, just like it is busywork for editors to watch for claims to hit 131 so they can be downgraded to "myths", or to watch (in other articles) for age-if-living claims to pass age-at-death claims and then to leapfrog them forward one place in the sorted lists like a horserace where you move all the horses yourself. These editors have favored busywork and instability, and I have favored means to relieve them of it.
 * 8) How should we resolve other minor questions so as not to keep invoking DR? That is, what can R promise about interacting with, rather than reverting, new changes? There are a few other minor content questions that need not be enumerated right now, but that could easily become wars without a basic agreement on how WP operates. But rather than (continue to?) harp, I'll just submit this "essay" to WP process. JJB 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Counterresponse to Ryoung122
After Phil joined us and I notified R to present any other opening disagreements here, R gave what I regard as one of his most sincere attempts at compromise. While the technical flaws remain, I want to express my applause at the relative lack of charged language. These proposals require an appropriate and fair detailed response, but I wish first to see how Phil will provide some direction, while considering this link as part of the opening statements. JJB 10:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I should also add, for prioritization's sake, that my questions 1-3 above are the actual fundamental disagreements with R; 4-6 are lower-priority questions on which agreement between us two would be useful in consensus-building; and 7 is my personal appeal for ongoing commitments to process and resolution. JJB 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) To "I note that even John J Bulten offered to use the word "myth" for cases post-1955.": I have no idea what he is talking about. This was never my proposal and it appears that for the nth time he has changed what I have said. Burden of proof (diffs) is upon him.
 * 2) To everything else categorically (while reserving the right to expand upon this): All these assertions are old news long responded to in full, and so transparent as not to need repetitive debunking. I'll be happy to provide specifics when they become an issue. JJB 19:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Reponse to "Opening Statement" by Robert Young
Greetings,

The purpose of the mediation cabal is an attempt to find "consensus" between to editors, a sort of mediation of an "edit war." So far, rather than offering any prospect of compromise, User John J Bulten has continued his aggressive posture, adding more demands as he goes. This negates the purpose of the mediation cabal. This is NOT a football game, where you push for "first down", consolidating your position on the field, and then push forward again. John J Bulten's comments on the "longevity claims" article, such as "I get one more revert today," indicate an unconstructive, agressive edit posture.

Now, let's get back to the core issues.

1. John J Bulten's work does not reflect outside sources, but his personal opinions.

If he has a problem with scientists using the phrase "longevity myths," he needs to take them up with the outside sources, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia's core policies include the idea of "no original research." Material on Wikipedia should reflect the outside sources, and those sources should be reliable.

The few sources using "longevity traditions" are linked to quack sites, attempting to sell substances related to longevity, or mirros of Bulten's editing.

2. The below comment is extremely offensive:


 * 1) A subquestion is my view that Category:Longevity myths should be merged into Category:Longevity traditions. If you glance at them, you'll note that although R has permitted me to move many other articles to "traditions" (including Sumerian kings, Bible figures, shahs, modern folks, etc.), only the 20th-century supercentenarians are doggedly maintained as the "myths"! How can this category be sustained?

For one, Bulten single-handedly created "longevity traditions," and then began transferring articles WITHOUT first achieving consensus. Now he claims that, because others have offered a compromise, he should have "total victory." Sounds like appeasement isn't working.

The real truth is that almost all the cases in "longevity traditions" fit the definition of "myth."

I have a problem with "traditions." Aside from being "original research," it basically has shifted the status quo from science to mythology. It would be like renaming an article on "evolution" to "creationism."

3. Claims versus Myths. Before Bulten came to this issue, the original article was "Longevity Myths." The problem is that there are grey-area cases that have insufficient proof of being true but are within the scientific realm of possibility...for example, since Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, we can't say that someone claiming to be 118 is definitely false. We can say that such an age is so rare that there has yet to be a single case of someone dying at 118 whose age has been properly verified. Given that, it made sense to have a third, intermediate category between articles on verified supercentenarians and articles on longevity myths.

The phrase "longevity claims" was used. Bulten is trying to confuse the issue by using an either/or dichotomy. Yes, it's true, that someone claiming to be "148" is a longevity claim, but it's also a longevity myth. However, someone claiming to be 116 with no proof either for or against is neither verified nor a myth. Like a Venn diagram, there can be category overlap, but not all longevity claims are myths, so the categories cannot be seen as the same.

Ages for cutoffs is an issue that is one of practicality and reasonableness. Age 113 is a good starting point, and that can be statistically justified because it's the age where cases fall three standard deviations outside the norm for supercentenarians (i.e., outliers). Age 131 was picked as the minimum base point for "individual longevity myths" (except those proven false) because even the extreme skeptics, such as S. Jay Olshansky, wouldn't consider age 130 impossible, though he considers age 150 to be. Whatever the age chosen for cutoffs, however, is missing the points:

A. Cases like William Coates are already myths, as they have been proven false...myths definition 4. 4. A fictitious story, person, or thing.

I don't even see a case like that as a "tradition".

B. Cases such as Shirali Mislimov, who claimed "168", are myths prima facie. Since he became a cultural icon in Azerbaijan, he fits "myth," definition 2:

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal:

C. Cases such as Noah, "950" years old, fit myth, definition 1:

a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:

As a COMPROMISE, I offered to recategorize individual articles, such as "Noah" or "Adam" as "longevity traditions," so long as the basic article longevity myths retains its title. Why?

Let's start with the fact that opposition to the word "myth" is irrational, emotional opposition from Christian fundamentalists. Even the compromise is POV bias in favor of Christianity. However, I realize this is the English Wikipedia and there are a lot of fundamentalists here. Thus, I offered a compromise which, while degrading science, allows fundamentalists to maintain their drug of belief in the impossible. After all, is the story of Noah not about supernatural events, such as the Flood? Is he not an "ancestor" of Christ and the Jewish kings? Is he not a hero" or cultural type? Is his age not venerated? Clearly, the story of Noah is a MYTH.

Two, even many Christians have agreed that, even if the Biblical ages are true, people don't live that long today. I note that even John J Bulten offered to use the word "myth" for cases post-1955. I suggest, instead, post-B.C. There's not a single age in the New Testament mentioned above age "84" (Anna). The New Testament was WRITTEN, not "ORAL TRADITION."

3. The issue of "limbo": Why is John J Bulten continuing to manufacture problems? That category was devised for cases where the person is unlikely to still be alive, but for which no updates have occurred and no death dates are available.

Given that the mortality rate at age 110 is 50%, it's easily justifiable that anyone 110 with no update in the past year is more likely to be dead than alive. By age 114, the death rate is close to 70%. We could justify an even tighter cutoff. But for practical purposes, birthdays are often reported only once a year, and one of the purposes of the "claims" article is to list potential cases to be 110+ that might not have been verified (but still retain the remote possibility, usually less than 1%, of being true).

