Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
I fail to see why this subpage is allowed to exist here in its current form. Given that its admitted sole purpose is to "keep track of future supercentenarians", just how many wiki guidelines should it be allowed to continue to flout? It seems to be little more than extension of a messageboard/forum of the Yahoo WOP group; there is a large proprotion of entries without citations (which would violate OR although I suspect most are taken from WOP itself which is now considered an unreliable source); listing people in the hope they might make it to 110 seems to violate WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Quite frankly it is somewhat less than encyclopedic, leaning far more to Listcruft. Recommendation: Persons with a non-WOP citation mentioning a 109th birthday, or being alive past 109, only. Or deletion.DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. But given the nature of your reasoning, and AfD filed by you, rather than, for instance, me, would make a genuine statement about reining in the abuses. If you choose to do so, please list the nom on the table up above, to notify the project and to prove transparency. We're definitely on the right track here. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bear with me as I'm not a frequent editor, but DerbyCountyinNZ, can you provide specific instances where this sub-page has actually broken Wiki guidelines? The page is not an extension of the Yahoo WOP Group. I know this because I'm a member of the discussion group and most of the entries on this page appear not to come from Yahoo WOP Group. True, when I look at this page, I am disappointed that previous editors had not provided a lot of source citations for each person/entry listed. That can be corrected in good due time, as you can imagine. In case it's not realized, Yahoo WOP Group messages are posted by volunteers who quote external sources when a discovery is made for someone celebrating 108th or 109th birthday. Sometimes, those external citations disappear so the only source that has the entire information is on the particular Yahoo WOP Group message. Just something to keep in mind regarding your POV's, DerbyCountyinNZ & David in DC. CalvinTy 12:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think It's a good idea. Keith G.J. Cody (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've boldly nominated it as an MfD. There's a link to the discussion page at the bottom of the proposed deletions chart.David in DC (talk) approx 10:00 pm EST, 26 February 2011.
- The MfD discussion is quite lively. Input from project members might help. David in DC (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've boldly nominated it as an MfD. There's a link to the discussion page at the bottom of the proposed deletions chart.David in DC (talk) approx 10:00 pm EST, 26 February 2011.
- I think It's a good idea. Keith G.J. Cody (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bear with me as I'm not a frequent editor, but DerbyCountyinNZ, can you provide specific instances where this sub-page has actually broken Wiki guidelines? The page is not an extension of the Yahoo WOP Group. I know this because I'm a member of the discussion group and most of the entries on this page appear not to come from Yahoo WOP Group. True, when I look at this page, I am disappointed that previous editors had not provided a lot of source citations for each person/entry listed. That can be corrected in good due time, as you can imagine. In case it's not realized, Yahoo WOP Group messages are posted by volunteers who quote external sources when a discovery is made for someone celebrating 108th or 109th birthday. Sometimes, those external citations disappear so the only source that has the entire information is on the particular Yahoo WOP Group message. Just something to keep in mind regarding your POV's, DerbyCountyinNZ & David in DC. CalvinTy 12:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Project participants may be interested in this ArbCom enforcement request. David in DC (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Offer to help mediate
It's my understanding that ArbCom has recommended that this WikiProject seek the advice of more experienced editors. While I'm certainly not the most experienced editor, I've been around for roughly 2 years and am fairly well-versed in our core content policies on verifiability, original research, neutrality, and biographies of living people. I guess I've already been mediating a bit through my regular work at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and with a couple suggestions on article talk pages, but I'd like to extend my offer more formally. I can offer advice/ suggestions and provide an outside perspective on this topic-space. I'd like to remain uninvolved in the articles themselves so I will not edit any of them (except perhaps for minor edits such as fixing punctuation or spelling). I've add this WikiProject to my watchlist as well as a few others. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. If my help is not welcome/required, that's fine, too. Just thought I would make the offer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is most appreciated that you are offering to mediate on how to improve our WikiProject per the ArbCom recommendation. At this time, it seems like the central debate now at RSN has to do with how to precisely handle GRG, Yahoo! Groups WOP private group, and Oldest Human Beings list "OHB" (by an expert, Mr. Louis Epstein) are considered WP:RS or not. I think proponents are saying that, in particular for GRG and OHB, they are vetted data by expert gerontologists and scientists. Perhaps the dissidents are confusing between those areas: reliable sources, original research, and primary sources. I somewhere mentioned an example of the U.S. Census Bureau providing data, for example of a state's population as of the 2010 Census, and they clearly are a reliable source, although some may resist using the data because it is WP:OR or is it?
