Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People
Latest comment: 12 years ago by ACEOREVIVED in topic Turinah
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Merge of Oldest people and List of oldest people

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Proposing merge of these two - an urgent task I think if readers aren't going to be utterly confused. Oldest people begins by saying "this is a list". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. :) David in DC (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, couldn't resist. In case anyone does't like jokes here, I agree with IMJ. David in DC (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To me this is a delete rather than a merge. But (IMJ please see Help:Merging) please continue discussion at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Merge proposal, to which this is copied, and where my reasons appear. JJB 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

End COI

Evidence indicates that User:Ryoung122 (Robert Young) has continuing, massive, improperly handled WP:COI due to his position with the e-group GRG; that User:12.144.5.2 (Louis Epstein) has manageable COI by a similar position; that GRG and the Yahoo group WOP have advocacy purposes contrary to encyclopedicity; and that several admitted Yahoo WOP members are also WP editors. Evidence indicates that this group of conflicted editors has maintained a large number of articles contrary to WP policies and has entrenchedly resisted attempts to conform such articles to policy. Since all WP editors have an interest in improving WP in accord with community policy, we need an effective community solution for the policy violations. Notification: I will notify the last several editors to this talk page of this discussion, in accord with policy.

Please limit discussion below to solutions for policy violations; I have proposed several possibilities. Since the COI has some risk of affecting this discussion as well, I will arbitrarily propose that an editor who perceives a conflicting relationship to gerontology advocacy in another contribution in this section may move such comments to a separate section below for determining the extent of the COI; under the relevant policy subsection, such contributions will only be retained in this section if consensus indicates they contribute constructively to solutions for policy violations. Please comment paragraph by paragraph in the #COI options section below, threading comments appropriately. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"People" sections at end of list articles

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

These aren't necessary, are they? A list should be a list; apart from an introduction it shouldn't need extra paragraphs underneath. Biographical info should, where the individuals are notable, be in the biography articles, which should be linked in the main list. So I'm going to start taking them out. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would advise caution and patience here, because it seems to me that most of these are the results of merge orders (listed above, actually). In a list where someone has say three borderline sources, it would be appropriate to have a brief bio, although that may interfere with tabular format (which is why the workgroup editors prefer the separate section. The place to start might be to delete the most unreliable sources, per GRuban's guidance I mention above, and the most trivial statements. Stuff like "she walks every day" and "when [unrelated 110-year-old] died, he became the oldest GWR-verified man in County Essex". Besides deleting trivia and obscure items sourced only to GRG/OHB (apparently Coles/Epstein respectively), we'd add "request quotation" tags to the Yahoo WOP sections, unless there would be too many. I think a balance between list and thumbnail bio will emerge. JJB 16:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done quite few, and while they can be restored, your logic implies we should still omit the entries that refer to "main article", as those people have biogs that are already linked. I wonder if WikiProject Lists is active and would be able to advise. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, naturally it's redundant to see e.g. Nyleptha in a list, in a separate subhead, and in a main-article link after the subhead. There is a whole bunch of (ahem) juvenile formatting like that. Don't worry about restoring them if nobody objects, just move slow is all. JJB 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RSN opinion, after discussion, was that GRG webpages on their own aren't reliable. Yahoo! discussions definitely aren't reliable. Would someone like to draft a Sourcing section on the project page to that effect? And include suggestions of what sources are reliable, e.g. Guinness. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy points for discussion

I reviewed my first-ever post at this page at #Talk:Longevity myths, 19 months ago, and I was surprised to find that I presciently identified almost all of the dug-in issues on my first pass reviewing the topic area, and yet not one of my major points has been addressed. I believe the primary reason is my not challenging the nonpolicy consensus of conflicted editors that, every time, has drowned out the ability for nonconflicted editors to discuss. But let's attempt, once more into the breach, to discuss certain policy points toward nonconflicted consensus: just so I can see if I really have been sane all these months, or if the (cough) bullying was correct. Compare the original post above with the following list: there are more than these, but the fact that they have been unaddressed all this time indicates something! JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Rename "longevity myths" to "longevity folklore": first, the former violates WP:RNPOV and WP:SINGULAR. The faulty article name was first challenged in 2004 and repeatedly ever since. While some editors have agreed with the policy and such a move outright, others have opposed it in that two or three or more topics in the article do arise from mythos; but there is a clear continuum to the present day with no "end-of-myth" point. The bigger problem, though, is that not one sociology or mythology source uses the phrase "longevity myth(s)", though Ryoung122 has been ostensibly searching for 19 months; every source whatsoever uses the term "longevity myth" in its policy-forbidden, colloquial sense of "falsehood". Thus there is also the WP:OR violation. In 2005, Ryoung122 essentially took over the article, inserting most of one section of his then-nascent thesis: this insertion contained at least 26 phrases he invented relating to his original concept of "longevity myth" (and at least 70 sentences of unsourced OR), now gone (but the diffs are fun). Thus there is also the need to counteract, via a rename, the 5 years during which this OR has been accumulating mirrors and derivative works attributable to WP contrary to policy. I would have relisted this properly on the article talk page, but it was slapped down three times, as were several bold moves (usually by others), so I haven't re-broached this until now. What about finishing this rename after 6 years? JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Define the complementary scopes of the two articles, (myths/)folklore and longevity claims. I believe these two articles should list all old-age claims found in RSs but not verified by GWR standards (except when there is more than one birth-to-death lifespan found in sources, for which we have a third article for disputeds, list of disputed supercentenarian claimants). The wholly arbitrary scope demarcation maintained by several editors is: under age 131, claim; over age 131, myth/lore. (Don't ask me how Ryoung122 picked 131, I'll answer.) Of course, they're all claims, and they're all lore or traditions or stories or what-have-you, but there is a reasonable article-sizing argument for maintaining the demarc. I have sought various ways to differentiate by more objective standards; for instance, we could use "claims" for updates after the GWR epoch (fall 1955), and "lore" for those prior; we could also include all claims with complete birth and death dates; we could combine both. In the two articles, I defended their distinction by saying that the more complete and/or modern cases are easier for lists and the more incomplete and/or ancient cases are easier for narrative presentation. But the first question is: should we stop separating by that wholly arbitrary 131st birthday? JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Limit list articles to those that appear in WP:RS (or even in less reliable sources). While we were breaking down poll data for WP:USPE, different presentations or analyses of the same data led readers to different conclusions, and the choice of analyses was disputed: but what we all agreed on was not to use original presentations not found in any source. While I admit some leeway, I think the group's entrenched insistence, saying that this top-100, that top-10-plus-addendum, the other by-branch-of-service are all necessary to answer people's questions, presupposes that people are even asking without proving this presumption is WP:NOR. Should we review all list articles to retain only those that are nonredundant, that have objective inclusion criteria, and that have some recognizable relationship to reliable sources? JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

4. Remove WP:DATED material that requires near-daily list updates by (cough) drudges. A full explanation and proposal for this appears at User:John J. Bulten/BDP, which also resolves slight problems in the BLP policy (which were actually the reason I first investigated the articles). JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page discussion of interest

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

People may be interested to read the interaction between User:Ryoung122 and myself on our talk pages. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've actually inured myself to this such that I don't go point-by-point anymore with proof of the error of each statement and implication. I will volunteer the fact that I voted for candidates from four different parties this month, if it helps. However, I fully support a third-party review of the interaction. JJB 18:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about the left-right politics. I'm assuming it has little or nothing to do with this particular debate. We certainly shouldn't deliberately introduce it if we don't need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it's relevant that I voted for Quisp over Quake? David in DC (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Sweetened breakfast cereals are a con. What's wrong with plain rolled oats? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I plead juvenile status. My age was in single digits when I cast my vote.David in DC (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Future of WikiProject

