Misplaced Pages

Talk:Longevity myths: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:36, 27 April 2009 editRyoung122 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,945 edits →Proposed move: Longevity narratives← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:48, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,226 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(703 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{afd-merged-from|List of people reported to have lived beyond 130|List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (2nd nomination)|8 September 2015}}
{{WikiProjectWOP|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
{{Talk header |search=yes }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Longevity|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Mythology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low|bible=yes|bible-importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 3
|algo = old(120d)
|archive = Talk:Longevity myths/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== The Use of the Word "Myth" is Biased, and Apparently Meant to be Insulting ==
==What sorts of records==
What sorts of records are accepted as adequate documentation ("demonstrated records") ?
When did people start using those sorts of records ?
Did those sorts of records exist over 300 years ago ?
--] 21:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
**Well, no. That's the whole point.
"When were you born?" "It must have been a hundred years ago." "Can you prove it?" "Are you calling me a liar?!" ] 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Had the writer titled this article "Longevity Stories," or "Ancient Longevity Accounts," then there would be no dispute.I believe that the author was fully aware of this, and deliberately categorized religious accounts as 'myth' and is using obfuscation when challenged on the use of the word. By having a floating meaning of the word 'myth' the author seeks to continue to be denigrating towards religion. Even if there is a technical definition of the word 'myth' that may be used with a pretense of being accurate, it is admitted that when the word 'myth' is used, it is meant that something is not true; and I'm sure the author of this article is fully aware of this fact. If the same word 'myth' were used to categorize evolution, such as "The Myth of Evolution," then there would be a firestorm of challenges that would have resulted in a very quick retraction of the use of the word myth to describe evolution although technically evolution ''is'' a myth.
==verbatim ?==
Moved from article because much of the text is copied verbatim from the printed ] . See http://207.178.248.67/editorial/boston/0801/080601.html for an example of a rewritten version of the same information.
----


Proof: Mirriam Webster Dictionary, Definition of myth
'''Longevity myths''' have been around for as long as human records.
1a:a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.
As the ] stated in numerous editions from the 1960s to 1980s, ''"No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity."''
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth


The Bible's use of the word 'myth' to describe genealogies means nothing when one considers that the Biblical author could be speaking of genealogies of other belief systems such as the Roman claim that Roman emperors descended from Romulus, or Aeneas. The Romans were occupying Judea during the time Timothy called geneaologies "myth." The Biblical writer could have been biased, but that does not make the use of the word 'myth' a fair one, even from a Biblical person, when it is not challenged in the Bible by a person of another faith. There are other religions mentioned in this article which are accounts that are taken seriously by the followers of of the very religions this article seeks to denigrate with a pretense of being written by a clueless, oblivious, naive (some people would say 'innocent') writer.
At the time those words were written Guinness had never acknowledged anyone as having reached the age of 114, but longevity has increased in recent years. The first three people to be acknowledged by Guinness as reaching 114 have all been subjected to doubt by others,and the first two people Guinness accepted as reaching 113 (both male though the 113-plus age bracket has since been shown on the order of 90% female) are both no longer regarded as having done so.


Remedy: Change the title of the article such that it is not biased towards any group. To call religious accounts a 'myth' is biased towards atheism. To say that these accounts are true are biased towards every religion even though each may actually believe that their counterparts are not true. The word "accounts" is better than myths because it allows religious and humanistic points of view to argue their position in history without having an article making a declaration of his/her atheistic beliefs as if those beliefs are fact. If there are no 'modern' accounts that something happened (even though there are ancient ones), then equally, and opposite, it must be admitted that there is no modern account that something did not happen. Not to mention all of our accounts will seem ancient to some group of people in the distant future. If we follow this author's point of view then we may as well get a head start and say that cars are a myth since when fuel runs out, people will be back to riding horses.
Even today with ] the recordholder at an indisputable age of 122, the facts remain clear:


] (]) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Tyrone Rounds
'''Fewer than fifty people in human history have been documented as reaching the age of 114.'''
<ref>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth</ref>


:There is no "the writer" - Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort with many writers. We know what a myth is, and the word is correct, as evidenced by its use in reliable sources.
'''Fewer than twenty of those people who reached 114 have reached the age of 115.'''
:You lost the rest of your credibility when you wrote "evolution is a myth". This is a science-based encyclopedia. You will be better served at a myth-based encyclopedia such as Conservapedia. Maybe the Talk pages there are more tolerant of endless blathering too. --] (]) 20:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


:The use of 'myth' is not meant to offend the religious, and it shouldn't. For example, many Christian scholars agree that the extreme ages of certain individuals in Genesis are an indication that Genesis was written to be interpreted as mythological. See, for example, (this article, by a Christian scholar, is used as a source in the ] article here). -- '']''<sup>(])</sup> 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yet in the face of the ages that can be validated by investigation,we are still confronted with claims that the observed extremes have been far exceeded - ''longevity myths''.