- I just feel that GRG is possibly on the same parallel with the U.S. Census Bureau. They both are notable, they produce data that are vetted, and finally they also publish their data on their own websites causing some to cry foul "WP:SPS" on GRG, but nothing on the U.S. Census Bureau. Thoughts? Cheers, CalvinTy 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are so many points of difference that it's hard to know where to start.
- There is masses of information about the methodology of national censuses. I just discovered, for example, how the Census enumeration is done in Alaska Native communities [1]. By comparison we know very little about the methodology of GRG. (It would cut a lot of discussion short if more was revealed about who verifies what before it goes on the GRG website; just continually saying "it's checked by experts!" isn't all that convincing.)
- The census contains errors but it is such a large database that errors tend to be lost or cancel each other out.
- Raw census data is anonymous so there is no chance of violating biographies of living persons policy when using it.
- The International Database on Longevity is also anonymous and would seem to be the "gold standard" in tracking extreme human longevity.
- The "data" on the U.S. Census Bureau's website isn't the raw data collected, but has undergone various steps of processing, all carried out by big teams of expert statisticians.
- Everything on the U.S. Census Bureau's website is published, whereas the raw GRG tables appear to be unpublished, from what we can see on the database. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't here to question how sources get their information. Wikipedia cites many peer-reviewed journals, news articles etc. We don't question where newspapers get their information. While adding such information would perhaps add to articles, it is far from a necessity. What is a necessity is knowing a reliable source from an unreliable source.
- That's a rather far-reaching statement and in many cases, that will not be the case. However I personally think the Census Bureau is a poor analogy to the GRG.
- And what source says this? The GRG has an order of magnitude of results on Google compared to the IDL, including 9 reliable sources from news reports in the last month. However the IDL is certainly an addition to the repertoire of reliable sources on longevity.
- Data from the GRG is published in the peer-reviewed journal Rejuvenation Research on a regular basis. Here is a recent publication from a few weeks ago [2]. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- To your first point; yes, we do want to know where reliable sources are getting their information from, because it makes a big difference. We know where newspapers such as the New York Times are getting their information from, and many people can verify these processes. This is why, for instance, we do not trust the official word of the Burmese government as much as we do a BBC correspondent who's visited the country; we have no idea how to separate the truth from the bullshit (of which there is a lot) with the Burmese government because they're extremely oppressive, whereas the BBC has set standards and thresholds a person must meet to publish a story through them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are so many points of difference that it's hard to know where to start.
WP:BLP sourcing
Please join this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Separating list and topic articles.
I believe we should prioritise the split between list and topic articles. List articles follow the criteria in WP:LIST and WP:MOSLIST, should begin with a brief introduction to the list topic and be titled "List of...". Topic articles should be text, avoiding embedded lists where possible, and not be titled "List of..." Anyone got a contrary point to make, otherwise I will begin by taking the lists out of Longevity claims and Longevity myths. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had not read the Longevity claims and Longevity myths pages for a very long time. First, those pages definitely need a complete re-do, if not from those editors who originally wrote the bulk of these article pages because a lot of citations are sorely needed! Back to your point, I actually think it looks like that both of them are considered topic articles, rather than list articles. WP:LIST and WP:MOSLIST are redirected to the same page, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists). Did you mean to paste this one, Manual of Style (embedded lists)?
- For Longevity myths, I only see an infobox on the right showing a list of persons of "Biblical longevity". Are there other lists that you took out already (I haven't checked history yet)?
- For Longevity claims, if this was a list article, yes, it would have made sense to say "List of longevity claims" for the title of list articles itself. This appears to be more of a embedded list of the main topic article on longevity claims to show the types of longevity claims in their respective lists (Living claimants, Limbo cases, and Past claims).
- Either way, both pages definitely need to be improved but I'm not sure what direction it needs to go -- so ideas would be entertained here by everyone. What do you think, itsmejudith? Cheers, CalvinTy 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have created a new list page, List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 to include cases in list form that are beyond what is scientifically feasible. See what you think. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Without participating in this thread, Nick Ornstein has put that article to AfD. So people can argue it there if they like. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have created a new list page, List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 to include cases in list form that are beyond what is scientifically feasible. See what you think. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Facelift (and rename) for this WikiProject?
