Jump to content

Talk:Longevity myths/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Merge counterproposal

NO ACTION
No consensus. Biased close in lieu of nonbiased close. It appears from my seat that all discussers besides the proposer (me) were discussing a different merge than the one I clearly proposed. Accordingly I am reading the result as a rejection of a total merge of this article into the disputeds article. Ordinary article rearrangement is ongoing, however, and consensus is gelling. If there is disagreement with this close, I suggest the open mediation. JJB 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I countersuggest that Longevity myths#Overadvancements, Longevity myths#Double lives, Longevity myths#Controverted traditions, and Longevity claims#Withdrawn claims be merged into List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. JJB 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: As a slight rule-ignoring, this is the merge that I have been developing to present to the regular editors, and now to you first, seeing that nobody seems to object to multiple resolution processes going on at once besides me. The three sections in this article "Overadvancements", "Double lives", and "Controverted traditions", and the section in longevity claims called "Withdrawn claims", are all redundant with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants, whose title precisely describes the scope of the four sections also. So the argument goes that all four sections should be merged there. There would certainly be some formatting challenges to resolve upon completion, but the basic point that the scopes are identical indicates a need to combine. The regulars would likely object that "disputed" should be limited to a subclass "previously verified by GRG/GWR and later reasonably questioned", instead of also including about six additional classic historical disputes like K. FitzGerald, but this objection would be part of a scope-setting consensus build only if raised. I only recently noted the scope overlap so had not had time to choose a course or discuss it with the regulars.

I would appreciate it if this well-formed, reasoned proposal that takes into account the overall set of longevity articles were ratified independently of whether this article's remaining contents are to be merged to longevity. Thank you. JJB 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose.

The "longevity myths" article focuses on the literature and the background of the situation, while the "list of disputed supercentenarian claimants" focuses more on results. In tennis, we have an article on "tennis" and other articles such as "list of grand slam champions." There is a long tradition of splitting out lists from definition articles.

In any case, "longevity myths" is the PARENT article. These two articles are a bit closer, but the purpose is different, and merging would make an overlong article. The best solution is to maintain two separate articles, but keep links at the bottom of each for further reading.Ryoung122 06:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back (you also have new messages). Um, please note that this proposal only deals with the sections of this article that contain "lists of disputed supercentenarian claimants". I agree we should maintain two different articles. But maybe (you can strike your !vote and) we can cut Tom Parr's appearance to only one of them? JJB 08:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose.

I strenuously disagree that Longevity myths and Longevity claims or List of disputed supercentenarian claimants be merged. I use the latter two lists frequently for my research into contemporary longevity. They deal with CONTEMPORARY people or those in modern history who have made claims of longevity. The statement in the preamble to the article that “no fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent” is just PLAIN WRONG! Current scientific research shows that the limit to human longevity is somewhere between 125 and 130 years of age. (See the Hayflick limit on the number of times a normal cell population will divide before it stops; and the most recent research on telomeres and longevity in humans.) All biological organisms have a lifespan limit, that’s just a fact! The term supercentenarian based on those aged more than 110 is appropriate as, statistically, we have to use a standard deviation (or other percentile measure from a mean) to show extreme rarity in a population. The use of the 113-year-age line to define Longevity claims is used because of the overwhelming empirical evidence that shows that a massive cull of supercentenarians occurs about the 114½ to 115 age range. The 130-year-age limit is used to define ‘longevity myths’ because ages above this limit defy contemporary scientific observation and explanation. On a continuum of believability, we can use the logic that history = fact, legend = exaggeration, and myth = fiction. If you have a problem with “myth” (which I don’t) we can place under a separate article: Longevity in religion (mind you the patriarchs under the God of Abraham would have to be referenced by the Talmud, the Bible and the Koran), Longevity in dynasties, Longevity in history etc But Longevity claims and Longevity myths should not be merged. The former is based on contemporary events that can be empirically verified, recorded and published. The data is completely different to that of cultural stories concerning Sumerian or Japanese dynasties of the past. 58.165.218.30 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Chris Amos

Oppose. The Sumerian kings reigning for multiples of 36,000 years aren't disputed supercentenarian claimants. (Agree with Chris Amos' post above.) Another solution has to be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Per IMJ and others, the ancient material is clearly not equivalent to disputed supercentenarian claimants. Griswaldo (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. As per Robert Young and Chris Amos among others. 62.235.129.136 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Robert young has made it clear that the word myth has multiple meanings and tradition is one of them, myth doesnt only mean it isnt true, it also means tradition, and the Bible stories are traditions, Paul called them traditions, Im sure thats what he meant when he used the word myths. Longevitydude (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: three of these five !votes are from nonrecent editors following a report of improper WP:CANVASSing and may be discounted as such if so. Further, all five follow Ryoung122 in misinterpreting the request. Pardon me for bolding:
This proposal is not about deleting this article. This proposal is above moving three sections of disputed claims from this article to the disputed claims article.
Now, I am still looking for comments on the validity of merging these sections, but Griswaldo's and IMJ's views makes me think a focused RFC might be better, so I may just bypass this discussion as tainted instead. JJB 17:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a piece of paper, why do we need to merge, whats wrong with having all of the information on one big article? Longevitydude (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH.Griswaldo (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Your above comment fails, see this for example:

http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=gerontology_theses

Wow, I see all the material in one place.Ryoung122 19:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously linking your own masters thesis? First of all a masters thesis is not considered a reliable source. If you don't believe me ask the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Then there is the fact that its your masters thesis. You clearly have a conflict of interest here. I'd stick with outside sources if I were you.Griswaldo (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As long as the information is somewhere ...

