Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

I wrote this for an AfD

I spent today in a nursing home talking with people, and it reinforced the idea that living a long time does not equal notable. Living a really long time is not an achievement in the normal sense, but more like a punishment for most people. Being really old generally sucks and comes with pain, loss of freedom, family, senses, mobility, mental agility and so much more. Unlike the person who works hard and dreams of getting to the Olympics/top of Business/President/famous actor etc no one in the care home is thinking "if I can just breath longer then Fred I'll be the oldest person in South Dakota or born the former Russian Empire or the oldest person living in the USA to have immigrated from Ireland. I can't wait for Grace and Wilma to die so I can seize the title of oldest woman in wherever and get my Wikipedia article finally."

The people writing WOP articles are basically tracking old people for sport (they call it "research") by creating articles, titles and succession boxes without the consent or knowledge of the generally private people they track and profile. Age is one of many superlatives that people can achieve by living - fat, skinny, short, tall, smart, stupid, married most times, most children, and so on. Take super fat people who also get human interest story type media attention occasionally. Would it be acceptable to write bios, lists and succession boxes for the 100 fattest people born in Germany or Spain with sublists by province, men, and women, plus continental and world superlists? Should we track hundreds of fat people with succession lists for dozens of "fattest titles in place x or area y", tracking their names, exact weights, birth and death dates and locations on Wikipedia? Would anyone suggest we pull together lists of all people over an arbitrary 400 lbs who ever lived or sought to verify their weight?

Then there is the question of "verified". If some random person came to most Wikipedia editors and asked for their birth certificate, passport, marriage license, and other personal ID most thinking people who tell them to go away and maybe call the cops. Is it really alright to seek personal documents from these people, or their often quite old and maybe incapacitated children? While some might want to cooperate, many must not. Then there are all the people who don't get identified as being super old by the WOP trackers. So all these made up titles are extremely suspect given the evident gaps in available data.

As for notability based on the kind of sources trotted out - it is almost impossible to live over 100 years and never get a mention in the news or online somewhere. So a handful of mentions online does not impress me much. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

How is any of that relevant? Longevity records are generally seen as a positive, not a negative. All documents gathered to verify someone's age are done in a proper way, and in any case, it's done by sources outside of Wikipedia. It's Wikipedia's job to reflect the information in outside sources, not to push our own biased opinions on the subject. You don't think longevity is notable? Fine, but outside sources clearly do. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your WP:Opinion and WP:Synth. To be sure, you are entitled to it, and it can and will influence your editing. I WP:AGF. OTOH, in a Wikipedia sense, this is all WP:OR without any WP:RS. So we may look at it, think about it, and then go about our business as if it doesn't exist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The oldest person in the world and oldest man in the world are topic that generate public interest. The 15th oldest man to be born in the Russian Empire... not so much. Extreme longevity is NOT seen as a positive by many people. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure the point of this here. Is the issue the "oldest living person" tables and whether they are actually accurate? If so, I agree that it's problematic. Is the issue that the person alleged to be the "world's oldest person" likely true? Yeah, I agree that it's questionable given the GRG's demands and self-selection criteria (someone who isn't remotely interested in being known won't be included) but it's what we have. Even then there's always retractions to the claims years later which is why some of these articles are just notes about someone who was thought to be the oldest person when in fact they allegedly weren't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You suggest that WP:Notability dissipates quickly. This ignores that there are more than 7.3 billion people World population and that there are obvious local interest sectors that overlay any individual. In any event, I don't think (IMO) that WP:Notability is measured by levels of 'interest.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Not clear what you mean by levels of interest. Per WP:LISTN there needs to be an encyclopedic reason (Notability) for a list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is what lists of the oldest 50 people in Angola or the top 50 fattest people in Samoa are. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that a random list probably isn't going to be notable. For example we could make a list of persons who dispute notability of age-related articles (you and me until we are banned), and it would not survive long. But that is just an example of a fallacious Slippery slope kind of an argument that has little to do with the matter at hand. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, Legacypac, I don't really understand what all this is getting at. Let me recommend that you drop this and we all just continue with the cleanup for now, as there's plenty to do that doesn't require a lot of special discussion. After that we can circle back to the more difficult situations. EEng (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I just put some thoughts - trying to challenge the super old fans to think about what value there might be in respecting privacy and not trying to create a universe of titles. I doubt any made up minds will be changed but others who happen by might go 'that makes sense'. Anyway, where to clean up next? Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
This one. :) DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
But why don't we finish with the lists first? [1] EEng (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

When I read this at the AfD, I found it both sensible and moving. I'm glad it was put on the project talk page. It's worth thinking about. David in DC (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed List Merger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_the_verified_oldest_men_and_List_of_the_verified_oldest_women Comment on that page please. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-Admin Closures of WOP AfDs

I am little bit concerned about the non-admin closures of World's Oldest People AfDs, given the contentious (Arbcom) history of this topic. I do not think that there have been any abuses or completely improper closures (otherwise I'd be at DRV rather than here), but I'm worried that, given everything thus far, it is only a matter of time before a situation has been created. The guidelines for non-admin closures suggest avoiding contentious topics and I think that regardless of one's opinion on these articles, everyone would prefer a more experienced eye in adjudicating consensus. I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done to enforce/suggest admin-only closures, or if everyone thinks I'm just inventing a problem (again, this comment does not stem from any perceived inappropriate closure), but I thought I'd solicit a little feedback. Canadian Paul 18:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As a frequent non-admin closer, I agree. These WOP AfDs are very hard to judge correctly, with both sides toeing the line of civility and single-purpose accounts showing up in droves, not to mention that most of the time, the articles aren't even up for deletion so much as they are for merging or redirecting (see the constant notability versus WP:NOPAGE arguments). I don't envy the admins who have to deal with the aggrieved parties following a close. clpo13(talk) 18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Further, contentious disputed AFDs should be closed as "no consensus" which would allow for speedy renomination rather than keep which does not. I think a small request on the non-admins' talk page would be helpful for those. I don't see any indication that following a close, there's much at arguing. I mean, Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians was deleted with nary a word from anyone since then (no one has even requested a copy of it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree as well. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, though. We might start by placing {{notvote}} and/or {t|ds|old|long} in each nom right from the start, plus end the text of the nom with something like, "Because of the long and complicated history of longevity topics, requesting that this discussion be closed by an admininstrator." EEng (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, any new ideas on this. It's becoming a problem [2] EEng (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty problematic close. At the very least, it should have been no-consensus, although all things considered it should have been relisted. If it were my nom, I'd take it to DRV after contacting the closer. Perhaps including a page notice with every nomination that can alert admins and non-admins alike to the contentious history of the topic, along with a link to the ArbCom case, would be helpful. Canadian Paul 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Eh, as much as I'd disagree with keeping it, I'd probably close the same way as well. It's a lot of keep votes and while they are repetitive, they are right that there are numerous reliable sources. I'd say we've gotten clarity on the lowest-hanging fruit at the moment and we should focus on creating a separate WP:OUTCOME for that. It'll probably be along the lines of "People who's claims of notability is entirely due to a ranking on their longevity on a national or sub-national level (state, prefects, etc.) are not sufficiently notable for a separate article absent an separate, independent claim of notability and should be merged into a list of supercentenarians based on nationality or the like." The oldest men/women are surviving somewhat just due to the publicity that occurs around them so take what we have and accept it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why 110?