When I became active in February 2011, one of the things I quickly noticed about this WikiProject World's Oldest People was that it seemed to lack direction of what our project members want out of this WikiProject. I do wonder if that's why there have been so many disputes in Longevity in recent years because of this.
Taking a look at WikiProject Star Trek, it is one impressive WikiProject! Even if we ignore the visible effects and layouts (such as font images and the brilliant use of sections), it still has a clear concept of what areas of the WikiProject are being addressed in each section.
I have no intention of mimicking that WikiProject for our WOP project. :-) Though, I had learned about how to use tabs last month, and today, I finally want to show the project members a preview of our WOP project before I make bold changes to the current WikiProject:
First draft of the WOP project facelift
Please take a look at pending tasks (as this was the only area that I actually added new content here). All other areas includes content from the current WOP project, but even then, there is a lot of content that can be improved in the future.
Another thing I was able to incorporate was the visibility of recent edits to longevity articles in the Recent Edits tab. I actually have no idea how many days or changes would be displayed but I simply used the same template found elsewhere, but I thought this was a very important tool for our project members. I might be able to fine-tune this all in good time.
Finally, I recommend that this WikiProject be renamed from WikiProject World's Oldest People to WikiProject Longevity.
I had looked at the history of this WOP project main page and noticed two conversations in the past about this:
1. Admin Bduke suggested on 2 Apr 2008, "Would Wikiproject: Longevity be a better name for this project? It sounds more encyclopedic. What do people think? --Bduke (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)"
- That conversation was immediately derailed with irrelevant discussion between Neal and two admins, Bduke & Moondyne.
- Moondyne, at end, did chime in, "Also, I agree with a rename to the much simpler and broader Wikiproject: Longevity, but frankly I do not wish to get involved in this project other than helping to ensure it stays on the rails as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. —Moondyne click! 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)"
2. RYoung122 noted on 30 Aug 2008, "Also note the name of the project was blatantly copied by Neal Conroy from my Yahoo webgroup, [3], (founded in 2002), but I do not object to the use of the name so long as proper credit is given as to its origin. Ryoung122 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)"
From those two conversations, I see that there is no prevalent reason to keep the current wording, "World's Oldest People", and that "Longevity" being more broad may bring more interested members to contribute to the project. We honestly only have a very few (as in maybe 10-ish) active project members -- not counting outside input from administrators or arbitrators as they usually come in due to a specific reason/incident. It can be a problem when we want to boldly change controversial articles or make new proposals such as this one, but either there are some people in two different camps that would argue for their own position & going nowhere, or in other cases, lack of participation by the few members can cause a discussion to collect dust.
Restricting to "World's Oldest People" and/or even "Human Longevity" (I did thought about it briefly) is still quite a specific area of interest. We do have some articles about oldest trees, oldest dogs, and I'm sure there are more others, so they can go under this project, so in my opinion, I think "Human Longevity" is still narrow. We could end up preferring to rename the project to "Longevity & Aging" since gerontology is 'study of the social, psychological and biological aspects of aging' and certainly goes hand in hand with the study of longevity. Though, I do not advocate renaming the project to Gerontology for many reasons, mainly because the definition does not explicitly cover the existing longevity articles that are already on Wikipedia.
I'm curious on everyone's input on whether the new structure and name change to WikiProject Longevity is good and may be a much needed 'psychological boost' for this WikiProject? Best regards, CalvinTy 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm thinking we have one of two options here, either of which I'm equally open to. We could change the tack of this project to include longevity in other species, which would be manageable; WikProject Longevity would be a great name for that. Alternatively, we can maintain the current purpose of this WikiProject as written, in which case I'd say either WikiProject Longevity or WikiProject Gerontology would be a good name; just my thoughts, though. I agree that the current name is a bit clunky. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for being the first comment in about 5 days, *grins*. I think it may speak volumes that our WikiProject is just too narrow with very few members being active. Anyway, back to point, there was another thought that came up recently -- perhaps the simplest way to proceed is to create WikiProject Longevity, and leave this WikiProject World's Oldest People alone without any rename/changes, but make it a sub-project, i.e. WikiProject Longevity would be the parent project? Regards, CalvinTy 16:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sub-projects, we don't need. I'm still trying to find all of this project's sub-pages! I concur re both clunkiness of the current name and the need for a psychological break with the days of yore. (Here I refer to the days of yore on this wiki-project. Obviously, we'll still be focusing on the older sort of days of yore.) I think human longevity is a big enough subject to merit a whole wikiproject. To that end, I'd like to see the oldest trees and oldest dogs deleted from our focus, and a change in name to Human Longevity WikiProject. David in DC (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I had seen the replies but hoped to wait for additional input from more eyes, but guess not. David in DC, I think I used the word "sub-project" poorly. I only mean that, for instance, WikiProject Star Trek could be perceived as a sub-project of Television. It likely does not make a difference since both projects probably have different memberships. The point I am trying to make is that a "simple rename of this WikiProject" from World's Oldest People to Human Longevity will not address the fact that we have a very small number of active participants. That's why I felt a stronger rename to a broad word such as "Longevity" is necessary -- I'm sure there are many editors who are fascinated with biological longevity, not just "humans"; maybe their participation in a Longevity WikiProject would help our particular area in long run?