It doesnt matter, I hope you all can find a conclusion to what should be done but i dont care as long as the information is somewhere. Longevitydude (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Opening introduction

Longevity myths can be about individuals, but also groups of people. For example, myths of longevity from Bama Yao are focused more on the region than the individual:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/7170231.html

While the Chinese news reports this "factually," in fact there are serious problems/issues that scientists note:

1. The ages claimed are not based on early-life documentation.

2. As the idea of longevity in Bama country has taken hold, the ages claimed have increased in both number and maximum. Note that last year, China's oldest person was "122" but a year later, China's oldest person is "125". How is that possible?

3. The ages claimed are concentrated in minority populations that have higher rates of illiteracy, including the "125"-year-old woman.

4. The number of claimants is now being used as a counterweight to Japanese claims of longevity:

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20101017-242695.html

Note the above story misquotes the Japanese number, which should have been 44,449, not 41,449. But by doing so, China is placed ahead of Japan.

Thus, we can see that the Bama Country myth of longevity is a localist myth about a place that has been co-opted into a Nationalist discourse.Ryoung122 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Overadvancement"

What precisely is "overadvancement" supposed to mean? Does it describe overestimation of a claimant's age by the claimant and others, or acceleration of signs of aging as a person gets older? It is not made clear anywhere in this article and I can't find the word in any dictionaries. 86.153.216.86 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That was original research coined by editor JJB. If you don't like it, change back to what sources say.Ryoung122 08:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, it was my attempt to avoid OR by summarizing in one word the concept stated ambiguously by Guinness earlier in the article, a source Ryoung accepted: people's tendency "to advance their ages at the rate of about 17 years per decade". The article outline is also intended to follow Guinness as the only sourced outline of the topic. Perhaps "Overadvanced ages"? JJB 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not that I didn't like it as such, but that I didn't understand what it meant. Quentin72 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand your question watch this link of my explanation get deleted, nobody will understand because so many people are narrow minded. Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Longevity_by_Cosmic_Acceleration_Theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchlol (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory

I started this thread to suggest that some Longevity myths may actually be facts. This theory also involves Einstein’s Time Dilation by Relativity Theory, Applied Physics and Cosmic Activity. So, Time dilation is responsible for Biblical Longevity as an explanation after Noah’s flood because the earth is still rotating 365 days a year normally given that ancient records were recorded correctly. To clarify, this theory says that a living being can age slower or faster in its solar system since effects from within the galaxy or universe do not affect the earth’s typical orbit. Meaning the earth is still normally rotating 365 days a year however the speed of the galaxy traveling in the universe has changed do to gravitational effect from other bodies such as black holes were Time Dilation has occurred. Furthermore, the measured time of the clock will speed up during deceleration as the earth approaches the speed at creation which should be zero meters per second and in contrast the measured time of the clock will slow down as it approaches the speed of light since it is accelerating. So basically, you could start ageing faster or slower and you wouldn't know by examining your relative time at that instant but over a period of time a difference would be noticed since your time is based on the rotation around the Sun. Krunchlol (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Mark Williams, Texas A&M University, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Class of 2002, Field of Study: Electrophysics, Electrooptics, Microwaves

Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, nor is it a place to post original research and new theories. You're most welcome to use this talk page to suggest ways to improve the article. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Biblical longevity template