: I'm all for changing the name.
Leaving aside claims in ] of lives into the thousands of years, and biblical claims like ], there have been reports for centuries that persist today of people decades, even generations, older than have ever been shown authentic.
: 1.) Why presuppose the biblical accounts to be "myth"? As ] said, it's biased towards scientism/naturalism. Here's another possibility: the biblical lifespans are intended to be taken literally, not mythically. And here's a further possibility: the numbers found in the bible are accurate. It's not impossible. Science cannot (and doesn't attempt to) prove the ]. Science cannot (and doesn't attempt to) disprove the existence of the ] or the ], or the possibility of ]. "Scientism" (the ''belief'' that science alone can explain everything, or that everything ought to be explained in naturalistic terms) is not science; it's philosophy. (Bad philosophy, i.e. superstition.)
: 2.) Setting aside the religious figures, why are the ages of Yellow Emperor, Emperor Yao, Emperor Shun, Taejo of Goguryeo, Manuchehr, Lohrasp, Goshtasp, and Piast Kołodziej listed as "mythic"? Their reputed lifespans are not altogether incredible ''even if we presuppose naturalism'' (which I don't suggest we do).
: 3.) Even for cases where the numbers are (literally) false or otherwise inaccurate, I'm hesitant to label them all as "myth". Because the word "myth" is very poorly defined to begin with, but I think "myths" usually involve high levels of symbolism and are based in little to no historical reality. Compare that with the recorded lifespans. Some of this might not be "myth" but mere exaggeration. Others might be genuine myth. But they're probably not all "myth".
: 4.) Maybe this was just poor planning, but why is that modern cases with purported ages above 130 are placed here in ], whereas cases with purported ages below 130 are placed on the list on the separate "]" article? This seems awfully suspect. So we're defining "myth" to mean any age above a certain cutoff number--a number ''arbitrarily'' chosen by the editors? ] (]) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


::#They are a myth, just like the Greek myths or the Celtic myths. What else would they be? You can believe they are true, but Misplaced Pages rules forbid us to claim your opinion as true. See the first paragraph of ].
A '']'' article in ] treated with respect some claims subsequently disproven and retracted, including the notorious ] valley in ], where locals pointed to ancestors' baptismal records as their own. Also in that article were reports of very aged people in ], a mountain region of ], without documentary evidence being cited.
::#It is not incredible that someone named Heracles killed a lion. The myth of the ] is still a myth. Credibility is not the criterion for that.
::#See 2. Myth is not "poorly defined", you are only poorly informed about its definition. See ] and the sources quoted there.
::#Oh, I did not expect a useful question after all that nonsense. I will let others respond to that one. --] (]) 07:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
::#:"Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. Since "myth" is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly controversial." It is not wise to make a highly controversial title. ] (]) 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
::#::By that reasoning, ] is not a wise title for an article.
::#::You have to discern between "controversial" within the general public and within the expert community. Only the latter counts. We cannot keep mum about a fact just because ignorant people will disagree with it. --] (]) 06:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


:There are numerous reason why we consider anybody claims living over 130 years or above as myth
It is typical that extreme longevity claims come from remote areas where recordkeeping is poor, but generally observed ] is rather lower than in the areas where genuine claims are typically found. The Caribbean island nation of ] was lately promoting the allegedly 128-year-old '''Elizabeth Israel''' (1875??-2003) but has a smaller population and lower life expectancy than ], where the documentation is very good and the longevity record is 108.
:1) From the statistics we found that, for any people living more than 100 years old, only 1 out of 1000 person can live 110 years old or older. For most of people who live 110+, they are likely can live a very short time. Giving the probability living to 100 years are 1 out of 100. From this basic statistics, we can learnt that P(100+ life span) is 1/100, P(110+) is 1/100K, P(120+) is 1/100M, and P(130+) is 1/100B. Giving the probability of living 130+ is 1/100 billion, we can say it is almost impossible to live beyond this age limit.
:2) From the historical text, although there are many untrustable historical text, there are many trustable historical text. Say the lifespan of emporer, take china as example, the average is less than 40 years and the maximum is 89 years old. That means that ancient lifespan, both in terms of average and maximum, can consider as far less than today.
:3) The term myth literally means supernatural stories or extraordinary stories. Of course living 130+ stories are extraordinary stories, so it is a myth. So I think stories and myth are the same term in this case.] (]) 03:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


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


== Add Rama and Dasharatha for Hinduism ==
The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in ] that a Chinese man, '''Li Chung-yun''', born in ], had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original).


] a popular ] of ] ruled his kingdom ] for 11,000 years according to the ]. Source:. Rama's father ] lived for more than 60,000 years Source:. '''I am unable to edit this page to add these. If anyone can edit please add these 2.''' ] (]) 19:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
In prior centuries there have been other claims, one of the best-known being ], introduced to ] in ] with the claim that he was 152 years old, who promptly died and was buried in ]. Greater English claims include those of the allegedly-169-year-old '''Henry Jenkins''' (apparently concocted to support testimony in a court case about events a century before) and the supposedly 207-year-old '''Thomas Carn''' (died in ] by most reports).


