This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Statistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Medicine: Society Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance). Longevity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on November 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: October 26 to November 1, 2014 (19th)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellenberkley, Kim05.rosario, Jhpham, Rxbpherrera. Peer reviewers: Alexuang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"There are some circumstances under which copyrighted works may be legally utilized without permission; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for specific details on when and how to utilize such material." (Wikipedia:Copyrights)

guideline on non-free text states that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

Exact quotes of sentences and phrases CAN be used without permission per Fair_use.

In fact, the United States Copyright Office [states] "Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright." So the claim that phrases cannot be quoted without permission is WRONG because short phrases cannot be copyrighted in the first place.

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." (emphases added) - FL-102 U.S. Copyright Office

Given there are HUNDREDS of pages on wikipedia that use sentences and phrases without permission under Fair use the above administrator's position is insane and overly draconian.--50.251.15.57 (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The mentally ill are estimated to be at least 25% of the population and studies show they have a significantly shorter average life span. To remove, or not have this information placed in this article is wrong. I had placed a short piece with references in the past, but it is now gone. I will rewrite it.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mark v1.0: I've edited, please double check. fgnievinski (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I just reverted , as the sentences are facts. There have been successful lawsuits that the psychiatric medication cause diabetes and illness, where diabetes leads to death. That people with mental illness would get diabetes naturally, without medication is insane.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're making an original synthesis. I've taken the time to read 3 of the references cited and none of them attribute the greater mortality to medication. Again: greater mortality is not disputed. fgnievinski (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reordered the paragraph, mentioning first the main fact (greater mortality), then the possible reasons (death from injury, from co-morbid conditions, or from medication side effects), and finally delving into the last possibility. fgnievinski (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I think this paragraph fits mental illness better than here. fgnievinski (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry the facts offend you Fgnievinski. In your world you can bury them, but not in this one.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noticed new addition of "other illness" Mental illness is an arbitrary judgement, while diabetes as a physical disease is a scientific diagnosis, so I am worried of the inclusion of thousands of physical diseases that reduce life expectancy.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings!

I was just casually browsing this article and I just happenll issue with the legend for the map at the top of the section "Regional Variations" (specifically, this revision [1]).

If you notice the three blue colors and then the teal one below those, the numbers are a bit odd. The teal one is "72.5 - 75", the light blue is "74-78", the medium blue is "75.5-79", and the dark blue is 80+. That light blue one corresponds to numbers that are already covered by the teal and medium blue colors, and yet I see all colors represented on the map. The scale provided on the image's page itself is not helpful either: it is missing the light and medium blue colors.

I also found the image on List of countries by life expectancy#List by the CIA (2012), and it has a legend that seems to work. I will go ahead and apply that legend here. If there are any issues or anything, please let me know on my talk page! JaykeBird (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I would like to know if Children Aged 0 or Less will ever be included in Life Expectancy statistical calculation, and why it has not been included yet? to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems bizarre. To include life expectancy calculations for miscarriages (noting that they are rather common) that would instantly lower life expectancy by more than 20%. The religious/political motivations for this suggestion seem obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4400:6E5A:D56A:F07C:B8F5:5895 (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this source, and life expectancy also be quoted?

Per this source life expectancy in Classical Rome, for a person having survived to age 10, was an additional 37.5 years , a total of 47.5 years, which is greater than the 3 in the article.

https://books.google.com/books?id=lvfMrkqDbY0C&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=life+expectancy+in+ancient+rome&source=bl&ots=01oSqWl9hB&sig=P6TEwYAXpt648i61wFLL5SSv_Xo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAzgUahUKEwj32bb_uNnGAhXCgj4KHUzFBYI#v=onepage&q=life%20expectancy%20in%20ancient%20rome&f=falsepage Page 3, 1st paragraph. --Jcardazzi (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazziReply[reply]

That isn't how life expectancy works: you can't just take an expectation of life at at age x (unless x = 0, hence expectation of life at birth) and add x to it: in the example, expectation of life at age 10 is 37.5 years but expectation of life at birth is 25 years. Expectation of life is only the remaining years likely to be lived, it doesn't include anything that went before.