Copied from Template talk:Biblical longevity by JJB 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "+" means minimum age rounded to nearest 5; "?" means traditional age only partly supported within Bible.
  • (ADD) Eve: Bible says she had many sons and daughters and was created the same time as Adam. Tradition is that she outlived Adam (930) by 10 years. JJB 18:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Job: Bible says he fathered 10 grown children and lived 140 years after that. Tradition is that he died at 210.
  • Esau: Bible says that Isaac begat Esau at 60, and Esau buried Isaac when Isaac died at 180. Esau is minimum 120, but tradition places him at same age as Jacob, 147.
  • Laban: Tradition is that Laban could not have given his sister Rebecca in marriage unless he was at least 13. Bible says 20 years after he gave his sister, she had Jacob; Jacob was 130 when his son Joseph was 39 (30+7+2); Jacob left Laban when Joseph was 6. 13+20+130-39+6=130.
  • Deborah: Tradition is that Rebecca had the same nurse all her life. There is no statement as to whether Deborah was older or younger than Rebecca, but if Deborah was at least 12 at Rebecca's marriage, with evidence below that Rebecca was married 117 years, this yields 129, or 130 rounded.
  • Miriam: Bible implies she was older than brother Aaron (123), because she tended Moses in the Nile when Aaron was 3. She died the same year as Moses and Aaron. 125 is her minimum age, appropriately rounded to the nearest 5.
  • Rebecca: Tradition is that Rebecca was 3, 10, or 14 when given. Bible says that 20 years later, she had Jacob; Jacob left Rebecca 20 years before he left Laban; Rebecca's nurse Deborah died the year Jacob left Laban, with plural mournings. Tradition is that the plurality of mournings refers to Rebecca's death as well. 3+20+130-39+6=120 minimum. JJB 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
John, do you have sources for this material? Are you hoping to include it in the encyclopedia? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
All sources should still be in the individual character articles. This is only a summary so that nobody slapped an unsourced tag on the former template. Now that it's a table, if you think the table should include footnotes, that could be built out from the other articles, although generally a WP:SUMMARY of other linked material does not need its own repeat footnotes. But otherwise this section (as it stood for two years at the template talk) is only a talk backup, similar to quoting an inaccessible source on talk. JJB 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Shivapuri Baba

Shivapuri Baba could do with further research, and might be worth including; it's quite an interesting case on the face of it. --JN466 08:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Other 131+ age claims

  • Maghmut (unknown (sur)name) [1]
  • Amm Atwa Moussa
  • Talib Somejo
  • Ali Mohammed Hussein
  • Habib Miyan
  • Shivapuri Baba
  • Jacob Christiansen Drakenberg
  • Nasir Al Hajry
  • Omar Abas
  • Elener Skundor
  • ? [2]
  • [3] & [4]
  • James Haydn's list from 1893 [5]
  • Pa Adekile Omoti [6]
  • pp.88-102 [7]
  • [8]
  • Ulfat Mughal [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • Per Andersson Boman [12]
  • Zebbiche Rokia [13]
  • Mahmud oglu Bagir Eyvazov [14]
  • Aisha Ketchie [15]
  • Kantemi [16]
  • Fu Xi
  • Shirali Muslimov
  • Longevity claims and myths: [17]
  • Gazi Ahmet Evrenos [18]
  • [19]
  • Ali Ashraf Husseini [20]
  • Javier Pereira [21]
  • Baba Harainsingh [22]
  • 295 year old Turk woman [23]
  • 159 year old Opanyin Kwaku Addae (claims birth 25 December 1851) [24]
  • Indonesian cases: Nek Camat (132), Karnita (140), Saparman Sodimejo (142), Ambu Unah (143, 6 May 1867) [25]
  • 145-year-old Indonesian, Katemi [26]
  • Salakay Saliling Mling of the Phillipines [27]
  • Ram Avtar Saha Kanu, 170 of Nepal [28]

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Attention to Hebrew Bible Myths

It is asymmetric to spend as much time as this article did on myths in the Hebrew Bible, and extremely non-NPOV to give them much more presumption of possibility. Quoting telomere lengthening in worms belongs in a treatise on Creationism, and detailed comparison of exegetical theories belongs in specialized material. I am shortening the portion on the Hebrew Bible to match the rest. A separate page might be reasonable as a location for such claims, but I would contend they don't belong at all on Wikipedia. mcgees.org (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the article is kind of a random hodgepodge of various instances where people have been purported to live longer than 120, asymmetry is to be expected. You are going to have theological debate on Biblical ages but when you get to “Ripley's Believe It or Not!” you can’t really expect the same amount of scholarship. Either way welcome to one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Have fun! PeRshGo (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :^) OK, so, asymmetry is one thing, but is it reasonable to have an embedded Creationist treatise in this article? The telomere thing? Seriously? I'm not going to make a big deal of it, and I'm not going to edit it again without discussing it here, but "one of the worst articles" or not, can't we at least make a pretense of NPOV and on-topic? Maybe we could even get it out of that category. If the answer is "No", I'll bow out.  :^) mcgees.org (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Title and scope