== Add Taṇhaṅkara and Vipassī for Buddhism ==
Longevity myths did not come in for serious scrutiny until the work of W.J. Thoms in ], and the odd wire correspondent looking for a captivating filler reports extreme undocumented claims to this day: in early ] a ]ese man claimed to have been born in ], citing as evidence a card issued in ]. In ] ],a Chinese news service claimed (incorrectly) that the Guinness Book had recognized a woman in ] as being 131.


] lived for 100,000 years. ] lived for either 80,000 or 100,000 years. In ]'s time, the longevity of humans was 84,000 years. Sources are already given in those respective pages. ] (]) 19:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Responsible validation of longevity claims involves investigation of records following the claimant from birth to the present, and claims far outside the demonstrated records regularly fail such scrutiny. The ] ] has public death records of over 100 people said to have died in their 160s to 190s, but often a quick look at the file immediately finds an obvious error.


:Please go ahead and add that ] (]) 14:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The work of sorting genuine ]s is a continuous process, and a news story must never be taken for authoritative fact if no validation is cited.


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


] did ] for 1000 ] (360,000 years in Human years) to please Ganga, to gain the release his 60,000 great-uncles from the curse of saint ]. So, ] '''lived for more than 360,000 years'''. Source: ] (]) 19:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC).
----


'''Edit''': wikipedia now allowed me to edit and I added the last 3 messages.
Why and ] both refer to the same mathematical error? ''"The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in ] that a Chinese man, '''Li Chung-yun''', born in ], had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original)."'' ] 00:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)


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


We are told in the book 'Macrobii' that Nestor lived for 3 generations, but there's no basis/source I know of that the greeks thought that 1 generation == 100 years. There's more evidence to suggest they thought 3 generations == 100 years. Herod. 2:142: "Three generations of men make one hundred years."
::OK,ThanksLouis.ICheckedThe1966HardcoverVersionOfTheGuinnessBook(pp.12-123)AndIStandCorrected.OfCourseThatIsWhyItIsCalledPossibleCopyrightViolations.Thanks] 21:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So change Nestor 300yrs -> 100 yrs
And Tiresias 600yrs -> 200 yrs ] (]) 08:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


== Chesten Marchant ==
Since life expectancy is basically an averege,
IMHO "where the life expectancy is rather lower" is not a valid argument. In most under developed areas life expectancy is very low due to large numbers of infant deaths
] 05:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I believe that Chesten Marchant is a significant enough figure to warrant his own page, as the last reported Cornish monoglot and claims about his age seem to me to be interesting enough to justify it. At the moment, all links to him redirect here, and I cannot figure out how to fix that as he isn't technically red-linked, so I can't see how to create a page for him. Apologies if I'm asking an unnecessary question, I would like to create this page, however, I cannot see how at the moment. Any help would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 20:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
That is NOT correct! Life expectancy is based on median values, not averages. For example, suppose you have five people die at ages 0, 13, 41, 56, and 73. The AVERAGE is 36.6 (0+13+41+56+73)/5. The life expectancy, however, is 41--the median value. When added up to millions of people, there is still a difference, as you pointed out the infant mortalities tend to weigh down the AVERAGES but have little effect on the MEDIAN or 50% mark, which in most countries occurs in the 70's range.

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

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

==The name of this article is wrong: it should be Longevity claims==
I oppose to the name of this article. If this article is meant in the popular meaning of the word myth (an untrue, popular story) in contrast to the sociological meaning (a unverifiable story that is important for the group) then I think the title is wrong. The word myth in its popular meaning implies that it is untrue but in many cases this article fails to supply proof of the lack of veracity of these longevity claims hence the right word is claim, not myth. Misplaced Pages articles do not get their names because the writers want to make a point but they get their names to provide the reader with factual information. ] 22:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

:This article is specifically concerned with untrue claims,and the reasons they should not be taken at face value.The phenomenon of making unsupported claims of longevity has been known throughout history,and ''the burden of proof is on the claimant'''.An article that encourages respect for unsupported assertions in the name of "NPOV" is ''not'' providing factual information,but obscuring it.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/] 17:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me say that a separate article, "longevity claims," could be established. In Louis's "longevity myths" article, he cites only extreme claims that are obviously false--and not only that, but these claims often take on nationalistic-myth or ethnic-myth overtones. The recent Elizabeth Israel myth was turned into a tourist industry, school play, etc. for Dominica.

