Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:04, 29 December 2015

Longevity NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Assessments

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

I've included the basic suggested assessments from the Wikiproject priority assessnents in each section below to help figure out which articles go where. These can be adapted specifically for this project, which is something other projects have done. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've incorporated your versions that as they make more sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Top importance

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

• Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia.

In this case, I'm thinking the template, Longevity, Gerontology, Supercentenarian, and Centenarian, the Terminology and Issues lines in the template, as well as the List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest men, and List of the verified oldest women articles belong here. These form the core of the articles in this project, and I'd expect the descriptive articles in this category as well as these particular records and issues in a print encyclopaedia. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Incorporated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

High importance

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

• Subject contributes a depth of knowledge

I disagree that that the births and deaths by year articles belong here; I think they're more Low importance. In this category, I'd put the remainder of the Records line and the Non-human line from the Template. I'd also put biographies of any world's oldest person recordholders here. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

we are the World's oldest ***People***. Dogs aren't people.

Interesting. Psychology Today seems to support your claim: Gap9551 (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorporated Ca2james' suggestions. Deaths by year moved to low. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mid importance

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

• Subject fills in more minor details

Agree. Also the War-related lists and Centenarian lines from the template. I'd also put regional/country oldest person recordholder bios here, if there are any. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorporated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Low importance

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

• Subject is mainly of specialist interest.

Agree, but I also think the Births in year and Deaths in year articles, as well as List of last survivors of historical events can go here. I think these articles tend to be more trivia than encyclopaedic, since the names are included in other articles. Any remaining bios would go here. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorporated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

These historical country and macroregion ones are or will be all deleted as redundant. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessments discussion

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

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

RfC: Should longevity biographies have succession boxes

Given the history of ARBCOM sanctions on the topic of longevity, I have taken extra care in considering the !votes.

Many offer no rationale at all, offer a marginal rationale, or show limited/single-purpose experience. Longevity succession boxes might be plausible under Succession Box Guidelines section 4.4.1.c or 4.4.1.d, however other arguments are presented that it would be poor and problematical fit. I find a consensus of a predominant number of responsible Wikipedians that Succession Box Guidelines are not intended to include this sort of use, and should not be extended to this sort of use.

Alsee (talk) 07:40, 29 November 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.

Should longevity biographies about individuals such as the "Oldest person in the world", "Oldest man/woman" or even the "Oldest person in nation" or within nation categorization ("Oldest person born in Scotland" or "Oldest person born in the British raj" period of India) have succession boxes? Let's try for a single yes/no voting section with a single discussion section. Any discussion about the levels of succession boxes can be done afterwards.

FRS

Hello Zppix from feedback request service here. As long as it doesnt get to long of a BOX i don't see why not. Also I recommend next time to possibly explain more in detail on what all it could be used for not just "World's Oldest People". Thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zppix: Boxes would like those at Maria de Jesus for the oldest living person/European/Portuguese person. As I stated above, the first level discussion is whether any are appropriate given the concerns below. The second issue is what level of detail these boxes should include. There is obviously the oldest person and then oldest man/woman, and then by continent and then nation. It can go further as the US has breakdowns by state and Japan has prefectures, etc. I note that both the oldest men and oldest people template which would connect these pages were both deleted here and here for what I consider the same issues as here (namely there exists conflicts in sources as to the voracity of these claims making this distinct from say Academy Award winners or royalty or presidents or whatever). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes to succession boxes

• Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevityresearcher (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
• Yes Ollie231213 (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
• Yes Succession box is very useful to connect the article to each other. also succession boxes is used to many other articles. as an example, Sultan Kösen (world's tallest person record holder), Pauline Musters (shortest woman record holder), Usain Bolt, Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce (sprinter), World Trade Center (buildings who was tallest building ever from 1972 to 1974), Petronas Towers (world's tallest twin towers), Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (world's richest person) is this template is used. why there is a reason that should not be used only oldest people article? If remove succession box from oldest people article, then should remove many other articles. for the above reasons, I think should not remove the succession boxes from the oldest people article.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
• Yes Public interest in the world's oldest person has existed for a long time, as evidenced by all media reports on the world's oldest, ESPECIALLY when there was a succession. These world's oldest people are a living link to a time over one hundred years back and succession boxes therefore offer a time frame context: what was the world like when this person was born? On top of that, the succession box reflects the fact that worldwide, renowned organisations - such as the GWR actually hand out plaques for the world's oldest, implying that it is a title that can be gained by a successor. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • EEng, the act of put template:spa to the users who are opposed to their own opinion is harassment act. please stop.--182.170.205.177 (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Identifying SPAs (such as yourself) in discussions where formal comment is requested (such as RfCs and AfDs) is standard practice, and is especially important in the present topic area, in which historically discussions have been overrun by hordes of externally recruited meatpuppets. (An example might be an IP who shows up out of nowhere to argue specifically and only on the specific point of succession boxes.) In this particular discussion, the tagging makes clear that those desiring succession boxes all edit on this topic only, whereas those opposing them are experienced editors from all over the project. EEng (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• YES Agree with Ollie, Inception and Fiskje. this template is needed. Succession box is used for more than 11 years in the oldest people article of Misplaced Pages.() I don't understand why to abolish it.--182.170.205.177 (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
• Yes Of course succession boxes are needed here. Partly for people to be able to track the successors of the titles as the World's Oldest Verified Living Person and partly to show the age differences between the previous titleholder and the following titleholder. Some people have gained the title at the age of 112 (Jeanne Calment) and others at age 117 (Sarah Knauss), what is clear however is that the threshold for being the absolutely oldest is increasing. In the past you could gain the title at age 111/112 but nowadays you have to be at least 114+. Just because someone might be retroactively verified as having been the oldest at a certain time does not mean that succession boxes display inaccurate information. As with all fields within science, you constantly learn new things. So the succession boxes are for the people who are currently considered to have been the oldest at the time and not for the ones who certainly were the oldest. But there is a high likelihood that they were the oldest at the time or, at the very least, the oldest who could prove their age. And this is not a competition between people for the title as the oldest. 930310 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
• Yes. No problem.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
• Yes. - this navbox serves to aid navigation between related articles, as navboxes on wikipedia are supposed to do; there is no clear reason to remove this particular navbox. Many "no" votes have been given without reason and seem like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Chessrat 04:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