The content must match the title. Therefore the section "Recent traditions" must be merged into the page "Longevity claims," since clearly it has no relation to mythology. Any opinions? Lorem Ip (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems that there are three distinct subjects covered here. You have the high ages found in many religions, mythological means of actively extending the human lifespan, and random other instances of people claiming to be over 120 throughout history. Many if not all of these subjects are covered in other articles. So the better question is, what benefit is had by having these subjects randomly thrown together in one place? PeRshGo (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a longstanding problem currently subject to an ArbCom case. It would be appropriate to wait until the case is closed to determine consensus. The title breaks WP:RNPOV, and a retitle would address Lorem's concerns. I have no problem with categorizing the information differently, but in actuality none of PeRshGo's three (unsourced) categories are covered by other articles AFAIK, and the categorizations actually in the article correspond the the RS treatment. Determining how RSs handle it comes prior to determining scope (and thus title) for this particular article. It is, of course, much more complicated than this brief comment might otherwise indicate. JJB 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That is not entirely true. If this is a list article then an inclusion criteria must be established before the article even begins. If the article is supposed to be about Longevity Myths as a subject then someone would have to prove that it's actually a legitimate subject of study which includes all these random items. If it's neither then we're left with what we have, one big pile of WP:SYN. PeRshGo (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been generally agreed, with exceptions, that the field of study is established by sources from Lucian through Thoms to Boia. There are also in fact multiple sets of inclusion criteria, which is actually the problem because editors have not agreed on which to use. Any randomness is source-related. But, feel free to join the (complicated parts of the) discussion when it gets started (I am forbearing now); it will probably be announced at WT:WOP. JJB 02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This is making it too complicated. PeRshGo's identification of three topics is spot-on in my opinion. We don't need a source to propose how material should be split between articles. It helps if we follow what sources do, but that isn't our only criterion. You say, John, "it has been generally agreed". By whom? I don't see any Wikipedia consensus on this. And you say "sources from Lucian through Thoms to Boia". Sorry, but that doesn't carry any weight at all. Lucian, we mean the ancient Roman. Thoms - a very long time ago, when research into human lifespan was just beginning to be systematic and scientific. That leaves Boia. Just one source, of dubious reliability in my opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Judith, you were the "exceptions". Your position is complicated by your other positions in the larger topic area. I'm not responding to your position right now. I have no problem with it being an uphill battle climb dealing with your concerns, I only ask that we finish dealing first with the (ahem) collateral concerns that would otherwise endanger our own healthy discussion. TIA. JJB 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how my very specific issue may depend of wikipolitical struggles. Right now there is a very clean split between Longevity claims in religion and mythology (about individuals), Mythological sources of longevity (about means to achieve longevity or eternal life), and Unverified claims of longevity (about persons from real life). In addition, in the current article I noticed at leas one occasion of usage of the term "myth" in the meaning of "bullshit" "unverified claims" (about Okinawa diet). This may be handled by a separate list article, Receipts of longevity (explicitly non-mythological, i.e., applicable to people contemporary to the claims, although non-scientific in modern sense, disputable, or rejected. In addition to receipts for exceptional longevity, this article may summarize effects of various health advices, such as "don't smoke nor drink, live long").

Please state clearly:

  • specific objections to my proposal
  • counter-proposals (rather than "I dontlikeit" or wikilawyering)

- so that the arguments may be discussed in their essence and this sad state of the article improved. Lorem Ip (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, a few things, not all of which I'll say. First, names should be simple and natural, sorry (receipts?!). Second, sources treat all these topics together. Third, there is a gradation between the oldest claims and the newest that does not have a clean break at any point ("individuals" and "persons from real life" don't break cleanly, sorry). Fourth, the one use of "myth" was a temporary nod, based on a poor translation, to another editor currently involved in the ArbCom decision, and if consensus after the decision agrees that this breaks WP:RNPOV, it will be removed. Fifth, your best solution is to go to WT:WOP#Centralized discussion, start a subpage there for topic-area proposals as described there, and put your proposal on it as the first one, along with any other remediation work you'd like to volunteer for. JJB 00:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
re "first" ("receipts" as in a cookbook. Please suggest a better word. What else is non-natural? I disagree that the titles must be simple. The prime criterion is "well-defined topic". Not all topics are titled by 2 words.
re "second" Wikipedia does not have to mirrors sources.
re "third" I disagree that there is no clean break. Either a person was documented as real or not. Of course there is such thing as "insufficient evidence" for pre-literate times, and there may be disagreement whether a certain king was real or mythological, but such "gray areas" exist in virtually every topic. If we don't split clean we are never be able to write on anything: chemistry, history, geography, etc.
re: "fourth" Huh? I don't care about arbcom and I don't see how it is related to my proposal.
re: "fifth" I am talking about the fate of a particular page, and any "committee is welcome to join this local discussion, not vice versa, sorry. Lorem Ip (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

King list template

You see navigation templates for kings and queens at the bottoms of articles. Henry VII of England etc. They don't belong in the middle of articles. Sumerian king list is linked, so anyone can quickly find out about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be out of place at the bottom of this article and would belong at the bottom of its section. The intent is related to my view that this article's scope includes lists of traditional claims, which these are; so if we agree on a different scope it might be removable. If it concerns you for now, it could be moved in the interim to your list of unverified claims, I think. JJB 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Counting system detail

Sumerian counting system is not needed here. Including it implies we think there is something to be said about how come the Sumerians thought their kings lived so long. If we have an academic source that goes into this, then fine, otherwise synthesis. I do remember contributing to it, but I'm still worried about synth. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This relates to your view of this article (making me think of a faulty application of NOMA): I read you as saying that (1) the Sumerians were obviously mistaken, (2) WP stating the Sumerians' beliefs alone clearly implies (correctly) that they were mistaken, (3) WP stating the Sumerians' beliefs with science qualifiers dulls that clear implication. I don't judge (1), as in WP's system it requires sourcing, and (2)-(3) relate to wider views (as you indicate with the parthenogenesis paradigm) that appear to contradict the last sentence of WP:ONEWAY. In short, WP should simply state all POVs about what they believed and why, and even fringe articles require contextualization in relation to the mainstream. While your past and present removals have not been a serious issue, I think we should hash this out in relation to WP:WOP later. JJB 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk: List of the verified oldest people

Greetings, the current "definitional" disambiguation between longevity claims and myths is contorted:

This article is about validated specific supercentenarian claims by modern standards. For modern, or complete, unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity claims. For historical, incomplete unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity myths.

One could define "longevity claims," most broadly, as ANY claim to longevity. But that's not a good operational definition, since we already have the "verified claims" covered in the "verified" lists. So...

One could use an operational definition: I define a longevity claim as being in that grey area of possible but unlikely and unvalidated. I used a minimum age cutoff of 113 because of the greater number of unvalidated claims versus validated supercentenarians. For example, in the USA, a majority of claims to age 110+ between 1980 and 2009 were false, with the proportion rising by age claim. 65% of SSDI claims to age 110 were not validated, while 99% of claims to 115+ were not validated, suggesting the likelihood of a claim to 115+ being true is very small.

However, it's not "mythical" until the age exceeds the proven, documented age of 122.45 days by a substantial amount. Demographer S. Jay Olshansky defined the cutoff point as "130". Therefore, longevity myths could be defined as a subset of longevity claims...those to ages 130+ that are outside the scientific likelihood of being true, and can therefore be assumed to be scientifically invalid (even if religiously valid). For example, one could argue using the religious lens that Noah was 950, because the Bible said so. Fine. But that's a myth, just as the idea of the whole Earth flooding, or of getting all the animals in the Ark is something that is counter to scientific evidence. There's also no evidence of an actual Ark (unless one watches CBN).

So, I would define in general longevity claims as being those to extreme age that are unvalidated but possible; longevity myths are those that are unvalidated and not scientifically possible.

Further, there is a rationale behind having an article on longevity myths: to explore the narratives of longevity mythology, or why people want to believe in humans living longer than scientifically reproducible evidence shows.

