Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:51, 27 April 2009

Longevity Start‑class Mid‑importance

This 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

What sorts of records

What sorts of records are accepted as adequate documentation ("demonstrated records") ? When did people start using those sorts of records ? Did those sorts of records exist over 300 years ago ? --DavidCary 21:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • 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?!" DS 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

verbatim ?

Moved from article because much of the text is copied verbatim from the printed Guinness Book of Records . See http://207.178.248.67/editorial/boston/0801/080601.html for an example of a rewritten version of the same information.

Longevity myths have been around for as long as human records. As the Guinness Book of World Records stated in numerous editions from the 1960s to 1980s, "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity."

At the time those words were written Guinness had never acknowledged anyone as having reached the age of 114, but longevity has increased in recent years. The first three people to be acknowledged by Guinness as reaching 114 have all been subjected to doubt by others,and the first two people Guinness accepted as reaching 113 (both male though the 113-plus age bracket has since been shown on the order of 90% female) are both no longer regarded as having done so.

Even today with Jeanne Calment the recordholder at an indisputable age of 122, the facts remain clear:

Fewer than fifty people in human history have been documented as reaching the age of 114.

Fewer than twenty of those people who reached 114 have reached the age of 115.

Yet in the face of the ages that can be validated by investigation,we are still confronted with claims that the observed extremes have been far exceeded - longevity myths.

Leaving aside claims in mythology of lives into the thousands of years, and biblical claims like Methuselah, there have been reports for centuries that persist today of people decades, even generations, older than have ever been shown authentic.

A National Geographic article in 1973 treated with respect some claims subsequently disproven and retracted, including the notorious Vilcabamba valley in Ecuador, where locals pointed to ancestors' baptismal records as their own. Also in that article were reports of very aged people in Hunza, a mountain region of Pakistan, without documentary evidence being cited.

It is typical that extreme longevity claims come from remote areas where recordkeeping is poor, but generally observed life expectancy is rather lower than in the areas where genuine claims are typically found. The Caribbean island nation of Dominica was lately promoting the allegedly 128-year-old Elizabeth Israel (1875??-2003) but has a smaller population and lower life expectancy than Iceland, where the documentation is very good and the longevity record is 108.

The Caucasus mountain region of Abkhazia was the subject of extreme claims for decades, inspired by the desire of Stalin to believe that he would live a very long time, the most extreme claim there being that of Shirali Mislimov (1805??-1973). An earlier claim of similar lifespan from South America was for Javier Pereira (said to have been determined to be 167 years old by a dentist looking at his teeth!). There have likewise been a scattering of extreme claims from Africa, the most recent being Namibia's Anna Visser, who died in January 2004 at an alleged 125 or 126.

The most extreme claim in the 20th century was a wire service story announcing in 1933 that a Chinese man, Li Chung-yun, born in 1680, had died at age 256 (mathematical error as in original).

In prior centuries there have been other claims, one of the best-known being Thomas Parr, introduced to London in 1635 with the claim that he was 152 years old, who promptly died and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Greater English claims include those of the allegedly-169-year-old Henry Jenkins (apparently concocted to support testimony in a court case about events a century before) and the supposedly 207-year-old Thomas Carn (died in 1588 by most reports).

Longevity myths did not come in for serious scrutiny until the work of W.J. Thoms in 1873, and the odd wire correspondent looking for a captivating filler reports extreme undocumented claims to this day: in early 2000 a Nepalese man claimed to have been born in 1832, citing as evidence a card issued in 1988. In December 2003,a Chinese news service claimed (incorrectly) that the Guinness Book had recognized a woman in Saudi Arabia as being 131.

Responsible validation of longevity claims involves investigation of records following the claimant from birth to the present, and claims far outside the demonstrated records regularly fail such scrutiny. The United States Social Security Administration has public death records of over 100 people said to have died in their 160s to 190s, but often a quick look at the file immediately finds an obvious error.

The work of sorting genuine supercentenarians is a continuous process, and a news story must never be taken for authoritative fact if no validation is cited.