According to our own articles the maximum life span is increasing and better record keeping is uncovering more super old people. Why is 110 the threshold? There is a huge range between 110 and 122. Should we simplify our lives and establish a cutoff of 115 or 120 to be considered old enough for the oldest lists here? Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you'd find a cutoff of 120 would, er, not leave much. 110 is indeed an arbitrary cutoff, but it's an arbitrary cutoff you'll find in the sources a lot. Except (possibly) at the world level, a 110 cutoff gives a set-size that's quite manageable. EEng (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I once (years ago) suggested that 120 be used as the cut-off point for superdupercentenarians. David in DC (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • 110 is the definition of supercentenarian. 100 falls under the centenarian lists and the people at Lists of centenarians aren't no fools. They don't care for people who are notable just for being old. This the only way to bypass and create your own criteria for listings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to table

If this tableOldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955 had birth places and a Notes column added for anything else short worth knowing or interesting (oldest British person ever, ate bacon every day, or whatever. Then many of the underlying bios could be eliminated. The existing location column could even be retitled to say "born-died" with the data saying East Middle, Sussex, UK-Washington, DC USA or whatever. If there is a photo maybe it could be inserted in the table too. For those with longer bios the basic daya would be still inclided with the link to article. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me suggest that we first concentrate on consolidating all the fragmented articles and lists into an appropriate number of smaller articles/lists, without worrying too much about the details of format in the remaining articles. Once everything's aggregated we'll be in the best position to make global decisions about final presentation. EEng (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
My proposed change should facilitate reducing resistance to the consolidation greatly. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Counts on Tables - Zero Faith in the Lists

Another problem: There are 50 people on the List_of_Japanese_supercentenarians#Living_Japanese_supercentenarians but only 53 on the global List of oldest living people. Since the global list should include all the Japanese, either there are a bunch of dead Japanese in the 50 or a bunch of missing living Japanese from the global list, or more likely, some of both. There are 47 Americans on [3] too, which when added to the 50 Japanese = 97 out of 53 in just two countries. So pretty much I have zero faith in these tables or the ability of editors to keep them updated correctly.

Why not just follow Table E and have one global list to update? Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely a consequence of the anti-longevity brigade's efforts to remove any mention of the word "verified" from articles on supercentenarians. The list of oldest living people is the oldest living people verified by the GRG. The Japanese list contains a mish-mash of sources. This discussion was a farce, and the decision shows no respect for WP:NPOV. The GRG is widely considered to be the official authority when it comes to longevity (just do a Google search and see the mentions in a huge number of sources), and age verification is a standalone concept widely recognised by demographers, and not just a designation used by the GRG. Read this. It's a perfectly good idea to list the oldest people in a country (what exactly is the benefit of just having one massive worldwide list?) but it's discussions like the one linked above, which had little input from uninvolved editors, which have messed up the articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, verification on WP means WP:V not GRG. It's great that researchers on longevity are developing standards for their research (similar to the "peer-review" or "fact-checking" or "replication" or ... in other disciplines). But we don't need to highlight that in articles whose only purpose is to report straight information.
Also as mentioned elsewhere, your use of the word official in connection with GRG suggests you don't know what the word means.
The value of one massive worldwide list is that the reader can instantly turn it into any member of the current plague of lists (by country, by continent, by date of death, by gender), and any number of others we can't even anticipate. It's one-stop shopping for whatever the reader wants to know.
EEng (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
What's the value of a list that includes material such as this as if it were true? Giving users one worldwide mishmash of any/everything, without any scientific value, is pointless. Wikipedia needs to respect the concept of age validation, as per WP:NPOV. I don't mind restructuring articles if the idea of some mega-merger, mishmashed gobbledygook list with no standards is abandoned in favour of encyclopedic coverage that puts the age validation process first. How about a break from the never-ending AfD nominations and countless discussions, and take some time to try and come to some agreement involving as many uninvolved editors as possible? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
We wouldn't include the material you link the since the source isn't reliable for such an extraordinary claim. In this topic area, as everywhere, WP will rely on its usual methods for evaluating reliability of source (based on their level of editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking) but there's no reason to enshrine, visibly within articles and lists, a buzzword ("age validation"), nor to crown one particular organization's approach to fact-checking the king of all approaches. EEng (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't really compare to searching for documentation, does it? How do you decide what an extraordinary claim is? More than two thirds of 110+ claims are false, so just being reported on by a newspaper (even a well-respected one) isn't sufficient to say "this person is definitely as old as they claim". Age validation is not a "buzzword", it's a recognised concept and its purpose should be obvious. To ignore it is to not correctly represent scientific consensus, which should be done as per WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So is Ollie saying the Global article is based on GRG alone but Japan list is sourced from multiple places? That's very interesting and revealing. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

How so? Until August, both articles were in sync. But then there was a *genius* decision to remove any mention of verification status from the country articles (which violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE) and to remove all unverified claims from the oldest living people articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
They weren't really in sync since not every country was updated the same plus some had that European organization as a source. They were only in sync if you said that all the ones that used the GRG as a source were stating the GRG as a source together for which technically that's still in sync. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oldest by Country

We have established the arbitrary groups of counties like Nordic countries are not an notable intersection between old age and an arbitrary group of countries. We also established being born in an obsolete country does not warrant being grouped together. We are having some trouble putting rolling Aussie-land into Oceania even though all together the countries of Oceania would be the 35th largest in the world and make up a very small part of the world population.