4. "R has repeatedly said the article is intended to show these claims false, which is not WP's job."

That may NOT be Wikipedia's job, but it is the job of the scientists. It is Wikipedia's job to reflect what the outside, reliable sources state, not invent a quasi-original research world that instead reflects the opinion of far-right, ideological extremists whose editing is akin to political attack.

Ultimately, all these issues revolve around the fundamental questions:

1. How long do we humans have to live? Religion seeks to tell us that we can achieve "immortality" through it; science seeks proof that immortality is possible. So far, the evidence strongly shows that humans have never lived beyond 122 years, and even giving a margin of error, researcher Jean-Marie Robine has calculated that, given no other information, there was only a 14% likelihood that even ONE person would live to age 122, given present mortality rates. This indicates that Calment's age is close to the maximum limit (some say "125") based on current mortality rates. There is an acknowledgement that future declines in mortality may result in higher maximum longevity, but that does nothing for the past. In fact, the demographers have pushed the idea that no one lived to age 110 until the late 1800s.

2. We like the idea of someone living to "150" because it delays thoughts of our own mortality. There is an innate human desire to "believe."

3. Wikipedia, one of the ten most-visited websites in the world, is often the place the young (people under 20) turn to find out about things. As such, it is important for the education of the present and future generations that we not treat the article and category "longevity myths" the same way Galileo was treated for suggesting the Earth revolved around the sun (heliocentric theory) instead of the Sun revolving around the Earth (geocentric theory).

It is more than clear that John J Bulten is filling the role of the religious fundamentalists of Galileo's day. For him, what is important is not "truth" or even "verifiability" but the entrenched but diminishing power of past mythologies to hold reasonable thought in check. Should he choose to believe that Noah lived to 950, that is his right. But to attempt to use his editing at Wikipedia to insist that we have no reason, scientifically, to believe that Noah didn't live to 950 is an abuse of his editing privileges. I strongly suggest he find a way to achieve compromise and consensus, not seeking a coup d'etat. Ryoung 122 17:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor influx
While mediation is (um) stalling, other editors are taking note and proposing mass blanking or even AfD. I trust they will realize this is not the consensus and such proposals are well-meaning simple attempts to deal with the complex question. They are invited here of course. However, the paradigm that Ryoung122 and I are parties mediating a two-way set of POV-balance issues is now relatively broken, seeing both that our discussion here is so quiet and that there is a new active POV-balance group. I am still committed to resolution whether intra- or extra-cabal but the situation is now more complicated. Thanks for listening. JJB 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposals and mediation hold
The editor influx has proposed what I believe is a shortsighted, irresponsible merge that short-circuits some of the discussion above. I have stepped in by counterproposing a merge that seems much more rational but would need some consensus or modification from Ryoung122. Further, I still love our sterling mediator, but Atama has been on wikibreak for a full week, shortly after saying a first analysis of our opening statements was almost ready, and Ryoung122 has had only two edits in that time even though he has a talk message from me. Accordingly, I am considering the mediation on hold until further notice, and proceeding with a few more bold edits under WP:BRD, to be discussed with the first taker among R, the other regulars, or the influx. JJB 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When the mediation is ready to re-open, I would be happy to explain the position of some of us on WP:Fringe theories noticeboard who have been watching the article. I proposed the merge back into Longevity. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Side discussion

 * I thought it appropriate to copy and respond to a comment here that Ryoung122 left at my dispute page under the heading "Please Stop":

JJBulten, your recent edits at longevity myths, longevity claims, and elsewhere have been unconstructive and against scientific consensus. Please stop.

Let's be honest: myths as ideas have survived into the present-day. You are proof of that.

The pre-1955/post-1955 divide is NOT acceptable or tenable. Even though Guinness began in 1955, they cited cases from the 1800s.

The earliest centenarian case validations date to the 1700s.

The real divide is between fact (proven ages in the 110-122 realm), fiction (claimed ages in the 113-130 realm), and fantasy (dreamed ages in the 131+ realm, especially claims to 140+).

I'm going to say something. Think about this. Moses's age claim is both a myth and a claim. His age is mythical in that it was a symbol (the same can be said for St. Patrick). The idea is that 40 years=a generation, and Moses's life consisted of 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in Midian, and 40 years in the Wilderness. Such ages are allegorical, not literal.

But his age was also scientifically possible. The main reason he's not on the claims page is because, with no claimed birthdate and no claimed death date, his age isn't specific enough.

So, let's think about this:

1. Myths can exist in the past or the present.

2. Verified ages began when adequate recordkeeping began. While no one reached a proven age of 110 until 1898, records go back further than that: for example, the record in 1837 was 108.

3. Myths aren't just about whether they are true; they are in fact stories made to explain how things are or came to be that are not based on evidence.

So, here's a carrot: I'm not against all Biblical claims. That's not the point. The point is, scientists believe that we should be skeptical of what cannot be proven, and it would do everyone some good to separate the scientific material from the religous.

Now, I thought you were going to wait until the merge proposal was over before we went forward with a compromise, but I see that is not the case. What is your problem?