* Yes 166.170.50.122 (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes and we should expand to include not just the top but the second, third and so on people. Articles should reflect people who were the fifth, fourth, third, second and then top titleholders as the others died off. There's so many details that we can include. 166.170.48.18 (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• yes because these titles are critical to keeping these biographies in perspective. Why is George Washington's succession boxes more implement than these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.123.233 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice of you three to join us. Couldn't even wait a few minutes, could we? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but one of the puppets raises an interesting question... why is George Washington's succession box more implement? EEng (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No succession boxes

• No DerbyCountyinNZ 03:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC).
• No - Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• No. Succession boxes make even less sense than navboxes that list names. (Cf. recent consensus to delete a navbox.) Succession boxes only make sense when there is a clear line of succession to a position of such prominent influence that there should virtually always be an article about each individual in that role even if they are not otherwise notable. As discussed by others below, there is no definitive and enduring line of succession, and navigating sequentially does not work when many or most of the successors do not or should not have individual articles. (With reference to WP:ANYBIO: being a statistical outlier is not a "significant award or honor", and a record of being alive for a long time does not constitute a "contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field".) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• No Longevity is not a contest. The world's oldest people are not contestants in a competition to achieve some sort of title, let alone to become an "incumbent" or to "lose" the title to a successor by shuffling off this mortal coil. David in DC (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• No The classic examples of succession are in politics or monarchy‍—‌the thread of succession takes one through political and social changes over time. Longevity "successions" reflect nothing more than stochastic variation in who keeps breathing longer. There's no relationship whatsoever between "successors". It's pointless and ridiculous. EEng (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Again, WP:SBSGUIDE clearly allows for Guinness Record holders to have succession boxes there is a thread of succession, which there is. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not IDONTLIKEIT, but rather ITMAKESUSLOOKLIKEFOOLSWHOSTUFFNONSENSE,WITHNOCOHERENTMEANING,INTOARTICLES. What SBSGUIDE says, more fully, is

This header is used for awards, records, and miscellaneous achievements that merit a succession chain Simply because a record has been earned does not merit a succession box for that record. Succession boxes for records should only regard records that are part of a series (for example, not all Guinness Book records deserve a succession box).

I added the underlining -- note the words merit and chain. It's a matter of editorial judgment, and four out of five editors agree that there's no merit here, because there's no chain -- someone in Indiana dies; then, randomly six months later, someone in Japan dies. There's no relationship. No one's working to beat the other guy's pole-vault, build a taller building, or take a longer space-walk. It's just people randomly dying.

One particularly significant point is that, generally, chains of "records" form an increasing series -- the tallest building in the world is displaced by an even taller building, and so on. In this stupid oldest-living-person "chain", a 116-year-old dies and is replaced by a 112-year-old who dies at age 114 -- not even as old as the previous record-holder. God, the more I think about it, the stupider and trivial-er it sounds.

EEng (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

One person dies, and then someone else becomes the world's oldest. That's quite obviously a chain and "oldest living person" is a record that's recognised by Guinness World Records. Your personal opinion that it's "stupid" is utterly irrelevant (again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and just demonstrates further that you are more interested in pushing your own personal point of view on to Misplaced Pages instead of following policy and looking at what the consensus in outside sources is. It's a record, recognised by reputable, widely-known organisation, which is held by one person at a time and hence there is a continuing series of record-holders, and the amount of coverage the world's oldest people typically get is an indication that such a record is more than trivial. Oh, and how about we get some input from more users from NEUTRAL editors who aren't involved in this project and don't have their own points of view to push. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning, and that of others -- based on policy, guidelines, and commons sense -- is clearly on laid out, and is no more a "personal point of view" than is anyone else's reasoned contribution. My use of the word stupid emphasizes the years of exasperation with editors who chant snippets of guidelines, unembarrassed by the fact that those guidelines' premises don't at all fit the facts at hand.

And BTW, if what we want to recognize is a "record", then there should be one, and only one, longevity article: that on Jean Calment, since she holds the record. Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. When someone lives to 123, then we can add a second article. EEng (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

'There's no relationship whatsoever between "successors".' Except there is: scientists are studying why these people follow up on each other as the WOP - what is it that makes these people live longer than anyone else, and what could society gain from that?

'Longevity "successions" reflect nothing more than stochastic variation in who keeps breathing longer. There's no relationship whatsoever between "successors". It's pointless and ridiculous.' This is clearly blatant POV-spreading that is completely wrong; had you actually studied supercentenarians more closely, you'd have noticed they do more than "breathe". Jeralean Talley, for instance, was reported fishing at the age of 114 and able to walk unassistedly at the age of 116 . Your comment clearly shows you cannot objectively look at the topic. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Scientists are not using Misplaced Pages to get data for their studies, and anyway nothing in their studies relates to the fact that Jim was the oldest for 5 days, followed by Bob for 2 months, followed by Alice...
• That these people do more than breathe longer than others may be true, but has nothing to do with it. You want to list them only because of their prolonged breathing, whether or not they did anything else during that time.

And please cut out the huffing and puffing about "POV-spreading" and whathaveyou -- if you had more than 170 edits, or ever edited anything other than longevity-related nonsense, you'd know how ridiculous it sounds. EEng (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• No - Longevity is not a competition. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Succession boxes aren't for competitions. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• No per EEng. There is nothing connecting these people except that they are both very old and the slightly older one died first. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• No. Someone doesn't understand succession. --Calton | Talk 16:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• NoThere's nothing notable about being old. There's nothing notable about simply being a Guinness world record holder. This doesn't even seem to be a secession box for Guinness world record holder. There's no definitive line of succession. Not really seeing a point to the box other than WOP fandom.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's entirely your opinion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• No. They hold no office and no formal title. ~ Rob 17:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a requirement of WP:SBSGUIDE. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

None of these is ever "awarded" except the world's oldest living person/man/woman but such awards are neither definitive nor permanent and therefore bear no relation to the intent of succession boxes as defined by WP:SBSGUIDE. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC).