- Sounds reasonable to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sub-projects, we don't need. I'm still trying to find all of this project's sub-pages! I concur re both clunkiness of the current name and the need for a psychological break with the days of yore. (Here I refer to the days of yore on this wiki-project. Obviously, we'll still be focusing on the older sort of days of yore.) I think human longevity is a big enough subject to merit a whole wikiproject. To that end, I'd like to see the oldest trees and oldest dogs deleted from our focus, and a change in name to Human Longevity WikiProject. David in DC (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for being the first comment in about 5 days, *grins*. I think it may speak volumes that our WikiProject is just too narrow with very few members being active. Anyway, back to point, there was another thought that came up recently -- perhaps the simplest way to proceed is to create WikiProject Longevity, and leave this WikiProject World's Oldest People alone without any rename/changes, but make it a sub-project, i.e. WikiProject Longevity would be the parent project? Regards, CalvinTy 16:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Heck, the existing Longevity template can easily be a great guidance for a Longevity WikiProject (thus all the more reason to choose the word Longevity over Human Longevity) -- (see Longevity template below) --
- Of course, I continue to be open to feedback; but I just think that I should consider proposing a new WikiProject Longevity soon -- and explain that this particular WikiProject will continue to stand on its own as this is a very narrow subset of Longevity in general. Regarding any rename of this particular WikiProject, I will let any future consensus come on whatever that may be (so far we have 3 people, including myself, David in DC & The Blade of the Northern Lights commenting; that is not even a consensus so a rename now wouldn't be appropriate). Regards, CalvinTy 20:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Having recently cleaned out my refrigerator of barely identifiable former foodstuffs, I am now qualified to write about hunan longevity. Once your Hunan Chicken grows hair, it has outlived its useful life as a source of nutrition. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Paradigmatic problem
Please review this edit and this, as yet unanswered, talk page query. I'd be fascinated to hear a policy-based answer. (If one can be formulated with a straight face.) David in DC (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Paradigmatic problem II
Please review this talk page query and the edit it references. I'd be fascinated to hear a policy-based answer. (If one can be formulated with a straight face.) David in DC (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly can formulate one with a straight face, David. I don't know why that extraneous sentence was necessary, as a matter of fact. Then again, we are just two editors venting our opinions. Back to the facts: Yes, as your edit summary stated, Eddye Williams were cited in the two reliable sources, NBC Washington and NPR. To quote WP:SOURCES, "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."
- More specifically, "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."
- So if we were to review the reliable sources above, we would note that:
- the NBC Washington citation was essentially 9 sentences mentioning her 110th birthday -- literally a simple announcement. The article itself would be barely a stub on Wikipedia, affecting its reliability as 'a simple piece of work'.
- the NPR citation was under the "Intern Edition, The Next Dimension (IE3D)" part of their website, and the actual path of the citation indicated it was done in Summer 2010. There, I see a note on the right side of the page, "This is IE3D, signing off. Sadly, our summer internships have come to a close, and it is time for us to sign off from IE3D, Intern Edition Summer 2010." So we learn that this particular article was written by an intern, which by itself means nothing, but it can affect reliability as the 'creator of that article'.
- They are still reliable sources because of the editorial oversight that both websites are likely to have, although quite weak in the "verifiability" scale. Behind the hood, Gerontology Research Group ("GRG") has a system in place to "check and analyze facts, evidence, and scrutinizes each reported supercentenarian claim". That's why most reliable news sources turn to external agencies such as GRG to confirm or question whether a claim they have is possibly true or not. So in this case, per the verifiability policy, GRG is the more appropriate reliable source to assess Eddye Williams's claim rather than NBC Washington or NPR. NBC Washington and NPR are more appropriately used to report the status of "still living" and the reporting of any "birthday celebration". If GRG continues to report publicly that Eddye Williams is unverified, on the other side of the coin, why should Wikipedia take the word of the first reliable source that says, "Williams is believed to be the oldest woman in the city." or the second reliable source saying, "According to hospital records, Simmons’ mother is the oldest living person in Washington D.C."? Seriously? Which hospital? All hospitals in DC? Both reliable sources do not meet the burden to indicate what the Wikipedia article states, "This is a list of the oldest living people of each US state". Regards, CalvinTy 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Aside from the assurances of its partisans, how do we know that "[b]ehind the hood, Gerontology Research Group ("GRG") has a system in place to "check and analyze facts, evidence, and scrutinizes each reported supercentenarian claim"."
- I ask this question especially in light of this statement on my talk page by someone who edits using the avatar CalvinTy: "I try to find current online sources but GRG is using ancient technology and limited manpower so it can be a challenge."
- David in DC (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, I said that. That was in reference to past claims or claims that have not been investigated in quite a while whereas we see GRG's website showing a page to state "as of 2007" -- using old tables & lack of manpower to do more recent updates. That does not change the fact that they do review such claims, right? I aimed to seek other online sources to supplement GRG (which evidently can be a challenge when other sources do not do the "verifiability or scrutiny of such claims") because most writers are not trying to do so. Cheers, CalvinTy 20:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
[1] is not a reference
Because a hobbyist or expert inserts this kind of nonsense into a wikipedia page does not make it more reliable. I urge all members of this project to police our pages so that facts are backed by references. It's truly vexing that anyone inserts this manure and doubly vexing that deleting it is not a high priority. I'd like to see it made one. David in DC (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Is Reginald Dean notable enough for an article?
Since Claude Choules died earlier this year (2011), there is no longer an article on the oldest living man in Britain in Wikipedia. The honour goes to Reginald Dean who was born in November 1902. Please let me know whether he is notable enough for an article. I shall understand if you consider he is not - after all, he is not quite a supercentenarian at the time of typing. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit summaries are our friends
Please review this edit. It seems (to me) inarguable. Would anyone care to explain why it's not? David in DC (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Deletion recommendations
- Most recent update:David in DC (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Relevant discussion: Fringe-theory noticeboard, open arbitration, 2007 notability discussion
Two articles need name changes
These two pages contain pending, disputed, and unverified cases. The article names need changing. I don't know how to do that. Does another project member, or anyone else who watches this page know how? If so, can you help? David in DC (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. (I learned how to do a new thing). David in DC (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"Milestones" in super-c articles
In articles such as Besse Cooper the "milestone" 'Cooper, aged 114 years, 294 days, became one of the 30 verified oldest people ever' has been included. The same information is included in the lede. This not only OR but unencyclopedic. There is no "30 oldest people list", the list that is being linked to is the verified oldest people which is actually a top 100 list. This sort of fanboy listcruft trivia has no place in wikpedia unless an actual top 30 list can be linked or cited. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. David in DC (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
A question
The AfD that was a major catalyst for starting an ArbCom case even before an RfC on supercentenarian notability (which is an extremely rare occurrence, ArbCom almost always insists on RfCs first, so it tells you how nasty it was) closed as no consensus. Two of the people who generated the most heat there are no longer allowed to participate in this subject, so I'm wondering if we should turn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) into a bluelink. Before sending it to AfD, I want to get a feel for what the WOP people think. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the aRTICLE,SIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.82.170 (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would you care to say why you think the article should be kept? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not worth having a serious discussion with this guy. David in DC (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would you care to say why you think the article should be kept? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd support an AfD. Early in the first AfD discussion, before hostilities escalated, I found this rationale persuasive. I still do. David in DC (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Likewise; I'll wait another 24 hours or so, and if I don't hear from anyone else I'll get it going. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you do, please notify all WikiProject members by using the chart at the top of this page. It puts everyone on an equal footing and avoids allegations of canvassing. Well, it avoids such allegations that are well-founded, anyway. Hard to avoid the other kind. David in DC (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have had a busy summer and haven't been on Wikipedia much. Someone edited my user page and I got an email about it so that got my attention to check Wikipedia. Then I saw this. While a logical rationale, I found that rationale quoted by David in DC above dissuasive. That person who said the original thought had used death as part of the logic process, but if we were to apply it to everything encyclopedic, there are many people who have Wikipedia articles now that may be non-notable when they dies. What's the point then? It's the matter of whether they are notable in this present time frame, not death. Does that make sense? If someone is the oldest of a region/country/continent, to me, that's a historic fact that cannot be changed due to passage of time (or a person's death, in this case). Cheers, CalvinTy 01:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've questioned that particular editor on whether they're really new (somehow, I suspect not); to the point above, I'd be asking for a delete without prejudice to recreation if he were to become notable later (by a surge in news coverage, or becoming the world's oldest man, or something else). I don't particularly care one way or another (though I did vote in the first AfD, I don't have very strong feelings about it), but I do think it should reach some definitive resolution, be it here or at the above redlink. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, BNL. I have no idea about that IP editor above. In either case, I'm focused on content not the editor(s). A quick look at the current Jan Goossenaerts article looks like a complete, albeit basic, article about him. I looked at some of that AfD mentioned -- focusing on the policies and good debating (weeding out all the other drama there) -- and I understand that a person aged 110 may appear to be "only notable because they breathed longer than others". However, while being a supercentenarian (aged 110 ) is not the notable event itself, but human longevity has always been fascinating to people and if media sources (and reliable ones) publish
an articleseveral articles about someone who is the oldest of a continent, who are we to declare that they should not be notable "solely because of their age"? I am now an official GRG correspondent as of this summer so I am more likely not be able to vote for any future AfD for Jan Goossenaerts (or similar articles), but I would most definitely make a comment of my thinking there. Just my thoughts. Thanks, CalvinTy 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, BNL. I have no idea about that IP editor above. In either case, I'm focused on content not the editor(s). A quick look at the current Jan Goossenaerts article looks like a complete, albeit basic, article about him. I looked at some of that AfD mentioned -- focusing on the policies and good debating (weeding out all the other drama there) -- and I understand that a person aged 110 may appear to be "only notable because they breathed longer than others". However, while being a supercentenarian (aged 110 ) is not the notable event itself, but human longevity has always been fascinating to people and if media sources (and reliable ones) publish
- I've questioned that particular editor on whether they're really new (somehow, I suspect not); to the point above, I'd be asking for a delete without prejudice to recreation if he were to become notable later (by a surge in news coverage, or becoming the world's oldest man, or something else). I don't particularly care one way or another (though I did vote in the first AfD, I don't have very strong feelings about it), but I do think it should reach some definitive resolution, be it here or at the above redlink. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have had a busy summer and haven't been on Wikipedia much. Someone edited my user page and I got an email about it so that got my attention to check Wikipedia. Then I saw this. While a logical rationale, I found that rationale quoted by David in DC above dissuasive. That person who said the original thought had used death as part of the logic process, but if we were to apply it to everything encyclopedic, there are many people who have Wikipedia articles now that may be non-notable when they dies. What's the point then? It's the matter of whether they are notable in this present time frame, not death. Does that make sense? If someone is the oldest of a region/country/continent, to me, that's a historic fact that cannot be changed due to passage of time (or a person's death, in this case). Cheers, CalvinTy 01:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you do, please notify all WikiProject members by using the chart at the top of this page. It puts everyone on an equal footing and avoids allegations of canvassing. Well, it avoids such allegations that are well-founded, anyway. Hard to avoid the other kind. David in DC (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Outdent. I've now cleaned up the article and noted where it lacks sourcing. There's stil not much "there" there. David in DC (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
WP World's Oldest People in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject World's Oldest People for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, I'd love to help out with this; I'm not officially a member, but I've worked a lot with the people here. If you'd rather I not, I'll quietly bow out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to participate in the interview. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deletion recommendations
- Most recent update:David in DC (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Relevant discussion: Fringe-theory noticeboard, open arbitration, 2007 notability discussion
Lu Zijian
I just found some pages, that claims a chinese baguazhang master Lu Zijian was born on 15th of October 1893, so he is 118 years old now. Here is his webpage: http://luzijian.com/index.html I don't know, if it is a reliable source, but it has some statements from his early life, that perhaps could be verified somehow. I don't know, how to check these facts, but if he did all these things (I mean for example being the head bodyguard of Chiang Kai-shek) there has to be some records of him.
His later life must be well-documented, I guess. Here is a video, of him from 1986, performing at a championship in China: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAH4KQw-0mw&feature=related
83.216.48.13 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- For now, that information would go quite well into the Longevity claims article. We'll see what happens with the validation, and depending on how that goes we can adapt it as needed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Here's his name and (alleged) birth date in Chinese, if that may help: 吕紫剑 1893年10月15日. Searching google for these brings up a ton of results about Lu (or Lv) Zijian. So even though many of them express some doubt about his age (as far as I understand the Chinese-English-googletranslated pages) - I'd say if it's fake, it's a very good fake, and plenty of Chinese pages fell for it! Someone reading Chinese will be in a better position than me to evaluate these though...
- Some search results (Chinese):
- Chinese Wiki: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/呂紫劍
- Detailed biography in a martial arts blog: http://lsw1230795.mysinablog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=2981441
- Article on jrj.com.cn (leading financial information portal in China); http://finance.jrj.com.cn/consumer/2011/07/26084410537405.shtml
- News page on the Chongqing Municipal Government website: http://www.cq.gov.cn/today/news/301926.htm
- Luzian (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Divide the work/clean up
Hi, I'm new member here, and to quote Jack The Ripper 'I want to get to work right away' ;) I wonder, is it possible we can divide the work on deleting and redirecting articles, and so on? I noticed there are a lot of SC's that should not have an article, and most of them not even a mini bio. What do I mean by divide the work? For example one person could be mainly responsible over Italian SC's, and for big ones like List of Japanese supercentenarians, there could perhaps be two members responsible. I think this could be an effective way of getting somewhere so to speak, since it all are getting out of hand with all the superflous articles and mini bios. --Leoj83 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think that would be a good idea, for two reasons. One, it would make it easier to pick out Snakes in Iceland problems (see WP:Articles for deletion/List of Swiss supercentenarians for context) currently in articles now. Secondly, it would as you say make it a lot easier for people to assess notability on a country by country basis, since there is a correlation between the country and the level of notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone want to take a look at this?
See Bienvenido P. Cancero. Not really sure what to make of it, though it seems dubious at best to my (pretty much untrained) eye. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Such an awful article it's surprising it hasn't been Speedy Deleted! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Something for your consideration
Please see Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Title question. Comments/suggestions are more than welcome. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Redux
To avoid repeating myself too much, just search Archive 3 for the header A question. In a couple of weeks, after the news reports die down, should someone turn WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) into a bluelink? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
External links
Members of this WikiProject may find interesting information at http://www.longevityexperts.com/ and http://www.supercentenarian.com/ and http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Reginald Dean
Some time last year (2011), I asked here whether Reverend Reginald Dean was notable enough for an article. If you want a source for him being the oldest man in Britain at present, you could try:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-15525796
I did say in my note last year that I shall understand if he is not - after all, he is not quite 110. It will be interesting to see whether he lives to November this year, which will make him a supercentenarian. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that Dean should be notable enough for an article if and when he reaches age 110. Futurist110 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
User:John J. Bulten
Hello all. I would appreciate the opinions of a couple editors who know the history as to whether the environment has sufficiently changed that I should come back and help out once again. This is the first project page I am watchlisting again in I don't know how long. Thank you. JJB 15:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
People here may take interest in the last two discussions on that page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on how to deal with milestones section
Talk:Jiroemon_Kimura#Longevity_milestones.21
Should we or should we not include the timeline idea? If so, in addition to or in place of the longevity milestones? Also, what to include in the timeline and other fine tuning. RoadView (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Carrie C. White has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Recently recreated article that was redirected to List of supercentenarians from the United States as failing WP:BIO five and a half years ago. The section was deleted from the list since her claimed age is no longer accepted.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aspects (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Life and Death in Assisted Living - seniors
Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pressroom/frontline-propublica-investigate-assisted-living-in-america/ Please contribute to discussion Talk:Assisted_living#Life_and_Death_in_Assisted_Living XOttawahitech (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Unclear difference between two articles
What is the difference between the articles List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 and Longevity myths? They seem to treat the same topic, or at least overlap very substantially in coverage.
A related case – I was just chided for daring to display incredulity regarding the alleged lifespan of the ancient Buddhist monk Fotudeng, who is alleged to have been a supercentenarian on the order of Kimura or more – in the 4th century! I'd like to hear a longevity buff's take on this (I've mentioned the case on Talk:Longevity myths#Buddhist monk), as my personal incredulity is apparently irrelevant. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oldest notable people
We have a list of oldest people ever, a list of all notable centenarians (divided among several pages) who are notable for some other purpose (e.g., George Burns and Roy Douglas), and a list of living (notable) centenarians in order of age. It seems to me that we should have a list of oldest notable centenarians ever, either the oldest 50 or 100, or anyone who reached 105. I am willing to do this, provided there is some support for the idea. Matchups 17:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I, for one, would be interested in any data you have collected on this. I thought Heesters was a pretty unique case; the combination of prominence and age strikes me as highly unusual. I haven't heard of other notable people who have lived to 105, but I would love to know if there are any I've simply missed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
After running across stories in the 1905-08 range mentioning Isaac Brock (supercentenarian) as the oldest American alive, and seeing other coverage of him showing he was a notable (though the claims seem fanciful), I created a stub for him. Please feel free to add cats, etc, as appropriate.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC).
Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC).
AfD: Johannes Hans Hess
There is an open AfD that the members of this project may be interested in, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Hans Hess. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject World's Oldest People At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies
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) 18:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
World's Oldest People at Wikia
I am not sure if any of you are aware, but I started an Oldest People wiki at Wikia some time ago. Here is the link. As Wikipedia has limits to content, especially notability, this would be a great place to migrate any lost content, especially deleted WOP-realted articles, as well as biographical details of the lives of supercentenarians that are not considered notable enough for Wikipedia. This, along with the fact that at Wikia, you can create articles on non-notable supercentenarians, instead of listing them as sections like the bottom of this page. I made the wiki for those interested in going deeper into this topic. I just thought I would let everyone here know in case anyone is interested. — AMK152 (t • c) 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPN notice
I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Unverified_supercentenarians regarding two issues: is GRC the only basis we consider a RS for listing here? I think that's contrary to the general policy of using reliable sources but one could argue that any other claim falls under WP:FRINGE so I don't know. However that leaves the articles that GRC has not verified: should they be listed even though there are no reliable sources that support it? Should they kept if there are other reliable sources for it which means that GRC isn't the only basis for the claims? Or we could have GRC along with ones that have other reliable sources but ones that are unverified by GRC and have no other sources should be removed. Feel free to comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
References in edit summaries
I'm noticing that some members of this project are editing entries in tables in one or another article with a url in the edit summary but no reference for the change in the article itself. It isn't enough to put the reference in the edit summary - it needs to be inline, where anyone reading the article can verify it. I'm personally not in love with bare urls as inline references but they are allowed. Please can you put the url as a reference (in <ref></ref> tags) instead of the edit summaries? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Pending GRG table source and flag discussion
There is a discussion concerning the reliability of GRG tables for Wikipedia articles and the use of the "pending" flag/colour at Talk:List of supercentenarians who died in 2014#Article referencing problem. Comments are welcome. Ca2james (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Structuring potential cases by alleged year of birth
I'd like to make a suggestion that we restructure all the material that's floating around and instead organize it by year of birth. This isn't ideal but rather than the various craziness, we move Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians as a single holding page with links to 1907 sublist, 1906 sublist, etc. Each list must include both birth and death dates so we're keeping track for now of potential living people and then the overall dead ones if anyone cares. We'd have to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases in even though those are incomplete to these lists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
An explicit criteria of two years before being discussed here
I think there should be an explicit criteria for all listings. I propose one year so we only include people who are at a minimum 109 years old. One year is sufficient time for us to keep track of various individuals. If people don't comment, I'll make a RFC so we can get everyone's views. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ricky81682 I agree with you that there should be an explicit criteria for inclusion in the table on the project page. However, since no one else is commenting on the issue (I'm beginning to suspect that the WOP members don't watch or keep track of this page), an RFC would be a good idea. Ca2james (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect they watch the page but not likely the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that watching one automatically meant watching the other, but maybe there's a setting that doesn't do that. I wonder if it's worth doing some kind of MediaWiki message to all project members to bring the to this page, since the outcomes of the recent sections will impact all editors active in this project and it might be better that they're explicitly told about the discussions. Ca2james (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect they watch the page but not likely the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Living as of 23 December