But that's not the point of a disambiguation. To make the disambiguation simple, I suggest Jay Olshanksy's "130" years cutoff point be used.Ryoung122 04:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this really meant to be here? It looks like it should be in Talk:Longevity claims or Talk:Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Robert, this just shows that you want the Longevity myths article to be an essay on "why people want to believe in humans living longer...". That is not (currently) a topic in mythology studies. Please apply some basic logic to your own arguments. If someone in the 18th century believed that a neighbour of theirs was 140 years old, that was no more or less myth-making than believing that another neighbour was 100 years old. Both cases were extremely rare in those days; the science had not yet been done to show that 100 was possible and 140 not. Whether or not we have a basis for an article on Longevity myths should go back to WP:FTN or to Request for Comment, so that more views can be considered. I think there may be more reason to have one on Longevity research, pulling together the methods used by researchers such as yourself. In the meantime, the list articles need some sorting out and we may be able to refer to an appropriate wikiproject for guidance on how list articles in other subject areas are handled. There are criteria for featured lists, for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the solution could be to reborn the Robert's "Longevity Myths" as "Modern Longevity Myths" or something else. But, the problem is already solved isn't it Judith? Why bother to discuss this issues, if you, JJB and other vandals are ready to destroy everything about longevity, once the working people get banned?Japf (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Calling people with a different perspective "vandals" is not helpful. IMJ and JJB do not share a perspective by the way. Apparently anyone you all deem to be an "enemy" must be lumped together. Robert's usage of "longevity myths" is not academic. Our use of "myth" here on wikipedia follows the the study of mythology not the non-academic understanding of "myth" as "false". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I think R. Young has already given sources to prove that "longevity myths" is used in the academy. Japf (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No he hasn't. This was exactly why I was interested in this minefield in the first place. I have some expertise in this, and did some research when I first became interested in the Longevity myth article. There is no study of longevity myths. I have yet to see any academic literature on "longevity" as a motif in folklore even, though I assume that this may exist. But besides that, I looked into Robert's own book, which was a master's thesis if I'm not mistaken, and his use of "myth" is not in line with that of the academy, in any relevant field - folkloristics, classics, religious studies, anthropology, etc. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So myth is a word that people can't use without religious meaning: Let's see the magazine Science:
Application of Bloom's Taxonomy Debunks the "MCAT Myth". Science 25 January 2008 414.
Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%. Science 29 June 2007: 1836.
The "MYTH" of the Biased Doc. Science 10 March 2006: 1355.
Celestial Spectroscopy: Making Reality Fit the Myth. Science 5 September 2003: 1332-1333
U.S. Soil Erosion Rates--Myth and Reality. Science 14 July 2000: 248-250
Is labile hypertension a myth?Science 4 May 1979: 489
I'm at home now, but if you want, I can give you the number of articles in which "myth" does not have religious meaning in academy, tomorrow at work where I can use the Web of Science.Japf (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That scientists sometimes use the colloquial meaning of "myth" doesn't change anything. You wont find that usage of myth in reference works. Why? Because reference works are going to reflect the technical usage and not colloquial usage. I have never denied that people don't use "myth" to mean "something believed by people which isn't true". But so what? All kinds of people use terms that have technical meanings in a colloquial sense all the time. We, as a reference work, don't do that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean as reference works? An article in Science subjected to peer-review using "myth" with meaning of "false" is not enough for you? If the reviwers thought the same as you they would not accept the article.Japf (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The most cited paper I found has the strange title "INSTITUTIONALIZED ORGANIZATIONS - FORMAL-STRUCTURE AS MYTH AND CEREMONY", which I don't know what it means (pardon the letter type, it was copy-paste from the site), so I could considere it as a using your newspeak myth. But the good news are that from the second through the tenth most cited article "myth" only means "fantasy" or "false". So, in academy "myth" only means religion, or this is strange feature exclusive to wikipedia?Japf (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This is hard to follow or understand. "Myth", in the formal sense, is not always religious myth. Non-religious myth still does not mean "believed by some but untrue". The article you reference does indeed refer to myth in the formal, technical sense, and not the colloquial. Where exactly did you find these most cited papers and what relevance does that have? Myth on Wikipedia is used in the formal technical sense, following the disciplines that actually produce knowledge about myths and mythology, (again, folkloristsics, anthropology, religious studies, classics, etc.). That a well cited paper in the hard sciences used the term myth to mean fantasy in the title is utterly meaningless to what we do here in a multi-disciplinary reference work. This discussion is over. Have the last word if you want but I will not continue to repeat myself.Griswaldo (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I used the Web of Knowledge, unfortunately is not freely available. Unfortunately too, 7 of the ten references are from non-"hard" disciplines such as psychiatry and litterature. I'm from the chemistry area, and I could forbitten you to use "aromatic" with the meaning of smell, "crystal" with the sence of good glass, "gas" as shortname for gasoline, etc. You just can't extend the definitions of a scientific area to others. For instance, how many meanings the wor "function" has got, concerning the different areas? What you are doing is to restrict the meaning of a word, and that is newspeak.Japf (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We aren't really considering an article on Longevity myths in the non-technical sense, are we? Because that would equate to Nonsense about longevity. Would we then have articles on Nonsense about chemistry, Nonsense about the Moon, Nonsense about geography, ad infinitum? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense about longevity is the title for a good and relevant article concerning how stupid people can be when try to speak about longevity. The same can apply to Nonsense about chemistry, Nonsense about the Moon, Nonsense about geography, and of course Nonsense in wikipedia. We can be technical even when we talk about nonsense.Japf (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
We cover things that aren't true, e.g. reports of alien abductions if they are notable, but we don't have articles that are rag-bag collections of false beliefs. We cover mythology and religion seriously, as there is a great deal of relevant scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference about writing a report about someone saying that wass kinapped by aliens, and other person that said to be 130-years old. Were they lying? We don't have proves. Were they telling the truth? They did not provided proves. It is exactly the same. Really, what's happening. Is it a sort of taboo? Japf (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether we should group all different kinds of incorrect reports about longevity into a single topic. We shouldn't, because just being incorrect or implausible is not a good basis for such a grouping. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That´s the real question because no one except JJB and his followers wants that. Japf (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I still don'r see wh ythis discussion is taking place HERE!!! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Because the thread was started here. Feel free to copy it somewhere where more people will see it, e.g. to talk page of Wikiproject WOP. Please don't shout actually you can whisper and people will still understand you. @Japf, good, we're agreed then. We can only have an article on Longevity myths if "myth" is understood in its technical sense, and if there are reliable sources that treat the topic "longevity myths". There aren't, so expect to see the article put up for AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I have no interest in the WOP Wikiproject. I would have thought it made perfect sense to move this to one of the topics it clearly relates to rather than this article which it does not. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we didn't agree. "Myth" has two meanings whatever you say, and for each meaning there is a different possible article. Concerning reliablity, and simple don't understand. You are mistaking reliability with veridicy (and don't know if this the proper english word). Be free to answer in my talk page.Japf (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not simply rename the article along the lines of "Longevity traditions"? If this comes down to the inconsistent use of the term "myth" in its colloquial and technical meaning, and if the sources don't always make a clear distinction as to how they define "myth," than it seems to me that, instead of tossing out the baby with the bathwater, a more neutral and unambiguous term such as "tradition" or "folklore" could be used, with some adjustments to the text therein. 159.33.10.92 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was logged out on the above remark.
"If the sources"... Trouble is, we don't really have any sources for longevity myths, traditions or folklore. We have sources for individual bits and pieces, but nothing to indicate that there is actually a coherent topic of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Bingo. And all the arguing in the world has yet to solve that problem.Griswaldo (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Structure