My goal is to educate. Your goal seems to be to spread an ideology. Ryoung 122 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: I'm not sure when I said something about conclude merge then compromise, and R can diff me if I'm wrong. I said there should not be too many processes going on at once. When others insisted that it was fine to propose merge while mediation was ongoing, I decided it appropriate to propose, to R and everyone, as a countermerge, the next task that I was getting ready to propose anyway. I shortly after put mediation on hold when I was the only one in the room for a week (although I'm sure R will see my comment here, and he is free to respond and maybe move forward). When PeRshGo asked questions relevant to the merge about the scope, because it was not obvious from the scope text in the article that I had challenged but not yet deleted, I went ahead with inserting the objective scope I proposed earlier, to demonstrate that it exists and that the article should not be merged to become no more than a paragraph and a category, still believing that the scope did the best job of answering R's objections. The new editors, mostly just Itsmejudith and Griswaldo, seem to agree with me that anything resembling R's scope (as he just inserted it cold back into the article) is way too subjective and OR to defend at AFD.
 * Now, Robert, your various inappropriate statements aside, the only way to move forward is to agree on an article scope. I just laid out several problems with your scope at the article talk. I have proposed the 1955 criterion because it is objective and comprehensible, not because of any belief about Noah or because I am limiting "verified" to 1955, as you told Judith in some more inappropriate statements (in fact you are the one who limits "verified" to mean a process that is well-nigh impossible for virtually everyone (with 10-20 exceptions) prior to 1955). If you can speak meaningfully and civilly about how anyone who is not you can tell the difference between tradition/myth and claim, using sources who are not you, why then you might have something that can save your article batch.
 * For instance, the Emperor Jimmu has a claimed complete birthdate and deathdate and his age of 126 is in your range; is he a claim based on your statement above about Moses? Perhaps a disputed claim for List of disputed supercentenarian claimants, and if so, what source would you use as his disputant? If Jimmu should move from tradition to claim, you might be on the verge of creating an objective criterion. The next thing would be to determine how to deal with all the incomplete "claims" that do not differ from the incomplete "traditions". If you can get to work on defining these scopes, we can start making some headway. The fact is, we're going to need you when the WP:V questions come up later as to where you got the info people have attributed to you or to GRG at large, so you might as well start building the foundation now by agreeing on some scopes. JJB 04:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Phil
I would propose you start by commenting on our opening statement and opening response sections, and/or on Atama's last word on the subject. I will also notify Ryoung122 and Itsmejudith. JJB 19:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the making the notifications, and the advice. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me, JJB. Can you notify Griswaldo as well? Phil, Griswaldo and I have come via WP:FTN. We have a different perspective from either Ryoung or JJB. You can see it in the various discussions but I'd also be happy to summarise it for you. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think can gather your perspective from the discussion at WP:FTN. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, and good to see you here. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where should we start? There's the debate over whether we should use the term 'myth', and there's are other disagreements such as the Arthur Custance source. What would you prefer? PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This may not seem very helpful, but I do wonder whether the article needs to exist at all. It is part of what I see as "longevity cruft". If you look at the longevity template, there is a massive number of articles, and I would like to seem them culled. I would like to see the general article on longevity improved, and for us not to break out subarticles unless it is necessary. JJB and Ryoung both disagree with that, for different reasons. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Phil. I agree with the assessment "there is much longevity cruft", but due to this article being titled contrary to WP:RNPOV it has attracted undue attention, although it has actually been in a rescue process for 18 months. Itsmejudith might want to comment at my 7 open AFDs or seconds (search my initials) rather than to start deletion with this article. I also agree "not to break out subarticles unless it is necessary", and would actually agree with what is generally "necessary" far more with IMJ than with R; but she seems to wish to use this article as a test case when the AFDs and many other articles, I think, are better start cases.
 * However, R and I do agree on retaining this article, while disagreeing on name and scope, and that is my point 1 (while Custance is a recent minor flareup, not challenged by R and thus low-priority), so let's proceed. To me the first question is: Is a list of unverified claims to be over a certain age notable as an article? IMJ has stated (reply) that such a list should be limited (if anything) to only category status, but did not comment on my observation that many WP:CLN considerations (such as needing dates and ages, as a bare start) favor retaining a list also. The Category:Longevity traditions is now well-populated with data properly overlapping the article as per CLN, but much would be lost, especially the comparisons of secondary-source responses to such claims, and the items not notable as articles in themselves (what I call line-item notables because they appear only in WP within lists), if the narrative-list style were scrapped. When no admins replied I took the liberty of closing IMJ's merge proposal (which would do much the same as deletion) as (at minimum) no-consensus.
 * Insofar as IMJ and I do have disagreements, I am adding her name above (would add Griswaldo dependent on his behavior) to the names proposed by the anonymous filer. Insofar as R's position, he would certainly agree with me on this first question as stated, though probably with a slight tweak as to what such a list should incorporate. If we can agree on this question first, we can then move to what an appropriate notability cutoff would be (110 is natural and well-sourced); then, whether such a list is large enough to break into sections; and then, how to break it objectively and what the subscopes of each article would be (i.e., not "myth"), which is where R's ears would be expected to perk up. JJB 20:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Thanks for your snow delete of one of the 7 articles, although I'm not sure if that's the most neutral thing to IAR about! JJB 22:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to see the whole longevity series subjected to debate, and articles only kept if they are needed. I only ever came to this article because of posts on FTN, and I found it particularly incoherent. So in answer to "why start here?" all I can say is "why not?". And actually that's all I need to say because we can improve the encyclopedia from any point we arrive at. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think after the current batch of longevity AfDs are closed, you could nominate another batch. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLN
My concern is that AFD on "myths" alone would not be the procedure to address IMJ's concern and it would be at severe risk, due to the lack of consensus on several points, of becoming a mixed debate on several points. This is why I present an orderly sequence of concerns. If IMJ thinks no unverifieds belong in lists (as stated) and only a few verifieds belong in a few lists, the whole batch of ~40 topic articles and ~200 individual articles would be nominable at once; but that's not a wieldy consensus-building method. I agree entirely with nominations in batches, and since the first is going so swimmingly I'll take the bold step of researching my next 3 good AFD targets and preparing to nom immediately if no objection. Noms should start with articles that are undefended by silent consensus, not with those that are volubly debated by three or more camps. But nominating "myths" immediately would have the appearance of dissing my rescue work on what was in April 09 quite an arguably deletable topic. All that is "why not". (As to "incoherent", a WP:SOFIXIT concern, the primary reason for that is my attempt to stick very close to sources and not introduce transitions and paraphrases that make for both smoothness and charges of OR/SYN.) In short, Itsmejudith, since you propose a category of unverifieds, please interact with relevant points of WP:CLN as follows: JJB 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Disadvantages of categories
 * The entries in categories can't be edited, such as adding references or annotations to them, and the user must go to the article to see these.
 * There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion
 * Category entries are arranged in alphabetical order only (though you can control the alphabetization). They cannot be organized into sections and subsections on a single page, each with its own descriptive introduction.
 * Categories can be difficult to maintain ....
 * Categories do not support other forms of tracking, such as adding red links. (Red links are useful as gap indicators and as task reminders to create those articles). However stubs can be added to categories.
 * Categories give no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced.
 * It is not obvious to new users that categories exist, how to add items to them, how to link new categories into existing schemes, nor how to deal with point of view (POV) concerns.
 * Advantages of lists
 * Lists are often more comprehensive because each is maintained from a centralized location (at the page itself). See the top end of the list hierarchy at Lists of topics, Lists of basic topics, List of overviews, and List of glossaries.
 * Lists are much easier to build (fill) than categories, because entries can be gathered, cut and pasted in from searches and other non-copyrighted sources.
 * Lists can be embellished with annotations (further details). For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can include with each entry when each championship was won, who the champions defeated, who their coach was, etc.
 * Lists can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles.
 * Lists can include items that are not linked (see e.g. List of compositions by Franz Schubert); or items for which there are yet no articles (red links).
 * Lists can be more easily edited by newbies who are less familiar with Wiki markup language.
 * Images can be interspersed throughout a list.
 * An embedded list, one incorporated into an article on a topic, may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list. Furthermore, since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgement call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article – if someone else feels that it is notable enough, they can always linkify the mention and create an article anyway.