A separate article for "longevity claims" could include supercentenarians whose age is not entirely proven but for whom either some evidence suggests is true, or the claim is within the realm of possibility--i.e., 110th birthday--and was made more on an individual basis than as a banner of nationalism, as was the case with Thomas Parr of England, Christian Drakenberg, Shirali Mislimov, Javier Perreira, etc.] 09:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To resolve this issue, I have decided to create a ] article. I believe that these are two separate discourses. This page is better served by explaining the history of the myths of longevity. The longevity claims article can explain the problems with the age verification process, and list some age claims that are partially-validated but not fully authenticated.] 08:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like how biblical "claims" are listed under a heading with the word "myth" in it.
:I agree. The claims that were proven to be a myth should go here, and those that have not been proven should go at ]. Calling religious longevity "myths" may affend people, and these havn't even been proven whether or not they are true or false. -]<sup>(] • ] • ) </sup> 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
::It rather works the other way around, especially given their ages were written down thousands of years after they were presumed to have lived. Either 1) the authors made the ages up, 2) they were "divinely inspired", or 3) the ages were passed down by word of mouth for hundreds of generations, clearly placing them in the category of myths and legends. The most likely explanations by far are #1 and #3, as instances of that phenomenon have been seen countless times, whereas divine inspiration is not documented. So if you want them to be considered more than myth, some evidence for their truth must be shown. ] (]) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Or something.

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


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

== ] ==

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


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

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

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

And this article is out of date!:

Copyright 1987 Asahi News Service
Asahi News Service

APRIL 6, 1987, MONDAY

LENGTH: 391 words

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

DATELINE: TOKYO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Re; Longevity myths ==

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

'''Re; '''Longevity myths'''.'''

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

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

The above claim and link is an example of a "fountain of youth" myth (i.e. quackery). The motivation is to convince unsuspecting victims to buy something, such as mineral water. These myths are always based on some unproven claim, and often involve a paranoid take, such as "what they don't want you to know". Believe me, there is absolutely no substance to the Vilcabamba myth.] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sup>]</sup></font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>]</sub></font>} 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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

== Biblical accounts ==

I'm playing devil's advocate now (though I suppose that since I agree with it I must be somewhat diobolical), but if we're going to classify all of these as myths due to an inability to verify them scientifically, shouldn't we toss all the Biblical claims in this boat (Ark?), too? I think someone said previously that we should make this "longevity claims," and I agree if only for the purpose of consistency, if not also because it's unwise to use Misplaced Pages to make that sort of NPOV statement about a claim's reliability. I think the Biblical example shows us that no matter how silly something seems from a non-believer's standpoint, there ''is'' someone out there who won't classify it as a myth. Sometimes a few billion. ] 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:Someone has recently added an analysis of biblical accounts of longevity--the problem I see is that it's, well, analysis. Is this studied in sources, or is it OR? ] 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
: I read somewhere that the "years" that Methuselah and others supposedly lived for were really months and that the confusion was caused by an error in translation. We don't know for sure what sort of animal a Leviathan really was; so how can we be sure we have translated this part of the Bible correctly? A life span of 930 years is not at all believable based on current evidence. Treat this as months and divide it by 12, and we get a more plausible life span of 77 years. --] 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pul-leeze! Quiz with the lunar-cycle apologism. Two wrongs don't make a right. If these patriarchs were having children at '65' and you divide by 12, what age do you get? No. The book says 930, it means 930. Much the way the characters in Lord of the Rings are thousands of years old. It's fantasy. Quit trying to make it factual when it's not. ] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sup>]</sup></font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>]</sub></font>} 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

===Mohammed al Wasimy===
1875-living?
http://pl.wikipedia.org/Mohammed_al_Wasimy
:And you honestly do believe all this? ] 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

== Longevity records from antiquity ==

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

The above section misses the entire point of the article. The point of the article is that people tended to make up 'myths' about longevity, and that these myths can be defined by the motivations that give rise to them and the factors that cause them. People adding in their two cents is diluting the purpose and focus. Also, there is a 'longevity claims' section for alleged records. This isn't about records; it's about oral history. ] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sup>]</sup></font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>]</sub></font>} 07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

==Myth categories==

Greetings,

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

Also, if someone wants to propose a new category, please do so on the message board. Some gratituous additions have missed the point of this article. The ] article is more appropriate for actual possible claims, such as ages 113 or 115. This article deals mainly with those cases which are scientifically impossible, but are still made for reasons of nationalism, religion, wanting to life forever, etc. ] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sup>]</sup></font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>]</sub></font>} 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

One of these categories should include the genealogies in Genesis. Those people were said to live 800+ years. Not that I believe it, or am a christian, but I feel it should be included. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Emperor Jimmu reference innapropriate ==

Including Emperor Jimmu as an example of Longevity Myths is logically incorrect. Emperor Jimmu was never claimed to have lived particularily long (75 years is hardly a remarkable lifespan). While Jimmu's existance itself might be a myth, his lifespan is of no extraordinary note. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:It isn't indeed: I agree with you. ] 10:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

== Henry Francisco ==

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

==Proposed move: Longevity narratives==
I propose renaming article to "longevity narratives", "longevity stories", "longevity lore", or a similar ] title for several reasons. I am primarily interested in Biblical longevity,