It is unreasonable to maintain three and four deep lists of oldest people. World, Continent, Group of Countries, Countries, regions within countries = 5 deep. A sortable master list of living super old people (whole world) and a continent by continent list of people that took a super long time to die should be enough. The World's List of people who took a super long time to die can be a DAB page. Maybe note the very oldest 10 or so dead with links to the continent lists to explore. I realize continents are pretty arbitrary but a convenient way to segment a ling list. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, well is the upmerging from countries etc. to continents done? Clearly continent-level lists can handle everyone whether living or dead. So let's do that first. Then we can talk about what form the world list should take -- a giant list of everyone living or dead (quite possibly too large, though I'm not convinced on that), or failing that, some subset such as 115+ or whatever.
Africa - no country specific articles
Asia - Japan = Asia 100% redundant. This is mostly solved by putting a link on the Asia page toward Japan
Oceania - New Zealand deleted already. Australia at AfD to delete. If fails to delete at AfD, I suggest we switch it up and rename Australia to "Australia and Oceania" (a common way to refer to the region) and execute a merge of the few non-Aussies in Oceania into the renamed "Australia and Oceania"
North America: Caribbean merged in. Canada and the USA are still freestanding.
Europe is where the real mess of articles is. We eliminated or are eliminating the Russian, Nordic, and Austro-Hungary level as redundant. Germany is actually more like Russia Empire because all the super old were born when German Empire existed. There is a lot of Smith born here and moved there in the Europe list, including a person listed as being born in both Poland (current borders) AND Germany (historic borders) who died in Switzerland demonstrating the silliness of narrow and poorly thought out country specific lists. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
That article nicely covers both oldest recorded and oldest living males and females. Are you suggesting eliminating all the country articles or just the lists of names in them?
Some country articles have a list of mini bios - which need a home, but I'm not thinking the country articles are the place. Maybe we need a page for them all somewhere? Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
No suggestion here. Just trying to get a picture of what you're thinking. I'm losing interest in the mini-bio approach towards more of a hard-line "entry on a table" and not much else approach. I thinking we should get rid of the continents and move to either the "by country" or a separate country one I guess. We may need numerous merger requests to get a handle on this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out a path forward too. We've chopped 5 or 6 country/country grouping pages now, building up precedent. There just is little encyclopedic value in Oldest person in Andorra or France living or "ever" whatever "ever" is. Even less for oldest person "ever" in subnational areas like Wyoming.
The mini bios at least give the reader something a bit interesting to read cause lists of names/dates/locations are really boring.
I just sent another List to AfD to effect a merger of duplicated lists.
I also pulled together the List of the verified oldest people from three articles to one - which can be discussed Here.
Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating criticism of GRG

Robine, J.-M., Vaupel, J. W. "Emergence of supercentenarians in low-mortality countries". North American Actuarial Journal, 6:3, 54-63 (2002).

The lifespan structure of supercentenarians from countries with incomplete data suggests two issues. Firstly there appears to be a deficit of “young” supercentenarians due to incompleteness, the likelihood of being known increasing with age. Secondly there is an excess of “oldest-old” supercentenarians due to age inaccuracy, a significant part of the data collected by the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group being poorly validated.

So much for GRG as the validation gold standard. This suddenly suggest a potential subtext for the almost unbelievably aggressive campaign, over the last decade, by GRG apparatchiks for it to be given special status as a source: a mouse roaring. I think this warrants reevaluation of GRG's Table E as an RS, unless there's evidence they're cleaned up their act. Thoughts? EEng (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your case going to be? "Look, forget the fact that the GRG is referenced as the authoritative body by countless number of reliable sources and has been Guinness World Records' longevity consultant for several years, I've found a single quote from 2002 which suggests it's not reliable!"
Looks like a case of Cherry picking information to me. Please give it a rest. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The case would be, "A peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal leveled unusually blunt criticism of their reliability." This is one of the reasons we rely on secondary sources to filter primary sources, which is what GRG really should be considered. We should be working from secondary sources, not GRG's tables. EEng (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
A paper from 2002... it's nearly 2016. That's quite outdated. Look at the situation now. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I said in my OP, "unless there's evidence they're cleaned up their act". Reputation counts for a lot in research, and the same people are in charge now who were then, AFAICS, with the major exception of the addition of irrepressible RY, whose effect on their image is at best ambiguous. EEng (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you know who was in charge then and now? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG!

I went to get answers to who's in charge now at GRG, and guess what? GRG has a blog hawking quack anti-aging remedies [4]:

Mission: Slow and Ultimately Reverse Aging. Don't Be Sick & Miserable When YOU Get Old. Get LOTS More Years of the GOOD Life! *Support our Mission. Call [redacted] or email [redacted] -at- AgingIntervention .org Does our mission speak to you? Then contact Johnny Adams at [redacted] -at- AgingIntervention .org or call [redacted]. Gerontology Research Group, Carl I. Bourhenne Medical Research Foundation / Aging Intervention Foundation – www.AgingIntervention.org

From bad to worse! EEng (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I read that page and I don't see any anti-aging remedies being sold on that site. It is also an anti-profit organization. The .com is from wordpress and has nothing to do with the GRG itself. And if you read the content, it is clear the site does not really promise any miracle medicine or whatsoever to live longer. This is no quackery. Although I agree that the title is poorly chosen. Petervermaelen (talk) 2:52 am, Today (UTC−5)
Non-profit status guarantees, unfortunately, little. See American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine. EEng (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see where the first half of that quote has come from. I notice you also ignore the numerous posts detailing clinical trials and scientific studies - cherry picking information to push your agenda, again. Because what this is really about is you trying to find whatever way you can to discredit the GRG so you can claim victory over the "fanboys", isn't it? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The entire quote is right at the top of the page. Mixing in some good information with quack-remedy–hawking doesn't change anything. EEng (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete all "supercentenarian deaths by year" pages and the country pages, delete this page and the other top 100 pages and the living supercentenarian list, and create one giant, ungodly "List of verified supercentenarians" page

Discussion moved from Talk:List of the verified oldest people to where an actual discussion would be more appropriate. @66.168.191.92, Legacypac, and DerbyCountyinNZ: -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

All the data in all these various lists can be combined into one single list with a mere 2200 or so names listed. It can be sortable by date of birth, date of death, country, gender, all that good stuff. It'll also mean only one page will have to be updated whenever someone moves up a "rank" rather than various country pages as well as the list of living or year of death pages. It will be the most accurate reflection of how male longevity stacks up when compared to female longevity, too, which seems to be the original idea behind wanting to merge the three lists in the first place. The only "downside" to this proposal is that it'll be difficult to update every day because it will be absolutely massive, but hey, like Teddy Roosevelt said, "[n]othing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty." 66.168.191.92 (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

New IP, interesting. Why not use your acct? Legacypac (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
That would violate common sense, logic and multiple Wiki policies and guidelines. Next. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I would at least argue to merge the deaths of supercentenarians by year to the regular deaths by year categories. They aren't notable enough for separate mention by virtue of them dying after age 110 to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 is nominated for deletion? The years of the other lists not? What is the sense of such a behaviour? Is someone paid here for nomination for deletion of supercentenarians articles? Just discuss, please.--37.4.93.114 (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You can comment at that AFD discussion page. It's sometimes considered more prudent to nominate one in a series of articles to get an idea of consensus beforehand. If you oppose because the others have not been nominated, that's fine. It may result in the whole group being nominated to provide clarity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion

Those who missed it may want to take a look at the discussion at Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#More_presidential_birth_certificates, wherein it's asserted...

  • that should Jimmy Carter live to 115, GRG verification of his age will be "required";
  • that the standard for listing of longevity claims should be evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt".

EEng (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A pointless discussion which has done nothing to help this topic move forward and dragged on so long it has become tiresome. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Such a bloated talk page too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It certainly was tiresome (though not entirely lacking in entertainment value) but it does serve as a reminder of the intransigent nonsense thinking which has turned this topic area into embarrassing slagheap of worthless miscellany it is today. It should be helpful for our esteemed fellow editors to see that for themselves by skimming the discussion linked. (Starting at the end might be most efficient.) EEng (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessments

I'm a little confused about Wikipedia:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Assessment for the 370 or so articles at Category:WikiProject World's Oldest People articles. We have a Top/High/Mid/Low structure. I'm most curious about the individual biographies. There's no right or wrong answer here so I'm just throwing out a starting flag. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've included the basic suggested assessments from the Wikiproject priority assessnents in each section below to help figure out which articles go where. These can be adapted specifically for this project, which is something other projects have done. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I've incorporated your versions that as they make more sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Top importance

I think this should be limited to Template:Longevity and the whole issues and records lines, along with Supercentenarian. Portal:Supercentenarians could use some work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia.
In this case, I'm thinking the template, Longevity, Gerontology, Supercentenarian, and Centenarian, the Terminology and Issues lines in the template, as well as the List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest men, and List of the verified oldest women articles belong here. These form the core of the articles in this project, and I'd expect the descriptive articles in this category as well as these particular records and issues in a print encyclopaedia. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Incorporated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

High importance

I think we can put the birth and death and the births and deaths by year articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
I disagree that that the births and deaths by year articles belong here; I think they're more Low importance. In this category, I'd put the remainder of the Records line and the Non-human line from the Template. I'd also put biographies of any world's oldest person recordholders here. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
we are the World's oldest ***People***. Dogs aren't people.
Interesting. Psychology Today seems to support your claim: [5] Gap9551 (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Incorporated Ca2james' suggestions. Deaths by year moved to low. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mid importance

I think we can put the continent and individual countries articles here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject fills in more minor details
Agree. Also the War-related lists and Centenarian lines from the template. I'd also put regional/country oldest person recordholder bios here, if there are any. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Incorporated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Low importance

I think we can put the historical country and macroregion ones here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject is mainly of specialist interest.
Agree, but I also think the Births in year and Deaths in year articles, as well as List of last survivors of historical events can go here. I think these articles tend to be more trivia than encyclopaedic, since the names are included in other articles. Any remaining bios would go here. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Incorporated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
These historical country and macroregion ones are or will be all deleted as redundant. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
They have been. There weren't in August though lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessments discussion

Let's try to have a single organized discussion place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone at all care to discuss this? Is there any actual interest in improving these articles or just in having lists when possible? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD not listed on article alerts

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Ministers-President by longevity EEng (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think general longevity is included in this project. There's plenty of similar pages at Category:Lists of political office-holders by age. I wonder if we should rename and expand the topic so that things like that are included. Twins and marriages are listed at Template:Longevity under the Centenarians following this odd change. I've started three similar AFDs based on the Chief Justices for Australia, Canada and the US. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Another AfD not in Alerts

He was only 107, but check out my research results on where the article likely came from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Christmann Legacypac (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose Rename to WikiProject Longevity

Most everyone here is interested in the broader Longevity topics, and the word Longevity better explains the focus of this project. Longevity is also a bit broader, the name of the main nav box and the name of the arbcomm case that covers this area. It looks like the current project name mimics a GRG yahoo group by the same name so a rename would confirm this project is not controlled by an outside forum or org. Thoughts? Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think there's serious question as to whether this project will exist at all in the future, plus things are confusion enough just now -- we don't need to be going around changing names like Template:WikiProject World's Oldest People on top of everything else. I counsel waiting until all the other dust settles. EEng 04:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand it is very hard to terminate a project, but if you have a plan... How hard is it to move a template and project name? Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Age in years and days

Is there consensus on when this template can or should be used? I added it to the infobox of a 105-year old person (Johan van Hulst) but was reverted on grounds of days not being verifiable. However, if that is a legitimate concern, that would apply to almost all cases where the template is used. Also, the age in years is commonly listed in BLPs (not just of old people) even though a person may have died in the past few days (but not yet reported). Gap9551 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Since his birthdate is documented in reliable sources, I don't see why it wouldn't be verifiable. However it may be unnecessarily precise as we rarely discuss the age of adults with that precision. Pburka (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and I agree with using only years for the vast majority of people. But still, the template exists and is used. Is it only for supercentenarians, or maybe just for people predominantly notable for their age? Gap9551 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that the template is not used exclusively for people. It's also used in articles like World War I and Bundestag, for example, where the more precise time may be desirable. My preference would be to avoid it for people's ages unless the person is notable for their age. Pburka (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of senescence research

Some editors here may be interested in this article and its AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing Afd alert

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alimihan Seyiti. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Since our friendly banned and blocked users have been busy lately...

... I thought my esteemed fellow editors might find informative an excerpt from a source added [6] by one of them to the Robert Young article:

"Robert Young (real name) was a kid who corrected people's grammar at the age of two and then grew into the kind of adult who brags about his former precociousness in conversation." [7]

EEng 13:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I get that this is properly sourced, and I hate to be a spoilsport, but WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE probably apply here. Also WP:SHOOTINGFISHINABARREL. David in DC (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It goes without saying that this would be just one part of a larger, balanced presentation. EEng 16:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Check it out

I'm typing on a cellphone with big meaty claws so I'm not gonna try to put a link in here. But I just noticed a new BLP/N thread that might be of interest. It touches on sourcing issues for longevity lists. David in DC (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find anything at WP:BLP/N. EEng 04:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Here. This is basically "The GRG ranks supercentenarians, anyone not "ranked" by the GRG should not be ranked. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, so I'm blind. EEng 05:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Input required

Mbah Gotho is claimed to be 145. There is a discussion at Mbah Gotho#Really? as to whether this person should be categorized as a Longevity claim or a Longevity myth. The long-standing consensus has been that 130 is the upper limit for "claims" and anything over that is a "myth". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The whole category of Longevity myths is problematic. The category combines actual myths (i.e. ancient and legendary heroes) with disputed longevity claims. Wikipedia editors should base categorization on reliable sources, not on their own best judgment about what constitutes a myth. Pburka (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
An article named List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 which would presumably have an appropriate category was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (2nd nomination) and merged to Longevity myths, not Longevity claims, which suggests those editors viewed such cases as Mbah Gotho as more appropriately regarded as closer to "myths" rather than "claims". There are, as you say, problems with any categorizations in the field of longevity, not the least of which is placing undue emphasis on "verifiability not truth" which would, IMO, significantly degrade this topic of any encyclopedic value. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. It seems to have been an awkward merge, as the inclusion of disputed claims contradicts the lead and the disambiguation header on the Longevity myths page. Pburka (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
That article is another of those which John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) edited so extensively that its original intention was lost; many, if not most, of his edits were never reverted. Most subsequent edits seem not to have noticed any issues or bothered to re-write the article to reflect its updated content. It's an article I lost interest in some time ago as any attempt to thoroughly tidy it up does not seem worth the effort. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of the ? in longevity articles

I thought of another issue that could use some consensus: the use of the ? next to dates that are considered "unverified" or suspicious. See, for example, Mark Matthews, where there's no source that throws his date of birth into question, yet the ? is used to mark uncertainty. Aside from the ambiguity of the mark (how does one know what it means on each page without reading the edit history?), I feel that it is original research for Wikipedia to question a date or year of birth published in a reliable source unless some other source calls it into question either explicitly (i.e. a publication calling the age into question) or implicitly (i.e. Guinness claims that Emma Morano is the world's oldest person, so any birthday older is cause for suspicion). Therefore, I propose removing the ? (or the word "claimed", which is less vague but still has the WP:OR problem) on longevity pages. In cases where a reliable source calls the date into question, a footnote can be used to address the concern precisely; there's plenty of sources dealing with extreme longevity that will prevent such cases from going unchallenged on their pages. I'm also, however, open to everyone's thoughts. Canadian Paul 19:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

One helpful point is that MOS:APPROXDATE says not to use ?. EEng 19:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Another helpful point is that the guidelines for this Wikiproject (at least for living persons) state that Wiki cannot say someone has falsified their age unless it's in a reliable source. So at least for living supers we can remove the word claim or the question marks. There was a similar problem with Zhou Youguang as anonymous IPs kept adding he was unverified as soon as he turned 110. CommanderLinx (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
How did supers get into it? EEng 00:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, since I don't see any oppositions here, I'm going to assume that consensus for now is to not use the "?" and related OR doubt-casters, so I'm going to remove it from Matthews and any other articles I notice without reliable sources calling the DOB into question. Footnotes will be used in cases with reliable sources, as well as in cases of extreme longevity. Canadian Paul 15:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Thambiayah

I have a question. Why isn't Alfred Thambiayah Sri Lanka businessman, politician and member of parliament on the list of the 10 oldest living men? According to his page on Wikipedia he was born 8 November 1903 which makes him 113 years old and the second oldest living man in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NLVMom (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The article refers to her in the past tense, and I do t see anything suggesting he's still alive. EEng 04:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about article "List of the verified oldest men"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of the verified oldest men#Category:Lists of supercentenarians , which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. This is a discussion about whether Oldest People, List of the verified oldest women, & List of the verified oldest men should be listed at Category:Lists of supercentenarians instead of Category:Lists of oldest people since all the individuals on each list are supercentenarians Peaceray (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Age in Years and Days

As I was catching up on everything that I missed over the last month, I noticed that there was a low-level edit war over Zoltan Sarosy and the inclusion of the age in years and days template. While I don't have a strong opinion on either way, I can sympathize with the idea that the inclusion of age in years and days is a) trivial and fancrufty (particularly for those supercentenarians that were notable before they turned 110) and b) a violation of WP:V, since it presumes that their age is being verified every day. On the other hand, we have millions of individuals in the "living people" category that we don't verify every day and at that age, a person's notability can be influenced by how many days (as opposed to just years) they have been alive. It may also be considered no less encyclopedic than a myriad of other facts on Wikipedia, particularly those regarding supercentenarians. I think, however, there should be a consensus to point to on this issue, so as to avoid future edit wars. I'm raising it here as a neutral, but willing to be swayed, party: we could use the template for anyone over 110 (or some other age), only in cases where longevity in days is part of the notability, only in supercentenarians not notable for anything else, only for deceased individuals, or probably a bunch of other suggestions that I'm not thinking about, but I think that discussion is warranted given the potential for edit warring. Canadian Paul 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any responses in over a week, I'm going to propose what I think is the least controversial option: removing it in cases where the individual is living and notable for something other than longevity. If there is no alternative consensus, I'll go with that. Canadian Paul 15:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Since there were no objections, I removed the template from Sarosy, Zhou Youguang, and Richard Arvine Overton. Canadian Paul 14:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: There was no discussion because this discussion seems not to have been noticed by any affected editors bar yourself. @TFBCT1: made me aware of this discussion now, so I'll take it up again. My view is this, people who where notable primarily for other things than their longevity should not have the age in years and days template unless they reach the top 100 living people. In the case of Zoltan Sarosy he didn't manage that, even though it was close. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: what's your take on this? --Marbe166 (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Canadian Paul. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to Marbe166's proposal. It's somewhat arbitrary, and I can't argue against verifiability here, but I support it as a way of reducing some of the fancrufty issues that have surrounded this topic. Canadian Paul 18:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of this project?

Pinging those who have contributed to this project in the last 2 years plus others involved in recent issues in articles which come under its scope and others who may provide worthwhile input. @Canadian Paul:, @Peaceray:, @EEng:, @CommanderLinx:, @Pburka:, @David in DC:, @Newshunter12:, @Canada Jack:, @Nil Einne:, @The Blade of the Northern Lights:, @Knowledgekid87:, @JasonPhelps:, @Legacypac:, @Ricky81682:, @Clpo13:.

Firstly, apologies to those who have (no longer) any interest in this project or its articles. Secondly apologies for the length of this but there are a number of issues which I would like your opinion on, mostly in the hope that i haven't been wasting my time trying to maintain/raise the encyclopedic integrity against increasing resistance from those hereafter referred to as the "GRG fan-club". The recent editing history at List of the verified oldest people, List of oldest living people and Chiyo Miyako highlights a number of issues that are undermining this project. For each bullet point that follows I would value your opinion as to whether I have interpreted/actioned the point appropriately according to Wiki guidelines. If you don't feel like reading them all, I particularly value input on point 10.

  1. For List of oldest living_people the consensus of both this RFC, followed by this RFC made it clear that all WP:RS should be treated equally and that the GRG should NOT be given any precedence over other sources. Have I interpreted this correctly? Does it constitute WP:CONSENSUS?
  2. To clarify the inclusion criteria for the list I started this thread. Only 3 other users responded: 1 has made no further contributions to Wiki since there question was answered; 1 (who seems to have been pro-GRG, see the thread 2 above this one) seemed happy with the explanations provided and subsequently edited the article in line with my proposals; and 1 provided further input to support the clarification as stated. Note that none of the GRG fan-club bothered to respond at all despite apparently having the article on their watchlist. Was I correct in assuming that the outcome of this thread was that my clarification was accepted by those with an interest in the article and therefore constituted a (new/modified) consensus?
  3. On the basis of the above see my stance in this thread and the following thread from a month and a half later. Was I correct in taking the stance that inclusion should be based on the apparent consensus in point 2 above?
  4. In that thread (and elsewhere) I have referred to the fact that taking a pro-GRG view while editing longevity articles resulted in 2 topic bans Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#GreatGreen, a 1RR Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#BjörnBergman, and one user who seems to have only escaped any sanction by stopping editing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Kachelus. Was it justified to assume that editing in a similar vein would result in similar sanctions? (See the last bullet point) Was it appropriate to mention this as an attempt to discourage further pro-GRG editing? (It didn't work).
  5. Concerning the edits from 2 days ago. A user, if not from the GRG fanclub then certainly close to it, removed the World's Oldest Person from the list of oldest living people which I reverted with this explanation on the talk page. For those that are unaware it has been long-standing (i.e. 10 years) consensus that any entry on the list may be removed if there is no report that they have been alive within the last year. Was the revert appropriate? Was the explanation appropriate (given the further clarification)? Is it correct to assume that it is a BLP violation to remove someone who has their own article, from a list of living people without having a citation stating that they have died?
  6. Approximately 12 hours after the above there was this edit on Chiyo Miyako. Note the lack of citation and the (meaningless) edit summary. I reverted this twice but the GRG fan-clubber persisted. Were my reverts in any way unjustified? Were the explanations appropriate? (Note: I have always assumed that OTHERSTUFF applies to content as well as deletion discussions, mea culpa :( )
  7. Note that a) my editing on the pages in points 5 and 6 was made more difficult by the time differences, other editing moved to much both overnight (my time) and during work (when I cannot edit); and b) as it turns Miyako was in fact dead but for some reason (resources/incompetence) the GRG did not update their list correctly/appropriately and the fanclubbers edited multiple pages on the basis of false information (much of which I suspect came via the 110 club, the refuge of Wiki-banned longevity editors).
  8. Further to b) above, the GRG has over the years on multiple numerous occasions withdrawn its validation of long-standing validated cases; decided to validate cases which it has previously declined (e.g. Matthew beard) and on one occasion insisted that someone had died when their relative pointed out on Wikipedia that they were still alive. Given all this is there not a case for the GRG lists to be withdrawn from WP:RS?
  9. On the off chance that at least a few people agree with the above, would it not then be appropriate to scrap this project and start again, with more clearly defined criteria? Is there any way in which such a project could become a guideline, as that would certainly make it much easier to enforce?
  10. On a related matter: One member of the GRG-fanclub has been increasingly persistent in their editing of longevity articles along a pro-GRG line. Given the results of previous cases of this in point 4 above, I belatedly (a hard-drive crash didn't help!) started ARBCOM enforcement proceedings here. To say that I was disappointed to have the majority of infractions as content disputes would be a gross understatement. Does anyone here agree with the outcome? Was I justified in bringing this matter to ARBCOM? Should I have re-opened the previous case (I tried to get clarification on how to do this but got no response)? Would more diffs have helped (there are many, many more infractions that could be included)? Surely this edit alone would be enough for a discretionary sanction? What have I missed here???