First, it's also confusing as these boxes don't always match the articles as the articles just reflect a single source, the GRG which is incomplete. Further, it's a bit confusing as we're going by a number of sources (presumably reliable ones) to designate the "titleholder". Certain claims have been classified as Longevity claims or Longevity myths without a reliable source that debunks them which I find problematic and WP:OR. Otherwise, we only have to go by perhaps the Guinness World Records which is an annual print publication and thus individuals like a Emma Tillman who was allegedly the world's oldest for five days wouldn't be there. In contrast, we could be including the GRG as the sole source but that's completely ridiculous for other reasons. As I've said, this is like having "World's most beautiful woman" and making a single "list" of the "titleholders" based on the timeline of the Miss World, Miss Universe, Maxim Top 100, and other charts as each source makes its own choice based on its own criteria for reliability is just more likely to be chaotic. And that's just for the world's person or singular oldest male or female. Once you start getting into country or further breakdown, it's difficult to ascertain what is a "recorded" or "verified" or whatever made up categorization is being used now versus claims that aren't included in these things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Without a source that has proven a person's age, it's not WP:OR to list someone as a "longevity claim", and it's certainly not OR to list Methuselah as "longevity myth". On the other hand, we have Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research who are both widely-recognised organisations, and they work together (see "Besse was first certified as the world's oldest person by Guinness World Records, in conjunction with The Gerontology Research Group, in January 2011"). I can't see a situation where the two of them would disagree. If there is, we can worry about that at the time. Furthermore, GWR is now online and not just a print publication, so that's not much of an issue. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What is a source that has "proven" their age? We have sources about their ages. How does Guinness or the GRG or whatever source you're imaging "prove" an age and what evidence do you have that they actually do "prove" ages? This is just circular arguing that only some sources are qualified to "prove" or "certify" ages and other sources are just "reporting" ages or whatever terms you want to use. This is where it gets into complete OR nonsense trying to distinguish which are real and which are not as we're playing round and round with "reliable sources" and "really reliable sources". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the original research is already being done by the outside sources. Maybe if you could actually be bothered to do a tiny amount of research in to the subject before starting a campaign on Misplaced Pages to delete as much content as possible, you might realise this. "oldest AUTHENTICATED age", "VERFIED Supercentenarians", and so on. It's a very simple concept to understand: just saying "I'm 120!" doesn't prove that you're 120, so Guinness World Records insist that proof of age (birth certificates, marriage records, etc) must be shown in order to be officially recognised as the world's oldest person/woman/man/whatever. For example: "Bolivian man claims to be 123", reported by what are generally considered to be reliablesources. But then in the same sources it says "To claim the title, Mr Laura’s documents must be verified by a Guinness World Records official". So, clearly reliable outside sources: 1. Recognise Guinness as an authority 2. Understand the difference between an unverified claim and a verified claim. It's absolutely nothing to do with "reliable sources" and "really reliable sources", it's about recognising that the concept of age verification exists and there is a difference between was is verifiable and what is not. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a title, and a free tabloid saying it does not make it so. Guinness and Gerontology Research Group do not bestow titles. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SBSGUIDE says "Simply because a record has been earned does not merit a succession box for that record. Succession boxes for records should only regard records that are part of a series (for example, not all Guinness Book records deserve a succession box)." --> That would suggest that Guinness World Records titleholders can have succession boxes as long as they are part of a series, which the "world's oldest titleholders" are. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, so if there are any changes, it's quite simple to edit Misplaced Pages to reflect the most up to date information. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Are we discussing the Guinness titleholder alone or whatever is claimed to be the "titleholder" on Misplaced Pages? If it's only Guinness, then every source that isn't a direct citation to an edition of Guinness should be removed (and no, the "GRG is really the same as Guinness" nonsense doesn't fly then). But it's not. It's a game of cobbling together sources from (largely) the GRG and other sources to make it look like there's title holders. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know what your point is. And again, why don't you try educating yourself on the subject at hand. "The research group, accepted as a global authority on the super-elderly by Guinness World Records"... "Gerontology Research Group, the company which verifies age information for Guinness World Records"... "Besse, from Monroe, Georgia, USA, was first certified as the world's oldest person by Guinness World Records, in conjunction with The Gerontology Research Group, in January 2011." -----> Oh look, the GRG and GWR work together. So they are "really the same as Guinness" when it comes to things like the world's oldest person. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Except you can want to use Guinness "titleholder" when it's convenient but when it comes to actual sources, it falls to the GRG. There are literally zero citation to Guinness itself on the oldest people page. And there is a difference between "verifies Guinness" and "reports the exact same thing as Guinness." It's this constantly shifting series of arguments that tire everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes for World's oldest person/man/woman titleholders as they are part of a series which merit a succession box, as per WP:SBSGUIDE. No for national recordholders as many don't have their own articles and the sourcing isn't as clear. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it would be useful to be able to find who was the oldest living person (oldest living male, female, etc.) at any given time, but how many of these people would be independently notable and have their own articles? If few, then a list of oldest living people by date might be a better way of presenting the information than a navbox that mostly navigates to nowhere. If most of the people in the succession box actually have articles, then succession boxes would make sense.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus?

Do we have a consensus yet? So far we have:

Yes: 8 votes, 7 by SPAs No: 10 votes, no SPAs identified, several users with no apparent interest in longevity articles.