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

but seek to weight this coverage properly with other traditions.
#] is being thoroughly ignored.
##Even the rule that "myth" should be used evenhandedly, applied in the section headings, is broken in the lead and elsewhere as if myth-narrative-story-tale are all equal, directly against guidance.
##The article makes no attempt at "utmost care to" avoid informal use or to frame itself within disciplines of sociology or mythology; neither are mentioned, nor hardly even cited.
##"Myth" is an offensive word to many, even when used formally by sociologists to describe lore with adherents in the billions. All monotheistic faiths contain large components that hold that Abraham lived to 175 and Sarah to 127.
##The word "claim" is also a word to avoid, although it is much more defensible in that individual unverified claims are much more even-handedly treated and do not have the cultural following of lore.
#The article is rambling and still lacking clear scope after all these years.

:Actually, the article had a clear focus in the beginning. As usual, articles on Misplaced Pages begin to lose focus in the same way that Congressional legislation becomes loaded down with pork-barrel spending...each has their own agenda.

If you are offended by this article, or others such as ones on ], then leave. The article should not be based on your personal POV but on what the literature and outside sources say. A myth, by definition, is not provable using the scientific method. If you wish to go by faith, be my guest.] 06:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I also infer a fear that listing too many specific cases from a particular tradition would be imbalance. Rather, the indication of how many claims come from each tradition would be worthwhile. It is a very basic principle that all historical claimants meeting appropriate cutoff points should have a home on these WP articles, just as all modern claimants, that meet various cutoffs by category, are listed.
##It is entirely possible that one scope consideration might be: ''narratives'' concerns generic claims that populations rather than individuals are prone to longevity, as demonstrated by (usually) a plurality of same-source claims; while ''claims'' refer to individuals without a population-related longevity explanation, where most sources refer only to one individual. In this case the seven "examples" cases and a few others would go back to ''claims'', while groupings of lore-based claims would stay here.
##Another way of saying this is: historical compilations of longevity (Sumer, Torah, Pliny) confer notability on the ''compilers'', i.e., the creators of lore categories; modern compilations of longevity, due to better verification, background the compilers (Eckler, GRG) and notability shifts to the ''claimants''.
##Subject breakdown may be better as culture rather than myth type.
#The attempt to create a longevity claims article to handle widely-believed lore has been vitiated by the classification (as arbitrary as other longevity articles) that only longevity claims of 115-130 with birth-death dates are considered, which relegates much of the lore back to "myths". So ] does not list, for instance, Moses and Aaron, even though their dates have been estimated with the precision appropriate to the historical period.
#Unscientific Google: "longevity story" 3.83M, 173 exact; "longevity claim" 2.25M, 181 exact; "longevity myth" 771K, 119 exact; "longevity narrative" 349K, 15 exact. Favors "longevity stories", which is closer to but still does not have the damping effect of "myths".
As a related proposal, it seems to me that rather than an in-text list of Biblical longevity, a new template "Biblical longevity" would be preferred. This would allow text to flow around the otherwise sparse data; it would allow smaller font and a narrow table; and it would also be transferable to some of the shorter patriarch articles to give an indication of their statistical place within Biblical longevity narratives. It would only have 3 columns, for name/link, age, and LXX age when different. I don't see any drawbacks to this idea. OTOH, I can imagine that renaming might need a bit more demonstration of consensus first. I will also experiment with some rewordings under ] to see how they look; I would ask that anyone who cares to revert do so on an edit-by-edit rather than bulk basis. ] 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

:When i first saw this proposal I worried a bit about changing the name on an article that has been that way for years. But after presenting your case I can see that ] would be a good idea. Using the term narrative sounds a bit academic although it sounds the most neutral, and "claims" sounds a bit contentious in the same sort of way as "myths". ] (]) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

:I '''support''' the move to "Longevity narratives". "Narratives" sounds more academic than "stories" and less controversial than "myths". --] (]) 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

::"Stories" is not an option--this article is not about what you read to your child at bedtime. "Narratives" completely misses the point: that these are myths..."stories" widely believed to be true for reasons that often involve religious, spiritual, or faith-based "narratives" but which go against the scientific evidence. It's a shame that in 2009 scientists have to defend the use of the word "myth," which has already been explained that is not meant to be offensive...for example, "creation myth" is a story meant to explain why the Earth or world was created. Do you really think it took 7 days for that to happen?] 06:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

==Unnecessary Sentence==
I removed the sentence "Both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past. The application of modern demographic data to ancient eras is unclear." because it adds nothing to the article and is inaccurate. We are talking about people who lived, at most, 10,000 years ago. Biology tells us that humans now are exactly the same as humans 10,000 years ago; 10,000 years is less than a nanosecond in the human evolutionary time-line. Mentioning creation in this article is ridiculous, as creation is a religious not a scientific belief, and Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. --] (]) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