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

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

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

OK,ThanksLouis.ICheckedThe1966HardcoverVersionOfTheGuinnessBook(pp.12-123)AndIStandCorrected.OfCourseThatIsWhyItIsCalledPossibleCopyrightViolations.ThanksBCorr ¤ Брайен 21:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since life expectancy is basically an averege,

IMHO "where the  life expectancy is rather lower" is not a valid argument. In most under developed areas life expectancy is very low due to large numbers of infant deaths

HussaynKhariq 05:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is NOT correct! Life expectancy is based on median values, not averages. For example, suppose you have five people die at ages 0, 13, 41, 56, and 73. The AVERAGE is 36.6 (0+13+41+56+73)/5. The life expectancy, however, is 41--the median value. When added up to millions of people, there is still a difference, as you pointed out the infant mortalities tend to weigh down the AVERAGES but have little effect on the MEDIAN or 50% mark, which in most countries occurs in the 70's range.

A little more about statistics: only about 1 in 2 billion people can expect to live to age 115, and only 1 in 10 billion to age 120. So, do you really think age 167 is possible? I don't!Ryoung122 09:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Life expectancy is not only life expectancy at birth.Actuarial study records the proportions of people reaching various ages,and the average life expectancy remaining after various ages are reached.It's true that the life expectancy after childhood may exceed life expectancy at birth in countries with high infant mortality,but nonetheless the number reaching extreme ages is also small,and demonstrated survival curves for those within high ages show a high mortality rate that indicates against accepting extreme claims.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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. Andries 22:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This article is specifically concerned with untrue claims,and the reasons they should not be taken at face value.The phenomenon of making unsupported claims of longevity has been known throughout history,and the burden of proof is on the claimant'.An article that encourages respect for unsupported assertions in the name of "NPOV" is not providing factual information,but obscuring it.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

A separate article for "longevity claims" could include supercentenarians whose age is not entirely proven but for whom either some evidence suggests is true, or the claim is within the realm of possibility--i.e., 110th birthday--and was made more on an individual basis than as a banner of nationalism, as was the case with Thomas Parr of England, Christian Drakenberg, Shirali Mislimov, Javier Perreira, etc.Ryoung122 09:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To resolve this issue, I have decided to create a Longevity Claims article. I believe that these are two separate discourses. This page is better served by explaining the history of the myths of longevity. The longevity claims article can explain the problems with the age verification process, and list some age claims that are partially-validated but not fully authenticated.Ryoung122 08:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like how biblical "claims" are listed under a heading with the word "myth" in it.

I agree. The claims that were proven to be a myth should go here, and those that have not been proven should go at Longevity claims. Calling religious longevity "myths" may affend people, and these havn't even been proven whether or not they are true or false. -AMK152 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It rather works the other way around, especially given their ages were written down thousands of years after they were presumed to have lived. Either 1) the authors made the ages up, 2) they were "divinely inspired", or 3) the ages were passed down by word of mouth for hundreds of generations, clearly placing them in the category of myths and legends. The most likely explanations by far are #1 and #3, as instances of that phenomenon have been seen countless times, whereas divine inspiration is not documented. So if you want them to be considered more than myth, some evidence for their truth must be shown. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

Benito Martinez

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

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

Shigechiyo Izumi

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

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

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

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

And this article is out of date!:

Copyright 1987 Asahi News Service Asahi News Service

APRIL 6, 1987, MONDAY

LENGTH: 391 words

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

DATELINE: TOKYO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re; Longevity myths

Removed this text by User:193.203.149.125 from the article: seemed unencyclopedic. --Sum0 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.R Young {ł_talk} 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

'...

 Indeed, dietary moderation is a consistent feature of the

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

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

Biblical accounts

I'm playing devil's advocate now (though I suppose that since I agree with it I must be somewhat diobolical), but if we're going to classify all of these as myths due to an inability to verify them scientifically, shouldn't we toss all the Biblical claims in this boat (Ark?), too? I think someone said previously that we should make this "longevity claims," and I agree if only for the purpose of consistency, if not also because it's unwise to use 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. Fearwig 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has recently added an analysis of biblical accounts of longevity--the problem I see is that it's, well, analysis. Is this studied in sources, or is it OR? Fearwig 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the "years" that Methuselah and others supposedly lived for were really months and that the confusion was caused by an error in translation. We don't know for sure what sort of animal a Leviathan really was; so how can we be sure we have translated this part of the Bible correctly? A life span of 930 years is not at all believable based on current evidence. Treat this as months and divide it by 12, and we get a more plausible life span of 77 years. --B.d.mills 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pul-leeze! Quiz with the lunar-cycle apologism. Two wrongs don't make a right. If these patriarchs were having children at '65' and you divide by 12, what age do you get? No. The book says 930, it means 930. Much the way the characters in Lord of the Rings are thousands of years old. It's fantasy. Quit trying to make it factual when it's not. R Young {ł_talk} 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? Extremely sexy 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Longevity records from antiquity

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

The above section misses the entire point of the article. The point of the article is that people tended to make up 'myths' about longevity, and that these myths can be defined by the motivations that give rise to them and the factors that cause them. People adding in their two cents is diluting the purpose and focus. Also, there is a 'longevity claims' section for alleged records. This isn't about records; it's about oral history. R Young {ł_talk} 07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Myth categories

Greetings,

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

Also, if someone wants to propose a new category, please do so on the message board. Some gratituous additions have missed the point of this article. The longevity claims article is more appropriate for actual possible claims, such as ages 113 or 115. This article deals mainly with those cases which are scientifically impossible, but are still made for reasons of nationalism, religion, wanting to life forever, etc. R Young {ł_talk} 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

One of these categories should include the genealogies in Genesis. Those people were said to live 800+ years. Not that I believe it, or am a christian, but I feel it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.128.28 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Jimmu reference innapropriate

Including Emperor Jimmu as an example of Longevity Myths is logically incorrect. Emperor Jimmu was never claimed to have lived particularily long (75 years is hardly a remarkable lifespan). While Jimmu's existance itself might be a myth, his lifespan is of no extraordinary note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.84.2 (talk • contribs)

It isn't indeed: I agree with you. Extremely sexy 10:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: some Japanese emperors were stated to have reigned for over 100 years, and the purpose of the age-exaggeration was to extend the 'reign dates' of Emperor Jimmu Tenno back into time. Most modern Japan historians believe that, if he existed, he lived some 1,000 years later. The Japanese-emperor cases are relevant because they offer one reason for age inflation.74.237.28.5 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, in this case the extension of age of the in-between emperors was made in part to back-date Emperor Jimmu's status further in the past.Ryoung122 07:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Francisco

Any thoughts on expanding the list of exaggerated claims? There's a claim of the oldest American that is all over the Genealogy websites, if you research surname Francisco, you will find most Americans will try to link into "Old Henry" Francisco, who, according to a 1939 Ripley's Believe it or Not article, was the oldest soldier in the American Revolution enlisting at age 91 in 1777, making him born in 1686 with a death in 1820, at 134. Check it out http://whitehall.bloatedtoe.com/henry-francisco.html Through The Lens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.240.220 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move: Longevity narratives

I propose renaming article to "longevity narratives", "longevity stories", "longevity lore", or a similar WP:NPOV title for several reasons. I am primarily interested in Biblical longevity,

In other words, you seek to hijack science with creationism.Ryoung122 06:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

but seek to weight this coverage properly with other traditions.

1. Guidance on use of word "myth" is being thoroughly ignored.
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
   3. "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.
   4. The word "claim" is also a word to avoid, although it is much more defensible in that individual unverified claims are much more even-handedly treated and do not have the cultural following of lore.
2. The article is rambling and still lacking clear scope after all these years.

Actually, the article had a clear focus in the beginning. As usual, articles on 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 pornography, then leave. The article should not be based on your personal POV but on what the literature and outside sources say. A myth, by definition, is not provable using the scientific method. If you wish to go by faith, be my guest.Ryoung122 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.