Again, apologies for the length of this. I promise not to bother anyone else in this regard if it turns out that I have been wrong all along. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • This is going to take at least 30 minutes to read through all of the linked threads and type up a response. Can you boil this down any more than it is? I will respond, but have to take a serious look at it which I cant do atm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Knowledgekid87: This project was created to essentially mirror an off-Wiki forum and populated largely by people (many subsequently topic-banned from longevity) who edited Wiki on the basis that anything published by the GRG is a) inherently notable and b) trumps all other sources when it comes to validating the age of old people. This has led to a considerable amount of longevity fancruft and listcruft. Much has been subsequently deleted and much of the remainder is now ostensibly inline with WP:V and WP:RS. An RFC at List of oldest living people concluded that no preference be given to the GRG over other sources. Despite this there are still editors who maintain the GRG over other sources line. For instance this edit, which fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP: No other "reliable" sources trump "GRG." turned out to be based on misinformation by the GRG. The editor concerned has done many similar edits but admins have been of no help in stopping this. There have been numerous other similar failures/inconsistencies by the GRG which lead me to conclude that it no longer constitutes a reliable source. As such, the majority of articles created under the scope of this project and based largely or even solely on the GRG should no longer be considered to pass WP:RS or WP:V making this project redundant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have sufficient interest in this topic to see this through the long haul, but I will say (a) I've always been extremely suspicious of the special status of GRG as a source, and (b) I wouldn't rule out that a TNT of the whole project, and a rebuild from scratch, would be useful. EEng 17:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not convinced that GRG rules should trump Wikipedia's sourcing policy. In particular, their requirements for three different proofs of birth inherently limits the documentation of older people to countries where birth records were scrupulously maintained 100+ years ago. This explains why poorer countries seem to have no supercentenarians, although surely genetic luck must be evenly distributed irrespective of economic conditions. There is also an attitude problem with "GRG absolutists", for example refusing to respond to questions about inclusion criteria, while summarily deleting non-GRG entries even if well-sourced. — JFG talk 01:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    I want to say I agree, but there really is a problem with otherwise reliable sources such as newspapers seemingly taking old folks' word for their age, which clearly leads to a lot of mistaken claims being published. GRG has cleared a lot of those problems up, but at the same time there's something very amateurish about them (such as this goofy "limbo" designation). I really don't know how what to do about all this, though one possibility is to tighten up the notability standards on longevity greatly so that unimpeachable sources are required. (I can't remember if the people on the various lists are each considered notable, but if not then we could just eliminate the lists as well.) EEng 02:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I would certainly welcome a set of inclusion criteria that the community could agree upon via RfC. Whenever I asked "regulars" for criteria, I was met with silence, so that the inclusion of sourced longevity reports came down to an experienced editor's "I think this guy is legit" or "doesn't look plausible"; that is not in line with our encyclopedic standards. To the latter part of your comments, supercentenarians are rarely notable individually except for their long life. Hence most of them are confined to lists of old people, and only a few have an individual article. As with many other topics, lists can be collectively notable while elements of the list are not. I don't see a reason to remove lists. — JFG talk 08:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
First of all, regarding the general status of this project (#9), I think that it would be useful if transformed into a hub to discuss policy issues related to longevity at large. For example, there's a lot of times that editors come to a consensus on one page, only to have that same consensus ignored/violated on a similar page. Having these discussions spread out through different talk pages makes them difficult to locate for reference purposes and just increases the ability of users to ignore the discussions because they were about "some other page". Talk pages of articles should be about discussing concerns that are only of interest to that particular article (i.e. "How should we format this table? Should we include this entry?); this project should be where bigger questions are discussed ("When do we include only 'verified' individuals? What is the relative weight of GRG as a source?"). As long as this page is being used to centralize discussions on the topic regarding Wikipedia policy, and can be used as a place where people raise general concerns, then I think it is valuable. It just can't be another extension of the fanclub.
Regarding #1, I believe currently that the consensus is that the GRG is not intrinsically "better" than other sources, but that when there are two conflicting sources (i.e. Newspaper says a man is 118, GRG says oldest man is 113), it can be considered as a tiebreaker. I've also said before that I think that this consensus is open to renegotiation, or a more explicit statement (another potential good use for this project - an RfC on this topic), but that in such a case it should be applied equally to every page, because I think that the biggest problem on this topic is people subjectively applying their own personal standards to pages (i.e. "There's no way this guy could be 117!" or "Gustav Gerneth's age is definitely accurate!") rather than simply reporting what the sources say, as required by WP:RS; it is not our job to "interpret" sources or apply original research. I am not particularly opposed to having GRG (and similar sources, such as Guinness) be considered as the only "reliable" sources, but then it must be applied fairly, i.e. the living men's list at "Oldest people" would consist of only two people. That, in my mind, is the problem with using just the GRG; it limits the accuracy with which Wikipedia covers the topic, because clearly there are more than two men living worldwide over the age of 110.
Regarding #2 and #3, yes, I see that as the new consensus, and my comments at length can be found in those threads. Regarding #4, this seems fine with me. Regarding #5, unless there's some consensus I am missing, the GRG's "limbo" category is wholly irrelevant to Wikipedia, which has its own procedures and guidelines. If the consensus is that entries are removed only with proven dates of death or lack of updates in a year, then that is the only way that they should be removed. Wikipedia is about verifiability first and foremost. Regarding #6 and #7, I can't see the edit that you are referring to (comes up as a blank change by you). Regarding #8, sources can make mistakes and still be considered reliable; newspapers issue corrections all the time, but we wouldn't considered them unreliable unless there was a demonstrable pattern of falsehoods. The GRG is accurate most of the time, which is the standard we hold to other reliable sources, although I do believe that this is all evidence that the GRG shouldn't be considered some "super source" that is inherently better than others.
Regarding #10, I think that this was a fine action to take; if the behavior persists, it can be brought up again, perhaps in the form of suggesting a topic ban. If it does not, then the action had the intended effect and it is no longer a concern. Just like law and crime in the real world, the good faith actors are often expected to follow a lot of procedures while the bad faith ones have free reign to chip away at the encyclopedia, which can be frustrating to those just trying to improve things. Those steps are important, however, to identify who is truly acting in bad faith and who may be just misguided or in need of help. Following the steps also makes it so that when a bad faith actor is identified firmly, they have no way to wriggle out of a ban. Canadian Paul 09:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: Sorry Paul, fixed the link to point 6. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, in that case that's an easy answer: the addition of controversial material on what was then believed to be a biography of a living person is a blatant version of WP:BLP. Although she was actually deceased at the time, WP:BLP still applied as there was no reliable source provided for her death (also, BLP policies apply to recently deceased people anyways). Canadian Paul 11:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the problem with people who have no concept of what an encyclopedia is, and live their life through messageboards and Facebook! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly why I think it should be nuked and a new project started (WP:LONGEVITY?) which is disassociated from the GRG and its acolytes and has far more clearly established guidelines which conform to broader Wiki principles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I would support a new WP:LONGEVITY project that would be kick-started by a big RfC on inclusion and sourcing criteria. Current project could be phased out after new one gets up to speed. — JFG talk 12:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Good plan. As much as I'm sure I'll regret saying this, I'd be willing to help (though not taking the lead). EEng 17:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry I'm late to the discussion. I agree with your points, especially the need to nuke this project. It's clear when looking at the various country lists and other lists this whole project was originally designed around the GRG (which countries have lists, who is allowed to be included, who can be numbered, etc.) Some GRG stuff like the races of individuals on at least the U.S. list have gone by the wayside, but this project is crippled by it's GRG legacy and present. The GRG has essentially stopped verifying claimants under 112, so anyone who dies now below that age cannot be properly integrated into the country articles (get a number), which shows other sources must have at least equal status to the GRG or these pages cannot function properly. There have been many thousands of supercentenarians, so I believe any rework of this project needs to include a higher age of inclusion then 110 for nearly all articles, since that age is not notable. Perhaps 112 or 113? This and possibly lowering the number of people per list would do much to eliminate the issues surrounding sources since there would be many fewer sources we would be working with, maintenance would be easier, etc. I would also like to point out that the GRG lists known dead people (e.g. Johanna Klink) in limbo and shows them getting ever older, along with a host of people older then the recognized oldest person in the world, so that is another problem with its reliability as a source. I'd also be willing to help with a new or revamped project.
As to your point 10, I think you were completely justified in taking the editor in question to ARBCOM and had valid points. They seem to have a seriously haphazard relationship with consensus, policy, and reliable sources versus unreliable sources along with a major pro-GRG bias. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
As to your point #10. I am once again dismayed at finding myself an open target on one of your discussion pages for a slew of editor’s to disparage. As you can see by your attempted ARBCOM, it was closed without cause and no repercussions. It was quite apparent that my 20,000+ edits have made a beneficial contribution, and that my daily updates for over 10 1/2 years to the longevity pages have made me quite committed. I want to make it very clear that I take offense when you refer to me as part of the GRG “fan club.” I am not associated with any of their clubs or sites and only regard them as a strong reliable source for matters regarding longevity. I do find you to have an unbearable anti-GRG bias which is problematic. I’m considering this page an attempt to canvass to further disparage my reputation even after an ARBCOM matter was closed without cause.@DerbyCountyinNZ:@Canadian Paul:@Newshunter12:TFBCT1 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I was so astounded by the way the ARBCOM decision was decided, and not being familiar with the process having never done one before, that I sought input from other editors to see if I had made an error of process. That those that replied here entirely agree that it was appropriate to take you to ARBCOM means that I am even more mystified as to how you got away with no sanctions, though perhaps if the same editors had had a chance to provide some input that may have been different. I could have badgered the admin concerned for an explanation, but that's usually not a good idea, so I'll just hope that next time the outcome is different. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC
You did not make an error in process, but an error in judgement as you can see by the outcome of the ARBCOM. Your creation of point #10 above is another serious error in judgement.TFBCT1 (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sandstein:This is a follow up on my ARBCOM which was closed without incident on 07/26/2018 and was filed by DerbyCountyinNZ. Please see point #10 on the above list. I came across this dubious project created by DerbyCountyinNZ by chance, even though it was done in a surreptitious manner so that I would not be notified of its creation. He proceeds to ping (15) editors and pointedly states (3 times) that the crux of why he brought everyone together was to scrutinize point #10 which has nothing to do with this project, but is a re-hashing of the outcome of my ARBCOM procedure which he expresses explicit disagreement. This represents canvassing in order to disparage my reputation because we have a difference of opinion. I’m curious if there is any other Wikipedia violation here that I’m not aware of? Please advise.@DerbyCountyinNZ:TFBCT1 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not about a difference of opinion, this is about a moribund project designed by the GRG fanclub which has no active members (of those listed in the project) and, despite some improvements, does not adequately reflect Wikipedia guidelines and aims and is not being followed/enforced. As such it clearly (as the overwhelming opinion of those who have replied above reflects) needs replacing with a more effective project. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Once again, you are a master at skewing the facts. You brought (15) people together under the guise of a defunct project with the pointed purpose of re-hashing an ARBCOM which had already been closed without cause. You state this (3) times in your outline. This type of canvassing to harm another party is unacceptable.TFBCT1 (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


I contributed to these articles a few years ago before I left on a bit of a wikibreak; I completely agree that this wikiproject should be replaced with a WP:LONGEVITY project. The GRG has goals that are not quite in sync with those of this encyclopaedia and I think that disassociating this project from the GRG is in the best interests of Wikipedia. I also support clarifying inclusion criteria to reduce dependence on the GRG. Ca2james (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll try and get the base for WP:LONGEVITY done by the end of this weekend. I'm assuming that it wold be better to have at least started the new project before taking this one to Mfd as it would be appropriate to make this a redirect so as not to lose it's history. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I just saw this post now. For #1, I believe you have interpreted this correctly, that GRG should not be given any precedence over other sources. For #2, I believe you were correct in assuming that the outcome of this thread was that your clarification was accepted by those with an interest in the article. For #3, I believe you were correct in taking the stance that inclusion should be based on the consensus from #2. For #4, it was justified to assume that editing in a similar way would result in similar sanctions. I'm not sure whether it was appropriate to mention this as an attempt to discourage further pro-GRG editing, as like you mention in the parentheses that it didn't work. There might have been a better way to discourage pro-GRG editing, but I'm not sure what that would be. It seems like some of the users who are trying to take a pro-GRG stance get kind of argumentative/defensive/confrontational sometimes, so telling them possible consequences could just get them more argumentative/defensive/confrontational. For #5, yes the revert was appropriate because it first should have been talked about on the talk page before removing Chiyo in the first place. The explanation was appropriate given the further clarification. It is correct to assume it was a BLP violation, to remove someone who has their own article from a list of living people without having a citation saying that they died. #6 The reverts were justified and explanations appropriate. #8 I think there is a case for GRG lists to be withdrawn from WP:RS, given multiple times the GRG has withdrawn long-standing validated cases, and also the need to focus on multiple sources and not just GRG. #9 I think more clearly defined criteria would be a really good idea, as there have been a lot of people that seem to not entirely understand the current criteria. So, yes it could be appropriate to scrap the project and start again, and to get such a project that could be a guideline, making it easier to enforce. #10 I'm not super familiar with ARBCOM and how that works. However, if the GRG-fan club is persistent in taking the pro-GRG line, and the same people are repeatedly doing it after being specifically asked not to a large number of times, then it seems there would be reason to take it to discretionary sanctions. JasonPhelps (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting this project to WP:WikiProject Longevity

I would like to think that it would be a "simple" matter of replacing WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People with a redirect to the new project. Some how I don't think it will be that simple. Anyone able to help with this? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the "clean start" approach, I don't think a redirect would be appropriate. Leave the Oldest People project as is, and add a note that a separate Longevity project has been started. Then, gradually bring relevant articles into the Longevity project. Some day, maybe, the Oldest People project will be ripe for deletion, but we don't need to discuss this yet. I'm afraid that a "topic grab" redirect would likely attract unnecessary drama. — JFG talk 10:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Also note that the natural scope of Longevity is broader than just "oldest people". — JFG talk 10:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As well the scope should be. This stupid WOP project was just a cover for putting WP's imprimatur on someone's meaningless lists of "titleholders". EEng 05:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, for sure. Depending on how we want to expand it, biological immortality, Galápagos tortoise, Adwaita, Cedrus libani, Werner syndrome, and progeria are just a few random potential articles. Expanding out of this one oddly specific area will add some variety to someplace which desperately needs it, get some fresh voices in here, and make it harder for the shrill SPAs to drag things back the other direction. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability criteria?

What are the notability criteria for this project?

Specifically, the British supercentenarian articles are each being AfDed at present, on the basis that age does not confer notability (of course, US articles are untouched). If this is the case, then should this whole project be abandoned? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This project has been superceded by WP:LONGEVITY. Appropriate discussions are on the talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And non-notable Americans are up for deletion too. There is no US vs British issue. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Mark Project "Historical"

I was not editing when pinged in August, but I agree with the thrust of the case made to replace this project. I ran across yet another topic banned user just this last week. Time to mark this historical. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Archive_8&oldid=1078452857"