::You are right for the wrong reason. The old concept of evolution taking "millions of years" has given was to "microevolution"...the understanding that evolutionary change happens far more rapidly than previously thought. It is now thought that homo sapiens could have evolved into a separate species in just 150,000 years, not millions...and the changes made in 10,000 years are significant. So no, we are NOT the same as we were in 8000 BCE. However, the statement added appeared to be from a religious apologist, and so should be removed.] 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

:Knew I'd get that sort of thought from someone, but would you mind logging in next time, and not putting your new section at the ''top'' of talk? Thanks. There are a couple problems with the IP's thought. First, just as I didn't provide a source (and admit it), you didn't source the flat claim that humans now are exactly the same as 10,000 years ago (and many not realize it). To oversimplify, I understand that evolution teaches that 1 million years ago men were essentially monkeys, so at 10,000 years ago you have 99% man 1% monkey, which is different enough to warrant the disclaimer. (If 10,000 years is a nanosecond, then 10 billion is a millisecond, right? Please do not exaggerate.) Second, you assume that these people lived no more than 10,000 years ago, which seems to arise from the assumption that no written history exists prior to 10,000 years ago, which does not seem to accord with history as I understand it either. Third, this article has a significant section on the Bible and Adam ''in exactly the context of special creation''. Kind of silly to talk about Adam and not Creation, as this is an article about religious beliefs; the people who wrote the Bible believed in creation and thus believed in the possibility of biological change producing past longevity, just as millions do today. Fourth, you join the whole debate by implying that creationism and evolutionism are not parallel or that one is more scientific (or religious) than the other, and that's a fun rabbit trail for someday when you want to fix (what I perceive as) the errors in that philosophy, but that won't help build WP much.
:Anyway, the point is that, thinking it over, I realized I really need a bit more consensus before posting that thought to too many articles. We really need a boilerplate in the 38 articles on Biblical alleged supercentenarians that conveys some thoughts like (1) today the record in 122, but (2) that far back who knows, and (3) here are some POVs about the phenomenon of Biblical supercentenarians. On (2) particularly it seems that with known longevity of trees and various animals, with evolution being fixated on change over time, and with the Bible and fundamentalists proposing reasonable data (unlike the Sumerian King List), we cannot say human longevity has ''always'' been 122ish or less without really good sourcing of claims of historical knowledge, such as those you made unsourced. I simply thought it very fair to observe that both sides believe in past biological (and environmental) change and so any proleptic conclusions are inappropriate. My first inadequate draft of boilerplate for many of the shorter Bible articles is below. Thoughts?
<nowiki>==Longevity==</nowiki>
''In recent history, the oldest person documented beyond reasonable doubt, ], died in 1997, aged 122; demographic study of modern human ] gives odds of trillions to one against humans today reaching 130. However, both ] and ] indicate that the nature of human ] was significantly different in the ancient past; the application of modern demographic data to ancient eras is unclear. The extreme ages of the Hebrew Bible exhibit a decrease over time, and the Biblical upper limit of longevity has been categorized by ] as having four successive plateaus of 1,000, 500, 200, and finally 120 years.''

''Accordingly, these very long lifespans have been a source of much speculation. Biblical ]s hold that ], loss of the water-canopy ], and ] breakdown all contribute to decreased lifespans. ]s hold variously that the yearly and monthly cycle were confused, simplifying some dates; that numbers were converted incorrectly; or that other reinterpretation is necessary. If "year" is interpreted consistently as "month", some numbers become more reasonable, but other numbers become more unreasonable (fathering children at age 5).<nowiki><ref>{{cite book|author=]|title=The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings|page=159|date=1976|publisher=]|location=]|quote=Such an interpretation would have made Enoch only five years old when his son was born!}}</ref></nowiki>''

:I just wanted to point out that your statement of "that evolution teaches that 1 million years ago men were essentially monkeys, so at 10,000 years ago you have 99% man 1% monkey, which is different enough to warrant the disclaimer." The use of the term "monkeys" is a misnomer. Humans evolved from "apes" (semantics, yes I know), and last shared a common ancestor with apes 5 million years ago. Modern humans evolved into a separate species about half a million years ago. Your assumption that humans were 1% "monkey" a million years ago is not entirely incorrect, but it is not exactly right. The line between species is nebulous, and in fact many people would argue that humans are essentially "monkeys" even today, and that there is little difference between apes and men. Your statement that 1 million years ago men were different enough for us to say we cannot reasonably assume the length of their lifespan, is wrong in two ways. 1- Homo sapiens didn't exist a million years ago. 2- We can reasonably assume that lifespan has not changed drastically between species, considering the mostly similar traits between them (e.g., you wouldn't have an immediate ancestor species living 50 years while their offspring species lives to be 500 years, it just doesn't work that way).