It's not a particularly useful source: it assumes a commonly-accepted expectation of life eat birth and then applies expectancies at higher ages from a standard life table - all quite reasonable but not adding anything new. Quantist (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Tekguc has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Excellent article. I am not a demographer but a development economist so I am a user of LEB statistics rather than somebody producing them. So I might have missed certain technical problems in the article, but it covers everything I stress in my classes. It is an average!, may not be representative for every member of society. Important influence of infant mortality on period LEB; gender differences; long term patterns; etc...

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Tekguc has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Hasan Tekguc & Z. Nurdan Atalay-Gunes, 2011. "Health Consequences of an Eclectic Social Security Regime: The Case of Turkey," Working Papers 2011-05, Mardin Artuklu Univeristy, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeas (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found a interesting link 1 and its sources 2 and the sources to that source "Charlton J, Murphy M, editors. The Health of Adult Britain 1841–1994. 2 volumes. London: National Statistics; 2004." and " McNay K, Humphries J, Klasen S. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics.Cambridge: 1998. Death and Gender in Victorian England and Wales: Comparisons with Contemporary Developing Countries."

They say that in the mid-Victorian period (we define that as 1850–1870) "Once infant mortality is stripped out, life expectancy at age five was 75 for men and 73 for women ", are the sources above acceptable? Can we write anything about this? Does anyone have access to the last 2 source? It would be very interesting to have a chart with life expectancy from 1800 to 2000, instead of starting at 1960 as we do now!

Comments? --Stefan-S ^talk 15:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the paper that article is based on. It is interesting, but the lead author also sells nutritional supplements, so there may be some bias.Shtove (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right to be suspicious, the numbers are complete bunk. Expectation of life at age 5 was 50-52 years in the period. The authors evidently aren't demographers and haven't consulted the very reliable life tables derived from contemporary registration returns. Where their inflated numbers came from is anyone's guess: the journal's editors should be sacked for publishing such drivel. Quantist (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the very start of this article it says Life expectancy applies for a person OR organism. Not a person or another organism. --2605:A000:D141:3800:9450:4878:E749:C80 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that a figure of 33 years is given in the table for Paleolithic life expectancy, but the source given in the table is the following:

Hillard Kaplan, Kim Hill, Jane Lancaster, and A. Magdalena Hurtado (2000). "A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence and Longevity" (PDF). Evolutionary Anthropology 9 (4): 156–185. doi:10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:4<156::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-7. Retrieved 12 September 2010.

This source doesn't even contain the word "Paleolithic" and it seems like this figure is based on WP:SYNTH by assuming that life expectancy was the same as that of modern-day hunter-gatherer people. SageRad (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general the figures in the table are sourced from a 1961 Encyclopedia Brittanica and other sources, and even admits "with questionable accuracy" and the more recent writing in anthropology about life expectancy in Paleolithic times is that it turns out to probably be greater than was previously thought, due to mistaken interpretation of the bone record and other factors of previous bias. So the 33 number is not right and we need to work on this more. SageRad (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've corrected this to specify that the average is for modern hunter-gatherers and is widely adopted as a plausible upper-bound for the paleolithic populations. Kaplan himself notes in a later paper that "Present day hunter-gatherers have all been affected by global socioeconomic forces and are not living replicas of our stone age ancestors". Quantist (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What mortality "rate"? At a rate of 1000, 10000, 100000 or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.240.60 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was per thousand, but London's unusual demographic characteristics and deficiencies in parish registration mean the numbers overstate the actual rate, especially in the earlier period: I've clarified the text accordingly. Quantist (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Life expectancy. 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/20101230203658/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/usdeath.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/usdeath.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427061404/http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html to http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html

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) 14:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Life expectancy. 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/20150109080429/http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/2/158/F2.expansion to http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/2/158/F2.expansion
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822170736/http://robjhyndman.com/software/demography/ to http://robjhyndman.com/software/demography/

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) 02:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life expectancy. 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/20120204024943/http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53 to http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=53

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) 18:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current graph has two labels for 1960-1965 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File:Life_Expectancy_at_Birth_by_Region_1950-2050.png).

I've created another graph https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LifeExpectancy.png based on 2017 data from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DVD/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/3_Mortality/WPP2017_MORT_F07_1_LIFE_EXPECTANCY_0_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx I haven't updated the main page because I'm not sure if the quality is good enough.

Should we add the life expectancy for an average person living in Imperial China? The average person usually lived to the age of 49 during the Qin and Han dynasties (if he or she survived childhood), which was 10 years longer than the estimated average life-span of 39 years for the emperors of the same dynasties. During the Qing dynasty, the average person usually lived 18 years longer (if he or she survived childhood) than the 39 years of an emperor, which was 57 years. All this information can be found in Fei-Ling Wang’s book “The China Order: Centralia, World Empire, and the Nature of Chinese Power”. Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those aren't meaningful life expectancies. Life expectancy is only the likely years remaining to you at a given age: you can't take an expected age at death for those at age x and add the years already lived (unless x = 0); that's not life expectancy, it's a predicted age at death for those who've already survived to age x, and here we don't even have the value of x, so it's useless. Quantist (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As this Forbes article mentions, many countries don’t count low birth weight babies as live birth, whereas others count all babies that were alive at time of birth regardless of weight. An this be accounted for?

^[1] 76.118.84.8 (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)somerandomwikipedianReply[reply]

In the section Variation over time there's the table for each era. Useful, but there's weird stuff in there.

For example, it has this entry: Medieval Islamic world 35+ Average lifespan of scholars was 59–84.3 years.

So, first it says "35+" which is vague and unsatisfactory. Is it 35? Or more than 35? If you can't get a real number, don't include "Medieval Islamic World" in the table at all. No other entry in the table has a + in that column. They all have actual numbers or at least ranges. Then in the Life Expectancy at older age column, it has the trivial and fairly useless snippet "Average lifespan of scholars was 59–84.3 years." What in the world? Scholars? I don't think it's that useful to have the lifespan of incredibly narrow professional/class subsets in the table.

The same thing with Late medieval English peerage. Again it seems too narrow to belong in the table which should be a straight up table comparing general life span through the ages. These snippets might have relevance in the text of the article but in the table they seem unnecessary/confusing. 131.114.9.81 (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the sex differences section, it says that more males are conceived than females, but that male mortality is higher in the womb than female mortality is. The source is an article that I can't access: ^[1] A paper from 2015 that I can access says that neither of these things are the case. Rather, the sex ratio at conception is 50/50. But females have higher mortality rates than males. ^[2]

Does anyone have access to the Kalben paper from 2002? How do we reconcile the contradiction between these two papers? Sewblon (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reconcile data conflict in mortality rate of in-utero population between articles and accurately respond to issue posted on Talks page under “Conflict Resolution in In Utero Mortality” section by reviewing articles cited and researching further into available data from in-utero population.
• Fix grammatical issues and syntax issues as needed.
• Resolve data conflict in mentally ill population by synthesizing information from already cited sources.
• Research available data regarding influence of education on life expectancy.

Jhpham (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sex Differences section: Reworded first two sentences for in-utero population to better accurately reflect available data. Added two more references. Fixed a couple of grammatical nuances in same paragraph.
• Mental illness section: Removed two references that are no longer accessible. Removed a couple of other references that were not appropriate. Added some newer references. Reworded some sentences for better scientific accuracy.
• Education section: Added a reference and information regarding effect of high school and higher education on life expectancy.
• Fixed small grammar and syntax issues throughout article.

Jhpham (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review by Group 3b

Do the group's edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?

• Yes, the group's edits improve the article by adding additional information about the effects of education on life expectancy, correcting grammar for better clarity, and updating the references to be accurate and accessible. --Mparagas18 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, group 3c's edits have improved the article by citing information that has direct effects on life expectancy, such as education and mental illness. The references seem to be updated and appropriate for the article. --Dannymrowr (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, the groups edits improved the article and was able to update references throughout the article -- Brendado425 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, the edits are balanced, neutral, and backed up by reliable secondary sources. Alexuang (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

• Yes, the group addressed its goals for improvement listed above.--Mparagas18 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, grammar was fixed and a mental health section was edited to be more appropriate and with more current resources. --Dannymrowr (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, they were able to achieve its overall goals for improvement -- Brendado425 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, the changes are well documented in the proposed changes section and reflect the edits made to the article. Alexuang (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...

• Yes, the article edits were presented neutrally with no opinions and with only factual and appropriately cited information. --Dannymrowr (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify...

• Overall, yes. Consider revising the line "the mortality rate for the Caucasian population is four times higher for those who did not complete high school compared to those who have at least 16 years of education" to specify that this statistic is based on U.S. data from 1993-2001. The following line does a good job of this. --Alexuang (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? If not, specify...

• Yes, the edits made are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. -- Brendado425 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...

• There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation, as all sources were accurately cited and additions were not copied or closely paraphrased.--Mparagas18 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

while reading through this page today I discovered possible vandalism in pointer 1.2 - "Variation over time". In the description for expectancy later in life in the Canadian Maritime Colonies, "diverse vegetables" redirects to a page about indigenous people of the Americas. I presume this is either a linking error, or intentional vandalism, either way, it probably shouldn't be there. It is my first time actually being active on wikipedia, so I didn't make the edit myself. If someone could take a look at that it would be appreciated.

-L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:9F14:B800:A81D:337D:6AC2:8BB9 (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for mentioning this!

I deleted the link. It may have been intentionally added to connect readers to the agriculture/diet of Indigenous peoples. However, it was not linked directly to that section in the article. Plus, the article scope is too broad to be appropriate (it's on the entire Americas, not just the Great Lakes region of North America). The link also just seemed unnecessary.

I do like the phrasing "diverse vegetables" though :)

~ Jayowyn (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Why is there no mention of vaccination in this article? It seems likely that the availability of vaccines and their widespread utilization has extended lifespan; surely there is research on this topic. This could be one factor that accounts for different lifespans in different regions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination Bmerchant (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the introduction is this statement: "The most commonly used measure is life expectancy at birth (LEB), which can be defined in two ways. Cohort LEB is the mean length of life of an actual birth cohort (all individuals born in a given year) and can be computed only for cohorts born many decades ago so that all their members have died. Period LEB is the mean length of life of a hypothetical cohort[1][2] assumed to be exposed, from birth through death, to the mortality rates observed at a given year.[3]". One problem is that it is not clear (I would not be surprised to find out that it is nonsense), and it is not explained clearly anywhere in the article. Another problem is that in the rest of the article, the term LEB is used without any clarification as to which of the two alleged types of LEB is meant. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed from article:

... ; in the hypothetical population above, life expectancy at 5 would be another 65.^{[clarification needed]}

There's nothing to clarify here, because the reference to the "population above" is improper. A few hypothetical numbers are thrown around, but no number is given for infant death, rendering the hypothetical scenario—if you even think you can track it down—ill defined. — MaxEnt 20:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely this sentence “For example, the previous world-record holder for human lifespan, Carrie White,[who?] was uncovered as a simple typographic error after more than two decades.[9]” should be removed? Nobody seems to know who is this reputed world rrecord holder - internet search only throws up a fictional character in a Stephen King novel. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 February 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dr.healthtoto (article contribs). Peer reviewers: TheGr8Mandini.

— Assignment last updated by Explorepsych (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently in the table under life expectancy Variation Over Time there is a row on Vedic India that states life expectancy at birth was 50. This seemed shockingly high for a time period around 1000 BCE so I followed the source to learn a bit more. This is the article that is linked as a source right now: https://indiafuturesociety.org/longevity-and-the-indian-tradition/. It is published on the India Future Society and written by Ilia Stambler. However, there is no mention of an average lifespan in Vedic India anywhere in that article, other than reference to Vedic texts that say life can be prolonged to 100 years, but they also then say it can be expanded to 500 or 800 years so I don't think this is a historic record and certainty not an average life span for the time. I looked a bit more into Stambler's "A History of Life-Extensionism In The Twentieth Century" but this text was too long for me to read the whole thing so I just found a PDF and searched for any time Vedic showed up and once again found nothing. Turning to Google the only article that mentions this 50-80 year lifespan for Vedic India is this article: https://staffinfo.in/what-are-the-lifespans-of-people-in-vedic-india. This however has no listed author or sources and contradicts itself by first saying lifespan was 20-30 years and then later saying it was 50-80 years.

I have not been able to find an actually paper or article that discusses Vedic Indian lifespans, but I am fairly sure that the currently listed range of 50-75 is incorrect and likely should be removed. Taxxor (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it's nonsense; Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica's >40 is dubious, and 60 attached to Pre-Champlain Canadian Maritimes is just laughable, if you read the details in the column right hand side, they hint such estimates are based on a 17th century explorer and "explained" by an our days' "Miꞌkmaq elder, author, columnist, and human rights activist".Knižnik (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added McCaa's more sensible results to the Mesoamerica entry. The author of the 40+ estimate seems to churn out popular history titles (mostly science-related so far as I can see) on an epic scale, so while I wouldn't want to deny the guy his livelihood it doesn't seem of particular scholarly weight. The Champlain figure is of course ludicrous, and shouldn't be there. Quantist (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article seems excessively verbose and could be broken down, for example the lede section is currently 8 paragraphs long which should be pared back per WP:LEDE. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Santrock book,, Life Expectancy. A Topical Approach to: Life-Span Development, is apparently about child and student psychology, not about measuring how long humans live. The facts of Jeanne Calment can be reliably sourced elsewhere. The statement "Men are also more likely to die from most of the leading causes of death..." makes little sense. The statement that begins "This biological difference..." is a complete non-sequitur from the previous statement. Merely listing some of the more obvious "Factors that are associated with variations in life expectancy..." is of little use. Why is this reference a part of this page? My untrained use of wikiblame says this goes back to 2009. I see an awful lot of self-promotion on wikipedia and it strikes me like a stinking pile of poo. Fairthomas (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've rewritten paragraph 3 which showed a woeful incomprehension of the whole concept of life expectancy. A likelihood at age 30 of surviving to age 55 isn't a life expectancy of 55, it's an expectation of life at age 30 of 25 years, consistent with a life expectancy at birth of 25-30 years. And you can't find the proportion of deaths occurring in infancy by dividing expectation of life at birth by the estimated average age at death of those aged 30, which the perpetrator seemed to have done in asserting that infant deaths made up an impossibly high 40-60% of all deaths until around 1950 (the global average was then around 27%, and it's unlikely ever to have much exceeded 40%).

I've also clarified two of the last paragraphs (moving the last one up to where it made more sense) relating to paleolithic / hunter-gatherer populations, to correct an assertion that paleolithic populations with a claimed expectation of life at birth of "22-33 years" enjoyed a life expectancy at age 15 of 54 years - in fact only the upper-bound estimate of e₀ = 33 years conforms to e₁₅ of 39 years (15 + 39 = 54, so the maximum expectancy at age 15 is 39 years, not 54 which is instead the maximum prospective age at death) - and to explain that the reported modal age at death of 72 years relates to modern hunter-gatherers, not specifically to the paleolithic, for which it would again constitute a (probably still unrealistically high) upper bound.

Quantist (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]