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

ArbCom evidence deadline was moved to 2011-01-15, announced by Kirill Lokshin. My first reaction is to shift gears from case planning to WikiProject planning as the best use of spare time for the nonce. This means I will be occasionally continuing to field proposals here as the appropriate page (and starting AFDs), and to guide the project from its original barely-compliant status to becoming a functioning topic hub. I would want to ensure that WikiProject members (whom I might join temporarily) and topic-area regulars have a full chance to share in forming these proposals; and we should do our best not to continue patterns of silence as reflected on significant talk sections above. JJB 04:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

Please comment here on the notability guidelines as currently drafted. My own opinion is that that bits I added are good (starting off with the general notability guideline for biographies, caveat about BLPs). I'm not happy with listing the questionable sources. I can't see that it's the role of a WikiProject to encourage people to turn a blind eye to questionable sources. Rather, we should be directing editors towards the best sources. I think we could say something, per the discussion above, about weight given to coverage in local, national and international media. I also think it would be useful to say that GWR is always acceptable as a source, and that if someone is noted in GWR as a record-holder, we do not need to look for further evidence of notability (although there will invariably be some). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make a bold edit, that section was just my taking you up on your offer of 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC) above. The basic points are that (1) (I believe David agrees) questionable sources, especially those previously widely used against the RS policy, should only be used supplementally and cautiously, and not as the main sources for an article (but not treated with a blind eye of course); (2) it may not be necessary to list them specifically, but I think it is important to establish talk consensus about their use (Rej Res should be attributed, GRG and OHB should be given a form of basic WP:QS treatment as above, Yahoo WOP should not be used unless quoted at talk or in footnote, with citation of the sources it quotes, and treated as a QS), especially since we have charges that our fresh creation of consensus ignores some prior consensus while we are doing our best to invite it in; (3) I would certainly be comfortable adding wording that a basic bio with roughly 3 nonlocal/international or 6 local sources would generally pass GNG, as long as it is admitted that those numbers are fuzzy based on the audience of the sources included (e.g. 6 different articles from the same local paper would not establish notability); (4) fewer sources than that would lead to minibios; (5) GWR is always acceptable as a source and as evidence of line-item notability, but I disagree strongly with the implication (you may not have intended) that GWR listing unsupported would establish article-level notability, or that these people are invariably generally notable. A large chunk of OHB is just GWR 1955–present, plus sorting. Anybody from the 50s, e.g., is not inherently article-level notable simply because of once being the 18th–oldest living person, and that could easily double the number of articles this project already has without true increase in notability or encyclopedic content. However, it's possible you only meant those listed as oldest-living at any time. If you want to propose that or some other subset of GWR entries as inherently notable, please propose away, because I might see that as possible. A good place to start is to look at the unlinked names on Template:Oldest men (currently 7) and Template:Oldest people (3) and see if you think they all should have articles based on inherent notability. You could also comment in the current AFDs (hurry!) for Alice Stevenson, Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian), Maude Farris-Luse, Denzo Ishizaki, and Yukichi Chuganji, who are all on those templates, who all fail GNG patently, but who would have inherent notability if even the first subset of your proposal were to go through. Please let me know what you think on these points here at any rate. JJB 18:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
3) is, I think, a bit overkill. "Multiple independent sources" is the general bottom line for an article. We don't want articles the notability criteria for supercentenarians to be much more stringent than those for biographies generally. 4) well, I don't see the point of minibios. An entry in a list is an entry in a list; a biography is a biography. I saw that a Ryoung122 IP sock was saying "but Wikipedia suggested it in the first place". OK, someone on WP probably did, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to go, or that we can't revisit it. I don't know where it was suggested anyway. GWR is reliable as to facts. How a GWR entry relates to notability is a somewhat different question. Being placed low in a GWR listing shouldn't mean a great deal to us, I agree. I will look at the templates you suggest to see what my instincts there are about notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability and sourcing

This states:

Guinness World Records is a reliable source for ages of birth and death, and for whether an individual held a record for longevity.

Gerontology Research Group data from grg.org should be attributed and used only as backup to reliable sources.

Why? Guinness stepped on their shoelaces when they certified Shigechiyo Izumi as 120, on very questionable grounds, when a more careful search by Japanese authorities later found better evidence that he was 105 (see the article-- wups). Guinness is more careful now. The GRG is who the New York Times goes to, when they want to find out if somebody is really as old as they claim they are [example]. And Guinness goes to the GRG, also, as they've said in print. To suggest that GRG data should only be used to back up "reliable sources" like Guinness and the NYT, when Guinness and NYT now rely on the GRG to begin with, is completely ridiculous! SBHarris 02:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Like all good sources, Guinness can make the occasional error and will then correct itself. Surely GRG is a primary source? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It is, but when no synthesis is involved in going from primary to secondary source, there's no reason not to use the primary source when the secondary one is likely to [A] make mistakes, or [B] not do its job to take note things it's taken note of in the past (i.e., is grossly inconsistant). The NYT might miss a 112 year old, but note a 111 year old. And might get the name spelling wrong. Why put up with that? Wikipedia has a worship of underpaid journalism trainees who start on things like doing copyedit of obituary and wedding and human interest story sections. What the hell makes these people "reliable"? They have ONE editor, and then it goes to print. The people who wrote the WP:RS guidelines really seem to pay special attention to information that is only notable for coming under a particular graphic design font (New York Times in Times gothic), and that is printed on dead trees. There is no reason for this but a certain kind of perverse sentimentality from some Wikipedians who came from newspaper background, and want to recreate their childhoods. That's nice, but I wish they'd do it on their own dime and time and their own affairs, not in a project where I have to butt my head against the stupidity of it. SBHarris 18:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
If you've got criticisms of RS to make, please make them on the policy talk page. Sourcing guidelines in a WikiProject have to be an extension, development, interpretation of general sourcing guidelines. If they deliberately ignore or contradict them, they aren't going to be of much long-term help to the project. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
SBHarris: I agree with IMJ that your concerns about dead trees and NYT Gothic print would be a good thing to take to the ever-evolving conversation about reliable sources at the various WP:RS pages, subpages, talk pages, etc. But trying to solve them by getting the GRG pages recognized as reliable sources for articles about centenarians seems an odd place to start. It's sort of like trying to get perfect lawns throughout suburbia by picking one dandelion from one lawn, in a suburb of Brussels, Toronto or Hong Kong.
I'm also sorry to hear about your headache. I've checked policy. I'm pretty confident head-butting is optional. I hope that helps. Happy editing. :) David in DC (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already been over all this at WP:RS, which is one of the reasons that that policy now reads (as regarding newspaper sourcing): For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. History is an academic topic. It would really dumb to cite the Guinness Book of World Records or the 2010 New York Times for information about something that happened in the year 1898 (Remember the Maine!). But THIS article's guidelines/policies would have us use the NYT or Guinness as a RS for the age of somebody who claims to have been BORN in 1898. That's history, too. You don't go to modern newspapers, which are big on current events, for 112 year-old history. In this regard, GRG's investigations of > 110 year old birth records, are as scholarly as exist. Thus, if having the "most scholarly source" for the appropriate "scholarly subject" is WP's RS policy (and I think it is), then the policy of THIS page needs rewriting. SBHarris 23:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

A few clarifications:

1. Guinness World Records accepted the Izumi case in 1978, when he claimed to be 113.

2. He was certified by Japanese authorities as validated, and Guinness accepted based on the Japanese government accepting.

3. Later, as he continued to live longer and longer, Japanese researchers became suspicious. A search of Japanese articles finds questions as early as 1984. The "he was only 105" story was leaked to the Japanese media in 1987.

4. There's never been published evidence to prove that he was only 105. However, Guinness support for the case was withdrawn on Sept 14, 2010 because there is significant doubt about the case. Part of the problem has been the Japanese culture, which values "saving face" over correcting errors. In other words, Guinness got tired of waiting for Japan to do the right thing, publish the material they have. I have several Japanese news articles from 1984, 1985, and 1986 that show that the government of Japan also doubted Izumi's age, but they never said so. The leak occurred in 1987.

5. Like an umpire making a call, it doesn't matter if it's a bad call or not. What matters is that they are the accepted authority. Since 1955, GWR has been the defacto-accepted authority to name the world's oldest person. One can see GWR recognition sought even in places like Vietnam:

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/society/2348/118-year-old-certified-vietnam-s-oldest--probably-world-s.html

Interestingly, a news story like that above uses terms such as "documented"...but there's not even a claimed birthdate, just a year (1890). Which, last I checked, was 120 years ago, not 118.

With no proof of birth, a case such as that above is not going to be accepted as validated.Ryoung122 05:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SB, I 100% agree with you about use of newspapers in history articles. Very glad that you got the guidelines clarified. But articles on supercentenarians aren't really history articles. If an academic historian happened to have mentioned a person's age or birthdate, that would be great. It's only going to happen in the case of people who are notable for a substantive reason other than longevity, and then then not all that often. And to Robert. I accept that a process has been set up for validation of claims, and that a sceptical attitude prevails. That's great. It ends up with GWR being reliable on these topics. And I know that the process goes via GRG. What I have difficulty with is the use of essentially unpublished GRG documentation. And with Rejuvenation Research, which looks like a standard academic journal but seems to have some link with ideas considered fringey in mainstream science. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
To the extent that articles on supercentinarians are NOT history articles, they are merely articles on "people who claimed incredible things and were believed." No lack of these-- one can read Old Tom Parr alongside Mary Toft and they're much the same sort of thing. If that's all it takes for you, then Wikipedia is merely a compendium of published claims, incredible and not. The naked question of whether a person who claims to have been born 120 years ago IS a historical claim-- what else would it be? We're not questioning that the person is alive today and makes the claim (anymore than we would if they said they were abducted by Venusians). What we're questioning is what actually happened (or not) in the past-- in this case 120 years go. That is all. The rest (what there is of it) is simply writing about mythology. Which you can do if you like, but it is well to separate it from non-mythology, as we separate Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories from (say) Apollo moon landing. The question before us on WP is often NOT "is the source academic." The question is whether the source is "reliable." These are intersecting but not wholely identical attributes. Sometimes, one is forced to choose between one or the other, since academics have been fooled and are famously easy to fool (see James Randi)

Finally, there's the question of what kinds of claims can be allowed to stand without documentation of a certain grade. That a person is 5 foot 9" may need no more than a news article, since it's common and ordinary, but a person said to be 9 foot 5" needs much more than a new article claim. It's rather the same for a person celebrated for reaching 100 years, vs. one celebrated for being 120 or (even worse) 130. SBHarris 00:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please consider reading the humorous essay at WP:TRUTH and its opposite, the policy page at WP:V. I find the two, read together, illuminating. Maybe you will too. David in DC (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually the suggestion in WP:V that "verifiability, not truth" is key, is in fact the opposite policy of WP:RS, where a verifiable "reliable source" is defined as one with a reputation for "fact checking and accuracy." Which is another way of saying that it is one that is likely to be TRUE-- without saying it in those terms. Hoping, perhaps, that you won't notice the logical problem which would be be apparent if they used the word "truth."

Gosh, on WP you can say "likely to be reliable and accurate" and nobody will realize that you're saying "likely to be true." Then you can make fun of the whole mess with an essay which says with maximal sarcasm: The Truth does not require verification through reliable sources. That sort of thing may be necessary for mere "facts", but we're talking about The Truth here, people. That's cute until you realize that for the the sarcasm to work, you're supposed to already know that the truth really DOES require verification through "reliable sources." Which are, in turn, defined as those sources likely to be true. Wow, the intellectual power of Wikipedia policy; it's a good thing they've explained it all to us, because otherwise unprepared minds would suspect them of circular reasoning.

Could it be, do you think, that the people who write policy on WP want "the truth" without ever having to say explicitly how one finds it? After all, if you want to dilate on what is the proper sourcing for truth, you should need a reference for your thinking, should you not? Then, soon, you're down a philosophical rabbit hole, so it's easier to just pretend the problem is solved. There are no references in policy pages, since they expect you to take policy as true, without quoting a reliable verifiable source as to how to find "what's true." Which is to say, there are no references to texts on epistemology. WP policy boils down to: "this stuff is likely true because WE say it is. Take it on faith." And who are WE? A bunch of anonymous dudes on a website, with no credentials offered. But never mind that. SBHarris 07:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be going off topic. I'm not getting a clear view of what people think should be said in the notability and sourcing section of this project. Just one thing I did key into was the point that a lifespan beyond a certain point (110?) is an "exceptional claim" and needs exceptional sources. Yes. Good point. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is going off-topic. I think it's going to the heart of the topic. Shall experts be allowed to dismiss WP:RS and WP:V because they know better than the rest of us? That IS the source of the most intractable of our problems in longevity articles. David in DC (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (sources). Yes, 110 is about right. Past that is where we start to need far more than just the family or person's word or tradition, and (by coincidence) is where the numbers start to get small enough to keep track of every person, on WP (not necessarily with an individual bio on each, but in list-form). The historical cutoff is basically 115 for men, since no man has yet exceeded it. Only one woman has been reliably found to have made it past 120, and that is Calment at 122. That makes men who make it past 110 very rare and (thus) notable, and women who make it past about 114 the same. [1] I'd personally like to see some minimal bio information on these (which we do often have, now). In an encyclopedia of > 400,000 BLPs of which it seems a third are minor league soccer players, I don't know why we can't have something on the handfull of > 115 year old people. SBHarris 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why either. In fact, we can. We just have to get our facts about them from reliable sources as that term is definined in the rules. The rules apply to us all, expert and non-expert alike. The assertion above that WP:RS and WP:V are in conflict, and therefore expert testimony is sufficient for inclusion of facts on wikipedia.en, is truly startling.
When I don't like the rules, I work to change them, or switch my energies to some project whose rules I find more amenable. It would be the height of hubris for me to take a third path, that of ignoring or derogating the importance of the rules in favor of what I believe to make more sense. David in DC (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Lots here to respond to. I think we need to split the guidance on notability and the guidance on sources. For notability we require "multiple independent sources", and if I may raise yet another issue, I think we also require them to contain a bit of information beyond a person's name and age. Otherwise there is enough for an item in a list but not enough for a biography. Then say we have someone who is mentioned in a variety of sources. Which of those sources can we draw on for an article? I think that if we have GWR then we must use it. We must assume that we can rely on GWR, and don't need to attribute it, except if it is contradicted by a source of equal quality - can't think what that would be at the moment. Obviously if GWR corrects itself we either point that out or ignore the earlier edition. We should perhaps also say something, a warning really, about local newspapers. SB mentions that we "need far more than just the family or person's word or tradition". I should hope so too! That would be nowhere near RS. I don't think anyone has advocated relying on such sources. What I think we should beware at all costs, though, is contradicting the word of family, local newspapes etc., if that means implying that someone in the family has lied. Better in such cases to leave the whole story out of the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The rules about relying on primary sources, like Louis Epstein's Oldest Human Beings page, or GRG's raw data tables, or any other raw data accumulated by scholars, but not yet published in secondary sources, are crystal clear. SHB, please do read this NOR page, as we've been advised to do here, on the NOR Noticeboard. If the rules don't suit, please do not ignore them. Please work to change them. By consensus. That would be done at the policy's project page, not here. Here we don't change (or disregard) the rules, we work within them. The approach you expound above, that so derogates current WP policy --- "WP policy boils down to: "this stuff is likely true because WE say it is. Take it on faith." And who are WE? A bunch of anonymous dudes on a website, with no credentials offered. But never mind that." --- is profoundly misguided. Experts can contribute here. But if experts come to this collaborative effort viewing, and explicitly denominating, their fellow editors as "[a] bunch of anonymous dudes on a website, with no credentials offered[,]" they can expect to stretch the assumption of good faith required for collaboration up to, and sometimes beyond, its breaking point. David in DC (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I just want to expand a little on David and this quote "WP policy boils down to: "this stuff is likely true because WE say it is. Take it on faith." And who are WE? A bunch of anonymous dudes on a website, with no credentials offered. But never mind that." WP editors do not create or say what is true or not. We remain neutral in the decision/scientific process of truth. WP articles (for the most part, some slip by) are created based on exerpts from credible sources. WP editors do not determine the truth or determine facts, we quote the published experts in their fields of work.--v/r - TP 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Really? And how do you know who the experts are, in a given field? By asking other experts? How do you know which ones to ask? You realize this pursuit has no bottom? My metaphor for it is asking a bunch of people who've been raised in the basement of a library, and never seen the outside world, to write a correct and balanced general encyclopedia ABOUT the world. It cannot be done. You might get a virgin's compendium of sex that would fool other virgins, and a couchpotato's history of Himalayan climbing that would fool other armchair adventurists. But anybody who knew the subject would know they were reading a book report. Ideally, a good encyclopedia should aspire to be something other than a series of book reports by amateur journalists. SBHarris 02:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This page is not a WP:SOAPBOX. The arguments above urging changes in policy about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, etc. may have merit. They do not belong here. And please don't denigrate my book on Himalayan climbing. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only a couchpotato could write my book. If it's ever deemed notable, we can discuss it further on that article's talk page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

David in DC (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

COI options

Latest comment: 13 years ago31 comments15 people in discussion

1. Increased, aggressive warning: editors employ a much larger number of bold edits, user warnings, ANI reports, COI reports even where redundant, and demands for policy solutions through ordinary communal processes. In the past these have often failed due to majoritarianism trumping policy.

  • This point anticipated Judith's preannounced Wikipedia:ANI#Longevity-related articles. JJB 20:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC) ANI was archived with much discussion and zero admin action. Next I will ask other COI editors to comment here, and I think I know what will come after that. JJB 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Voluntary side processes: editors aggressively seek side discussions, such as WP:MEDCAB and WP:RFC/U, in which conflicted editors can make voluntary concessions due to COI. These have failed lately due to such editors not taking the initiative.

3. Community discussion: editors create a centralized discussion page detailing the violations and obtaining input on how to handle, while continuing the segregation of demonstrably conflicted editor comments unless recognized as constructive by a consensus of nonconflicted editors. Not tried yet.

  • I think this a good idea. David in DC (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks David. A variation of this is that we start by using this page and talk to start floating the handling, seeing as there is not too much COI flak (yet). Judith has proactively started this, and it might actually work at least to achieve consensus among nonconflicted editors. However, I wouldn't want to join the workgroup as it stands due to the unstated understandings going on in the group already, and I also wouldn't want to just take over this page just because it's relatively abandoned. So maybe this can be the pre-WP:CENT page. JJB 02:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) This can continue while other discussion fora are also tried. JJB 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

4. Workgroup creation: editors create a second group, such as "WikiProject Longevity", with a different but overlapping scope to the present one (this might be challenged as a "workgroup fork", but many workgroups overlap, and if the alternate group is set up properly with consensus processes it would be sustainable against such challenges). After scope setup, the project establishes general consensus for longevity-article policies (as has not done by this project) and enforces that consensus. Not tried yet due to requiring more intense participation.

5. Arbitration Committee: editors appeal to ArbCom for analysis of editor behavior and wait on content solutions until behavior is resolved. Not tried yet.

6. Abdicate responsibility in the face of incorrigible bullying.

  • I oppose this option. David in DC (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Very funny new option David. I'll acknowledge about 1 in 20 of your jokes, but only those that are funny, so don't get your hopes up. JJB 02:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

7. [Add your own subpoint here.]

COI list

This section is for identification (by self or others) of COI relationships, without WP:OUTING, and for comments by editors identified herein as having COI, such as their asking that their proposals be included in the section above. Discussion by editors unidentified as conflicted, as to questionable cases of COI, may occur in the prior section. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 (Robert Young aka Robert Douglas Young)

Supercentenarian Claims Investigator for GRG. COI repeatedly found by broad WP consensus. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already identified Ismejudith, JJBulten, Grismaldo, and DavidinDC as the anti-supercentenarian cabal. This is NOT a matter of trying to force every single centenarian and supercentenarian into Wikipedia. We've seen Itsmejudith and JJBulten in particular attempt to merge or delete mainline articles such as Oldest people and longevity myths. We already know that JJ has a conflict of interest in the same way that an "anti-cult fanatic" would be a COI at a "Moonie" article.
Even comparing this dispute to articles on the Moonies is telling. One, it shows the mindset of these four Wiki editors, who have attempted to label discussion of supercentenarians as "fringe theory," when in fact it is they who are involved in fringe theory (such as the belief that people can live 900 years). Grismaldo appears to have been recruited by JJBulten from discussions on religion. DavidinDC has a COI with me (Ryoung122) and should not really be involved in this.
The bottom line, Wikipedia's norms are being ravaged by inconsiderate, egotistical editing that fails to consider long-established consensus and that fails to consider what outside sources say, instead engaging in original research. This is not even close to a "turning point." An impartial, third-party investigation would quickly find that the edits by these four have been, for the most part, highly unhelpful and inappropriate to Wikipedia concerning this topic of discussion. Comparing scientific mainstream positions to religious cultwatching is the height of witchcraft-hysteria, all the more incredulous considering it is the position of JJBulten, in particular, that is pushing a religious fundamentalist viewpoint. Just like Salem, some 300 years later public opinion is that the hysteria was unwarranted. Hopefully it won't take 300 years for persons to realize that the behavior of these four editors in this particular field of discussion is what is out of line.Ryoung122 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comments do not seem to state anyone has any conflicting relationships to gerontology advocacy. JJB 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
My response to the screed above, beyond res ipsa loquitur, is genuine dismay to discover I'm a member of a cabal. If it exists, I'm not being invited to the meetings. It's because eat too much and drink too much, isn't it?! Cheapskates! I'll have you know I ALWAYS pay my fair share of a bill. I join my distinguished fellow editor in demanding an impartial, third-party investigation. David in DC (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I don't believe people can live 900 years, or even 150. There I was, hardly ever giving a thought to people living beyond 90 or so, perfectly happy that Guinness was checking out the plausibility of stories behind the scenes. Then I find uninvolved comment is asked for on Longevity myths. Then I find that there's a massive walled garden mirroring the work in progress of a group of consultants. And the rest is history (except that some of it is protohistory, pseudohistory...). Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the point in my example; what I'm saying is that even though Moonies would certainly know more than the rest of us about the Unification Church, we don't just let them do what they want with it. You probably know more than the rest of us about this subject, but that doesn't give you (or anyone else; this isn't personal) the right to stonewall consensus. I'll say here what I said at ANI; it'd be good for you to take a step back and see what other non-experts in the field have to say about the notability of certain centenarians and supercentenarians. If it were up to me, Mark Farmaner would have an article; however, his name is just a redirect to the organization he heads, which is probably the right way to go given he's essentially unknown to people not attuned to Burmese international politics. Outsiders will have a better sense of how notable a subject is in general, and can make more neutral decisions; that's what I'm here for, because I really don't know much about the subject. I'm open to persuasion, but the constant insistence on using a very narrow set of sources isn't cutting it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
12.144.5.2 (Louis Epstein)

Supercentenarian Claims Investigator for GRG. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am rather disturbed by this whole exercise,as Mr. Bulten appears to be interested in eliminating people on the grounds of their possessing credentials or expertise that may be marshalled against his own preferences.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Louis! If that were my interest, yes, it would be disturbing. The point of identifying COI is solely to determine whether violations of WP:COI have occurred, not to eliminate well-managed COI (e.g., I believe you have generally demonstrated good management of your professional conflict between your stated GRG relationship and WP's core mission). Anyone who is intelligent enough to have a body of work that creates a true COI should also be intelligent enough to comply with WP's consensus-created COI (and other) guidelines, and can avoid "elimination" simply by choosing to comply. And COI editors are free to contribute as well, but should practice conspicuous moderation of course.
WP also has a well-oiled method for dealing with any bias that may be attributable to my own preferences, and that is simple point-by-point adjustment of that bias with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.
I appreciate your taking interest in these developments with your latest comments, and I have always been sympathetic to your concerns, such as editors who have made punctuation style an ad-hominem issue, or who have ganged up without understanding the core issues. This would be a good season for you to consider spending a little more time elaborating on your unique viewpoints: the Arbitration Committee has just reached a rapid consensus that all editors closely involved in longevity should be reviewed, and they have a very significant power of "elimination". Naturally, I did not alert them because of interest in eliminating people, but I certainly did to eliminate apparent longstanding policy violations.
I think it would be very useful if you reviewed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence and presented any evidence or analysis that would be relevant to the Committee, especially if you believe elimination of any editor is a true risk. (I don't believe you are at personal risk, although I make an unfounded speculation that there may be new topic-applicable rules for all editors.) You can also comment specifically on developing standards for this WikiProject, by starting new sections on this talk page or making judicious edits to the project page, which I think would be an important voice in the discussion. I encourage you to make any proposals you have for fixing the problems you see. JJB 20:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
StanPrimmer (Stanley R. Primmer)

GRG staff, Florida, last edit 2007. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Petervermaelen (Peter Vermaelen)

GRG correspondent, Netherlands. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bart Versieck (Bart Versieck aka "Extremely sexy")

GRG member, Flanders, last edit 02-2010. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

NealIRC (Neal Conroy)

Yahoo WOP, Illinois, last edit 2008. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Plyjacks (Keith Cody aka Keith G.J. Cody, Keith G. Cody, "SSHGUYQC")

Yahoo WOP, Massachusetts. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cjeales

Yahoo WOP, England, last edit 2009. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevitydude

Yahoo WOP, SPA 2009-present.

  • User:Kingcouey was indeffed as abusive alternate of IPs by Kanonkas, shared IP with Longevitydude, last edit 2009. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
TML

Yahoo WOP and "several other forums". JJB 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sbharris (Steven B. Harris)

This is a "self-identification," if you like, as nobody has asked for it. I've been on WP since late 2005, and have 22,000 edits. Mostly these are to chem, physics and medicine articles, not to gerontology articles, though. I haven't really "edit warred" on any of the "longevity" articles, but (who knows?) I may have some disagreements there in the future. I do recall, long ago, having an argument with user:BrownHairedGirl over whether lists of supercentenarians were worth making. They seem to have survived by consensus. Professionally I was trained as a gerontologist and geriatrician, and both of these I learned at UCLA, where L. Stephen Coles is a researcher. I know Dr. Coles personally. I've been a member of the GRG since 1990, when it was just a discussion group for invited physicians and researchers held in private homes. People like Jared Diamond at UCLA came to some of our first meetings.

I've long had an interest in the oldest-old, and the question of what mortality risk curves look like, after age 100. I know many of the people who work in this field professionally. For example, my major professor at UCLA for research was Roy Walford, M.D. I've met or corresponded with very many of the leading figures in gerontology for the last 25 years, at one time or another. So, sign me up as a person who doesn't have a disinterested view. I have many "interested views," formed over a long period of time. SBHarris 04:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in! I hope you noticed from point #5 above that we have now moved to ArbCom. I was previously wondering whether to list you as a party due to evidence I'd uncovered, but decided not to because you're somewhat the opposite of an SPA. However, it appears your history (particularly late 2007) would be reviewed anyway due to the case scope, so that indicates I will need to include you on my "informal" list and send your talkpage a technical notification later on anyway. Hope you don't mind. However, a bigger concern now is unmanaged COI. I appreciate any attention you can give to the case. JJB 06:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
DHanson317

110 Club (110C), SPA. JJB 07:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Brendanology (Brendan)

Yahoo WOP, 110 Club (110C), SPA.

  • User:218.186.12.243 was the (apparently) shared IP used to make the above self-descriptive edit to Brendanology's user page. JJB 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
NickOrnstein (Nick Ornstein, "nickornstein")

110 Club (110C), Maryland, SPA. JJB 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No COI found

David in DC

Ryoung122 has indicated that I have a COI with him. He bases this on disgreements we've had over content, and over whether I'm an anti-gay, anti-porn cabalist. I'm not any of the three. But be that as it may, would someone this editor respects (if such a mammal exists) please offer him an explanation of what conflict of interest actually means? Here's a hint Ry: it's not about disagreements with another editor. There are policies that cover that situation, but they've got nothing to do with COI. Conflict of interest occurs when an editor's relationship to an article or topic intersects with his off-wiki interests. I'll refrain from using colorful adjectives to describe our relationship, but whatever other policies cover it, WP:COI surely does not. That you think it does speaks volumes about your consideration of the real COI issues in play. How can you see it if you don't know what it is? It's a shame. David in DC (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments do not seem to state anyone has any conflicting relationships to gerontology advocacy. JJB 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I see you might have a "close relationship" with Ryoung122, but I don't think you two collaborate as closely as Marx and Engels. I saw a flareup previously about an article relating to homosexuality, but that flareup relationship looked exactly like any other Wikipedian's relationship with Ryoung122. But maybe we all have COI. I guess consensus among nonconflicted editors will need to decide, and maybe Ryoung122 will be the only nonconflicted editor left by his standards. JJB 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If you are here, DavidinDC, because you were:
A. recruited by others to be here, or
B. here because you had a personal issue with me in the past, then yes that can be a COI. Judges often recuse themselves from issues. Elena Kagan recused herself from ruling on DADT because she was a former solicitor-general of the U.S. and because she had involved in the issue.
If you were, however, here by coincidence, that is another issue, but there is still the appearance of COI.Ryoung122 03:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My response can be found here. I found a version of this on my talk page before I came here, and I don't feel like retyping it, omitting parts irrelevant to COI.David in DC (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Other accounts

The following accounts have not been found to have formal disclosed COI, but have been found to be WP:SPAs, broadly interpreted, or to be closely following and supporting the COI editors. Users on this list are encouraged to disclose any COI directly, especially Yahoo WOP membership:

John J. Bulten (John J. Bulten)

Though unasked, it occurred to me that I must here self-disclose proforma my oft-alluded relationship with supercentenary researcher A. Ross Eckler, Jr.: I have written pro bono for his journal Word Ways, and have corresponded with him, though not about longevity. From that I have also made some independent determinations about how supercentenary research would be handled in his own idiom, though my determinations in this area are of course my own. Though IMHO this does not meet the conflict standard of close or formal relationship, I invite other editors' comments on this relationship so that I am not the only one making the judgment. JJB 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC) ADD: There is an apparent allegation that a user named "JJB" (not "John J. Bulten") on the "110 Club" chatsite signed up there on 12 December and invoked my Wikipedia identity in two posts there on 26 and 27 December, which I discovered yesterday. I disclaim all connection with this party. JJB 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fact: JJBulten is a far-right religious activist who works against the scientific perspective (sort of like insisting on teaching Creationism in school, rather than evolution). He has continually recruited others, such as DavidinDC, Grismaldo, etc. to make it appear he has "consensus" when in fact consensus for the most part is against him. This needs to be further discussed, and will be. However, I just wanted to make those who are reading what he wrote above aware of this.Ryoung122 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Fact: I've been recruited by no one. And my feelings are hurt every time I'm accused of being part of a conspiracy to harm a project that is, in fact, dear to me. It's unkind and incivil. WP:NPA? WP:BATTLE? WP:CIVIL? WP:AGF? The Golden Rule?
Fact: User:Ryoung122 is unavailable until after December 15. He's told us so in response to a deadline originally set before that date, in an ArbCom case he's a party to.
Query: Given the number of edits made so far today by someone using the Ryoung122 account, is it possible our editing colleague's account has been hijacked? David in DC (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please use the above three sections for particular discussion of options or of COI identification.
It's great to have experts around, but experts have to take care how they edit. This probably isn't the place to resolve the COI question. I'm going to post on ANI. This will probably kick-start a discussion that editors here can join in. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec) No, it's an attempt to rein in people who are trying to force every single centenarian and supercentenarian into the encyclopedia while disregarding NPOV. It's not that experts can't have input; however, it must be in accordance with other policies. I've been watching this on and off from the outside, and what I'm seeing is a few people with a COI attempting to push through a specific agenda while contravening WP:N and NPOV, which is not good. We don't let Moonies have the final say on which members of the Unification Church clergy get articles, nor should we let researchers on centenarians have the final word on this issue; their input is welcome, but they can't do it to the exclusion of policy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Thank you DavidinDC for the spelling correction; I hate when I do that.
"Experts" maybe, but also "hobbyists" who have interests that are not encyclopedic. We are not a collection of trivia, or lets at least admit that we're not supposed to be one. Blade is correct. There is a lot of reining in to do.Griswaldo (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we'll be fine as soon as the hobbyists start recognising that Wikipedia is only of limited use in their hobby. I keep being reminded of WikiProject Football and soccer-related articles generally. There's no one as fanatical as a football fan, yet they are serious about maintaining the articles in tip-top quality. I always know that if I find a footy-related bio I can get a quick and policy-informed decision on notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You say we'll be fine "if", but you are also preparing an ANI report. Would you commment on that option above, or others, toward getting them to recognize this? Thanks. JJB 23:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm optimistic that WP editors will come together to insist in a friendly but firm way that the encyclopedia's norms have to be upheld. Let's hope that the ANI marks the turning point. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
"It's great to have experts around, but experts have to take care how they edit." What about those that aren't experts? Does the same criteria apply to them? What if their modus operandi is to specifically target an expert because they don't like that experts contributions? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a red herring; the problem here is that an expert's editing is being questioned. But since you ask, the answer is yes; look up what an SPA is. Seeing as that's not the issue here, I think we can safely leave it at that and get back to the matter at hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I wish to have placed on the record that the claim by JJB that I am an “undisguised sock puppet account” or any other form of sock puppet account is false. I am not here at anyone’s behest, but am opposed to the deletion of scientific data on human longevity by censorious religious fanatics.Cam46136 (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Fond farewell

Looking forward to how the WikiProject will heed the concerns I've raised on this talk and in the archive. If a topic ban passes ArbCom and if it is later stricken on anyone's motion, I will be happy to return. JJB 22:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've started the RSN thread ArbCom has suggested

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's here. I've tried to be nuetral in my wording, but have put forward my own view and a summary of what I think editors who disagree with me contend. I'd urge someone not formally being sanctioned to state their view. Then I'd urge everyone to STFU and let uninvolved, experienced RSN editors review and opine. I won't post to the thread again, unless asked to by an uninvolved editor. David in DC (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

New wiki for World's oldest people?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How about starting a new wiki over at Wikia, without the constraints of Wikipedia requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is, of course, an option. But it may be precipitous. The RSN experts may conclude I'm wrong. I have no corner on the wisdom market. Hell, sometimes I'm not even sure I have a stall there. David in DC (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I did here. -— AMK152 (t • c) 01:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fresh thread on Notability and Sourcing

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I agree with all of IMJ's edits to the N&S section of the project page. Except for the Oldest Human Beings list. I don't think it is sufficiently reliable to use at all. It disclaims its own reliability and tries to sell you books even before the list starts. And the site which hosts it bears none of the indicia of wiki-reliability. David in DC (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Please keep tweaking the project page; my efforts are only a start. I want to check out the International Database on Longevity, which on the face of it should be much more scholarly than any other listing. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity closed

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
  2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
  3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
  4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
  5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lists of false/unverified/dubious/"controverted" etc. claims

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

What do we actually need to have in this regard? Anything at all? One list? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think one, at most. At the risk of re-opening a sore subject, I think this is where the nexus between longevity tracking and longevity myths resides. David in DC (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
List of unverified longevity claims that I created has been AfD'd, nominated by User:NickOrnstein, who neglected to inform me. Now I have asked for advice at ANI ... and need to inform Nick now. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm disappointed, but not surprised. Please put notice of any DelRev on this page. I note that you have not included a link to the ANI thread, so I'll go find and read it, but not comment, which I take to be the reason for not giving us the link. Please let us know if I've drawn an incorrect conclusion from the absence of a link. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I was just in a hurry. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There are too many for a single list, the Longevity claims article on its own is too large already. A logical separation would be Living and Past claims. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm persuaded. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Do we know if there are any restrictions on the length of list articles? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Usually once an article reaches 100k a notice appears when editing it that it has reached this size and it recommends the article be split. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
One solution is to simplify the layout, e.g. an ordinary list rather than a table with colours. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Removing the flag icons would also greatly reduce the number of bytes as well; I don't know if you want to do that, but it's an option. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping this will help on the etiquette issue. David in DC (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed...

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Just to be clear: The result of the ArbCom and the subsequent amendment to this project, that "The Yahoo! group health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People, is a discussion group and not reliable", means that any article or entry in a list, such as List of living supercentenarians, which has WOP as the only source should be removed/deleted unless/until a more reliable source is provided? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's my interpretation. Particularly important in that article as BLP policy applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur with IMJ. David in DC (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears some users feel that this does not apply to Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians. Perhaps I am mistaken in thinking that it does? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It does appear that way. I disagree. And that big red disclaimer, in violation of WP:DISCLAIM gives me the heebie-jeebies. And I'm still more leery about User:AMK152/107. But I've figured effing with these sub-pages would be truly insulting to the well-meaning but misguided folk who've erected them, so I've tried to stay more focused on mainspace than project or user sub-pages. The rules apply to these pages too, but there's so much actual article content that seems grounded in Louis Epstein's "cordial hostility", as he put it on my talk page, to the rules of our project, that a focus on mainspace seems prudent. David in DC (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bolding

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Edit-warring has been a problem, so I won't revert this reversion. Can someone who the reverting editor respects help him understand why his edit is counter-productive, in this case. David in DC (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of etiquette

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What do y'all make of this? David in DC (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think he's got the wrong site; this is Wikipedia, not Citizendium. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What do y'all think of this? Props to IMJ for putting the question exactly right. Props to Brendan for answering so frankly. The answer is thoroughly dismissive of consensus and collaborative editing. But it's honest as it can be. David in DC (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This complete refusal to discuss means that any formatting counter to MoS that he does can simply be regarded as vandalism. Or we go to ANI to get an uninvolved admin, who can block per the ArbCom resolutions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL. The answer seems to indicate more such edit reversions will be coming from our friend and colleague.
But, as things stand, there are several un-bolding edits (by me and by BNL) that have not been reverted. If they are, I think an ANI thread, with diffs to several examples, plus the talk page, would be in order. But I think an ANI thread right now might seem speculative. Maybe the answer was typed in haste and we should let the lack of follow-up action on our other bolding edits give us cause to assume newfound good faith. If our policy-driven assumption proves wrong, there's time then to look for remedies.
It's probably useful to look at this exchange, as well. Matchups may succeed where we have, so far, been unconvincing. David in DC (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability and notability

Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

We seem to be stuck in the viscious cycle wherein certain sources like GRG were initially claimed not to be reliable because they are "self-published," and when it was pointed out that they are an organizational newspaper/list which is no more self-published than sports score depositories or any database of record lists, THEN the argument became that they may be reliable enough, but longevity per se doensn't confer notability. Unfortunately WP's notability guidelines clearly throws the question of notability back on the availability of reliable published sources. So that argument loses. Next the opposers claim that super-old people are one-event biographies, with the idea that dying in advanced age is a single "event", and nevermind the fact that every oldest person in the world has had many days in which they woke up finding themselves the oldest person on Earth, and occasionally had some birthday parties in that state, also. Or they may have been the oldest person in their country or section of the country. Apparently we're down to THAT.

So I'd like to solicit comments. Do we really believe in no one-event BLP's, with people who are utterly forgettable except for one assassination attempt on a famous person (for example) requiring deletion as just being Christmastree bios? And is it the same with the world's tallest man, or are we going to claim that had many events where he was honored (exibited?) as the tallest man, and that these should all count separately, but wouldn't if they related to his age, rather than his height? What say you?

Oh, and on the article page, there still sits the statement: "Gerontology Research Group data from grg.org should be attributed and used only as backup for reliable sources." Does somebody want to defend this? Why should it be? And what more reliable sources did you have in mind? SBHarris 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in two minds whether GRG should be mentioned at all. I edited text that JJBulten originally authored. What do you think of the rest of the text about notability, that some people are notable mainly for their advanced age, while others are notable for other things as well? Let's aim for consistency in biography articles, yes that does sometimes mean merging articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we should refrain from trying to decide this while we get the guidance ArbCob urged us to get. We're starting to get it here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Uninvolved, experienced editors who focus on WP:RS across the project are offering us their wisdom. They're not close to consensus yet, but they're discussing the matter in a way that, to crib from BNL, sheds more light than heat. Surely people interested in longevity can stand to wait a few days or (horrors!) even weeks, to get the disinterested advice of our colleagues about the data hosted at www.grg.com. It's advice ArbCom directed us to seek. And it's advice a range of our peers are kindly offering. We need not rush to judgment about www.grg.org. I know my view and yours you know your view, and mine. Neither of us know how people on the RSN will shake out. Let's wait and see. There's plenty of unobjectionable copy-editing to do in the meantime. And plenty of citations to the WOP yahoo group and the OHB list we can prune. David in DC (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay. SBHarris 03:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll say this here for the moment, although quite happy to say the same thing at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard... imagine for a moment that there's a 115 year old person living in California, but they've never wished for media attention so have never been in a newspaper article, journal etc. At 115 they're the world's oldest person, and people within the GRG know of them. A representative from the GRG has visited them or the nursing home where they reside to prove that they are indeed still living, and documents have also been located to prove they are 115. However, they still don't want any media attention. Subsequently, a new report comes out from Georgia claiming that a 114 year old residing there is the world's oldest. The news report is used as a source on wikipedia and the 114 year old from Georgia is named as the world's oldest on the website. Yet that person is not the world's oldest. It's a fair bet that when people want to find out who the world's oldest person is, wikipedia will be their first stop. So shouldn't we go to every length to make sure that wikipedia's information is accurate? We often see poorly researched newspaper articles claiming that the subject of the article is 'the oldest person in x' when in actual fact they're second oldest, third oldest or lower. It's possible that more assiduous journalists will look at wikipedia in the course of fact finding, in order to work out if the subject of their article is really the oldest in x. So shouldn't the knowledge at our disposal be used to make sure that the wikipedia article is correct? I don't use this as justification for all articles: clearly if there is minimal information on a person then a separate page for them alone isn't warranted. But for lists I think not being able to cite the GRG would seriously jeopardise accuracy. Melissa.vp198 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what you've just described is prohibited original research and synthesis, until and unless the work of this hypothetical GRG representative is published in a reliable source. The thread on the RSN is precisely about whether the GRG tables are, themselves, a wiki-kosher reliable source. I don't think so, but that's why I followed ArbCom's advice to start the RSN thread. I think yours is a very useful hypothetical for uninvolved RSN editors on the RSN thread to analyze and opine upon. It very nicely gets to the nub of the question.
FWIW, I think your hypothetical crystalizes the folly of turning wikipedia into a web-hosting service for the GRG tables. As BNL says below, this "expert-driven" data fits much more closely with the Citizendium paradigm than with wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms. I agree. But my agreement has, more than once, proven to be a lot like a kiss from Don Corleone.
In any event, your calm, contribution to our confab is commendable. Congratulations. Common courtesy can cool even the most cacaphonous conflagrations and kerfuffles. David in DC (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
And in an attempt to attain the absolutely amazing alliteration above, all here are aiming at A-grade attribution and accuracy. Asking for an answer at RSN appears as attractive an option as any. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In reference to Melissa above, who has probably posted the most rational response during this whole debate, I have a question for David in DC.
Imagine that this was 90 years ago, and Albert Einstein had just published his general theory of relativity, would you advocate the removal of his work on the grounds that it was original research and synthesis? Cam46136 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
@BNL: That's assonance, I think.
@Cam: It depends. Where are we imagining this Einstein fellow's general theory of relativity was published 90 years ago? If it was published at the imaginary internet's www.einstein_has_a_theory.org website, I imagine I'd argue that we needed to wait until it was published in a scholarly journal or covered by a reliable news periodical. If it was already so-imaginarily published in such a secondary source, I imagine I'd argue that there should be an imagipedia article entitled General Theory of Relativity, summarizing the theory and citing to the secondary source. David in DC (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's both, actually; it's a vowel sound, but it's also the first sound. It's nice when we can both be right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
@Melissa. If we want to mention records, and don't forget, we don't absolutely have to cover all records, only the most important ones, Guinness is our most reliable source. There is no need to update our articles more frequently than Guinness. Please refer to the text that we are trying to get right on the main page of the WikiProject. Actually, under Databases, it seems that the International Database on Longevity is the gold standard. And it is anonymous. What does that say about the other databases that aren't anonymous? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand Wikipedia’s policy on original research and synthesis when referred to articles in general. And it makes sense.
But I think we have a broader interpretation when it comes to matters concerning science.
Let me draw your attention to Article 6 of the recent ArbCom decision on longevity:
“Treatment of scientific topics
6) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudo-scientific or non-scientific viewpoints.
Passed 10 to 1 at 21:51, 17 February 2011(UTC).”
A significant question in mainstream scientific thought concerning human longevity and the science of scenescence, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence is the obvious one: “What is the biological limit to the human lifespan?” or more profoundly “Is there a limit to human longevity?” There does appear to be one, as there is no one around who has lived forever.
This does not have to be referenced as it is the mainstream science used by the US Social Security Administration, insurance companies and actuaries in determining the human mortality curve, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0402/0402013.pdf as one example of thousands of papers on the subject.
The area of debate in the science of longevity concerns the function of the Gompertz curve, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_function or “S-curve” at the end of the human life span.
There are "legitimate scientific disagreements" and "alternative viewpoints" on this function in mainstream scientific thought and it does not involve "pseudo-scientific" or "non-scientific viewpoints."
I accept that there may be some individual articles on supercentenarians that are not notable and could be deleted or merged. But the data in the tables of the verified and unverified longest living people etc is an essential component used in those arguments.
My understanding of Article 6 passed by the ArbCom decision is that it will be applied in the broadest sense. Therefore the data that is enclosed in those tables should stand.
The wording in Article 6 passed by the ArbCom on longevity and its intent are quite clear. Cam46136 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
Of course we need to cover mainstream science and its conclusions. We would not normally do that directly from databases. WP:MEDRS is the guide used by those who edit in medical/biological topics. I always defer to them as I'm not a medical researcher or biologist. I don't know if there is a genuine discussion between scientists on this point; I think probably not, they are agreed that the average lifespan has been extended in recent years. I very much doubt whether this issue is best approached by consideration of outlying cases. Average life expectancy is of more interest to social scientific demographers, but if you find that biologists are more interested in the outlying very long lived then so be it. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a genuine discussion between scientists on this point and they are not agreed that the average lifespan has been extended in recent years. Quite the contrary. The numbers are increasing but there is debate on whether the lifespan is increasing.
The latest evidence appears to show that from 110 years to 113 years the mortality rate is about 50 per cent. At 113.5 years the mortality spike starts to rise. At 114 years, the mortality rate rises to 70 per cent with peak mortality activity occurring around the 114.6-year level. There is then a plateau effect lasting to 115 years of age, with a final cull around that 115-year level.
From there on remain the outliers, a unique group of people who appear to have genetic traits involved with physical differences in telomeres sited on the end of chromosomes, the activity of the enzyme telomerase or different activity in their immune systems.
These are the areas of current scientific debate on human longevity and that is why the data in the longevity tables is an essential part of that debate. Cam46136 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
Perhaps you missed all the parts of the same decision (and the discussions on the workshop page leadimng up to it) that specifically announced that ArbCom does not decide issues about what sources are WP:RS. Please review the decision you're citing. It's extraordinarily explicit. They told us to get advice on the RSN from RS-savvy editors. The "Article 6" you're citing is by no means a work-around on that point, no matter how dearly one might hope it was. David in DC (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Then we should get a ruling from editors outside of this debate. That decision should be made by others, not from those involved here, as it may involve a Conflict of Interest. Cam46136 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
Of course. That's why I followed ArbCom's advice and started this thread on the Reliable Source Notice Board. If you re-read my very first post under this very heading, up above (third post overall) you'll see I put up a link to exactly the solution you propose, back on February 19th. David in DC (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

@Judith: My point is that I come to wikipedia for knowledge...as I'm sure countless others do. I expect, or at least hope, that what I read here is true. If journalists use things like the list of verified supercentenarians to inform their articles and the list is not right, then their articles will not be right: the 'non-truth' will perpetuate. I'm not precious about the GRG in any way: I just want the wikipedia lists to reflect the true picture with regard to the world's oldest. Without GRG input, I fear that it would not. Guinness is informed by Robert Young for longevity, but that's really beyond the point. What is more relevant is that the book is published yearly and the website will update when the world's oldest dies...people intrigued by the subject will more often than not tap into wikipedia to get more information...or so I believe. If wikipedia is only going to update as often as Guinness then I'd say there's no point having a world's oldest people section. Melissa.vp198 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Rather than having an article with false, inaccurate or misleading information, you are better off having no page at all. Currently on some pages of the living there are people who are deceased and others who should be on them. My advice to Judith is why don’t you delete whole pages. As they stand now, the information on them is incorrect. Cam46136 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
WP:RECENT applies, as well as WP:NOT. We don't have to mirror everything in the databases, and we don't have to be bang up to date. I would say "we can always link to the GRG, so readers can go there for more information", but actually that is another discussion we need to have here, about suitability of longevity databases for external links, given BLP policy. Yes, I fully expect that there will be a cull of pages. I'm not rushing into AfDs, though, but trying to get consensus through this project so that we are all working by the same criteria. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A better solution would be if the lists were accurate and up to date. Cam46136 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
We shouldn't include any information that we have reason to believe is not accurate. But why should we mirror existing databases? We don't do that in other areas. For example, we have articles on global climate, but we don't carry every weather station report. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
IMJ's example much more succinctly defines my major concern. I've called it "the accretion of the GRG and OHB lists onto wikipedia" and "turning wikipedia into a webhosting service for GRG tables". As usual, she's put it better and less inflammatorily. David in DC (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If Chris will allow me to change his words somewhat, a better solution would be if the lists were complete and up to date. What is there is accurate, but if the list is missing cases then it does more damage than good. It obscures truth...which I believe is not what wikipedia is about. Melissa.vp198 (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Turinah

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Could people weigh in on Turinah? It's under attack from deletionists and it's importance to the topic is obvious. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Obvious? As yet another highly unlikey, unverifiable longevity claim? Not really. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think it is unverifiable? It isn't. It's simply a matter of resources. The age of a living human being could be determined within a narrow confidence interval simply from the person of the individual in question, i.e by analysis of tissue samples and the like in addition to a workup of the other evidence. A clear distinction should be made between that which is in fact unverifiable and something which it is both possible and desirable to verify/refute but which for various reasons probably isn't going to be. Of course if she lives another decade, that will likely change, simply with the increased attention the general topic is getting. The interest of this for the project topic, I repeat, is obvious. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As the person who first nominated this article for deletion, I do not consider myself a "deletionist" - I am too exopedian to worry about labels such as "inclusionist" or "deletionist". I did not think this was a likely real article (there are hardly any entries when one does a Google search) and please note, the person who first created this article is no longer involved with Wiikipedia! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Archive_2&oldid=1137357550"