If this were a simple vote (it is not) it would place consensus against succession boxes in longevity relate articles. The fact that almost all Yes votes are from longevity SPAs and that a number of No votes are from disinterested parties would also seem to lean towards a No consensus. Is this sufficient or do we need to drag this to DRN? DerbyCountyinNZ 07:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Let someone else close this or else I'm sure someone can find a few new SPAs to have an opinion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've listed it at AN etc etc. Will probably take a while. EEng (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Let me just add here that I think it's inefficient to systematically remove these boxes just now -- as with so many other things, that effort will be much easier after the walled garden is pruned back via AfD and so on. EEng (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already reverted all the ones I found previously which were reverted by another user. I'm quite prepared to remove any I find on sight but won't bother hunting them out for a while yet. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like the right approach. EEng (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Zelda McCague

This article has only one source, and that source says that, lacking a birth certificate, her lifespan was uncertain, Guinness never recognized her lifespan. Why is she notable as that term is defined on Misplaced Pages? David in DC (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

She's likely not but don't worry, any AFD discussion will be flooded with keep votes on various bases I'm certain. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

None of which will have a basis in Wiki policy/guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And the anticipation of none of which should prevent an effort to continue pruning. I was mostly looking for a reality check. I'm not real good at setting up AfD's, but when I get some time, I may try. In the meantime, I'd really like to hear from WOP project members who think this article DOES cover a notable subject about why. If you can, please stick to the Misplaced Pages definition of notability, and not the more common everyday usage.

Who knows, maybe we can figure out a better paradigm for resolving these issues than the one that's frustrating so many of us right now.

Anybody? Bueller, Bueller? David in DC (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

For AfDs what we need are closers who understand how to close based on policy, though I'm not sure how to get such people into position. Zelda has no coverage I can see other than her death, and (I repeat at the risk of boring everyone) NOPAGE applies here as usual. She was born, got married, and died, and near the end remembered some things. EEng (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

REVDEL is the place to go if one thinks a close was incorrect. David in DC (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This reflects another successful approach to the problem you identify David in DC (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This approach was also successful. It led to this. David in DC (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We should be prepared to use all such tools, but my point was aimed at getting correct closes in the first place. Certainly there should be no NACs. EEng (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a worthy nom to me. I understand the general concerns about closes but, in terms of keep votes and proper closes for nominating individual articles, I think we're still at a point where we can deal with problems as they arise. Canadian Paul 04:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominate away. If we don't challenge these, they will remain. The discussions that did result in deletions and redirect do provide actual discussions and evidence. There hasn't been a keep that isn't either "oldest = notable" or "lots of sources = GRG passed." These will come in rounds, I give it six months until another set of articles have been built up and are listed for deletion and then the various forums and the like will take notice and the cycle will continue. It took years to get all the individual Pokemon character articles merged together and I see no difference here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that you won't have to wait six months. Canadian Paul 04:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@David in DC I'm not going to argue that this particular person is notable. I don't mindlessly vote "keep" on every single supercentenarian biography. But I am of the opinion that world's oldest people/men ARE, for pretty obvious reasons, let's be honest. Being the oldest person out of several billion is something unique and the typical press coverage reflects this. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nor do I mindlessly vote "delete" in all cases. Happily, we've resolved that question already.
"Something unique" is one-of-a-kind. That's what unique means.
Typical press coverage does not reflect anything of the sort. Typical press coverage is yearly WP:ROUTINE birthday acknowledgements and an obituary. Taken together, these rarely establish notability as that term is defined on Misplaced Pages. Three happy birthdays and an obit are not significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC).

The presumption being that these actually are the world's oldest people. My annoyance is that some people who are allegedly 110 years old or whatever are supposedly worthy of articles because some organizations have given them the "title" while other people get shuffled to Longevity claims or to this subpage or ignored entirely based entirely on whether or not some group of people think their claims are valid. To me, that's hubris. Ashmall will likely be restored, I can live with it as a WP:GNG based on the number of sources but I still find the first "verified" or "known" statement to be full of privilege as to the quality of sources that fall to the longevity "claims" listings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. To repeat what I said elsewhere today, neither GRG nor Guinness nor anyone else is the "official" arbiter of these "records". Furthermore, GRG and Guinness can make and have made mistakes. There are other sources, and for these reasons they have a say as well. EEng (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources for exclusion of claim

What sources do we have for excluding a particular claim from our longevity tables? Javier Pereira has numerous reliable sources about his claim but has been put in Category:Longevity traditions rather than treated as a valid claim. The only prior discussion was at Talk:Longevity_myths/Archive_1#Javier_Pereira which just evidences the concerns that got this mess to ARBCOM before. There is this GRG page on frauds but other than the title, there are no actual facts or discussion stating anything about it and I don't think this page (with nothing for Pereira) could be reliable source. I guess we could state that the GRG considers this an "incomplete or fraudulent case" but those are two different issues: incomplete means that we can fall to the other sources which seem reliable while fraudulent means that the other sources were mistaken. I think we need a reliable source that states that the claim isn't true, rather than going by WP:SYNTHESIS and presuming from the lack of inclusion that they don't support the claim, especially since we don't have an idea about why they reject the fact here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources. It's well know that the oldest accepted claim of longevity is 122 years, so yes, to present as fact anything significantly beyond that, sources would have to be especially solid. We don't need GRG to falsify or question it to keep it out of the factual tables, just the lack of solid, "exceptional" sources supporting it. EEng (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not talking about biblical myths. That page at least has a source providing some explanation. I wonder if we should switch our tone entirely and change the tone of all to "claimants". I use the term pretender for the questionable ones. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should use pretender because it has a distinctly unpleasant implication, especially for living (or recently living) persons.

I'm not just talking about biblical-type claims. Anything over 110 years can be considered an exceptional claim, I think. EEng (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There's also a time element. A lot of longevity claims are decades if not centuries old. A 100 year claim from the 17th century is the same issue as a modern one (especially if the GRG is making statements about people like Ferdinand Ashmall). If they want to move into that realm of issues, we need better organization to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Javier Pereira can be excluded from and list on the basis that the year of death is disputed. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

But under all three dates, he'd still be the oldest person in the world by decades. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm asking this wrong, but should we include as a "source" the fact that a GRG isn't including an individual to assert that the claim hasn't been verified? The problem is, other than the random "fraud or incomplete" page, there's no page of "there are claims that the GRG has explicitly rejected" based on X, Y or Z. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/123-year-old-bolivian-man-oldest-living-person-ever-documented-f6C10934840 What about this guy? Older then the oldest. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

So should he be at the top? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

permastubs

A good adjunct to WP:NOPAGE is the WP:PERMASTUB essay, which is worth quoting at length:

A permastub is an article that is currently a stub and has no reasonable prospect for expansion. There can be many reasons for this. These include:

• There is little verifiable information to be found on the subject
• All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles
• There is little important to say about the subject
• The article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage
• The subject is about or is notable for a single event, after which there will never likely be any future coverage

Permastubs are unsatisfying articles – they leave little potential for future editing, and by their nature are not very informative. Where possible, they should be merged to larger articles and redirected there.

So many longevity articles fit that description to a T, and the bolded advice applies well. EEng (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Low-profile individuals"

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.

At WP:Articles_for_deletion/Alexina_Calvert, a participant introduced the concept of an "LPI" (Low-Profile Individual). I think this is a concept with wide narrow applicability to individuals whose only claim to notability is their longevity. EEng (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That related only to biographies for living people. Those people's profiles are relevant to whether or not their names should be provided. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, so it has narrow applicability... EEng (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

...but still some applicability. EEng (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Persistent restoration of content not source to an RS

We're having a problem at Yukichi_Chuganji with two editors repeatedly restoring content sourced only to GRG's "Table C", which itself carries no references or citations (the same reason that Table EE was rejected as an RS here ). One of the two editors received a DS notification some time ago, and I've just notified the other here . Assistance will be appreciated. EEng (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not every bit of information in every source has to have citations. The original research has to be done somewhere. This is a list of VERIFIED people, just like table E, and to quote that discussion, "Table E is reliable for claims about age because it has a fact checking process". Same applies to table C. No reason to consider it unreliable. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually the WP:BURDEN for statements is on the person arguing for its inclusion. I have no idea what "original research" you think should be done here (WP:OR states essentially zero). The issue is whether Table C is a reliable source. Whatever it is, it can be discussed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What Ollie means is that the secondary sources we rely on are allowed to (in fact, must do, if they are to be useful) the OR/SYNTH we WP editors are forbidden to indulge in. That's true, but there's no reason that such sources, in doing their OR, can't cite the sources (primary or secondary) that they're relying on, to give an added level of confidence. In fact, sources that cite their own sources are preferred to those who don't (I forget where the guidelines say that), and for extraordinary claims like "no one else in the world is as old as X", it seems reasonable to required' such transparency. EEng (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

GRG Table C

Rather than at Talk:Yukichi Chuganji, let's discuss Table C here. Is it a list of claims that the GRG has verified or not? Can someone please comment and the comment should not be "it is because I know it is" as that's not particularly helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

At Yukichi Chuganji, Table C is being used for footnote 7 within it which stated that "Guinness World Records support for the Kamato Hongo claim (Sept 16 1887?-Oct 31 2003), initially accepted in 2002, withdrawn in 2012, effective Sept 13." The issue is not whether or not the GRG has verified the claim but whether the GRG's claim about Guinness' claim is reliable. I'm starting to second-guess whether a discussion here makes sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• The same problem has arisen in another article . Though the citation is to a different GRG page , the problem is the same: these statements about who was "the titleholder" (unsavory as they are) assert a negative no one, including GRG, can possibly support unless we accept GRG as some kind of super-source trumping all other sources".

Table E was found to be reliable based on evidence that each person listed as being born on Date X and still alive on Date Y is backed up by GRG's checking that those assertions are true, as to that person; and one can believe that a small group of dedicated amateurs with limited resources can make such a check reliably, according to a level of proof they've spelled out for all to see. Table C, however, purports to list "World's Oldest Person Titleholders Since 1955" i.e. that not only had Person P achieved a certain age on a certain date, but (the assertion is) no one else had also. Table C asserts a negative that GRG has no way of backing up, because obviously there's no way for GRG to know that, and even if we agree to interpret "World's Oldest Person" as "World's Oldest Known/Verified Person", that simply leads to the question, Known to whom? As discussed at length elsewhere, GRG has no corner on the "ago verification" market (what its aficionados would like us to believe notwithstanding) and while it's fine for them to hold up their favorite very old oldsters for admiration, they're in position to say that no one else might compete with them. Other authorities may have other standards of verification which are just as valid as GRG's.

Essentially the fanboys want to us agree that "Oldest known to GRG (according to GRG's particular standards)" is that same as "Oldest know period", and that's never going to happen, obviously. Thus statements like "Chuganji was not recognized as the world's oldest person during his lifetime; back then, the case of Kamato Hongo was still recognized and considered valid by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and Guinness World Records, who both withdrew their previous acceptance of Hongo's case in 2012" , sourced to GRG alone, have no place in this (or any other) article. It's part of the continuing effort to have GRG occupy an anointed place as a source for longevity material.

EEng (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clear from looking at outside sources (and just using common sense) that the GRG and Guinness World Records are the established authorities when it comes to determining who the world's oldest man/woman is. Disagree? Then that's a separate discussion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with including such statements if appropriately sourced. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Table C asserts a negative that GRG has no way of backing up, because obviously there's no way for GRG to know that, and even if we agree to interpret "World's Oldest Person" as "World's Oldest Known/Verified Person", that simply leads to the question, Known to whom? As discussed at length elsewhere, GRG has no corner on the "ago verification" market (what its aficionados would like us to believe notwithstanding) and while it's fine for them to hold up their favorite very old oldsters for admiration, they're in position to say that no one else might compete with them. Other authorities may have other standards of verification which are just as valid as GRG's. ----> Back to the very basics: how does Misplaced Pages work? Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources (not original research) making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view). In this situation, we have two reliable sources dealing with world's oldest person recordholders (GRG and GWR) who are widely considered authorities on the subject. Notice that virtually all media articles on the subject (even those reporting on claimants older than the GRG/GWR-recognised oldest person) quote the GRG and/or GWR, not any other hypothetical sources which you only speculate about.

If another source DOES come along and says "we recognise Person X as the world's oldest", then assess how reliable/reputable the source is. Contrary to what Ricky and EEng often claim, not all sources have to be given equal weight as per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If the source in question is not as reputable, then its claims should not be presented alongside those of the GRG/GWR as if equally valid. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes but we have two reliable sources that state they recognized Person X as the world's oldest at that time and a Table C which claims that at that time Guinness and the GRG would not have claimed that (created years later), which then makes me question whether that is true or not. I mean either the newspapers didn't bother to consider Guinness or the GRG a source or they did and Table C may be inaccurate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite right. EEng (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ollie, you're not addressing the actual argument. I'd the be the last person to claim all sources get equal weight. It's not that. It's just that GRG isn't in a position to to know about even all oldsters who have the right paperwork. They're not some master, official clearinghouse everyone has to go through. The person they call "the oldest in the world" isn't even "the oldest in the world reliably known" -- he/she is just the oldest who has bothered to send to their paperwork to GRG. It's like if Joe collects widgets -- he's got a huge collection, and he advertises aggressively. But there's no reason to think that the oldest widget Joe has is the oldest widget anywhere, or even the oldest widget in captivity: Joe has some pretty rigid rules by which he only allows ultaperfect, purebred widgets into his collection, and there are other widget collectors out there who follow different rules who may very well have older widgets. Some widget collections are publicly cataloged, but many are not, and anyway when Joe announces the "oldest widget" he ignores any he hasn't personally inspected.

So it's not that there are competing sources on what the oldest widget is -- it's that there's no source in a position to make the claim at all. EEng (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there's an obvious difference between "oldest person" and "oldest documented person". Neither the GRG or GWR are claiming, definitively, that any given person is definitely the world's oldest. Secondly, it's not up to Misplaced Pages editors to overrule reliable sources. What you're doing is engaging in WP:OR. Most, if not all, outside sources recognise the GRG and GWR as the leading authorities in this subject area, so Misplaced Pages should too. That's all that needs to be said. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. GRG isn't the only "documenter". Meanwhile, a source is not 100% or 0% reliable -- it can be reliable for some claims, and not for others e.g. Table E is considered RS, table EE not. It's our job to make these evaluations, it isn't done in a vacuum, and doing so isn't OR. EEng (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What other "documenters" do you see then? And yeah, of course its our job to make these evaluations, and if you take the time to do so, you will see that both the GRG and GWR are the organisations quoted almost universally by outside sources as the official arbiters of human longevity. Do you not accept that, or do you not like that? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That you connect the word "official" to GRG / Guinness shows you don't understand the meaning of the word. EEng (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Table C cannot possibly be considered reliable to source any fact. The only possible thing that could be said from Table C is that "X is the oldest person from Y that has submitted their materials to the GRG." But that fact is fairly arbitrary. Why should people who have submitted documents to the GRG be considered more significant than those who have not? Still, a discussion here is not going to be productive. I recommend the reliable sources noticeboard. Please ping me if such a noticeboard discussion is created, as well as everyone else involved in the discussion here, so we can all say our piece. ~ Rob 04:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Are you arguing to throw out Table E and the GRG overall then for anything beyond "the GRG has confirmed the following birth and death date"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Table E is alright for age, DOB, DOD, birthplace, residence, and all other facts listed. Inferring from the list that someone is actually the oldest living person in X place, or similar, is likely to be wildly inaccurate. It's attempting to source a negative, essentially (i.e. "There exists no person older than Y in location X"), which is impossible to do. Qualifying them as the oldest known person is better, but that means oldest known to the GRG, which is fairly arbitrary. I absolutely would consider the GRG's rankings on their tables to be inaccurate and unreliable when stated as fact. That includes all of Table C's ranks as the "oldest" within a location. ~ Rob 17:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Typical disruption

Editors unfamiliar with the long history of longevity-related disruption will better understand what's going on after reviewing:

• a recent series of edits by an anonymous IP:
• this trolling by this WOP-crusading IP

EEng (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Proof that all supercentenarians are notable

We proceed by contradiction. Let S be the set of nonnotable supercentenarians, and suppose S is nonempty. Then S has an oldest member Y i.e. Y is the oldest person who is nonnotable. Ah, but that makes Y notable! Therefore Y is not in S, a contradiction. Thus S is empty i.e. there are no nonnotable supercentenarians. EEng (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) ;)

As a math major, the logical gaps are atrocious there but I think we should cut down on the comedy here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As an English major, let me point out that the logical gaps can't be a math major. EEng (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Just kidding -- math major here too. But what comedy are you talking about?

I think you've gone insane. Take a few weeks off. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, the doctors say I'm not dangerous anymore, if that's what you're worried about. EEng (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Or conversely and perversely, applying your proposals, there are no notable supercentarians. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but no, that's not true. As long as the universe under consideration (all supercents) is subject to selection of some extreme member under some attribute (e.g. oldest, youngest) then the proof only works in the direction of all-are-interesting/notable. You can't use it to show all are uninteresting/nonnotable. EEng (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

EEng I was talking about your course of conduct and its effects, not the proof. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you really haven't been paying attention. Most of my AfD nominations here have been based on NOPAGE, which has nothing to do with notability. EEng (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-Admin Closures of WOP AfDs

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

As a frequent non-admin closer, I agree. These WOP AfDs are very hard to judge correctly, with both sides toeing the line of civility and single-purpose accounts showing up in droves, not to mention that most of the time, the articles aren't even up for deletion so much as they are for merging or redirecting (see the constant notability versus WP:NOPAGE arguments). I don't envy the admins who have to deal with the aggrieved parties following a close. clpo13_(talk) 18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Further, contentious disputed AFDs should be closed as "no consensus" which would allow for speedy renomination rather than keep which does not. I think a small request on the non-admins' talk page would be helpful for those. I don't see any indication that following a close, there's much at arguing. I mean, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians was deleted with nary a word from anyone since then (no one has even requested a copy of it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree as well. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, though. We might start by placing {{notvote}} and/or {t|ds|old|long} in each nom right from the start, plus end the text of the nom with something like, "Because of the long and complicated history of longevity topics, requesting that this discussion be closed by an admininstrator." EEng (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Yeah, that's a pretty problematic close. At the very least, it should have been no-consensus, although all things considered it should have been relisted. If it were my nom, I'd take it to DRV after contacting the closer. Perhaps including a page notice with every nomination that can alert admins and non-admins alike to the contentious history of the topic, along with a link to the ArbCom case, would be helpful. Canadian Paul 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh, as much as I'd disagree with keeping it, I'd probably close the same way as well. It's a lot of keep votes and while they are repetitive, they are right that there are numerous reliable sources. I'd say we've gotten clarity on the lowest-hanging fruit at the moment and we should focus on creating a separate WP:OUTCOME for that. It'll probably be along the lines of "People who's claims of notability is entirely due to a ranking on their longevity on a national or sub-national level (state, prefects, etc.) are not sufficiently notable for a separate article absent an separate, independent claim of notability and should be merged into a list of supercentenarians based on nationality or the like." The oldest men/women are surviving somewhat just due to the publicity that occurs around them so take what we have and accept it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this for an AfD

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

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

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

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

How is any of that relevant? Longevity records are generally seen as a positive, not a negative. All documents gathered to verify someone's age are done in a proper way, and in any case, it's done by sources outside of Misplaced Pages. It's Misplaced Pages's job to reflect the information in outside sources, not to push our own biased opinions on the subject. You don't think longevity is notable? Fine, but outside sources clearly do. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your WP:Opinion and WP:Synth. To be sure, you are entitled to it, and it can and will influence your editing. I WP:AGF. OTOH, in a Misplaced Pages sense, this is all WP:OR without any WP:RS. So we may look at it, think about it, and then go about our business as if it doesn't exist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I agree. I'm not sure the point of this here. Is the issue the "oldest living person" tables and whether they are actually accurate? If so, I agree that it's problematic. Is the issue that the person alleged to be the "world's oldest person" likely true? Yeah, I agree that it's questionable given the GRG's demands and self-selection criteria (someone who isn't remotely interested in being known won't be included) but it's what we have. Even then there's always retractions to the claims years later which is why some of these articles are just notes about someone who was thought to be the oldest person when in fact they allegedly weren't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You suggest that WP:Notability dissipates quickly. This ignores that there are more than 7.3 billion people World population and that there are obvious local interest sectors that overlay any individual. In any event, I don't think (IMO) that WP:Notability is measured by levels of 'interest.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean by levels of interest. Per WP:LISTN there needs to be an encyclopedic reason (Notability) for a list. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is what lists of the oldest 50 people in Angola or the top 50 fattest people in Samoa are. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a random list probably isn't going to be notable. For example we could make a list of persons who dispute notability of age-related articles (you and me until we are banned), and it would not survive long. But that is just an example of a fallacious Slippery slope kind of an argument that has little to do with the matter at hand. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, Legacypac, I don't really understand what all this is getting at. Let me recommend that you drop this and we all just continue with the cleanup for now, as there's plenty to do that doesn't require a lot of special discussion. After that we can circle back to the more difficult situations. EEng (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I just put some thoughts - trying to challenge the super old fans to think about what value there might be in respecting privacy and not trying to create a universe of titles. I doubt any made up minds will be changed but others who happen by might go 'that makes sense'. Anyway, where to clean up next? Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This one. :) DerbyCountyinNZ 03:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

But why don't we finish with the lists first? EEng (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Oldest by Country

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

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

OK, well is the upmerging from countries etc. to continents done? Clearly continent-level lists can handle everyone whether living or dead. So let's do that first. Then we can talk about what form the world list should take -- a giant list of everyone living or dead (quite possibly too large, though I'm not convinced on that), or failing that, some subset such as 115+ or whatever.

Africa - no country specific articles

Asia - Japan = Asia 100% redundant. This is mostly solved by putting a link on the Asia page toward Japan

Oceania - New Zealand deleted already. Australia at AfD to delete. If fails to delete at AfD, I suggest we switch it up and rename Australia to "Australia and Oceania" (a common way to refer to the region) and execute a merge of the few non-Aussies in Oceania into the renamed "Australia and Oceania"

North America: Caribbean merged in. Canada and the USA are still freestanding.

Europe is where the real mess of articles is. We eliminated or are eliminating the Russian, Nordic, and Austro-Hungary level as redundant. Germany is actually more like Russia Empire because all the super old were born when German Empire existed. There is a lot of Smith born here and moved there in the Europe list, including a person listed as being born in both Poland (current borders) AND Germany (historic borders) who died in Switzerland demonstrating the silliness of narrow and poorly thought out country specific lists. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• What about List of oldest people by country? That would be the oldest person by country without the minutia of the remainder. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That article nicely covers both oldest recorded and oldest living males and females. Are you suggesting eliminating all the country articles or just the lists of names in them?

Some country articles have a list of mini bios - which need a home, but I'm not thinking the country articles are the place. Maybe we need a page for them all somewhere? Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No suggestion here. Just trying to get a picture of what you're thinking. I'm losing interest in the mini-bio approach towards more of a hard-line "entry on a table" and not much else approach. I thinking we should get rid of the continents and move to either the "by country" or a separate country one I guess. We may need numerous merger requests to get a handle on this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out a path forward too. We've chopped 5 or 6 country/country grouping pages now, building up precedent. There just is little encyclopedic value in Oldest person in Andorra or France living or "ever" whatever "ever" is. Even less for oldest person "ever" in subnational areas like Wyoming.

The mini bios at least give the reader something a bit interesting to read cause lists of names/dates/locations are really boring.

I just sent another List to AfD to effect a merger of duplicated lists.

I also pulled together the List of the verified oldest people from three articles to one - which can be discussed Here.

Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Why 110?

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

I think you'd find a cutoff of 120 would, er, not leave much. 110 is indeed an arbitrary cutoff, but it's an arbitrary cutoff you'll find in the sources a lot. Except (possibly) at the world level, a 110 cutoff gives a set-size that's quite manageable. EEng (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I once (years ago) suggested that 120 be used as the cut-off point for superdupercentenarians. David in DC (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• 110 is the definition of supercentenarian. 100 falls under the centenarian lists and the people at Lists of centenarians aren't no fools. They don't care for people who are notable just for being old. This the only way to bypass and create your own criteria for listings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to table

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

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

My proposed change should facilitate reducing resistance to the consolidation greatly. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say try it but I think the notes columns will just become a mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Counts on Tables - Zero Faith in the Lists

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

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

This is entirely a consequence of the anti-longevity brigade's efforts to remove any mention of the word "verified" from articles on supercentenarians. The list of oldest living people is the oldest living people verified by the GRG. The Japanese list contains a mish-mash of sources. This discussion was a farce, and the decision shows no respect for WP:NPOV. The GRG is widely considered to be the official authority when it comes to longevity (just do a Google search and see the mentions in a huge number of sources), and age verification is a standalone concept widely recognised by demographers, and not just a designation used by the GRG. Read this. It's a perfectly good idea to list the oldest people in a country (what exactly is the benefit of just having one massive worldwide list?) but it's discussions like the one linked above, which had little input from uninvolved editors, which have messed up the articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, verification on WP means WP:V not GRG. It's great that researchers on longevity are developing standards for their research (similar to the "peer-review" or "fact-checking" or "replication" or ... in other disciplines). But we don't need to highlight that in articles whose only purpose is to report straight information.

Also as mentioned elsewhere, your use of the word official in connection with GRG suggests you don't know what the word means.

The value of one massive worldwide list is that the reader can instantly turn it into any member of the current plague of lists (by country, by continent, by date of death, by gender), and any number of others we can't even anticipate. It's one-stop shopping for whatever the reader wants to know.

EEng (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the value of a list that includes material such as this as if it were true? Giving users one worldwide mishmash of any/everything, without any scientific value, is pointless. Misplaced Pages needs to respect the concept of age validation, as per WP:NPOV. I don't mind restructuring articles if the idea of some mega-merger, mishmashed gobbledygook list with no standards is abandoned in favour of encyclopedic coverage that puts the age validation process first. How about a break from the never-ending AfD nominations and countless discussions, and take some time to try and come to some agreement involving as many uninvolved editors as possible? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't include the material you link the since the source isn't reliable for such an extraordinary claim. In this topic area, as everywhere, WP will rely on its usual methods for evaluating reliability of source (based on their level of editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking) but there's no reason to enshrine, visibly within articles and lists, a buzzword ("age validation"), nor to crown one particular organization's approach to fact-checking the king of all approaches. EEng (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really compare to searching for documentation, does it? How do you decide what an extraordinary claim is? More than two thirds of 110+ claims are false, so just being reported on by a newspaper (even a well-respected one) isn't sufficient to say "this person is definitely as old as they claim". Age validation is not a "buzzword", it's a recognised concept and its purpose should be obvious. To ignore it is to not correctly represent scientific consensus, which should be done as per WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

How so? Until August, both articles were in sync. But then there was a *genius* decision to remove any mention of verification status from the country articles (which violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE) and to remove all unverified claims from the oldest living people articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

They weren't really in sync since not every country was updated the same plus some had that European organization as a source. They were only in sync if you said that all the ones that used the GRG as a source were stating the GRG as a source together for which technically that's still in sync. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed List Merger

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

Fascinating criticism of GRG

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

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

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

What exactly is your case going to be? "Look, forget the fact that the GRG is referenced as the authoritative body by countless number of reliable sources and has been Guinness World Records' longevity consultant for several years, I've found a single quote from 2002 which suggests it's not reliable!"

Looks like a case of Cherry picking information to me. Please give it a rest. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The case would be, "A peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal leveled unusually blunt criticism of their reliability." This is one of the reasons we rely on secondary sources to filter primary sources, which is what GRG really should be considered. We should be working from secondary sources, not GRG's tables. EEng (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

A paper from 2002... it's nearly 2016. That's quite outdated. Look at the situation now. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I said in my OP, "unless there's evidence they're cleaned up their act". Reputation counts for a lot in research, and the same people are in charge now who were then, AFAICS, with the major exception of the addition of irrepressible RY, whose effect on their image is at best ambiguous. EEng (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you know who was in charge then and now? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is only relevant to the GRG's article to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG!

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

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

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

I read that page and I don't see any anti-aging remedies being sold on that site. It is also an anti-profit organization. The .com is from wordpress and has nothing to do with the GRG itself. And if you read the content, it is clear the site does not really promise any miracle medicine or whatsoever to live longer. This is no quackery. Although I agree that the title is poorly chosen. Petervermaelen (talk) 2:52 am, Today (UTC−5)

Non-profit status guarantees, unfortunately, little. See American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine. EEng (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see where the first half of that quote has come from. I notice you also ignore the numerous posts detailing clinical trials and scientific studies - cherry picking information to push your agenda, again. Because what this is really about is you trying to find whatever way you can to discredit the GRG so you can claim victory over the "fanboys", isn't it? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire quote is right at the top of the page. Mixing in some good information with quack-remedy–hawking doesn't change anything. EEng (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

New IP, interesting. Why not use your acct? Legacypac (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That would violate common sense, logic and multiple Wiki policies and guidelines. Next. DerbyCountyinNZ 02:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would at least argue to merge the deaths of supercentenarians by year to the regular deaths by year categories. They aren't notable enough for separate mention by virtue of them dying after age 110 to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  

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

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

ANI

As a result of persistently disruptive behavior by User:Legacypac I have initiated a ANI discussion. Posting here and other relevant talk pages in the hopes of getting a balanced response. DerbyCountyinNZ 06:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• NA-Class Longevity pages
• NA-importance Longevity pages
• WikiProject Longevity articles