:Regardless of the implications of evolution, it is rare for any species to live beyond 100-200 years. Most long-living species are either trees or reptiles with slow metabolisms. In fact, most of the evidence points to the fact that humans lived ''shorter'' lifespans in the past, not longer. So to imply that evolution supports the claim that humans had longer lifespans in the past is completely false in every way. Simply saying that evolution implies that humans had "different" lifespans in the past seems like a dirty way to force evolution and creationism into the same bed, when clearly they disagree. I'm not here to argue over whether creationism is scientific, or whether evolution is religious, I'm just here to let you know the statement "However, both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past" is misleading without including the fact that evolution supports the exact opposite of creationist claims. --] (]) 14:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
*I did say I was oversimplifying. I did not imply that evolution supports longevity claims, but that the issue can be finessed because both interpretative schemes teach that biology is not constant and nothing really can be said definitively.
*Doesn't evolution teach that forms with a "life"span of 0 years evolved into all the forms extant today, including trees that reach circa 5,000 years?
*If many people think there's little man-ape difference, why aren't ape longevity claims in this article?
*If many people think there's little man-ape difference, then why do we set the Homo sapiens bar at .5 million years?
*Since science demonstrates that much larger lifeforms were once very prevalent, why would it automatically rule out much older lifeforms, which cannot be proven or disproven except by documentary or tree-ring-style evidence?
*So what sentence do you propose as an alternative to provide the necessary balance that science ''knows nothing'' about whether the dinosaurs' environment or the history of ultraviolet could have contributed to greatly increased lifespans in the past?
*If the two cannot be harmonized ("same bed"), we can say those within the "mythos" believe X, while reliable sources within the scientific POV teach that no Homo sapiens ''could ever'' have lived for more than X years. Surely you have such a source? Finding such is the tenor of my suggested finesse. Thank you. ] 20:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:I think you missed my point about similarities between apes and men. Also, science does not "rule out much older lifeforms". My point was the evidence suggests that the human lifespan has increased during recorded history (with the exclusion of many of the "mythical" claims made included in this article). Actually, it has very little to do with evolution. Evolution has no stance regarding the lifespan of humans, it is merely a theory of the origin of species. What the sentence should say is "However, both science and longevity narratives indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past. Science claims human life expectancy has increased overall since the stone age (see ]), while longevity narratives suggest that life expectancy has decreased." This would be a more accurate statement. --] (]) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

::That's not true, longevity has much to do with evolution. It's not my job to educate you, but you need to read up on recent (last 20 years) evolutionary theory before making comments such as these.] 06:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if we don't know where the bar is between apes and men in the past, the article scope becomes ambiguous, doesn't it? Only some assumption of fixity of species in the historic era solves that problem. Anyway, can I combine your statements as follows? ''Both scientific studies and longevity narratives indicate that the nature of human ] was significantly different in the ancient past. Scientific studies claim human ] has increased overall since the ] but do not rule out much older human lifeforms, while longevity narratives imply that life expectancy has decreased within the historical period.'' ("Science" is not a source.) ] 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

::Yes, that is a much more accurate statement, even better than my version. I'm glad we could reach an agreement. Meanwhile, my point about apes and men... if you believe in evolution, then you consider humans as part of the family of apes (or the larger order of primates). Apes are not part of this article because this article is about human longevity, not about chimps and bonobos, which are a different species of apes. If you read the articles ] or ], you will see that humans are included. So... my point was, (according to evolution) humans are simply another species of apes. We set the bar at .5 million years because that is when the species of modern humans is thought to have separated from their ancestors. If you wanted to start an article about the longevity of apes, then you could include chimps with humans, but that is not the scope of this article. --] (]) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:48, 10 July 2024

List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 September 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Longevity myths. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Longevity myths article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLongevity Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconMythology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity: Bible Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as Low-importance).

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

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

Proof: Mirriam Webster Dictionary, Definition of myth 1a:a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

