| Revision as of 10:15, 27 February 2010 editRyoung122 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,945 editsm moved Talk:Longevity traditions to Talk:Longevity myths over redirect: No consensus to move, returning to original name← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:25, 27 February 2010 edit undoRyoung122 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,945 edits →Renaming this articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| Referring to major still practiced religions as myths is going to cause problems. This entire article seems to be nothing more than one man’s desire to change that fact. I personally think this poorly written article should be restarted from scratch if not deleted entirely. The majority of its notable content can be found elsewhere and it seems to exist solely as a battleground over religious terminology. I understand the desire to stick it to the biblethumpers but the fact is this isn’t the time or place for such a childish argument. You don’t have to believe in, or agree with religion but I would say a basic amount of respect is necessary for mature relations with other human beings. ] (]) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | Referring to major still practiced religions as myths is going to cause problems. This entire article seems to be nothing more than one man’s desire to change that fact. I personally think this poorly written article should be restarted from scratch if not deleted entirely. The majority of its notable content can be found elsewhere and it seems to exist solely as a battleground over religious terminology. I understand the desire to stick it to the biblethumpers but the fact is this isn’t the time or place for such a childish argument. You don’t have to believe in, or agree with religion but I would say a basic amount of respect is necessary for mature relations with other human beings. ] (]) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Actually, virtually NOTHING you said is correct. If a religion doesn't make a claim about LONGEVITY, then its not part of the discussion: the discussion focuses on the myths of longevity, whether they involve a "religion" or not (strike one). This article is referring to the MYTHS of LONGEVITY, not the MYTHS OF RELIGION. We're not talking about whether the holy water at Lourdes can cure ailments, as that is not directly related to the subject of extreme longevity. Also, far from "one man's article," this article began in 2004 with Mr. Louis Epstein (not myself) so that is a false claim as well (strike two). This article is in poor shape because, well, Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." DUH. However, that is never a reason to delete an article. Also, most of the content here cannot be found elsewhere (strike 3). This wasn't designed to "stick it to the Bible thumpers": it was decided to educate the Wiki user as to the myths of longevity, which, as mentioned, may or may not involve religious belief. What do all of these myths have in common? By definition, all of them are scientifically false, but believed by many persons. By the way, attempting to belittle the article creators and those who favor the outside-Misplaced Pages name with terms such as "childish" argument is, in itself, CHILDISH....more than that, your claim to maturity is HYPOCRITICAL in the extreme.] 10:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : is first defined as: "A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc." | : is first defined as: "A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc." | ||
Revision as of 10:25, 27 February 2010
 | Longevity Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Myth review
For those who haven't seen the rapidly accumulating archive, WP:WTA#Myth and legend specifies that "myth" has a formal use ("context of sociology or mythology") and an informal use ("unreal or imaginary story"), and that "informal use of the word should be avoided". I have now reviewed all sources brought forward in talk to advance the claim that "myth" in its formal sense is used in reliable sources. They are as follows. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Asahi News 1987, "expert on aging" Toshihisa Matsuzaki, re Vilcabamba. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Quackery Watch (HealthWatcher.net) n.d., Eva Briggs MD, re Hunza and "remote populations". JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Clinic All-round 2004, Oya Yusuke (Univ. Ryukyus), re Okinawa. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Clinic All-round 2003, Shibati Hiroshi (Obirin Univ.), re alchemy, immortality, medicine. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Endocrinological Investigation 2005, Kim MJ, Morley JE, re hormones. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Biological Sciences 2004, Herman T Blumenthal, re Morley's work. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- AARP/EFE 2007, Susana Madera (reporter), re Vilcabamba. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- New Scientist 1973, D Davies, re Ecuador. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unknown n.d., Jean-Marie Robine et al., re 1701-1814. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
These sources have the following in common. (1) They each make only passing reference to the word "myth"; this is not a disqualifier, because a collection of passing references can be notable, but it does indicate that the word "myth" is not the plain subject of any of them. (2) They are all written by biologists and gerontologists (except for the news piece carried by AARP), not mythologists or sociologists. (3) They each refer the word "myth" to a specific case or cases rather than to a sociological field of study. (4) While some constitute abstracts, no source constitutes a full available journal article, or sizable relevant quotation from one, which fails WP:V hands down. (5) Appropriate to the prior observations, they each demonstrably use the word "myth" in the informal sense of "unreal or imaginary story", not in the formal sense, which is outside their disciplines. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Accordingly, I submit that no source supports the lead claim that this page is about "myths (in the sociological sense)" (my compromise-attempt words), or any similar lead claim. Further, this violation of WP:WTA has been challenged on and off for several years, and has remained unaddressed by Ryoung122 after two months of intense requests. Another voluminous contributor holds that all that is necessary to comply with WP:WTA is a quotation on the formal definition of myth (but has not added one); but his objections are all answered by the fact that, if no source speaks of longevity sociologically, any mention of the formal definition would be WP:UNDUE weight, WP:COATRACKing, and/or misleading, because the formal definition is not what this article is supposed to be about, as shown by the sources. In short, Ryoung122's idea that the "mythology of longevity" is a notable topic for WP has gone for two months of scrutiny without any evidence. However, it is certainly possible that some content here is appropriate for the Lucian Boia article. JJB 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to argue that "creationism should be taught in schools" as well? Your own source citations show that the term "longevity myth" is quite commonly used in the scientific literature. You also fail to understand the entire point of this article: to explain why many cultures and peoples tend to inflate/exaggerate age claims. Did you realize that there are other articles on topics such as 'longevity'? If the longevous ages claimed are verifiable, they can be included in articles such as Oldest people. If you want to believe Buddhism, there's an article there, too. I find it highly unacceptable what you have been attempting to do.Ryoung122 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- This doesn't look "cultural" to you?
http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/23_folder/23_articles/23_centenarians.html
Ryoung122 09:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"Overadvancement"
What precisely is "overadvancement" supposed to mean? Does it describe overestimation of a claimant's age by the claimant and others, or acceleration of signs of aging as a person gets older? It is not made clear anywhere in this article and I can't find the word in any dictionaries. 86.153.216.86 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was original research coined by editor JJB. If you don't like it, change back to what sources say.Ryoung122 08:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not that I didn't like it as such, but that I didn't understand what it meant. Quentin72 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Possible claim?
I've heard that there is a certain woman from Syria, named Watfa al-Ghanem, who allegedly was born in 1880, making her claimed age 128 or 129 years as of 2009 (assuming she is still alive). I was unable to find any more info on her, but I thought it'd be worth mentioning her in here, in case somebody might want to add her under Politicial claims. User:218.186.12.235, 0:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Renaming this article
I strongly object to the repeated moving of this article from Longevity Myths to Longevity Traditions. There is no consensus that this is justified. The use of the word Myth in the context of this article is more appropriate than Tradition which gives undue credence to many of the entries (which was the intention of the user who first attempted such a name change). DerbyCountyinNZ 00:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Referring to major still practiced religions as myths is going to cause problems. This entire article seems to be nothing more than one man’s desire to change that fact. I personally think this poorly written article should be restarted from scratch if not deleted entirely. The majority of its notable content can be found elsewhere and it seems to exist solely as a battleground over religious terminology. I understand the desire to stick it to the biblethumpers but the fact is this isn’t the time or place for such a childish argument. You don’t have to believe in, or agree with religion but I would say a basic amount of respect is necessary for mature relations with other human beings. PeRshGo (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, virtually NOTHING you said is correct. If a religion doesn't make a claim about LONGEVITY, then its not part of the discussion: the discussion focuses on the myths of longevity, whether they involve a "religion" or not (strike one). This article is referring to the MYTHS of LONGEVITY, not the MYTHS OF RELIGION. We're not talking about whether the holy water at Lourdes can cure ailments, as that is not directly related to the subject of extreme longevity. Also, far from "one man's article," this article began in 2004 with Mr. Louis Epstein (not myself) so that is a false claim as well (strike two). This article is in poor shape because, well, Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." DUH. However, that is never a reason to delete an article. Also, most of the content here cannot be found elsewhere (strike 3). This wasn't designed to "stick it to the Bible thumpers": it was decided to educate the Wiki user as to the myths of longevity, which, as mentioned, may or may not involve religious belief. What do all of these myths have in common? By definition, all of them are scientifically false, but believed by many persons. By the way, attempting to belittle the article creators and those who favor the outside-Misplaced Pages name with terms such as "childish" argument is, in itself, CHILDISH....more than that, your claim to maturity is HYPOCRITICAL in the extreme.Ryoung122 10:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Myth" is first defined as: "A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc."
- According to our guidelines on words to avoid:
Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.
Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Misplaced Pages is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.
- Therefore, we should not use the word "myth" to mean "untrue" in any article. Auntie E. (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist has suggested "List of longevity claims" which seems a much better term. I will implement it. Auntie E. (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- And I self-reverted, as apparently there is another article called Longevity claims which discusses specific claims that have not been verified. This article is a disaster as it is, maybe we should delete and merge anything worth saving into that other article? Auntie E. (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- It would better to return it to its original name. User:Ryoung122 is an acknowledged expert in longevity and has recently started tidying up this article to reflect its original intention. Much of the content that was added in order to justify a move to Longevity Traditions will hopefully be moved/removed. The use of the term myth in this context is appropriate, claiming that persons mentioned in relation to currently practised religions should be considered tradition rather than myth is POV and should have ebeen discussed before any change was made (the previous attempt also failed to follow correct wiki procedure leading to the current "disastrous" state of the article. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Ryoung122 is the very individual I was talking about. Just because he is an expert in the subject doesn’t mean he is somehow above all Misplaced Pages policies. I do however agree that the most recent changes have caused problems for the article in general and those problems will need to be sorted out. That being said my original point remains. This entire page has become about one man’s desire reclassify major religions as myth, a POV issue that will cause problems on any article on Misplaced Pages. In fact the only reason this entire argument hasn’t been smashed is that this article is so barely notable that not enough people have even seen it to comment on it. I’m only here simply because I came upon it at random and realized that it was quite possibly the worst Misplaced Pages article I had ever read. PeRshGo (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree that the intention was to "reclassify major religions as myth". This article is about longevity, any assertion that a claim that a person lived to 969 years has more credence because that claim appears in the text of a major religion than a similar claim made by a "minor" religion or by a non-religious group is POV. The issue in this article is only that of longevity, not of any other aspect of any religion or the entire religion itself. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- It looks as if we need a formal move discussion, if there contnues to be a move war, we will have to protect it against moving. Personally I prefer Longevity traditions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- If this page is to be protected from moving it should be reverted to Longevity Myths as that was the name before this dispute arose. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you and User:Ryoung122 are friends and I respect that but though the archives have become difficult to navigate due to the constant moves take a look at them. This entire discussion has been nothing more than hate and vitriol between Ryoung122 and those who oppose him. There hasn’t been an ounce of reasonability, but in reality the argument is simple. Misplaced Pages’s stance is that you probably shouldn’t call refer to currently practiced religion as myth because it will invariably cause problems. Ryoung122’s stance is that as an expert on longevity he has the authority to refer to religion as myth. This has nothing to do with giving credence to religion, its all about respect. On Misplaced Pages no one has to agree with a topic but you do have to respect it. If anyone was really interested in making everyone happy as well as maintaining the integrity of the subject they would simply split the article into one about Religious Longevity Claims, one about Political Longevity Claims which is easily half the article, and one Longevity Lore which would encompass ways people have traditionally tried to attain advanced age or eternal youth. Not only should this appease everyone but it’s a much better way of organizing the data. PeRshGo (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly Robert Young and I are not "friends". We have and do disagree on many aspects of what should be included in wikipedia and how it should be presented. We do agree on some things and the intent and name of this article is one. Secondly "those who oppose him" initially meant one single user (and his friends) whose attitude to this article was highly disruptive and clearly aimed at removing/reducing the mythological aspect of religious (specifically Christian) entries. The current dispute, while less disruptive, seems to be for the same reasons, ie for validating a Christian POV, and ignoring whether or not "myth" is the appropriate term for those claims. I think it is. The existence of any person before written records begins cannot be confirmed and fantastical claims for them such as extreme longevity should be considered legend or myth (the distinction is not always clear and I suspect neither would be satisfactory to anyone with strong religioous views). Whether this article would be better split into seperate I'm not sure, I suspect the any Religious Longevity Claims article would play down the unrealistic aspect of such claims. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy with either Longevity myths or Longevity traditions. I do think the article would benefit from being split, because there is a world of difference between claims made in the various scriptural traditions of antiquity and claims made in the 19th or 20th centuries. If either of these are discussed in academic literature it will be in quite different disciplines: theology vs history/geography. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I see a lot of vitriol being dashed against various editors, yet no one who has supported the word "myth" has mentioned a policy reason like I did. (I don't even know this Young editor.) I think we should not go against the words to avoid guidelines that this article previously did by implying that the word "myth" means "untrue." It has nothing to do with a POV against religion which I do not have. I just like the right words to be used and not misused. Auntie E. (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories: