Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 4

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ollie231213 in topic Where do we go from here
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Problems in "list of oldest people" articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

Many of the "List of oldest people in some country" articles say in the lede that the list contains people who have been verified by the GRG.

I'm seeing two major problems here:

  • These articles are currently showcasing the GRG and are excluding the possibility of other reliable sources. If the GRG wants to write articles culled from their own tables, they need to be written somewhere else.
  • If the people are supposed to be verified by the GRG, pending claims must be excluded because those claims are not verified.

These articles need an overhaul to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. This means that every entry in every table must be referenced, something that OscarLake has already done for several articles (and which I very much appreciate). Note that the GRG Verified table may be suitable as a reliable source but the Pending table (table EE?) is not a reliable source (see this discussion). Also, sources other than the GRG verified table can and should be used as reliable sources even if they claim that someone is 130 or whatever.

There are also problems in these articles with accessibility and the use of colour because of the Verified, Pending, and Unverified entries. Since the Pending entries don't need to be noted - they're unverified - it isn't necessary to note by colour that the Verified entries are verified. That could be done with a note or something like that.

While I could start going through and fixing these articles, I think it's better if members of this project were the ones to figure out how to approach the problems. I invite all members of this project to comment and specifically pinging Ollie231213 TFBCT1, DerbyCountyinNZ, Waenceslaus, Randykitty, and CommanderLinx (editors previously involved in discussions and that have been making the majority of the changes to these articles) to share their thoughts. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I should make it clear that I'm not now, nor ever have been, a member of this project as I see it as a spin off of the GRG fan club which has resulted in the sort of issues highlighted here. Addressing the two problems above:
  1. " These articles are currently showcasing the GRG and are excluding the possibility of other reliable sources." I know of no other "reliable" sources that publish any relevant material for such lists. That is using reliable in the dictionary sense not the Wikipedia sense. Using reliable in the Wikipedia sense would make such lists encyclopedically meaningless. Including the more extreme claims of 130+ detracts from those cases which have been properly investigated to modern standards. This would be far more of an issue that having to rely, at the moment, solely on the GRG tables.
  2. "If the people are supposed to be verified by the GRG, pending claims must be excluded because those claims are not verified." Totally agree and I have mentioned this before, more than once, as well as removing the pending cases or modifying the lede where appropriate, from at least some of the articles I follow.
  3. The problem of the use of colour (mostly) disappears if pending and unverified cases are removed, or at least split such as in List of living supercentenarians. In most cases I would think total removal is appropriate.
DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that the Guinness Book of World Records would be another source. And again, while they use the GRG, it isn't always the same. I had this issue at Talk:Augusta_Holtz#Birth_Certificate. A newspaper article said that she lacked a birth certificate which would is why Guinness couldn't authenticate it and didn't list her. I'd say that's a reliable source for that fact. The GRG group members responded that there was a certificate because they know it exists (I think they personally saw it which is NOT the one we do things here) so they've removed my source. I don't know if she's even listed in Guinness at all. I'm fairly certain that there are some differences in the Guinness lists of oldest people versus the GRG ones because they use different standards for inclusion but trying to point that out gets you shouted down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me for the discussion.

@Ricky, the newspaper article is never a reliable source in such cases. Especially when it was dated in longer past. If you look at the Gerontology Research Group's table E, you will notice, that the authenticity of age of Mrs. Augusta Holtz was only verified by the Gerontology Research Group on Sept. 17, 2012. Only since that moment, Mrs. Augusta Holtz is recognized as one of the oldest people in history and also human longevity recordholder before Jeanne Calment of France and the first person ever to have reached the 115 years of age.

Finally, it is not like the GWR "uses" the GRG or vice versa. The Guiness World Records and Gerontology Research Group cooperate with each other in the field of extreme longevity tracking. Waenceslaus (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


@DerbyCountyinNZ, "* These articles are currently showcasing the GRG and are excluding the possibility of other reliable sources"

The Gerontology Research Group is the world's leading authority in the tracking of world's oldest living people, the elite group of supercentenarians.

"* If the people are supposed to be verified by the GRG, pending claims must be excluded because those claims are not verified."

The GRG table EE is the source of equal credibility as the GRG Table E. In fact, the supercentenarians listed at the GRG talbe EE are "pending-validated". That means, that their age does not breeds any further doubts, and the case is in need of locating accessory documentation or every essential documentation for the case has been already provided and the case is waiting for the final decision of positive verification. For supercentenarian to become pending, the substantial amount of proof is required.

Yes, the GRG's pending supercentenarians can be listed in the articles mentioned.

One more comment: So far, there hasn't been verified anyone who would have achieved age of 123 or higher. The 130+ claims, until they are verified by the GRG, are just claims of extreme longevity. Therefore they cannot be mentioned on the lists, which base on the results of the professional research of the Gerontology Research Group.Waenceslaus (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Glad to see that some action is being undertaken to put the articles under the purview of this project on more solid footing. I would suggest that once the list articles have been cleaned, we should have a look at many of the individual bios. For most of these people, the only interesting thing to mention is their longevity. The rest usually boils down to the standard coverage that people turning 100 or more get in their local newspapers (granny still reads without glasses, John likes cookies and takes a glass of wine with his dinner, etc). We can do without that unencyclopedic content (remember, not everything that can be verified also needs to be included) and most of those articles can be redirected to the respective list articles without loss of any worthwhile info. As for the GRG, have a look at their (rather amateurish) website. This is not a group of professional researchers but consists of enthusiastic laymen. Very few of their international correspondents have an academic affiliation, and those that do, often don't work in any area connected to aging (some having an MBA and such). That doesn't mean their work is not meticulous (I have no opinion on that), but they're not the last word on anything either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Definitely agree. I've noticed in some that I've PRODed or taken to AFD that the only salvageable information was just a name, age and country. Another problem is that a lot of these longevity articles (especially the "List of <country> supercentenarians" and "Oldest people by year of birth" articles) seem to rely on original research. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This has been a longstanding issue, probably even more widespread than I have found. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the bios need attention, too. If we can get these "list of" articles on their way we can look at the bios. Ca2james (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I would like to respond to several points made in this discussion individually:
  • "These articles are currently showcasing the GRG and are excluding the possibility of other reliable sources." ---> As it stands, there aren't any other reliable sources. That's not to say that there never can be, but any other competing organisation has to establish itself as a credible body before it can be considered a reliable source.
  • "If the people are supposed to be verified by the GRG, pending claims must be excluded because those claims are not verified." ---> What about pending sports records that have yet to be ratified? All world track and field or swimming records, when set, are "pending" an outcome of drug testing, equipment calibration, etc....yet are reported right away. Should they not be included? Because they are currently included in Wikipedia articles with a footnote or something similar. The point I'm making is that pending supercentenarians are NOT on equal terms with those who are neither verified nor pending. If you throw them in with unverified claims and include the unverified claims in these lists, you'll end up with a total mess, because you'll have to include all sorts of ridiculous claims. As far as I'm concerned, if you do not wish to distinguish pending from other unverified cases, then only include verified cases.
  • "sources other than the GRG verified table can and should be used as reliable sources even if they claim that someone is 130 or whatever." ---> Doing that will turn the whole project in to a complete shambles. I suppose you think we should add "969" year old Methuselah in as well.
  • " I see it as a spin off of the GRG fan club..." ---> Many people involved this project have an interest in longevity and supercentenarians, NOT the GRG. The GRG is a non-profit organisation and many who work for it do so on a voluntary basis. It's not in our interest to promote the GRG. All we want to do is make sure that Wikipedia's coverage is as accurate and thorough as possible, and as the GRG is currently the leading authority on supercentenarian verification, we use it as the main point of reference.
  • "A newspaper article said that she lacked a birth certificate which would is why Guinness couldn't authenticate it and didn't list her. I'd say that's a reliable source for that fact." ---> The newspaper article was wrong, and the birth certificate has since been located. Now ok, there was no publicly available source that could reference this, but the point is that you insisted that "She lacked a birth certificate" should still be included, when this point was disputed. There was no need to include this, so since the factual accuracy was in question, I don't believe it should have been mentioned at all.
  • "For most of these people, the only interesting thing to mention is their longevity" ---> I note that on this page there is a discussion about what is appropriate encyclopedic content for supercentenarian biographies, and the conclusion was that "content should be limited to material that is directly related to extreme longevity". What kind of logic is that? So should no biographical details be included in biographies of say, tennis players? After all, they're only notable for tennis, aren't they?
  • "The rest usually boils down to the standard coverage that people turning 100 or more get in their local newspapers" ---> Human interest reports in news can have a place in Wikipedia. It's not encyclopedic, you say? Well guess what, THE WHOLE OF WIKIPEDIA is not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is written by experts. What's Wikipedia? It's a giant website, which can be edited by any old idiot sitting their parents' basement. Instead of just gutting these articles and chopping all sorts out, why don't we make constructive - rather than destructive - changes, to try and help spread knowledge?
  • "As for the GRG, have a look at their (rather amateurish) website" ---> I agree the website doesn't look great, but that's not really relevant.
  • "This is not a group of professional researchers but consists of enthusiastic laymen. Very few of their international correspondents have an academic affiliation, and those that do, often don't work in any area connected to aging..." ---> What qualifications do YOU have? Oh that's right, self-appointed arbiters of a website that "anyone can edit". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
  • "They're not the last word on anything either." ---> They are the leading authority on supercentenarian verification. Sorry, but they ARE the last word, with the exception of the world's oldest category (for which GWR are the last). Why would you put any other source above them, unless you have a very good reason to do so? Just saying "their website is amateurish" doesn't mean anything.
It seems to me that the mindset of a lot of editors is one of "track down and delete without discussion". This attitude needs to change because it's not constructive. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we please stick to sourcing and other article issues and leave off denigrating the GRG and people who are interested in longevity and related topics, please? Thanks.
When I rewrote the GRG article I looked for independent sources that said that the GRG was the leading supercentenarian site... and all I could find were sources where one or another member of the GRG says that they're a leading authority. Declaring oneself a leading authority doesn't make necessarily one a reliable source for everything. That said, we know that the GRG verifies supercentenarian claims and so the ones that are verified (table E, is it?), are definitely reliable sources.
Everything else from the GRG tables isn't a reliable source because there's nothing to back them up. Even the pending table (Table EE) isn't enough because if information isn't in a validated state then it's not validated from a Wikipedia perspective.
Also, someone - be it a GRG member or someone else - knowing something isn't a reliable source. Even if that person's knowledge contradicts a newspaper account because it's newer than what was written in the paper, that knowledge can't be used in an article because it isn't a reliable source. And because we're dealing with biographies of living people and the recently deceased, everything we include in an article about them has to be reliably-sourced.
The Guiness Book is a reliable source for sure. Are there other longevity organizations out there? Newspaper accounts in reliable papers are also reliable sources, at least according to WP:RS. I understand your objection to newspapers because they aren't always right. However, they're what Wikipedia considers a reliable source (in general - read over WP:RS). Ideally, I'd like to see everything that's sourced to the GRG Table E also sourced to another reliable source whenever possible. I'm fairly certain that Methusalah's age was not listed in a reliable source (at least according to Wikipedia) so we don't need to worry about including that name.
Ollie231213, I don't want to decimate articles, either, but all these articles must be reliably-sourced. Anything in these articles that can't be reliably-sourced after a reasonable period of time - say, a couple of months - must be removed. Ca2james (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't take issue with you asking that things are reliable sourced. What I am NOT happy about, however, are things like this. Someone created an article about the oldest living person in Australia - yes, it was only a stub, but most articles start out like that. DerbyCountyinNZ then added a notability tag on to it, and shortly after, CommanderLinx just deleted the whole page (merging it in to List of Australian supercentenarians), on the grounds that the it had "nothing of value that isn't already present there". He did NOT consult anyone else and he did NOT gain consensus. In my view it was a rash decision made without gaining consensus and one which is detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia. What is the point of just immediately destroying new articles, without giving them chance to develop? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
See WP:BEBOLD. Really, the only information in that article was a name, age and country. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It had only just been created! WP:BEBOLD doesn't mean you can just do whatever the hell you like and not consider other people's opinions. "It is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly" - well I would say that just deleting an entire article that has only just been created counts as reckless. Please look at Gladys Hooper's article as an example - compare the current version of the article to the original version. Articles can evolve and improve over time, so GIVE THEM A CHANCE. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You seriously want to say that apart from age and country, there is anything even remotely encyclopedic in the Hooper article? That someone witnessed a certain event or went to school with a notable person is not usually included in any biographical article, unless it verifiably influenced the life of the person that the bio is about. I'm afraid that Hooper really is nto a good example of what a bio should look like.... --Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so just delete the whole bloody thing then! The article is still quite new, and improvements can still be made. Either way, it's far better than the original version which was just a sentence or two, which is why I'm arguing against hasty deletion. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It was either redirect the article myself or take it through the entire AFD process where the likely end result after a week or so would have been "merge/redirect to the Australian article". Correct my if I'm wrong, but I don't believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good reason for me not redirecting the Ethel Farrell article. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Ollie231213, is Farrell notable for anything other than being the new record-holder in Australia? If not, then WP:BLP1E applies and a separate article should not be written. The issue isn't that the article was a stub - it's that the article shouldn't exist in the first place. Even the Gladys Hooper article shouldn't exist as that person is also only notable for the single event of being a new record-holder. Moreover, since a new record-holder will eventually be found, this person will no longer be notable for being a new record-holder - and notability is not temporary. Ca2james (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
What is meant by "one event"? I thought it was previously agreed that national record holders are notable enough for their own article. In any case, no one previously explained this so it comes across as an anti-longevity, "search and destroy" campaign. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ollie231213, please review WP:BLP1E for what is meant by "one event". Basically it means that the person is notable only in one context, is otherwise low-profile, and nothing else has been written about them. Can you please link to the discussion where it was decided that record holders were notable enough for their own article? Please note that I'm pro-Wikipedia, not anti-longevity, and want to bring these articles into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm sorry you feel that we're conducting a search-and-destroy campaign but I hope you see that this is being done for the betterment of the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, this project has operated using its own rules (which aren't all compatible with Wikipedia's) for a long time, so many articles are going to be affected by this review. Ca2james (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james,I can't remember where this discussion took place, otherwise I would have linked it. Maybe it was just a comment somewhere or something, I don't know. But in any case, being a national record-holder at least seems like reasonable criteria. My "search and destroy" comment was not necessarily aimed at you, it was more aimed at people who just immediately delete new articles. I accept that this project has been bending the rules in favour of truth over verifiability, but please remember that those involved only have the aim of spreading knowledge about the subject. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ollie231213 thanks for the clarification. I know that members of this project want to spread their knowledge I appreciate their work and dedication. I agree that new articles and edits are sometimes deleted very quickly and that this is frustrating and discouraging for editors. I do see your point about national record-holders being somewhat notable, but one issue I have is that record-holders change over time, which implies that previous record-holders don't stay notable. The other main issue I have is that these record-holders are (temporarily) notable for only one thing. Ca2james (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Randykitty, don't let your emotions win over solid facts. There is no need to offend the scientists associated with the Gerontology Research Group. On the contrary, plenty of Gerontology Research Group's International Correspondents have degrees. They tend to be Professors of their respective universities, demographs. On the other hand, what qualifications do you have? Who has appointed you to decide over who is professional and who is not. Yes, you are self-appointed, not an expert so please do not call the GRG Correspondents "laymen". This is a mistake. The GRG International Correspondents have been chosen, once they have proven their professionalism and credibility in extreme longevity tracking and signed the confidentiality agreement with the Gerontology Research Group. The list of their publications in scientific journals is also available from the Gerontology Research Group's website. The website may be not the most modern one, but this, in my honest opinion is very weak argument. The website can be improved anytime. It's the people, that matter. The Gerontology Research Group has professional people.
Ca2james, I agree with Ollie231213 and wish to add, that there is never need to delete the material, credibility of which is assured by the Gerontology Research Group. You said before, that:
"Everything else from the GRG tables isn't a reliable source because there's nothing to back them up. Even the pending table (Table EE) isn't enough because if information isn't in a validated state then it's not validated from a Wikipedia perspective"
Well, I can see inconsistency here. Let me explain: The GRG table EE is also the GRG table, so it is the reliable source. The GRG table EE bases on the research conducted by the Gerontoogy Research Group's International Correspondents and accepted by the headship of the Gerontology Research Group. The GRG table EE greatly improves the authenticity of the research, because the supercentenarian claims listed there are being re-reviewed and often investigated further before the final dicision over positive verification is made. The verified supercentenarians can only be those, listed previously on the GRG table EE. In fact, the supercentenarian claims listed on the GRG table EE are "de facto" already verified cases (pending-validated). For a supercentenarian case to appear on GRG table EE, a substantial amount of documentation is needed. The source of validation are the GRG International Correspondents, whose names are being mentioned next to the case, which has been listed either on GRG table E and also on GRG table EE. The GRG International Correspondents are not anonymous people. Their e-mail adresses are available from the GRG website. If you have any further doubts on an particular case, contact with respective GRG International Correspondent or directly with the GRG headship, introduce yourself, and mention your matter, that you have doubts about the reliable sources. I am sure you can be given the professional answer about each particular case the Gerontology Research Group has researched. This would be wiser to get more information about the matter from the professional body and experts before deleting some valuable material from the Wikipedia website.
One more comment: The "encyclopedic purpose" of an encyclopedia, which is also the Wikipedia, is to educate the public in regards to topics of encyclopedic value. The larger goal of having a worldwide database of validated supercentenarians helps to educate the general public as to how long humans really live, how the extreme longevity is featured in different periods of time, in different regions of the world. By erasing the longevity-related articles, this goal can not be realised. How can the knowledge be improved, if the previous work in this matter is being erased?
Regards, Waenceslaus (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Waenceslaus, please indent each paragraph in your reply by putting one more ":" than in the post you're replying to - it makes it easier to follow the threaded discussion. I've indented your comments above.
Of course the information in the encyclopaedia is used to educate the public, but that information included must adhere to Wikipedia policies. At issue here is that there's a difference between what the GRG considers reliable and what Wikipedia considers reliable. The standards are different, and everything on Wikipedia must adhere to Wikipedia standards. I realize that the GRG correspondents have a lot of information about the various claims, but that knowledge is no substitute for reliably published information, especially when we're talking about living persons and the recently deceased. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and that means that the information must be published in a reliable source. Relying on information that hasn't been published - ie relying on what the GRG correspondents "know" - is a form of original research and is not allowed.
The GRG tables aren't necessarily considered reliable, as WP:WOP#Databases points out: They have been described on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as more in the nature of "works-in-progress." Such databases may be consulted in order to find further direction to more reliable sources. Per WP:SOURCE, The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Therefore, Table E, which contains entries that have been fully verified, is the best source on the GRG site because the information has been checked.
However, Table EE, which contains a list of people who have claimed to be at least 110 years old but whose verification process is not complete, is not a good source. There's no way for a reader to know where in the verification process these entries are or how much scrutiny they've received - some might be new claims where others might be practically verified - and since there's no way to know which is which, the table can't a reliable source. Of course entries in table EE can be used in addition to non-GRG secondary sources but they absolutely can't be used as the only source.
Does that help to clarify things? Ca2james (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


"Of course entries in table EE can be used in addition to non-GRG secondary sources"

I disagree. Since the GRG table EE is developed by the GRG, how can be used in addition to "non-GRG secondary sources"? The GRG table EE is the GRG source, which has been reviewed on the authenticity of the data. The Gerontology Research Group does not list cases at table EE without reviewing them. Each case you see at the GRG table EE is a case of supercentenarian for which the substantial amount of documentation has been gathered and the fact has been approved by the headship of the Gerontology Research Group. Therefore the GRG table EE is the professional source in this matter. Waenceslaus (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because you keep saying that GRG is the only source you find reliable doesn't mean that's policy. When people try to create a separate article about the individuals, they don't argue that newspapers aren't reliable sources then. It hypocritical to claim that newspapers or Guinness or anything else should not be a source for their age but is fair game when you want to make a separate article on the person. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Waenceslaus, once again, please indent your replies per WP:INDENT. When I say that Of course entries in table EE can be used in addition to non-GRG secondary sources I mean that Table EE - the Pending table - is a supplemental source only and can only be used as a reference in conjunction with sources that are not the GRG, such as newspapers and the like. In other words, Table EE is not reliable enough to be used as a reference on its own. Table E - the Verified table - is reliable enough on its own to be used as a source, with the exception listed on this project's main page: none of the GRG tables can be used in an article in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead. Please re-read my comment above for a detailed analysis regarding these tables. Ca2james (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Going forward

I'm thinking we can start updating the "List of" articles by:

  1. removing colours on tables
  2. adding a footnote to indicate which table entries are verified by the GRG
  3. adding "citation needed" tags to any entries using only GRG Table EE
  4. adding "citation needed" tags to any entries without references
  5. give these "citation needed" entries a month or two and if additional references aren't added, remove them

Have I missed anything? How does this sound? How do we want to go about dividing up the work and getting this done?

I'd like to notify all project members about this work to bring these articles in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines because it's a huge change. Pinging Randykitty and Ricky81682; can either of send a message via MediaWiki to all project members, or is there another way that this can be done? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

On #2, the reference states the source. It seems unnecessary to have a reference tag, plus a footnote to give the same information. I don't see the reason for #3. Seeing as we have a reliable source to reference these cases, it's not really clear why we (in conjunction with #5) should be removing these cases. It would appear to be violation of WP:SYN and WP:OR to selectively remove and alter information given by a reliable source. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I've updated my list above to include numbers to make make it easier to discuss. SiameseTurtle, thanks for your input. Point #2 is related to point #1, which is to remove the colours used in the tables. Basically, entries in the tables in this articles are of two types: verified by the GRG and not verified (which includes pending verification). Since the entries are of only two types instead of three, the use of colour - which is deprecated due to WP:ACCESSIBILITY concerns - isn't necessary. However, it's still important to note which entries have been verified by the GRG and I'm proposing a footnote to do that instead of a separate column. I think a footnote or asterisk makes it clearer that the entries have been verified by the GRG than relying on references to GRG Table E does. What do you think?
The reference tags are needed because a) all entries in articles must be referenced, b) references must not be restricted to the GRG Tables, c) GRG Table EE isn't a reliable source, and d) these articles cannot rely on the GRG Tables alone. Please see the discussion above. More references are needed and information that is not referenced must be removed. It's not a violation of WP:SYN or WP:OR to remove unreferenced information; in fact, WP:V requires it. I'm not saying that these entries need to be removed right this second; I'm saying that we flag these entries, give everyone a couple of months to come up with reliable sources, and only if reliable sources cannot be found would they be deleted. Does that make sense? Ca2james (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Ca2james (talk · contribs) on all points. Long overdue. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Rfc: How long should the WikiProject keep track of potential supercentenarians

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Ca2james correctly argues that we need high quality reliable sources for this information, regardless of the age. Perhaps if the reliability of grg.org and the Journal of Rejuvenation Research is in question, better sources should be identified rather than maintaining cases supported by these sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many years back should Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases and I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Oldest (known) living people per country keep track of potential candidates to be listed? The cases go to people who are 107 which means that it won't be three years before we need to look for reliable sources to include them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the need to track anyone younger than 108. Statistically speaking, a person turning 107 only has around a 1 in 8 chance of reaching 110. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What are the odds for 108 and 109 if you know them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There's about a 50% annual mortality rate at that age, so 50% chance for 109 and 25% chance for 108. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
That's my view. Particularly since these are non-public figures but I'll let that pass for the moment. I mean, according to this project, "There is currently no consensus about the reliability of the tables of data hosted at www.grg.org, nor of the journal Rejuvenation Research." but that doesn't change anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Portal and question

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

I have a request and a question :

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIGNERON (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So how do we proceed?

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

This Wikiproject is a complete mess and needs help. Editing is going nowhere as we're just going back and forth and sooner or later someone's going to get blocked and nothing will be fixed. I agree with the above discussion in that the country articles need a serious look at before the other articles can be fixed. So how do we proceed? Pinging everyone either active in this topic area (User:Waenceslaus, User:Ollie231213, User:930310), User:Inception2010) had/s experience in this topic area (User:DerbyCountyinNZ, User:Randykitty, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, User:EEng) and those that participated in the discussion above (User:Ca2james, User:Ricky81682). Color and original research need to be addressed. Every name in every table needs a source or it needs to be removed. I'd suggest looking at the "chronological list of oldest person" sections first. If sources cannot be found that states that a person was oldest from death of previous, then the table needs to be removed. I'm not 100% sure if the oldest in Britain website is reliable for Wikipedia or not. Opinions? Not sure how the color concerns get addressed either. Perhaps something like the List of supercentenarians who died in 2014 for example? Once the country articles are looking solid, we can tackle the other "lists of" pages and the individual bios as many could be redirected/deleted without loss of information. purple monkey dishwasher CommanderLinx (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was in fact planning to make a post on this talk page about this project, and more specifically its guidelines. The ones that exist currently are outdated and are being used as a tool to remove information on articles in the scope of this project. Let me firstly put forward my views on these:
1. Let's start with this statement: "There is currently no consensus about the reliability of the tables of data hosted at www.grg.org, nor of the journal Rejuvenation Research." ---> I don't know much about Rejuvenation Research but I don't know why it would not be considered a reliable source given that it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's also clear that the Gerontology Research Group is a reliable source. The GRG has several thousand citations in Google News at the moment. Do a quick search for articles on supercentenarians such as Susannah Mushatt Jones, Sakari Momoi, Jeralean Talley, etc., and you will see that most articles reference the GRG (i.e. "according to the Gerontology Research Group"). This, this, and this are but a few examples. I understand that there may have been some disagreement about the reliability of this source but consensus appears to have changed over the last few years based on greater media acceptance. The GRG is also considered an authority on longevity by Guinness World Records.
2. "Gerontology Research Group data from grg.org should be attributed and used only as backup for reliable sources." ---> No, it should be the OTHER WAY AROUND. It's the news outlets that quote the GRG! The GRG does the initial work to verify people's ages, which the media certainly do not do - just take this article about a "160" year old man.
3. The final point regarding the GRG is that being verified and included on the GRG tables does count as coverage in reliable sources. Supercentenarians are not celebrities like Kim Kardashian who are just famous for being famous - their notability should not be determined purely by the amount of media coverage they get. This issue was debated at Lucy Hannah's AfD. She's the third oldest person ever, living to the age of 117, but was not covered widely in the press. On the other hand, it's common to see people as young as 100 covered in media articles. Does that make Lucy Hannah less notable for her longevity than a 100 year old? No of course not.
4. "Some long-lived people are notable principally for their advanced age, e.g., Jeanne Calment. If the individual is not notable in any other way, the article is subject to Wikipedia policy guidance on one-event biographies." ---> The "one event" guideline is meant to deal with people who, say, were witnesses to an event but were not largely involved, but who might have been interviewed by the press. It's these kind of people who are only notable for being involved in one event and are likely to remain to low-profile. In other words, people whose notability is not substantial or long-lasting. On the other hand, as discussed at Antonia Gerena Rivera's AfD, longevity is not "one event" - it's an integral part of the person. Furthermore, someone who holds a record is notable in the long-term, because that record lasts for a (often long) period of time.
This leads me on nicely to my next point, which is this: I feel that some people hold the view that supercentenarians aren't important/aren't famous. This has been the most-persistent issue recently - the push to delete supercentenarian articles as "not important", "one event," Firstly, the media itself shows that someone can be famous for age alone (such as Jeanne Calment). The question after that is: "how famous"? Consensus seems to be that "World's oldest person" and "world's oldest man" titleholders generally merit an article, but after that, there is no consensus. Secondly, a birthday party is "one event," but someone setting a record such as "Minnesota's oldest person on record" is a recurring citation, as I have discussed above. Take, for example, this article about 110 year old Hermina Wahlin. This article references Catherine Hagel, Minnesota's all-time longevity record holder, who died in 2008. Also, two birthdays are two events...someone turning 113, 114, 115, 116, etc. is a person with multiple-event coverage.
Regarding your question about the Oldest in Britain website, you can see that it is maintained by Dr Andrew Holmes, who is the GRG's correspondent for England, Scotland, and Wales. It is definitely reliable.
Finally, I will address the original question of "how do we proceed?". Firstly, I appreciate that sourcing is an issue in certain articles, particularly "chronological list of oldest people in country X" articles. Something needs to be done about that. But certain users, such as yourself CommanderLinx, need to take a more positive approach to editing. Looking at your user contributions, almost all of your edits involve removing information or placing tags on articles. That's all very well, as long as you also make an attempt to add content to articles to improve them. But you don't, and in the past, you have even taken it upon yourself to redirect biography articles (effectively deleting their content) without gaining consensus, which is not on. Maybe consider trying to search for some citations yourself. For example, you added "citation needed" tags to Emma Tillman's article. I did a quick Google search and was able to find plenty of citations to add and cleaned up the article.
So in summary, we all need to work together to not only solve the problem of unsourced content, but to recognise that people can be notable for their longevity and also to improve longevity-related articles by making constructive contributions. Sorry for the long-winded post. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
First, Ollie, nothing is gained by labeling people as "positive" or "negative" editors here. If someone wants to add content, fine, if someone thinks that the content should be fixed, that's also fine as long as it's not overall disruptive (and placing tags in and of themselves is not considered disruptive). This WikiProject has gotten in trouble with Arbcom specifically because it only wanted to let in people who "supported" the project, regardless of how the sourcing and other issues worked within the greater Wikipedia policies and procedures. The issue isn't "is GRG reliable or not" on its own. The issue is context. GRG is generally I think reliable for general points about oldest people (and it's been used that way) but it depends on whether we are talking about the GRG peer reviewed papers as a source or simply their webpages. The real question is if GRG alone is sufficient as a reliable source on a person's birth and death dates (i.e. their age)? No one is really disputing the peer reviewed material, just the use of their webpages alone. My view is that GRG was doing their analysis based on secondary source review and while they are experts on something (it's not aging itself but basically on data regarding the oldest people I'd say), they aren't say experts on birth certificates from 100 years or death certificate or history in general or the other points, that's not their training necessarily. For that reason, I'd say we need to have another source (even if it's a secondary peer-reviewed source that just supports the GRG), even if it's a pretty lazily done newspaper source, that supports the claim. In that line, absent some particularly terrible almost absurd newspaper source, even if the GRG doesn't include them, I think it's fair to include other names here as well. I think the best thing would be a general RFC on sourcing rather than individual discussions like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's say "constructive" editing then (used to mean actually searching for citations and adding content sometimes, rather than just removing content or adding tags). As for your comments about the GRG, they appear misinformed.
1. They are the ones who do the research to verify the person's age, so I don't see how any other source can be more reliable than the GRG for a person's birth and death dates. I also don't know how you can be an "expert" in birth certificates. How much expertise do you need to say that if someone has a birth certificate saying "born 1 January 1900", then they were born on 1 January 1900?
2. The GRG is an authority on ageing. Just look at their publications in scientific journals.
3. Why would a terrible second newspaper source be helpful? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ollie231213 on GRG as a reliable source. Any other source on age verification whether newspaper or academic, traces back to the GRG. On the notability of supercentenarians, we have thousands of articles on cartoons, TV, and movie characters, many much longer than any articles on supercentenarians. I think if cartoons are notable enough for Wikipedia, the extraordinary lives of supercentenarians (as covered in reliable sources) are clearly notable. And certainly a life is not merely an event. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if GRG is a reliable source. It's been brought up at WP:RSN several times[1][2][3][4] but there doesn't seem to be consensus one way or another, although people not involved with the GRG seem to indicate that it might not be reliable. Personally, I think that Table E (Verified) is probably reliable because the entries are fact-checked whereas all other tables are not reliable because they haven't been verified. I propose that we take this issue back to WP:RSN and try to get consensus from the community on whether GRG or any portion of it is a reliable source.
Whether or not GRG is determined by the larger community to be reliable, we need to find other reliable sources to support the information in the tables. Are there any? If information in the tables isn't supported by reliable sources, it can't be included in Wikipedia, full stop. This isn't about these people being not important; it's about sourcing.
While the GRG RSN discussion is ongoing, I think removing the "pending" indication on tables is the next step because that's an internal GRG designation; for Wikipedia readers, the information is not verified by the GRG. Ca2james (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem with declaring that GRG is not a reliable source is that any resulting tables become encyclopedically meaningless. Treat any source that passes RS as have the same validity as the GRG (or any other independent organisation with similar standards/purpose (if only!)) is that we would end up with one list including GRG verified, unverified and the fringe entries at Longevity claims. I don't see how that would improve Wiki. On the other hand I totally agree that GRG pending cases should be treated as unverified and any such cases removed from any lists which are for (GRG verified) supercentenarians only. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is it such a bug bear to you that the GRG is the only widely recognised organisation that verifies supercentenarian's ages? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ca2james - Three of those discussions you linked are over four years old. As for the recent one about Violet Brown, read the discussion on the talk page. I will repeat what I said above: I don't see how any other source could be more reliable than one that actually verifies the ages of supercentenarians. Derby is right in the sense that if you give other "reliable" sources as much weight as the GRG, you will end up with tables including both Jeanne Calment and the "160" year old man I mentioned above. Furthermore, the media very often quotes the GRG, and they have many publications in scientific journals. How could they not be considered reliable? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the discussions are so old is a good reason to take this to RSN again. It is true that if GRG tables are found not to be reliable by the larger community, many of the pages associated with this project will be decimated unless other sources can be found. However, that's not a reason not to find out what the community thinks. This discussion has been ongoing for years and some closure on it would be welcome, I would think.
"Reliability" on Wikipedia is a term of art, with a specific meaning that may not correspond to the meaning used elsewhere. On Wikipedia, WP:SOURCE says to [b]ase articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and that [t]he appropriateness of any source depends on the context. This means that a source may be reliable for some things but not others (ie context matters) and is why I would think that the "verified" table is reliable to support information regarding its entries (because the information in it is fact-checked) but the other tables wouldn't be reliable (because fact-checking is not complete). Ca2james (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


  • @Ca2james - Once more, I have to repeat it here, it is the great majority of the community, that consider the Gerontology Research Group as a reliable source in respect of extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study. The GRG is accepted as a reliable source by many, many organizations outside Wikipedia. The most prominent outside sources such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Smithsonian also do consider the GRG as the reliable source. The number of citations of the GRG is growing rapidly. Also in the foreign press, as the GRG is an international scientific organization, that has a considerable number of international correspondents and conducts its research worldwide.

The GRG has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Its work is very well organized. The international correspondents and other researchers perform the primary research. Then, each evidence and/or discovery in carefully reviewed by the GRG headship, which consists of professionals; people, whose names appear as authors of publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals, which are listed [[5]]. After final acceptance of each case of extreme longevity (which is a complex process), the GRG publishes information on its website. That is the secondary source, for which the Wikipedia seeks. Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. So, the hierarchy of sources and its reliability are not an issue in the case of the GRG.

The world news system accepts the GRG as a reliable source. Thus the massive amount of citations in world's press in many different languages. Also, the Guinness World Records accepts the GRG as a reliable source. It is proven by the fact, that the world news system looks to GWR and the GRG for stories regarding age-verified supercentenarian claims.

The extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study might be considered as a young branch of science. However, is it really so? I am reminded, that the first man, who has verified a supercentenarian case was Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the phone, among other. Mr. Bell has verified the authenticity of age of Mrs. Ann Pouder, who lived between 1807-1917. The Gerontology Research Group itself, has been founded in 1990. This predates Wikipedia by more than a decade.

Finally, as long as the GRG publishes and updates the GRG Table EE for pending supercentenarian cases, the table cannot be considered as internal GRG designation, for the reason, that it is available publicly. What is more, it is not true, that the pending supercentenarian cases are not verified. In fact, they are already pending-validated. For every supercentenarian, who appears in the GRG table EE, there is a source of validation provided. The primary source. The existence of the GRG table EE is one of the elements of the very careful inspection of the GRG in the presented data and into each individual case. All that is done for the sake of the perfect reliability of the presented data. In fact, 99% of pending cases are eventually accepted. However, such such measures are taken for the sake of the 1%. This is another proof, that the Gerontology Research Group works very professional and its reliability in respect of longevity and verified supercentenarians' population is unquestionable.

Therefore, instead of looking for opportunities to undermine the authority of the GRG (which is indisputable), I would suggest to appreciate, that such source exists, because hence the greater public education on about how long can people truly live, is achieved. Moreover, GRG's work allows the further improvement of the the state of our knowledge on the subject.

Sincerely,Waenceslaus (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the GRG tables aren't used in other places or that they're not considered an authority; I'm saying that they may not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and that the community's input is needed. I have brought this up at RSN so hopefully we'll get an answer from the community. Ca2james (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent presentation of living people at List of oldest people by nation

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I left a note yesterday at talk:List of oldest people by nation#Inconsistent presentation of living people about the inconsistent presentation of the highlighting for living people on that article. However, it seems that talk page is dead (that was the first comment since September, and the first edit by a human since last August), so I'm leaving this note as a pointer. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

List of oldest people by nation listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of oldest people by nation to be moved to List of oldest people by country. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of oldest living people by nation listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of oldest living people by nation to be moved to List of oldest living people by country. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of ... naming

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I'm wondering if we should rename all the List of supercentenarians who died before 1980, List of supercentenarians who died in the 1980s, .... List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 to List of the oldest people who died before 1980 (that's problematic I admit), died in the 1980s, ... died in 2015, etc.. I think it's more natural as people aren't really interested in everyone who was over 110 years and died then, they want the oldest people to die then (with 110 as a normal cut-off). I think we could then incorporate notable Centenarians to flesh out the lists and make them more interesting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"I think it's more natural as people aren't really interested in everyone who was over 110 years and died then, they want the oldest people to die then (with 110 as a normal cut-off)."[citation needed] Ollie231213 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Supercentarians gives approximately 90k results while Oldest people gives about 101 million. Can we move on to the actual point? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
And if I type in "oldest people who died before 1980", the very first search result is the article above. But the number of results you get on Google search shouldn't be a factor in defining the content of Wikipedia articles. Having a mish-mash of verified, unverified, and centenarian cases would be a horrible mess. The topic of these articles are the oldest people in the world, not notable centenarians, for which there are separate articles. What's more, if we do what you propose then why shouldn't we have "oldest people who died in the 1970s", "oldest people who died in the 1920s", "oldest people who died in the 1750s" and so on. Where does it stop? It's better to have the cut off of 110 so that the numbers on these lists converges to zero if you keep doing them by year or by decade. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree on the cut-off, I'm asking about the title of the articles we currently have. You want to argue about whether we should include a guy who lived to 40 in a hypothetical "List of oldest people in 10000 BC" article, fine but let's start with 2015, I think a more natural title and more natural naming would be "List of the oldest people who died in 2015" than what it is. There's a reason we have "List of the oldest living persons" and not "List of the oldest living supercentarians", the second doesn't achieve anything more for the same point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Where do we go from here

Latest comment: 9 years ago40 comments9 people in discussion

The discussion I opened at WP:RSN has been closed with a finding that GRG's Table E (the verified/validated table) is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's definition but Table EE (unverified listings) is not considered reliable according to that definition. I have updated WP:WOP with this new information.

To bring this suite of articles into alignment with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we need to at least:

  • assess everything sourced to Table EE; if no independent source exists, it must be removed
  • remove the "pending verification" mention and designation from all of this project's Wikipedia articles. Sentences like All of the known supercentenarians who died in 2004 have now been verified treat Wikipedia as an extension of the GRG and need to be reworked or removed.
  • remove the use of colour and flags in articles
  • assess whether any articles should be nominated for AfD
  • .... anything else?

Per CommanderLinx's suggestions, I propose that we start with the "List of" by country articles. I'm thinking of creating a checklist table subpage with the articles and things that need to be checked, once that list of things to assess is finalized.

Pinging User:Waenceslaus, User:Ollie231213, User:930310, User:Inception2010, User:DerbyCountyinNZ, User:Randykitty, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, User:EEng, and User:Ricky81682 for input. Ca2james (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Assess everything sourced to Table EE; if no independent source exists, it must be removed" ---> The utter ridiculousness of this is that you're saying that media reports are reliable enough for inclusion but a scientific organisation is not. Ollie231213 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ollie231213. The GRG is a scientific research group and certainly not just some kind of amateur group that lists various names just for fun. While all cases on Table EE do not go on to be verified the utter majority of them does. Table EE also is mentioned to list cases as "Pending Verified", which means that there is documentation supporting their ages, but that the GRG hasn't had the time to verify their ages completely yet. 930310 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, we should just strip out everything not verified. If someone brings up a reliable source for it, then we can discuss it. And we include it if/when the GRG has verified it. There is no deadline here. We aren't saying that information is the same as the stuff they have verified and I don't know of a single other source where we play this game of "they aren't confident in stating this but we're going to list that they don't have confidence in this for whatever reason." We don't quote unverified scientific data from NASA or unverified unpublished journal articles or anything like that so why this insistence here? It's either the GRG is a serious source and we take what they verified seriously or we treat them like some of the nonsense where we don't really care whether or not they have verified something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Members of this project also need to recognize that this is not the GRG; it's Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia community has determined that Table EE is not reliable. We now have two options with respect to entries supported by Table EE: remove them entirely or reference them to news articles. If referencing them to news articles is not an acceptable solution, then the entries must be removed. I'm totally fine with that. Ca2james (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest we start with List of oldest living people. I've already attempted to remove the GRG verification from the headers, and remove the pending listings with the expect reverts without discussion. We then need to merge the non-verified GRG listing with other reliable sources into the main table so that it's properly a table with either a GRG verification or other reliable sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, it appears that this change is not going to be made without a fight. It's been reverted by TFBCT1 and Special:Contributions/45.73.24.113 and I've re-instated the change. Like it or not, these pages are currently being used by the GRG as a WP:WEBHOST and that is not allowed. I appreciate that the GRG does a lot of research but Wikipedia pages are not just an extension of the GRG and they must conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Not just those pages. Some editors here I believe are part of the project itself. The entire WikiProject subpages are just a way for the GRG to use Wikipedia's resources to host their notes. At least the personal userpages tables have been deleted from what I can tell. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, I think several of this project's members are members of the GRG or do research for them. Many of the pages associated with this project appear to be just regurgitations of the GRG tables, which isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to be used. The GRG would be better off setting up their own wiki (I think two have actually been started) where they could make articles and tables and use colour as much as they want. Ca2james (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can someone PLEASE explain how the GRG are using Wikipedia as a web host? Just sourcing all longevity-related list articles to the GRG doesn't mean it's being used as a we host, it means that it's the biggest and only major organisation that verifies longevity claimants and members of the WOP project want to ensure that information in these articles is reliable. The reason I spend my time frustratedly editing these articles is because I want to help to educate the wider public on this subject. Remember, many people (unfortunately) will turn to Wikipedia to find out about longevity, not a specialised scientific source. I don't work for the GRG, and even if I did, it's a nonprofit organisation. So, in short, I want to make sure that these articles are as accurate and educational as possible. Ollie231213 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Including verified and pending designations, which are internal to the GRG and are useful only for them, is using Wikipedia as a web host. Applying colours to tables against MOS:COLOUR is using Wikipedia as a web host. Writing the articles to refer only to the GRG and its processes in the List of articles (like List of the verified oldest men and List of the verified oldest women is using Wikipedia as a web host. Writing several articles to display GRG table data in different ways is using Wikipedia as a web host. Ca2james (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No, they are NOT internal!! How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? If they were internal, they would not be available publicly. The GRG is a nonprofit, scientific organisation, which has a database of the oldest living people in the world and the oldest people ever. The media regularly refers to the GRG as an authority. Guinness World Records uses the GRG as authority. This is how science works, James: it's about determining what is fact and what is fiction. There is a reason for insisting on only including verified entries when compiling a list of the oldest people because THEIR AGES ARE KNOWN TO BE TRUE. If a load of claims with no evidence to support them are thrown in it makes the list pointless, because you have no idea what is true and what is not.
Now, Wikipedia may not be the GRG but answer me this: why should Wikipedia be different? Why should Wikipedia's list of oldest people contain some cases which "might or might not" be true? What's the point? Yes, Wikipedia is not a scientific organisation but it's an encyclopedia, and it should have a certain standards when it comes to the accuracy of the information it contains. That is why the GRG has, for so long, been cited as a reliable source in these articles. And as no other major body like it exists, Wikipedia articles have been reliant on it. But so what? Isn't that better than a mish-mash of good information and rubbish? Let me point you to the article List of earthquakes in 2015. Earthquakes this year have been listed chronologically and the ONLY source used in this article is the United States Geological Survey. Does that mean that the USGS are using Wikipedia as a web host? No it doesn't, it means that it's the most reliable source and it allows for an informative article that is factually accurate. But tell me: if some dodgy newspaper in Tibet claims there was an earthquake caused by the mountain gods, but the USGS detected nothing, should that be added in to the article too? Ollie231213 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"Verified", "pending" and "unverified" aren't scientific terms. Those a GRG designations. They aren't providing a confidence level and standard of error. They could call it "Larry, Moe and Curly" for all it matters. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It's about time. The reason not to refer to the website as a reliable source is the same reason we don't refer to the Internet Movie Database as a source. Crowd-sourced websites without editorial oversight are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, period. The external website could reorganize in a way that makes it comparable to a peer-reviewed journal, if it became clear who the editors are and where the buck stops in deciding what is posted there and what is not. (Some scientific journal publish only online, after all.) But I've been to the website to look for the indicia of actual editorial oversight of the website, and I have to agree with the decision that the website (currently) doesn't meet the criteria for Wikipedia reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 23:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And already we are seeing issues caused by the exact thing I descibed above. See List of oldest living people. Verified and unverified cases are being merged in to one list, with absolutely no acknowledgement that not all cases are verified. This need to be changed right now. Mixing true and potentially false information is unscientific, unencyclopedic, and misleading to the general public. Ollie231213 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"Verified" is a GRG designation and has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The general public doesn't care whether the GRG has verified someone's age or not; this is something that is useful only for the GRG. Ca2james (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james: Stop. Right. There. That's an unbelievably ignorant thing to say. You think the public shouldn't care about WP:Verifiability? People might want to know who the oldest people in the world are. If so, they might turn to Wikipedia. And if so, they should be able to see a list of the oldest people in the world whose ages are proven to be true. What the hell is the point in creating a list of the oldest people if some people included might be younger than claimed?
Ok, so the GRG's Table EE is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Fine. But if that's the case, then neither are any news reports, because there is at least some documentation supporting pending cases. But some cases reported on by newspapers may have absolutely no evidence supporting their claim. Why are you concerned about the level of "fact-checking" of Table EE but not news reports? If you want to include unverified cases, you had better take every single source to RSN. And please read my post here. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Funny. These same newspapers will conveniently be reliable sources when someone wants to create an article about said supercentarian but heaven forbid we trust the paper for their birth and death date. I don't know why this seems like a foreign concept to you but the GRG isn't the be-all-end-all of birth and death dates for old people. Anonymous claims from editors here about the work the GRG does in the shadows does not help its cause. Someone could create a single page at the GRG that provides detail about their methods but since no one has, people aren't going to trust anonymous users who yell and scream about what the GRG is doing behind the scenes. It has a website, it can just post something if it wanted to. As people have noted, it's very unusual behavior for scientific organizations to not post something specific about how they made their determinations but that's the GRG's issue, not ours. I wouldn't trust the results from a medical organization that refused to provide specifics on how it conducted its tests but it's not like the GRG couldn't post something vague and benign ("this listing is based on a review of X") if it was actually serious here. If you want to argue about a particular news report as a reliable source, we can do that. If you want to argue that all newspapers should be ignored (and only for birth and death dates), there's currently an RSN discussion about that but people will ignore you there as it's quite disruptive and counter to the real goal here which is an encyclopedia with a breadth of a knowledge not just tables of who the oldest people in the world are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You still don't get it, do you? I'm saying that newspapers generally do NOT attempt to verify the age of the person they are reporting on. I've literally just demonstrated that. But if we're talking about biographical details - such as who the person married, for example - we should be able to trust that information because there's no reason to believe it might be dubious. Now tell me, why is the idea of distinguishing between verifiable and unverifiable information a foreign concept TO YOU? Ollie231213 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you seriously on this still? What is your point here? Do you really want to argue that all newspapers do not verify ages and therefore no newspaper is a reliable source for ages? Fine, go ahead and argue that, no one will take you seriously. I doubt you even seriously believe that. I suspect you'll have no issues with the newspaper when they agree with the GRG verification or when a million other times but knock it off with the same tired argument we have had for close to a decade here. If you want to discuss a particular newspaper for a particular citation to a particular person, fine, we'll discuss that but otherwise your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine is getting old. So the issue is, going forward, what do you plan on doing? Are you going to edit war whenever someone suggests a name that's based on newspaper but the GRG hasn't verified? Fine, we'll deal with it as is but if you haven't been able to tell, there are very, very little sympathy for that viewpoint and the more you continue this bizarre stance, the more absurd you look and the more likely you're find yourself topic banned from the whole thing. Else, what is the point of your argument here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you in agreement with me? No. So of course I'm still on this, because I see this as a very important issue.
  • "Do you really want to argue that all newspapers do not verify ages and therefore no newspaper is a reliable source for ages? Fine, go ahead and argue that, no one will take you seriously." ---> I beg to differ. I think we need to do an RFC on this or something like that.
  • What am I going to do? Take this issue to RFC. I don't think there will be "very, very little sympathy" for my viewpoint that entries in this table should be verified. Ollie231213 (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I have remained respectful in my interactions with you and everyone else associated with this project and I ask that you behave the same way with me. Telling me I've said something ignorant is disrespectful and inappropriate. Of course I care about verifiability and reliable sourcing. I did read your post saying that everything the GRG does is reliable and newspaper articles on supercentenarians aren't. It also sounds like you're threatening to engage on WP:POINTy behaviour if you don't get your way.
I realize that the GRG doesn't want to use any source other than their own tables but that's not how things work here. Without fact-checking, Table EE is just a bunch of names on a website. I know the GRG sees that table as more than that, but from a reliable source perspective, that's what it is. Generally, there's a presumption that fact-checking happens in newspapers whereas with the Table EE we know that fact-checking has not occurred. Some of the entries in the deaths in 2015 article were also cited to obituaries. I'm not sure whether or not those are reliable and that's something that should be brought up at RSN. Ca2james (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ignorant (adjective): lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. ---> Your comment that "The general public doesn't care whether the GRG has verified someone's age or not" was just that. How do you know what the general cares about? I would like to think that people care about the accuracy of the Wikipedia articles that they are reading.
  • How am I threatening to "engage on WP:POINTy behaviour"?
  • Well DON'T presume anything! Firstly, I just demonstrated that newspapers often don't fact-check. Secondly, Table EE isn't just a few random names on a list - it's a list of cases for which there is at least some evidence to support their claim. Many do have enough documentation to be verified but need to be looked over. Even if "fact checking is not complete" it's far closer to complete than with many newspapers. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Ollie231213, I understand that you're frustrated. From your perspective, it must seem that we're not getting what you see as obvious and that it seems like your project is being taken over by outsiders. I know it's hard to have people come in and tell you what you can and can't do. Even so, there's no call for rudeness or condescension. The thing is, this project has been working on its own for ages, and it was quite insular from the start and set up its own rules that didn't conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines - operating in the darkness, as it were - and it's time to shine the Wikipedia light on this project. The light is harsh, I know. I'm doing what I can to see your point of view and to work with you.
When I said that it seemed that you were threatening to engage in WP:POINTy behaviour, I was referring to your statement about taking every single newspaper reference for supercentenarian birth/death dates to RSN. I think the status of newspaper-written obituaries and articles for supercentenarian birth/death dates can be covered in one RSN post and family-written obituaries for them in another. Ca2james (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if you felt I was being rude. But I was not making a personal attack.
  • What I'm frustrated by is that you can't seem to understand my point of view. Ok, your point of view is this: newspapers are considered a reliable source in general, so why shouldn't they be reliable in this instance? And why should the GRG have to verify every entry, when this is Wikipedia, not the GRG? But my point is this: journalists writing news reports often don't ask questions. A lot of longevity claims turn out to be false, as I've demonstrated. There's really no way of telling whether or not a claim is genuine just from reading a news report. So, what's the value of a list full of some people whose ages are true and some whose ages might be true. This is a simple WP:Verifiability issue: readers should be able to know whether or not the age of any given entry is known to be true or if there is some doubt. Do you agree or not?
  • "I think the status of newspaper-written obituaries and articles for supercentenarian birth/death dates can be covered in one RSN post and family-written obituaries for them in another." ---> My point here was that if Table EE is unreliable, then there's no way that newspaper reports are. This is what you and Ricky don't seem to be getting. Ollie231213 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • File the RFC if you want (sounds more like a discussion for WP:RSN). If not, drop the issue as it's only been argued for probably close to a decade here. To me, you're being intentionally disruptive to make some point here but that's my take. I don't think you're being rude. I think the WOP crowd has gotten so used to just speaking to themselves that Waenceslaus has this version of events that completely run counter to what everyone else sees. User:Waenceslaus is already threatening to take his views to ARBCOM and I suspect ARBCOM may just ban him as a result but there's no one to blame but Waenceslaus then. The truth is, 99.999% of the editors here don't care to waste time in any argument about whether we should dismiss newspaper articles as a source because people aren't going to let some Excel spreadsheet from some webpage of some organization be treated as gospel (especially when it's an argument about some subpart of the the GRG's results anyways) and to them, this line of thinking is purely disruptive to the vast, vast majority of what's done here. In the course of this entire time wastage, has anything you've argued for greatly affected a single article in the millions that are here? I see that you ignored the colors discussion once I asked you for an actual solution that solves the MOS problem. A real resolution would be helpful there but the crowd here doesn't care about listening to anyone else, they just want their colorized tables all to themselves. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please tell me exactly 1. What I am doing that is disruptive 2. What basis you have for thinking that I'm not acting in WP:GOODFAITH. I've explained my reasoning for continuing this discussion. Just because I'm not agreeing with you and doing what you say doesn't mean I'm being disruptive.
  • The GRG is NOT just a "Excel spreadsheet from some webpage". It's a scientific organisation and it's quite clear to see from looking at media reports on (verified) supercentenarians that they are considered an authority on the subject of age verification. See This, this, and this for just a few examples.
  • Your total lack of consideration for age verification is what is disruptive. It is not beneficial to the encyclopedia to have a mish-mash of cases thrown in to one list with no mention of whether or not their age has been proven to be true.
  • I can't speak for the "crowd" and I apologise on their behalf for any disruptive edit-warring. Ollie231213 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Break

Apologies for the long post. I'm trying to address the points that have been brought up above.

First: newspapers and obituaries. Let's set aside family-written obituaries (the kind that appear on funeral home websites) and look at newspaper-written obituaries and articles on supercentenarians. You're saying that the reason that table EE is not a reliable source is because it is not fact-checked, and since newspaper articles may not be fact-checked, either both are reliable sources or neither are. However, this logic is flawed because the other reason that Table EE is not a reliable source is that it starts off as an anonymous, crowd-sourced table. In contrast, a newspaper article is not anonymous and it may (or may not) be fact-checked. Because Table EE and these newspaper articles are constructed differently, they are not equivalent.

That said, it may very well be that newspaper-written obituaries and articles about supercentenarians are not considered reliable sources; that's for the community to decide. Instead of an RfC, I suggest bringing this up at WP:RSN because that's the function of that noticeboard. Family-written obituaries should also be brought up at RSN, along with Oldest in Britain.

Next: verifiability. When you say So, what's the value of a list full of some people whose ages are true and some whose ages might be true. This is a simple WP:Verifiability issue: readers should be able to know whether or not the age of any given entry is known to be true or if there is some doubt, you are using two definitions of Verifiability: the GRG's and Wikipedia's. On Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. It specifically doesn't mean that the information is correct or true (or that the GRG has checked documents); it only means that the information exists, appears in a reliable source, and readers can go to that source and see that the information is there.

Finally, when I said that verified/validated and pending designations were internal GRG designations, I misspoke because, as you point out, they're used elsewhere. What I meant to say that these designations have been assigned this specific meaning and criteria by the GRG and that these terms are not used in the same way elsewhere. Using these designations in Wikipedia articles is using the articles as a webhost for the GRG. Is that clearer? Ca2james (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • What do you mean Table EE is "an anonymous, crowd-sourced table"? Why is it any different to Table E in that regard?
  • I've already started a discussion at RSN on this issue.
  • "On Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." ---> The whole point of this is so that readers can check if the information they are reading is true. This is why I've brought the issue up at RSN.
  • Any definition of "verified" is ultimately arbitrary and dependent upon context, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. If the GRG lists a person as "verified", then why on earth can't Wikipedia say as much (i.e. these cases are considered verified by an international body such as the GRG). Just citing information to a source doesn't mean the source is using it as a web host. If NASA discover an exoplanet, and have verified that it exists, do we not mentioned that it is verified to exist on Wikipedia (as opposed to "unconfirmed")? Ollie231213 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Table E is also an anonymous, crowd-sourced table - and that could have been a reason for the community to find that it's not a reliable source. However, since the entries on that table have apparently been fact-checked by the GRG, the community decided that this fact-checking makes the table a reliable source.
For clarification, the RSN discussion you started is here. Thank you for starting that discussion.
You're still trying to say that verifiability on Wikipedia is the same thing as GRG's "verified" and they are not. Verifiability here means that the information is not original research, not that information is true.
I don't know if you noticed the changes I made to List of supercentenarians who died in 2015, but I did in fact note which entries had been verified by the GRG via a note. Referencing them to Table E would serve just as well for that purpose. As I've said elsewhere, I do see why verified entries should be noted, but the use of colour (which is against MOS:COLOUR and a table column seems UNDUE and WEBHOST to me... especially when members of this project won't include entries not from the GRG tables, and also want to include notations about which claims are pending. These articles are not just for the GRG to use to display only their data in their way; if the GRG wants to do that, they'd be better off doing that on a private wiki. Ca2james (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding: what you wrote at RSN didn't ask the question about whether these news articles were reliable sources for the List of articles but instead attempts to answer that question. I've added a tl;dr comment asking the question we need answered and giving the necessary background because many editors will not read such long posts. It is to everyone's benefit for as many uninvolved editors to weigh in on this issue as possible. Ca2james (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

break

Admins have protected the oldest people from you people. You people are in the wrong, Wikipedia is going to include all the pending cases regardless of the nonsense you people want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.167 (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ca2james, I am very sorry, however, before you edit any of the WOP group guidelines, you have to be accepted as member of the World's Oldest People group of Wikipedia. Before that happens, I can't acknowledge any of the edits done by you. Please, apply for the membership in the first place. Kind regards, Waenceslaus (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No you don't. That kind of nonsense was what got WOP taken to ARBCOM in the first place. This project is a part of Wikipedia not the other way around. It's an accurate reflection of what the RSN discussion concluded. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see we're finally getting some long and overdue results in fixing up this mess of a project. That's a very bizarre attitude, Waenceslaus. Did you know that this Wikiproject nearly got shut down on day one because of it? CommanderLinx (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems like the best course of action would be to remove this project entirely. It is not helping Wikipedia to have a mouthpiece for an off-Wikipedia organisation. The amount of fanfluff and OR in pages started and edited almost entirely by members of this group is execrable. The attitude of most of its active members is typified by recent postings, they have either no intention or no ability to edit co-operativley and/or abide by many of Wiki's core policies and guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
We also need to better track these pages. We shouldn't be having GRG correspondents "maintaining" our pages as disclosed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oldest_people_in_Britain. That kind of COI needs to be dealt with more seriously than ARBCOM did in the past. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I said nothing about GRG correspondents maintaining pages on Wikipedia, only that particular website. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Archive_4&oldid=686270059"