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

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

Trounds2 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Tyrone Rounds

There is no "the writer" - Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort with many writers. We know what a myth is, and the word is correct, as evidenced by its use in reliable sources.
You lost the rest of your credibility when you wrote "evolution is a myth". This is a science-based encyclopedia. You will be better served at a myth-based encyclopedia such as Conservapedia. Maybe the Talk pages there are more tolerant of endless blathering too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The use of 'myth' is not meant to offend the religious, and it shouldn't. For example, many Christian scholars agree that the extreme ages of certain individuals in Genesis are an indication that Genesis was written to be interpreted as mythological. See, for example, here (this article, by a Christian scholar, is used as a source in the Longevity myths article here). -- Pingumeister 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm all for changing the name.
1.) Why presuppose the biblical accounts to be "myth"? As Trounds2 said, it's biased towards scientism/naturalism. Here's another possibility: the biblical lifespans are intended to be taken literally, not mythically. And here's a further possibility: the numbers found in the bible are accurate. It's not impossible. Science cannot (and doesn't attempt to) prove the uniformity of nature. Science cannot (and doesn't attempt to) disprove the existence of the supernatural or the preternatural, or the possibility of miracles. "Scientism" (the belief that science alone can explain everything, or that everything ought to be explained in naturalistic terms) is not science; it's philosophy. (Bad philosophy, i.e. superstition.)
2.) Setting aside the religious figures, why are the ages of Yellow Emperor, Emperor Yao, Emperor Shun, Taejo of Goguryeo, Manuchehr, Lohrasp, Goshtasp, and Piast Kołodziej listed as "mythic"? Their reputed lifespans are not altogether incredible even if we presuppose naturalism (which I don't suggest we do).
3.) Even for cases where the numbers are (literally) false or otherwise inaccurate, I'm hesitant to label them all as "myth". Because the word "myth" is very poorly defined to begin with, but I think "myths" usually involve high levels of symbolism and are based in little to no historical reality. Compare that with the recorded lifespans. Some of this might not be "myth" but mere exaggeration. Others might be genuine myth. But they're probably not all "myth".
4.) Maybe this was just poor planning, but why is that modern cases with purported ages above 130 are placed here in this section of the "myth" page, whereas cases with purported ages below 130 are placed on the list on the separate "Longevity claims" article? This seems awfully suspect. So we're defining "myth" to mean any age above a certain cutoff number--a number arbitrarily chosen by the editors? 2601:49:C301:D810:70CB:FE12:C6C6:ABB1 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. They are a myth, just like the Greek myths or the Celtic myths. What else would they be? You can believe they are true, but Misplaced Pages rules forbid us to claim your opinion as true. See the first paragraph of Myth.
  2. It is not incredible that someone named Heracles killed a lion. The myth of the Nemean lion is still a myth. Credibility is not the criterion for that.
  3. See 2. Myth is not "poorly defined", you are only poorly informed about its definition. See Myth and the sources quoted there.
  4. Oh, I did not expect a useful question after all that nonsense. I will let others respond to that one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. Since "myth" is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly controversial." It is not wise to make a highly controversial title. Lightest (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    By that reasoning, Human evolution is not a wise title for an article.
    You have to discern between "controversial" within the general public and within the expert community. Only the latter counts. We cannot keep mum about a fact just because ignorant people will disagree with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
There are numerous reason why we consider anybody claims living over 130 years or above as myth
1) From the statistics we found that, for any people living more than 100 years old, only 1 out of 1000 person can live 110 years old or older. For most of people who live 110+, they are likely can live a very short time. Giving the probability living to 100 years are 1 out of 100. From this basic statistics, we can learnt that P(100+ life span) is 1/100, P(110+) is 1/100K, P(120+) is 1/100M, and P(130+) is 1/100B. Giving the probability of living 130+ is 1/100 billion, we can say it is almost impossible to live beyond this age limit.
2) From the historical text, although there are many untrustable historical text, there are many trustable historical text. Say the lifespan of emporer, take china as example, the average is less than 40 years and the maximum is 89 years old. That means that ancient lifespan, both in terms of average and maximum, can consider as far less than today.
3) The term myth literally means supernatural stories or extraordinary stories. Of course living 130+ stories are extraordinary stories, so it is a myth. So I think stories and myth are the same term in this case.Joeccho (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Add Rama and Dasharatha for Hinduism

Rama a popular avatar of Vishnu ruled his kingdom Ayodhya for 11,000 years according to the Ramayana. Source:Balakanda sarga 1 shloka 97. Rama's father Dasharatha lived for more than 60,000 years Source:Balakanda sarga 20 shloka 10. I am unable to edit this page to add these. If anyone can edit please add these 2. Iamsreeman (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Taṇhaṅkara and Vipassī for Buddhism

Taṇhaṅkara lived for 100,000 years. Vipassī lived for either 80,000 or 100,000 years. In Vipassī's time, the longevity of humans was 84,000 years. Sources are already given in those respective pages. Iamsreeman (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add that Lightest (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Bhagiratha for Hinduism

Bhagiratha did tapas for 1000 deva or god years (360,000 years in Human years) to please Ganga, to gain the release his 60,000 great-uncles from the curse of saint Kapila. So, Bhagiratha lived for more than 360,000 years. Source: https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03108.htm Iamsreeman (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC).

Edit: wikipedia now allowed me to edit and I added the last 3 messages.

Fix Greek Mythology ages

We are told in the book 'Macrobii' that Nestor lived for 3 generations, but there's no basis/source I know of that the greeks thought that 1 generation == 100 years. There's more evidence to suggest they thought 3 generations == 100 years. Herod. 2:142: "Three generations of men make one hundred years." So change Nestor 300yrs -> 100 yrs And Tiresias 600yrs -> 200 yrs 110.22.22.218 (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Chesten Marchant

I believe that Chesten Marchant is a significant enough figure to warrant his own page, as the last reported Cornish monoglot and claims about his age seem to me to be interesting enough to justify it. At the moment, all links to him redirect here, and I cannot figure out how to fix that as he isn't technically red-linked, so I can't see how to create a page for him. Apologies if I'm asking an unnecessary question, I would like to create this page, however, I cannot see how at the moment. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Deadexcel (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories: