Talk:Moloko Temo

Classifications

I think she should be ranked as a longevity myth because she is claiming an age over 130. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.237.89 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This case is not possible to be true. The age claimed also doesn't fit the ages of the children. It is likely that she is about 30 years younger than claimed (hence 103). This would make her '24' when her first child was born, instead of '54'.

However, as the oldest current claimant in the world with a claimed birthdate and an ID document, this case is more of a hybrid. Also, the reason for the claim is not so much religious (like the 150-year-old monk). If we think of a Venn diagram situation, there is an overlap between longevity claim/longevity myth. However, not all longevity claims are myths...some are quite plausible. Ryoung122 07:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But hers is mythical. Extremely sexy 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This CNN segment: [1] reports that her daughter is 90 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.60.200.12 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This person may have more than one daughter, but in any case, 134-90 is still 44 years. The age of the youngest daughter given in earlier reports makes this case very dubious, not to mention the age claim is now 12 years clear of any proven case. Further, cases sometimes adapt to inconsistencies in their stories by editing/changing them as they go...for example, in 2003 a woman claimed to be 119 and her son, age 87. Investigation found that the woman was 105 and the son was 80. His age was adapted to conform to the mother's mythology of aging.Ryoung122 08:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

can't they just like... lop off a leg and count the rings or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.29.112 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a claim, not a myth. This woman clearly exists - she isn't mythical! She is, however, claiming to be a certain age, but has little or no proof of this. 206.165.150.70 (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions

The article is in a contradictary state at the moment. The daughter is stated to be 90 in one paragraph and 80 in the other and than there is the cite of Robert Young from 2005 that she is 79 which contradicts both numbers...

Btw: if she has 29 grandchildren, she will have more than one daughter, five, six or even more is more likely. Which makes it extremely unlikely that she got her first child with 54. With the 90 age claim for her daughter we get age 44 for the first child, which makes it "biologically not impossible" to have five, six or more children, but not likely. --::Slomox:: >< 21:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

With 54 she would have been three years over the typical age of menopause in modern western countries and most likely even more years over the typical age back then. She would have been just three years younger than the oldest attested case of natural birth (which is age 57, another case of natural birth age 59 was affected by a hormone therapy [not intended to cause pregnancy, but still]). --::Slomox:: >< 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a case where the story has "evolved" over time (mythmaking). When the stories came out about her being 130, her daughter was in her 70s. Now she is 90 just 4 years later? Yeah right.Ryoung122 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Article

I vote to delete this article. There should not be an article about someone claiming to be something. It should be verifiable. Here is a direct quote from wikipedia " Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." What if I said I was 135? Do I get put into wikipedia? No. And I also elect to delete any other unverified longevity claims. 137.244.215.19 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is verifiabilty, not truth. The point here is NOT that she is 134...it's that she claimed to be 134, and such a claim made the local, national, and international news. If YOU said you were 135, I doubt if it would be reported in the press, but go ahead and try.

Also, we need articles on unverified claimants as examples of why age verification is needed.Ryoung122 08:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear

It is almost certainly the case that at least 1 human being has lived to 130, depending on how you want to define "human being". This is just another consequence of the fact of the ratio of the current and recent populations to the total that ever lived, assuming you at least go back 50,000 years. It's simply that record keeping that could capture the fact is recent and the first verified cases of supers have only occurred in the last couple of hundred years. It's certain that many living will see the 130 barrier broken so it shouldn't be stated that it's somehow impossible on the face of it. Furthermore it's likely that at least some of the cases like Tomo, Maria Olivia da Silva, etc. would in fact be corroborated if they could be. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Making the reasoning here a little clearer. Calment lived 6-7 years longer than the bunch up at 115-16 where all the other verified max supers are. But other than her longevity, there was nothing special about her. In particular you cannot say that her longevity was the product of having been born in the modern era. Indeed you might make the argument that she might have longer had she not. So a similar increment beyond her having occurred at least once is for that reason, the smallness of the known verified cases in relation to the total set and no causal basis to preclude (i.e. only few percent of the total number of humans that ever lived lived in the modern period) it. Even in the current time it's the lack of development not the impossibility of exemplars that sets this limit. Like as not there have been several that exceeded Calment's span in the time since her birth but they're either unverified or completely unknown. Also you would think that by now there was an objective physical means to determine a persons age with reasonable scientific certainty. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114030459/http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=797750 to http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=797750

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)