1. 1. It is entirely possible that one scope consideration might be: narratives concerns generic claims that populations rather than individuals are prone to longevity, as demonstrated by (usually) a plurality of same-source claims; while claims refer to individuals without a population-related longevity explanation, where most sources refer only to one individual. In this case the seven "examples" cases and a few others would go back to claims, while groupings of lore-based claims would stay here.
   2. Another way of saying this is: historical compilations of longevity (Sumer, Torah, Pliny) confer notability on the compilers, i.e., the creators of lore categories; modern compilations of longevity, due to better verification, background the compilers (Eckler, GRG) and notability shifts to the claimants.
   3. Subject breakdown may be better as culture rather than myth type.
2. The attempt to create a longevity claims article to handle widely-believed lore has been vitiated by the classification (as arbitrary as other longevity articles) that only longevity claims of 115-130 with birth-death dates are considered, which relegates much of the lore back to "myths". So longevity claims does not list, for instance, Moses and Aaron, even though their dates have been estimated with the precision appropriate to the historical period.
3. 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 WP:BRD to see how they look; I would ask that anyone who cares to revert do so on an edit-by-edit rather than bulk basis. JJB 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I support the move to "Longevity narratives". "Narratives" sounds more academic than "stories" and less controversial than "myths". --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Stories" is not an option--this article is not about what you read to your child at bedtime. "Narratives" completely misses the point: that these are myths..."stories" widely believed to be true for reasons that often involve religious, spiritual, or faith-based "narratives" but which go against the scientific evidence. It's a shame that in 2009 scientists have to defend the use of the word "myth," which has already been explained that is not meant to be offensive...for example, "creation myth" is a story meant to explain why the Earth or world was created. Do you really think it took 7 days for that to happen?Ryoung122 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. --128.151.86.184 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right for the wrong reason. The old concept of evolution taking "millions of years" has given was to "microevolution"...the understanding that evolutionary change happens far more rapidly than previously thought. It is now thought that homo sapiens could have evolved into a separate species in just 150,000 years, not millions...and the changes made in 10,000 years are significant. So no, we are NOT the same as we were in 8000 BCE. However, the statement added appeared to be from a religious apologist, and so should be removed.Ryoung122 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Knew I'd get that sort of thought from someone, but would you mind logging in next time, and not putting your new section at the top of talk? Thanks. There are a couple problems with the IP's thought. First, just as I didn't provide a source (and admit it), you didn't source the flat claim that humans now are exactly the same as 10,000 years ago (and many not realize it). To oversimplify, I understand that evolution teaches that 1 million years ago men were essentially monkeys, so at 10,000 years ago you have 99% man 1% monkey, which is different enough to warrant the disclaimer. (If 10,000 years is a nanosecond, then 10 billion is a millisecond, right? Please do not exaggerate.) Second, you assume that these people lived no more than 10,000 years ago, which seems to arise from the assumption that no written history exists prior to 10,000 years ago, which does not seem to accord with history as I understand it either. Third, this article has a significant section on the Bible and Adam in exactly the context of special creation. Kind of silly to talk about Adam and not Creation, as this is an article about religious beliefs; the people who wrote the Bible believed in creation and thus believed in the possibility of biological change producing past longevity, just as millions do today. Fourth, you join the whole debate by implying that creationism and evolutionism are not parallel or that one is more scientific (or religious) than the other, and that's a fun rabbit trail for someday when you want to fix (what I perceive as) the errors in that philosophy, but that won't help build WP much.

Anyway, the point is that, thinking it over, I realized I really need a bit more consensus before posting that thought to too many articles. We really need a boilerplate in the 38 articles on Biblical alleged supercentenarians that conveys some thoughts like (1) today the record in 122, but (2) that far back who knows, and (3) here are some POVs about the phenomenon of Biblical supercentenarians. On (2) particularly it seems that with known longevity of trees and various animals, with evolution being fixated on change over time, and with the Bible and fundamentalists proposing reasonable data (unlike the Sumerian King List), we cannot say human longevity has always been 122ish or less without really good sourcing of claims of historical knowledge, such as those you made unsourced. I simply thought it very fair to observe that both sides believe in past biological (and environmental) change and so any proleptic conclusions are inappropriate. My first inadequate draft of boilerplate for many of the shorter Bible articles is below. Thoughts?

==Longevity== In recent history, the oldest person documented beyond reasonable doubt, Jeanne Calment, died in 1997, aged 122; demographic study of modern human longevity gives odds of trillions to one against humans today reaching 130. However, both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past; the application of modern demographic data to ancient eras is unclear. The extreme ages of the Hebrew Bible exhibit a decrease over time, and the Biblical upper limit of longevity has been categorized by Witness Lee as having four successive plateaus of 1,000, 500, 200, and finally 120 years.

Accordingly, these very long lifespans have been a source of much speculation. Biblical apologists hold that sin, loss of the water-canopy firmament, and DNA breakdown all contribute to decreased lifespans. Form critics hold variously that the yearly and monthly cycle were confused, simplifying some dates; that numbers were converted incorrectly; or that other reinterpretation is necessary. If "year" is interpreted consistently as "month", some numbers become more reasonable, but other numbers become more unreasonable (fathering children at age 5).<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>

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

Regardless of the implications of evolution, it is rare for any species to live beyond 100-200 years. Most long-living species are either trees or reptiles with slow metabolisms. In fact, most of the evidence points to the fact that humans lived shorter lifespans in the past, not longer. So to imply that evolution supports the claim that humans had longer lifespans in the past is completely false in every way. Simply saying that evolution implies that humans had "different" lifespans in the past seems like a dirty way to force evolution and creationism into the same bed, when clearly they disagree. I'm not here to argue over whether creationism is scientific, or whether evolution is religious, I'm just here to let you know the statement "However, both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past" is misleading without including the fact that evolution supports the exact opposite of creationist claims. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did say I was oversimplifying. I did not imply that evolution supports longevity claims, but that the issue can be finessed because both interpretative schemes teach that biology is not constant and nothing really can be said definitively.
• Doesn't evolution teach that forms with a "life"span of 0 years evolved into all the forms extant today, including trees that reach circa 5,000 years?
• If many people think there's little man-ape difference, why aren't ape longevity claims in this article?
• If many people think there's little man-ape difference, then why do we set the Homo sapiens bar at .5 million years?
• Since science demonstrates that much larger lifeforms were once very prevalent, why would it automatically rule out much older lifeforms, which cannot be proven or disproven except by documentary or tree-ring-style evidence?
• So what sentence do you propose as an alternative to provide the necessary balance that science knows nothing about whether the dinosaurs' environment or the history of ultraviolet could have contributed to greatly increased lifespans in the past?
• If the two cannot be harmonized ("same bed"), we can say those within the "mythos" believe X, while reliable sources within the scientific POV teach that no Homo sapiens could ever have lived for more than X years. Surely you have such a source? Finding such is the tenor of my suggested finesse. Thank you. JJB 20:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point about similarities between apes and men. Also, science does not "rule out much older lifeforms". My point was the evidence suggests that the human lifespan has increased during recorded history (with the exclusion of many of the "mythical" claims made included in this article). Actually, it has very little to do with evolution. Evolution has no stance regarding the lifespan of humans, it is merely a theory of the origin of species. What the sentence should say is "However, both science and longevity narratives indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past. Science claims human life expectancy has increased overall since the stone age (see Life expectancy), while longevity narratives suggest that life expectancy has decreased." This would be a more accurate statement. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, longevity has much to do with evolution. It's not my job to educate you, but you need to read up on recent (last 20 years) evolutionary theory before making comments such as these.Ryoung122 06:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes, that is a much more accurate statement, even better than my version. I'm glad we could reach an agreement. Meanwhile, my point about apes and men... if you believe in evolution, then you consider humans as part of the family of apes (or the larger order of primates). Apes are not part of this article because this article is about human longevity, not about chimps and bonobos, which are a different species of apes. If you read the articles ape or primate, you will see that humans are included. So... my point was, (according to evolution) humans are simply another species of apes. We set the bar at .5 million years because that is when the species of modern humans is thought to have separated from their ancestors. If you wanted to start an article about the longevity of apes, then you could include chimps with humans, but that is not the scope of this article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures, sub-sections

On a positive note, both the pictures and the sub-sections recently added have improved the article. It's just a shame that so many changes were made in such a short period of time. Please note that it is wiki-etiquette to notify an article creator of major proposed changes in format.Ryoung122 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class Longevity articles
• Mid-importance Longevity articles
• WikiProject Longevity articles