ADD: See ongoing list of AFDs. JJB 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK Phil
This page had now fallen off my 3-day watchlist. I was hoping that either you or R or IMJ or Griswaldo would comment on what I regard as open challenges. I am asking R a simple question about cases that resemble Drackenberg, a question he should have a ready and easy answer for; and a harder question about how he would defend, from sources, the idea that a cutoff of 131.000 between "claims" and "myths" is not OR, which I do not believe he has sources for but which I believe he does not want to answer because of risk of losing his point. Also, I am asking IMJ a question about her statement that unverified cases belong in categories and the implications of WP:CLN for her position, but she did not respond to this directly, commenting only on categories for verifieds instead. I believe she does not want to engage this discussion because CLN would give clear evidence for retaining one or more articles on unverifieds. I am also disappointed by several of Griswaldo's behaviors: starting a discussion toward deleting the Biblical longevity template when I asked him repeatedly to concentrate on the most uncontroversial deletion entry points, and when he himself did not list this template when he listed the articles in the basic longevity template and supercentenarian categories for deletion; continuing the discussion at multiple articles inappropriately when he was advised this was contrary to WP:MULTI and accusing me of lawyering for bringing it up; and in general adopting a position of unannounced slashing at what I have contributed rather than engaging in mediation or helping to cut back the much more massive and more questionable contributions of others. I had interacted with him as an ally but he has not followed through on areas in which we agree, only on those in which we disagree. Now, how can mediation cabal help me with these open challenges, please? JJB 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JJB, I think your focusing too much on the personal interactions, instead of the articles. Could you explain how you want the articles to be modified? PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, albeit the issue is that all three of these editors have the ability to withhold consensus on the points they have rejected and declined to discuss further. Starting with my opening statement points 1-2, we need agreement that lists of unverified supercentenarian claims are encyclopedic; agreement on how to divide up unverified supercentenarian claims into articles of manageable size; and agreement on titles (specifically, that sources do not use "myth" in conformity with WP:RNPOV). This translates into retaining the three articles on unverifieds longevity myths, longevity claims, list of disputed supercentenarian claimants, but defining their scopes objectively. I am open to several solutions as long as they are objective, but I am stymied by editors like R reverting based on subjective, unsourced criteria.
 * Of those several solutions, what seems to me easiest to implement is as follows: (1) "Myths" should be retitled list of longevity traditions or longevity folklore, and the phrase "longevity myths" should be stricken permanently where it appears as contrary to WP:NOR and WP:RNPOV (an exception is if we continue to use the Japanese article with the caveat that "longevity myth" is a colloquialism, but that being only one source might be removed also). (2a) All cases with two contradictory lifespans should appear in "disputeds", while uncontroverted cases appear in the other two articles. This is mostly the present state, except that a contradiction (tagged as such) needs resolving as to whether, when sources show a year or two difference, this is counted as "varying age claims" (disputed) or "acceptable variation" (undisputed). Also, the Drackenberg-like cases need agreement. (2b) I have supported a good division line between "myths" and claims, which I constructed to accommodate the workgroup's previous subjective division, namely: all cases are simultaneously both "traditions" and "claims"; but the claims article is for cases either after the GWR 1955 epoch or fully specified (birthdate and deathdate), while the traditions article is for cases both last updated prior to 1955 and incompletely specified. Other breakdowns are possible, but R's idea that "myths" begin at 131.000 is whole cloth. (If we ask why divide at 131, the answer is that R's acquaintances do so. If we ask why divide at 1955-and-complete, the much more natural answer is that complete records are more easily tabulated and occur much more frequently after GWR got started on them.) This is mostly currently reflected, but I believe some names have dropped out due to warring, and they need agreement before restoration. (It is also possible to use cutoffs like 1955-only, which is simpler but requires more rearrangement.) (2c) The disputeds should exclude disputes where the lowest age is still over 110, because there is no dispute over supercentenarianism, only dispute over age (and potential OR conclusions from such disputes). On this point the disputeds article is wholly redundant with the other articles, and two columns of it are also redundant with the other columns, and so on (40% of the article is redundant). This is mostly defended by NickOrnstein, but he follows R's lead. (3-7) My eventual goal is that when you have a sourced supercentenarian age report you should be able to find easily one base article that is appropriate to add or edit the report. If the report is verified by GWR standards, it goes in a "deaths by year" article or the "living supercentenarians" article. If it is unverified, it goes in traditions or claims dependent on how we divide the two, unless it contains or introduces a source-based controversion, which moves it to the disputeds article. Right now editors have no consensus on how to direct people to the proper base article for any given name, which leads to contradictions from one WP article to another; e.g., Nick just removed a name from the disputeds when I pointed out it appeared in 6 other WP articles as undisputed. After the first points are agreed, this still requires some article organization and some other scopes (like "limbo" and other age cutoffs) to be questioned and debated rather than reverted without discussion.
 * Does that help? JJB 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Have I scared you away yet? JJB 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any ideas with Ryoung122 forgetting to rejoin us? JJB 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Phil, it's now larger than myths; we're now dealing with several parties linked to Ryoung122 who have obvious inabilities to cope with WP policy, and attempting to form consensus with them is not working case-by-case. There are other issues that are not proper for mentioning here. I'm thinking RFC/U because Ryoung122 is the nexus, but I do need some idea of how to proceed. It looks like IMJ and I are back to mutual understanding and harmonious editing per the discussion below, by R is continuing to make problematic edits while ignoring this page for 12 days. Please advise. JJB 19:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A WP:RFC/USER requires that 2 editors have tried to resolve the (alleged) behavioral problem with the user. While the instructions for creating the page are at Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation, I recommend you read Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance first. PhilKnight (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you may have gotten me there with the Guidance page, because if it's just as voluntary as cabal, we may as well stay here (and I'm generally all for voluntary solutions). My problem is the larger issues than those relating directly to the concern of the mediation requester. It's possible that we might finish up my points 1-3 solely by my bold editing and by R's relative inaction, but it's also possible the cycle of reversion without real explanation would continue. When we get to points 4-6 and the larger problems with a whole workgroup having elements of COI, and support of OR and other antipolicy agenda, I don't know how to deal with that directly. There is big COI editing going on, and the basic voluntary controls and pointing out to people their basic policy failures don't work when there's a group with off-wiki glue holding them together. The COI board has made repeated findings of COI but has no teeth. Is the solution to just be more imaginative and patient and bold, and to ignore the threats made against me for doing the right thing? JJB 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appropos of the larger issues JJB mentions above. David in DC (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the ubiquitous-seeming civility issues. What should I do with such glaringly obvious violations of encyclopedicity? JJB 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With due respect to Phil, I think we're heading for ANI very quickly. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Biblical longevity template
From both Talk:Moses and Talk:Jacob: This template ought to be deleted outright. It is not of encyclopedic value and is pure trivia. Why is it features so prominently here? Why is it here at all? Why not a template listing Biblical figures by the number of times they are mentioned in the Bible, the number of spouses or children they had, or simply by alphabetical order? The template is WP:UNDUE. Please remove it.Griswaldo (talk) 04:2x, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have deleted this from both Moses and Jacob with the same talk comment and not taken my hint to centralize discussion at the ongoing mediation. Because this issue is relevant to some 80 articles, please continue there. JJB 05:1x, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a rationale for keeping the template on this page. We are discussing the content of this page, here on the talk page related to that content.  Please explain why it should be included here.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 05:1x, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MULTI, please centralize discussion as above. This template and its sister appear in 82 articles. JJB 05:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Response:
 * This is an appropriate matter to add to this mediation rather than commit noncentralized discussion. This Template:Biblical longevity is currently transcluded to 43 articles and has had no serious objections in its year-and-a-half use until now (39 individuals plus Longevity myths, Genealogies of Genesis, Generations of Adam, and Byzantine calendar); in fact it's had a consensus of 10 other editors contributing and generated some friendly discussion. The sister Template:Sumerian King List is transcluded to 40 articles (38 individuals plus Longevity myths and Sumerian King List) with similar acceptance. It would be undue weight to delete such templates from any individual article or two without considering their whole scope of usage across 82 articles.
 * Googling reveals the template fills a basic need mentioned in many sources, but more often sorted by chronology than by age. Here is a top-ten age list identical to ours; here is an essay similar to Wikipedia's but relatively original that includes a top-four list; and more could be cited to prove this is not OR. As for the two templates' inclusion in the individual articles, it is appropriate for such characters to be compared to others of similar age due to the closeness of placement in the Biblical books, and this is no different from any other template that says "for other Argentinian soccer players see" or the like. It is not intended to be necessarily prominent, merely to be placed in the most convenient position for flow.
 * We have a couple articles on Biblical figures in alpha order, although some of the unique family claims in the Bible do make an interesting idea for a new template. I'm sure I've seen a word-frequency table on the Biblical text somewhere, although characters don't figure very much in the early (interesting) part of that table. But these observations don't seem to get at what Griswaldo's concern is. In short, this appears to be another case of an editor new to the topic raising a disagreement without considering the whole topic area. I would be happy to add Griswaldo to the mediation list above and discuss this and other concerns, but I am unclear why the Biblical rather than the Sumerian template was challenged and why only two articles were selected, and can only hope Griswaldo will focus more on contributing in the other areas like the AFD that he has commented on (thanks). JJB 05:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm all for keeping the Biblical longevity template, so long as it remains objective. For example, Arthur Custance cited extreme longevity claims in the present day to "prove" that ages in the Bible were possible...that's not objective.

However, as currently organized, it can be useful to both believers and non-believers. We can see what we want to see. Some may see "proof" that people once lived longer, because the Bible said so. Others may see "proof" that the ages claimed aren't realistic (neither is parting the Red Sea or turning rods into snakes).

Stating what the ages listed in the Bible could be objective. I suggest a reorganization of the template, adding a chronology and claimed dates of birth and death (using the Ussher chronology) and younger claimed ages (such as the ages of the kings of Israel). Even Christian apologists such as Custance attempted to come up with rationalizations why the ages claimed in the Bible declined over time. For historians, the falling ages claimed can be explained by fact that much of the early ages came from pre-literate societies. The Bible claims that Moses wrote the Pentateuch...and around 1500 B.C. That's far from writing about things when the birth events happened. Later ages cited, such as the time of the kings, when written records existed, are more in line with modern observations...although even Rehoboam's "58" is disputed as inflated; some researchers believe he died at 41. Ryoung 122 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please share these comments at WP:TFD? Whether or not there is an eventual article that mentions the monarchial ages (incidentally, last year we both neglected Jehoiada's age of 130, attributed to the 10th and 9th centuries), the issue is that Griswaldo stirred up a debate that has become a TFD neither following talk policy nor coming here to join a "happy" mediation. JJB 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Applicability to other debate

 * I am completely against having the Sumerian template in the article. In regard to the Biblical template, I have no view as to whether it is an appropriate inclusion in topics related to the Bible. Topics related to the Bible are kept in good shape by WikiProject Christianity and WikiProject Judaism and I would defer to the expertise available there. My question here is whether this is a topic relating to the Bible at all. I would think that a short mention of Biblical longevity, with links to the articles that deal with it at length, would be appropriate in the main Longevity article. I am not convinced that we need this article at all. The Sumerian king lists are not myths and not narratives either, certainly not claims. The Biblical stories may or may not be myths - that is a question for theologians; they aren't really narratives and they're certainly not claims. When is WikiProject World's Oldest People going to do its job and sort out these articles? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Judith, your suggestions, such as the one above, are so off-base that the best I can do is suggest you drop out of this debate and find other articles to focus on. I'm 100% for keeping the Sumerian template in the article. It does a good job showing how the ages claimed of Sumerian kings far exceed reasonable observation of human life span. It also makes it clear that this issue isn't about "Biblical" longevity myth, but longevity myths that come from many cultures (probably universal). We can also see that the ages in the Sumerian king list vary from 100-something (fictitious) to complete fantasy (36,000 years!).