(Regarding the numerous 137 in Genesis- 137 Julian years are exactly 139x 360 days once every 480 years =487x 360 days) 98.144.71.174 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC) From the excellent 'Mark Twain A to Z' by R. Kent Rasmussen, 'Mark Twain took Injun Joe's name from a Hannibal resident about two years older than himself whose real name may have been Joe Douglas... Mark Twain's Autobiography claims that the real Injun Joe once subsisted on bats while lost in the cave. He died a respected citizen in 1925.' ( I recall teh Hannibal Mark Twain museum saying he died lik 129 from botulism from a pickled jar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this article follow a logical order? It jumps around from myths in the Hebrew Bible to Asia to other regions and then back to religion. Perhaps the religious based myths should be grouped into a category, the Asian countries into a category, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berries and cream 33 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is in such a poor shape because it is rigorously controlled by a bunch of people who reject any criticism of their position. This weekend I am going to edit the article. Just wait and see a recvert war coming. Lorem Ip (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if post ArbCom there is any bunch of people who might control the article. Looking forward to reading a bold rewrite, just what is needed, whether or not we agree with it in the end. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Political claims" section

An SPA brought the section back in after my apparently "stupid" move of it to Longevity claims. What, if any, of this can be kept, and where? Should some of it be converted to list form and added to a list article? If it's political, by definition it isn't myth. Except that there is the notable fact, cited to Zhores Medvedev, that in the USSR claims of extreme longevity were circulated for nationalistic reasons. Perhaps that isn't the only occurrence. On the other hand, none of the British cases in the list are either political or myth. In this original synthesis argument that making up stories about extreme longevity is a human universal, it is easy to lose sight of the obvious fact that there is a universal human propensity to be inaccurate and muddled. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Stupid! With your onemanshow both articles, myths and claims, were completely mixed up. And a lot of content was lost in the chaos that YOU produced. I'm not a regular editor of this pages nor native english, but whatever you do: Talk first with the regular editors. The mess in claims was even bigger and everything was reverted. So be more careful. You're the SPA. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Any comments about the questions I asked then? Any reason for keeping an article on "longevity myths", or would you agree that it is original synthesis? By the way, there was quite a lot of talking. You can look for threads on the fringe theories noticeboard for example, perhaps before you go throwing any more incivil comments around. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Halim Olcay, for example, has an referenced claim for being 136 years old. She could not stay on the claims page, because she is older then 130. So where is the place for her? Longevity Myths probably? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the first thing I would do is to distinguish list articles from articles about topics. See, for example, the difference between Higher education in the United Kingdom and List of universities in the United Kingdom. The individual you mention should probably belong to a list article, but doesn't need to be mentioned in an article about longevity myths. That was the way that I split the [Longevity claims]] article. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And thats my point. You copied big parts from myths to claims and nearly the whole claims-article to a new one without discussion about this. The result was the new article was deleted, your edits in claims reverted and the Olcay-Case (and lots of others) were lost. Thats why I called it a stupid move. And the only thing I want from you is to take care that this does not happen again. I for myself would like to see Olcay on claims page. But she was not accepted there, so she has to stay here. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my past behaviour please take it to WP:ANI and leave off the incivility. Thanks. As far as the 130-year-old cut off on Longevity claims goes, now is a good time if you want to question the sense of that. Needs to go on the talk page of that article or, preferably, on WP talk:WOP. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible

In this section, your note 13 references Donald V. Etz's article in Vetus Testamentum (1986). You state, "Etz says that the Genesis 5 numbers were multiplied by ten by a later editor." This is not what the referenced article says. Etz's hypothesis, stated on p 181 of his rticle, is that the numbers went through a three-step process: 1. A set of plausible numbers was invented. 2. Each lifespan except Enoch's was increased by 300 years. Enoch's lifespan was increased by only 100 years. 3. All the numbers were multiplied by 2.5 (or multiiplied by 10 and divided by 4), and rounded down to whole numbers if necessary. This hypothesis yields the Biblical numbers. Dividing by ten does not work, as you noted. Tree1805 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible

This is a correction to my previous post. The Etz article should be dated (1993), not (1986) as I had it, nor (1994) as the original article has it. Tree1805 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Other 131+ age claims

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Limbo cases:

Nobody celebrated their 131st birthdays. --Vesailok (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist monk

Surely this Buddhist monk's life data are highly suspicious. Not as extreme as to be obviously mythical, but for the day unbelievable – especially considering that there is no confirmed case of a man reaching an age of 118 (although different sources give different years and the article originally had the slightly, well, marginally more plausible lifespan 235–348 – nevertheless, it's almost certainly pious exaggeration). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Longevity myths which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://naturalshilajit.com/
    Triggered by \bnaturalshilajit\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Longevity myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Daoism

Daoism originated in China. Why is only the Japanese name of this deity mentioned? --2.245.66.240 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Longevity myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Shirali Muslimov

Can we Shirali Muslimov to the list of unverified claims? "Shirali Muslimov has official identification showing his birth date to be 26 March 1805" but has yet to be verified by an independent third party.

http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/44_folder/44_articles/44_centenarian.html

173.2.162.200 (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Konstantinos Mitsotakis in this page

Hello,

The name of this real person Konstantinos Mitsotakis appears in this page. I prefer not to change anything since it is not my language, and I do not know a lot about myth nor longevity, but I suggest somebody has a look at it.

A plus! :-) Kallort (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It was vandalism and I removed it. Dr. K. 22:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Merci!Kallort (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about source

One example is sourced from worldnewsdailyreport.com which has a disclaimer stating that all "news" on the site is fiction. Does WP have a consensus about this "fake news" site?TBoaN (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Biblical examples are currently limited to Genesis.

Jehoiada living to 130 also seems beyond what is currently considered possible.

While's Moses 120 is within the range of confirmed long lifespans, who two older siblings died earlier the same year. Aaron was 3 years older and Miriam was the oldest with the exact age unknown, but when Moses was born she older enough to follow his basket. So they straddle the line.

And since the Korean example is only 118, I figure Anna The Prophetess should count, she's been a widow for 87 years after being married for 7 from her Virginity, that's 94 years. The youngest she could have lost her virginity at was 12, but I suspect she was at least 16.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The part of the verse is, literally, "she was a widow of four and eighty years". First, 84, not 87. Second, that allows, as it stands, two possible interpretations: a), 84 years of widowhood following 7 years of marriage following "as a young lass she was married", and a "young lass" for marriage was not then 16 (that may have been a usual marriage age, but I guess not one where her youngness would have been specifically noted), but more probably 13 or 14, yielding 105 years: not at all impossible. The second interpretation is the rather un-startling claim that she was a widow and 84 years old (after some sixty or so years of widowhood): certainly an old woman, possibly more so around the 0th millenium, but having nothing to do with a longevity myth.--131.159.76.213 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Korea

The article states: "Taejo of Goguryeo (46/47 – 165) is generally accepted as having reigned in Korea for 93 years beginning at age 7. After his retirement, the Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa give his age at death as 118."

If the claim is "generally accepted", and since the age is not outside the bounds of plausible human longevity, it would appear that the assertion falls outside the scope of this article. Is it actually "generally accepted"? If so, delete. If not, re-word.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: move "Modern extreme longevity claims" section

The "Modern extreme longevity claims" section of this article seems to be in the wrong place. The disambiguation text at the top of the page says the this article is about myths related to the mythology of humans or other beings living to mythological ages. For validated specific supercentenarian claims by modern standards, see List of the verified oldest people. For modern, or complete, unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity claims. Clearly, modern extreme longevity claims are not related to mythology. As far as I can tell, the difference between "myths" and "claims" is that myths are 130 years or more, and claims are between 115 and 130 years. I believe this is arbitrary, not supported by reliable sources, and presumably original research. I propose that we move the entire section to Longevity claims. Pburka (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The content is certainly out of this article's scope. I removed it, but have reinstated it as the current criteria stated at the target article is arbitrary and fairly unhelpful. Further discussion is required for ascertaining why the arbitrary criteria are in place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I support the move, for the reasons the OP stated. Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:11, 27 January

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Longevity myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Violet Brown?

The link for Johanna Ramatse (1 January 1883 – 31 May 2017)[1] claims that Violet Brown of Jamaica is 117 years old (and calls her the world's oldest living person). That article also states, "According to USA Today, the world's oldest person ever recorded was an Indonesian man who claimed to have been born in 1870 and died on Thursday." I'm merely citing (the content of) the citation that appears in the article. MaynardClark (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tlhabye, G. World's oldest person dies at age 134, 9 June 2017, 2:36pm. Accessed JUne 24, 2017

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

"Living?" and "likely dead"

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

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

Mistake?

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

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

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

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

Kirk Campbell of Scotland, "258"

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

Source for Devraha Baba

I cleaned up the reference to Devraha Baba for Wiki style and because if we're going to list claims, may as well use the higher one. But the linked article makes no mention of the 900-year claim (nor the 300 year one), so a source citation is needed and the claims should probably be added to the man's article too. EDIT: According to the article talk page, there was once a source but it has been removed as the age claim kept changing and it may just be heresay. I left a note on the talk page asking for clarification; if a reliable source cannot be found then it should be removed from this list too. 23skidoo (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Longevity_myths/Archive_3&oldid=1235367451"