 * I'm not convinced we need your input at all. The Sumerian king-list ages summarize what is in fact a greater narrative. Certainly these ages are claimed, they are mythical, and there is a narrative behind it. They are also "traditions." So while some may argue over semantics, your outright attack on the article is unconscionable. I'm getting close to contacting the Wikimedia Foundation to intervene. I've done that before. Ryoung 122 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "[Y]our suggestions ... are so off-base that the best I can do is suggest you drop out of this debate and find other articles to focus on." I agree. This probably is the best this editor can do. [Redacted]
 * "I'm not convinced we need your input at all." Ummm, could someone this editor respects please help him understand why this sort of thing undermines even those times when he is right? [Redacted]
 * "So while some may argue over semantics, your outright attack on the article is unconscionable. I'm getting close to contacting the Wikimedia Foundation to intervene. I've done that before." This skates awfully close to the prohibition on threats.
 * [Redacted].David in DC (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks David, but another approach that is also fun is just to smile to oneself and to keep comments like this unstated, as private jokes. We're not yet at the point of RFC/U. JJB 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks JJB. I've toned it down. If someone wants to see what was there before I followed your sage advice, they'll have to dig.David in DC (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This question is about use of templates in 82 articles, not about use in "myths", about which I'd appreciate your comment on WP:CLN above. I think Griswaldo thinks the question is about use of templates only in Moses and Jacob, which to me appears disingenuous. WP:WOP thinks these articles are fine except for my OR; they regard R as a leader. JJB 14:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to hear Griswaldo speak for himself so I'll invite him here. I don't know what "the question is about use of templates only in Moses and Jacob" means. As I said, I don't have a view on the use of Bible-related templates in Bible-related articles. I think that in addition to a main article Longevity it would be appropriate to have on on Longevity in the Bible, but I don't have very strong views on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Others have also questioned this template on those talk pages. There is no encyclopedic reason to have a big old template on the left hand side of the page of Biblical figures showing their age ranked in a larger group of such figures.  If there were a page on Biblical longevity the template would be pertinent there.  On the individual pages it is trivia.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Judith, insofar as this is a mediation of disagreements between us two, we do not then disagree on the question Griswaldo raised. Also, insofar as we disagree whether the templates belong in "myths", that is a subset of our disagreement about whether "myths" or any articles of unverifieds should exist, unless you are yielding that point. Accordingly, please advance the discussion by commenting on WP:CLN above, or accepting that lists of unverifieds are encyclopedic, thank you. JJB 15:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, such a concern is addressed by the hide-template function, not deletion. JJB 15:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what I think. Neither the Sumerian nor the Biblical template should be in this article. The Sumerian template should be on the articles relating to the kings, the Biblical template should be used according to the consensus of those who work on Bible-related articles (probably something like what Griswaldo said). This article should be merged back into Longevity. The encyclopedia should concentrate on covering things that did happen, and things that were said, not things that didn't happen and weren't said. I would be quite happy if there were no articles on people who claimed to have lived a long time but turned out not to have, except for the few cases where they were notable anyway or the claim became notorious. We should have some lists and categories (no strong feelings which) for people who have been proved to live a very long time, perhaps only if they were notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Judith, you have my respect for your patience in dealing with this, but I don't think this answers my question about CLN. This article is about things that were said and (now) excludes cases where there is a controverted lower age. Your statements "claimed to have lived a long time but turned out not to have" and "proved to live a very long time" can indicate an unconscious bias for the claims of the debunkers as always superseding the claims of the claimants, whereas WP should not take sides. Birth certificate is one form of controversion; autopsy is another, less exact; textual criticism is another, very inexact; and competing claims both founded in historical sources (Epimenides) in themselves are controverstion that leaves no way of preferring either source. Thus the very question of which claims are controverted and which are not is wide open, while your statement suggests you may not have opened it yet. How would you know they "turned out not to have" without making a judgment among POVs? NPOV requires us to use statements like "Certain adherents (say which) believe X; however, the findings (say which) of modern historians (say which) say Z." My primary question was: if you supported a category, why would WP:CLN not also support a list? My question as to your current comment is: do you distinguish between "verified" and "unverified" objectively as the GRG does (nobody is verified without three birth or proxy documents and proclamation from within the GRG circle), or do you have some other way of knowing who is "proved" and who "turned out not" proved? JJB 17:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm biased towards verifiability. Guinness World Records is, I think, a reliable source on how long people have lived. If other reliable sources contradict it, then we report what both say. That leaves us with the longevity in the centuries preceding GWR, when historians are the correct sources. For the pre-historical and proto-historical cases, we use specialists in the appropriate fields. Archeologists for Sumeria, Bibical scholars for the Bible. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds almost like me, but we might have a minor quibble about whether Lucian et al. are reliable secondary sources if uncontroverted. There is also a continuum in that there are several people in the 20th century doing what GWR did before they did it and not as comprehensively. However, I think we may agree on the overall question and can relegate RS discussion to a safe later subdiscussion (unless I need to point out another potential NPOV lapse). If the fact, that the circle of people around the original claim believe it, is not dishonored, then we can proceed. Now, would you please tell me: if you supported a category as to unverifieds, why would WP:CLN not also support a list? JJB 18:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lucian isn't a secondary source. Not entirely sure of the meaning of your sentence "If the fact..." but I think you may be heading towards a list that would include unverified 20th century claims of longevity back through 19th and 18th centuries to the early moderns, as well as the Biblical figures and the Sumerians. There's no way that such a thing would be encyclopedic. We would be back to the mess that is this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you create a break in the continuum that's not in the sources? "Encyclopedic" and "mess" are subjective judgments. If I demonstrated that additional reliable sources contained similar categorization, wouldn't it become encyclopedic in your view? Or do your words mean there is no way, ever, that the list would be acceptable? I'm not hearing a reason for that and can only supply the previously stated reason that listing very old and very new claims together is WP:OR, which I disproved and can do so again. I'm confused as to what argument you're retaining for a diagnosis of "mess", as it's not V, NPOV, or NOR. Maybe Boia would help. JJB 21:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Turns out Boia is available at Google, I believe he wasn't last year. And he does have exactly what I anticipated. Along with Thoms and the other sources, I do believe this totally defeats the "unencyclopedic" argument. JJB 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings, the comments from Itsmejudith above are regretfully uninformed. Part of the major argument of "longevity myths" is that this is a cultural universal; i.e., all cultures have them. Thus, it makes sense to have a wide range of examples. A Sumerian "king" list is an example of genealogical longevity myth, whereby extreme ages are assigned to semi-legendary or mythical figure (including the first Japanese emperor, Jimmu Tenno) in part to extend the king list further back in time, in part to emphasize the vaunted status of such persons. In traditional societies, ancientness of origin bestows greater honor, as does living a long time (which is seen as a "blessing from God").


 * This isn't about what Itsmejudith "thinks". It's about what outside sources think. It's about common-sense editing as well. Wikipedia is NOT paper. Not only that, but the article on longevity has a particular focus, and that focus is different than an article on longevity myths. To say they are the same thing is like saying than African Americans and Africans are the same thing. It's missing the point entirely. It's NOT the same thing, at all. Longevity could be about factual length of life, based on facts: for example, the maximum life span of a domestic cat is 38 years; that of a dog is 29 years; that of a human is 122 years. Longevity myths is about age claims in culture that are not based on facts but on cultural needs, whether true, not true, possibly not true, or definitely not true. For example, the age of Moses is mythical even if possible, because his age is more than literal, its allegorical in meaning.


 * This entire "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach is disconcerting, and is causing a three-way divide when the original dispute was two-way. If Itsmejudith doesn't want to bother with this, she doesn't have to...but that's no excuse to try to undermine the article's existence, which has been here for 6+ years and was originally created by an expert (Louis Epstein). Louis has mostly stopped editing at Wikipedia because of nonsense like this dispute above. Ryoung 122 18:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Comments by Ryoung122 to Griswaldo above that broke flow, moved by JJB 19:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC):)
 * Your argument is a good one. It shows the need for an article on Biblical longevity, since the primary focus on articles about Moses and Jacob are not their ages. Yet, their ages are in fact non-trivial, but of major cultural importance. In Judaism, in fact, people toast others with a toast, "until 120":
 * http://galusaustralis.com/2010/10/3680/the-eternal-jew-a-short-ashkenazi/
 * Again, there's ample evidence that ages claimed in the Bible are more than trivia, but of cultural significance.
 * Of course, not everyone is a Christian, and not all longevity myths are Christian. In fact, myths of longevity are universal, and not limited to religion. There are myths of pseudo-science ("take this potion and live to 150"), myths such as the Fountain of Youth and the quest for staying forever young, myths of mountain air and water, myths of Shangri-La. There are also myths of science-fiction ages. There certainly is a need for an article that focuses on "longevity myths" or the "myths of longevity." The focus of such an article is not, however, religious. The focus is NOT, however, on actual proven longevity. The focus is on the beliefs of people and cultures, why these people and cultures believe them, and how these beliefs compare to scientific evidence. Ryoung 122 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (@Ryoung122 18:17:) This is fair enough as to the question of the existence of the three articles on unverifieds (four, if there continues to be a push for a Biblical longevity article). R, could you please comment on the applicability of WP:CLN to Judith's comment (my reply) that unverifieds do belong at least in a list? JJB 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert, you've confirmed exactly what I thought has been going on. You believe that making up stories about longevity is a human universal. Perhaps it is, but how do we know? Can you cite one expert on myth to that effect? If you can't, then the whole Longevity myths article is WP:SYNTH to advance a point. You will have to argue hard to convince me that the Sumerian king lists have anything in common with the Old Tom Parr case. The article on longevity should be mainly scientific but could include brief reference to beliefs about longevity, in the same way that our article on the Moon is mainly science but refers to beliefs about the Moon. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping by, IMJ, but I trust you will be commenting on WP:CLN. It's also clear that the versions of the Sumerian king list and the Old Tom Parr case are both unverified claims to supercentenarianism, of which the subject article is one list, and that claims like these are listed together in the various sources I've provided, to which more could be added. Where is the synthesis, or what is the unsourced point, that you see? JJB 23:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think it is helpful to describe either the Sumerian king list or old Tom Parr as "unverified claims of supercentarianism". What is a claim of supercentarianism, anyway? "Supercentarian" is a recent concept, and you can't impose it either on the Sumerians or on the early moderns. And what was a claim, in the days before GWR? Who on earth knows, will ever know, what the Sumerians meant when they produced those king lists? It's a matter for experts on the Sumerians, but they seem to be leaving it aside as one of many unanswerable questions. In the case of Old Tom Parr, people speculated about whether he could possibly be as old as it seemed, in a way that's consistent with what we know about early modern ideas, with an increasingly scientific and systematic approach to knowledge. They could say "Tom remembers ..., and that was in the 15th century therefore he must be 200 years old, can that really be true?" Did the Sumerians say "King Y remembers the Ice Age and the sabre-toothed tigers and that was 20K years BP, therefore he must be 20,000 years old, can that really be true?" I think not. Chalk and cheese. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, call them "stories of people being extremely old ages" then; and for convenience and due to experience we distinguish them with a cutoff of 110. You've already agreed that some such claims are notable (those with birth certificates or other GWR-approved documentation). But my impression is that the way you are parsing these various historical data creates more OR than listing them all in one group. First, it's pretty clear in the lead of Sumerian King List that the Sumerians wanted to perpetuate a belief that their leaders reigned for the periods of time mentioned; that is the purpose of mythos, namely, to support a belief system with specific narrative that will be easy to propagate among a population. (I see that article and its source uses the word "fictional" in the sense "false", just as the word "myth" has been abused; there were no novels in those days, and writing was so precious that it was only reserved for narratives that were presented for belief by the audience, not for fictions propagated as such.) So a reductionism of "who knows what they meant" as if it applies to some historical sources and not others is OR for saying there is a distinction without a difference (we can't quote this tablet without Assyriologists, but we can quote that story without British folk historians).
 * Second, your parsing of the words "claim" and "supercentenarian" (note spelling) commits a basic error represented by some policy or essay I don't have at hand right now, that speaks of how questions of "what's a claim anyway" are invalid. Overparsing simply leads to wordier definitions. Now you may be trying, with such questions, to say that making certain age claims is a recent phenomenon; and I would argue that, au contraire, the recent phenomenon, starting with Thoms, is to use secondary documentation to weed out some claims and better support others. Making old-age claims, in general, is a phenomenon found in all cultures, and compiling them is at least as universal as the scientific process. So again it is OR to say that the invention of a process of verifying via three proximate documents (GWR) creates some new era prior to which no claims could be entertained. Not even Ryoung122 would agree with that, because he has said that if we turn up a 17th-century birth with three proximate documents, that would count for verification just like the "moderns". WP:V is "not about truth", and all these claims were verified to have been made, and are therefore equally includible; the idea that GWR's "verification" of something as probably true somehow trumps the basic WP verification that something was said misses the point of V.
 * Third, they asked Parr in court how old he was, and for backup asked him what he remembered, it wasn't the reverse order. Because writing was then ubiquitous, we have that conversation where we don't have the Mesopotamian ones. But it is clear from what we do have that every more ancient source that gets beyond "believe this claim because I'm saying it" goes to exactly the same backup, "believe it also because he remembers the creation or flood (King List), even though I'm telling you so". So again, you are showing different treatment of the court scribes of Sumer and England simply because the latter were more prolific.
 * But, after I have given you my logic as to why your position is unsourced, we still have the question of what the sources do say. So I ask again: If I showed you more sources where the ancient and modern stories of longevity are considered to be the "same thing", would that theoretically settle your question? I have looked in vain to find when you said what specific statement was actual OR or what specific conclusion could be drawn that would be SYN; . What would convince you? If you sit back and repeatedly say "I haven't seen it yet", that is not constructive. What sources would show you that a list of traditions of old age prior to the birth-certificate era is encyclopedic? Thank you. JJB 03:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am making a distinction between how we treat different historical periods on the basis of the quantity of documentation. A very common and long-standing distinction in historiography is made between ancient history, medieval history and modern history. These call for completely different methodologies, e.g. in working out what happened in ancient times archeological evidence can be more important than documentation. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I have provided sources showing this distinction is not made as regards longevity. If it's very common, what sources would you use to show that it should be made, specific to longevity? JJB 23:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sources relating to longevity, which aren't by historians anyway, can't override the norms of historiography. On the question of the Sumerian king lists, our article states that the Sumerians operated different counting systems (base 6, base 10...). That far back in the past there is room for considerable doubt about the meaning of dates given in texts. In the early modern period, even though they are only just starting to investigate nature and society systematically, at least we know that we share a common understanding with them about the meaning of "a year", "a century". Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible you're right, but I ask every editor who says something like this similar pertinent skeptical questions, and I trust you don't mind them. (I really am the skeptic's skeptic, though people are skeptical of that, and so am I.)
 * What is your source for norms of historiography, and for how they apply to longevity? The key sources in the article are all historians and agree that the intent is to state reigns of up to 72,000 years: what is your source for saying there is another interpretation, because the existence of different counting systems doesn't do it? Why do you speculate that these people didn't know the meaning of the legend they were perpetuating, as if there is some dispute over the meaning of the word "shar" that you can source? On the Biblical cases there has been much more speculation, and the (recently invented) question of whether "year" means "month" has been properly included with all sides weighing in, but there's no such situation with regard to the nongenealogical Biblical claims (Moses, Job, Jehoiada, etc.), nor with the Sumerians. Thank you for your consideration. I totally agree with your statement that these questions are normally handled amicably on article talk pages and only happen to be here due to the actions of others. JJB 02:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Scope
Pardon the analogy, but just because the USA allied with the USSR in World War II in order to defeat Hitler doesn't imply the US was a real long-term ally, it was only an alliance of convenience. Because sometimes, even "enemies" can agree when they share common goals/objectives.
 * Three-Way Dispute

Let's go over this dispute from a simplified model:

Ryoung122's "longevity myths" perspective represents the secular/scientific view

JJBulten's "longevity traditions" perspective represents the religious view

Itsmejudith's "longevity" perspective represents a "throw the baby out with the bath water" perspective.

In my mind, Itsmejudith is only complicating what was, in fact, a rather simple binary. As such, both myself and JJBulten have opposed the pro-deletionist "solutions" that Itsmejudith has offered, since they are not solutions.

As disagreeable as both JJBulten and myself have appeared, I think we have options to compromise, but improper deletion and merging is not the answer. Ryoung 122 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any of these three characterizations are accurate or helpful, as I don't "represent the religious view" on WP, which is not appropriate, as my views on the Bible have little to do with WP. All three of us represent a view of improving Wikipedia with verifiable, reliable sources. Further, IMJ doesn't actually believe the myths/traditions article belongs in longevity, she believes in a couple paragraphs of summary, i.e., mostly what's already there and delete the whole 'nother article. This is why the first thing that needs doing is my request that she engage her comment on categories with the cat/list/navbox recommendations, to which you could also encourage her. The second thing that needs doing is for you and I to agree on how to ensure the three articles on unverifieds remain consistent with our views they are encyclopedic, and to do that we need to agree on their scope. On this I would ask you two points right now. First, should all the ~8 cases that are like Drackenberg, where there is secondary-source disagreement with a single uncontroverted age but without an alternate age, be moved to myths/traditions? I had listed them for you at their current page. Second, what would be your best two sources for demonstrating the current practice of cutoff of 131.000, for review by the other parties? I appreciate that you are engaging, and if you can answer questions directly I think it would advance the discussion quite a degree. Thank you. JJB 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm back from break. I will try and engage with the cat/list/navbox recommendations, but I don't have much experience with category issues. I suggested something before, but it was to try and start off discussion about what is absolutely necessary to include in the encyclopedia. So, John, if you can say what kinds of longevity-related articles you think we really need, I might well go along with that. It's going to have to be the long-term task of the wikiproject to keep it under review. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your original suggestion was that unverifieds do belong in Category:Longevity traditions, but not in a list article; I proposed WP:CLN to argue that they do. The following is a basic review of where unverifieds fall in what "we really need", which may remove the need to discuss CLN.
 * Aside from the topic articles like longevity, I think it is appropriate to have articles on longevity claimants (using the word "claimants" here neutrally for all of them). As I've said, we have a good system for GWR-style verified claimants, sorting them by death years with an additional list article for living claimants. It would be undue weight not to have articles on unverified claimants, and to appease the workgroup I proposed this be divided into controverted and uncontroverted, and the uncontroverted be divided into "claims" and "narratives" with some objective demarcation (for a time they were one article, which could also work if it became consensus again). Thus only three articles on unverifieds, as there is not much growth need there, and no need for a separate "Biblical longevity" article (and my template on that just got dropped by TFD, which I accept). After this agreement on base articles, we investigate everything else in the longevity template and delete (or merge) a number of bio articles that say not much more than what the base articles say, leaving only those that have significant wide-appeal records or other notability; and we delete a number of lists, leaving only the bulk of the by-country lists, and probably some war-related lists. The deletion process would require enough rapprochement with WP:WOP that we at least agree on how to objectively define "notability for old age", because otherwise the AFDs would get tediously repetitive and entrenchedly unresolvable. There are a few other case-by-case issues that need not be researched now.
 * If you still see some specific form of chaos or policy failure in the current longevity myths article, I will be happy to address it. I understand that it is important for WP not to take sides with any claims any further than as notably reported by reliable sources, and particularly that the Bible requires much greater caution in handling due to fundamentalism and skepticism being two widely held POVs, among many others. Naturally such a multicultural topic as longevity requires care to avoid OR and SYN. But having started with the article being such a mess 18 months ago, i.e., still reading exactly like a POV-pushing largely unsourced master's thesis, I was especially careful to avoid OR and SYN in my fixes and source research, to avoid the wrath of the prior editors. So if you can give me a specific unsourced statement, in quotemarks, that might be read or inferred in the article, I will be overjoyed either to remove or to source the implication: overjoyed because it will mean I am finally addressing the charge rather than guessing about it. Or if you have other specific changes to the topic's articles, please let me know. But if you can live with matters as is, then the two biggest assists you can make are to sit back and watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People and chime in at those discussions, and to let Ryoung122 know when you disagree with him here. In any case, I appreciate your consideration. JJB 03:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand what you're saying now. I think it's a priority for the WikiProject and all of us who wish to see improvement in this area of articles to sort out the categories. How to handle articles on war veterans needs input from people who work on military-related articles, either WikiProject Military History, which is one of the best organised on the 'pedia, or from others who they might be able to recommend. Of course there needs to be one basic category about longevity. Within that, it depends on how many articles are kept as notable. I don't follow your logic about "it would be undue weight not to include unverified claimants". WikiProjects that work properly maintain criteria for notability. For example, in WikiProject Universities we say that all universities are notable by definition but unlicensed diploma mills ("claimed" universities, in a sense) may or may not be notable, depending on what media coverage they have had. If WOP decided that all recent verified over-110s are notable by definition, and other reportedly long-lived people are notable if there is sufficient independent coverage, then that would resemble the sorts of policies that wikiprojects generally develop. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. JJB 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion?
It is my conclusion that IMJ and I can settle differences amicably and that we are both being patient and generous in the areas where the difference goes somewhat deep. It is my further conclusion that R refuses to discuss his differences with either of us in this forum, for nearly 3 weeks now. The ANI filed by IMJ generated much discussion and zero action. Since I don't believe in closing doors, I will need to consider this mediation on hold again indefinitely (it just never occurred to me that people would agree to mediate and then refuse to complete the mediation). My goal of having rational, facilitated point-by-point discussions toward consensus with R on the bullets in my opening statement simply does not look very likely. Any notification that R is open to discussion, of course, will be interacted with cheerfully. JJB 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had hopes that something would come of the exchange I had with Ryoung122 on our respective talk pages, but he has gone quiet again. Since ANI has failed I am considering taking out an ArbCom case. Unless Phil has an idea of how to head that off. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Judith, get your best diffs and best rationales ready. I'm avoiding the topic area for the next 4 hours from right now, and then I'll immediately file it myself. JJB 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)