Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Portal and question[edit]

Hi,

I have a request and a question :

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut.


Shivakumara Swamiji[edit]

Hi,

Dr.Shivakumara Swamiji from India is still living. His age is 107 years 196 days as of now. The link for it in wiki is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivakumara_Swamiji.

Please update the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.235.255 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2014

Pending GRG table source and flag discussion[edit]

There is a discussion concerning the reliability of GRG tables for Wikipedia articles and the use of the "pending" flag/colour at Talk:List of supercentenarians who died in 2014#Article referencing problem. Comments are welcome. Ca2james (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Structuring potential cases by alleged year of birth[edit]

I'd like to make a suggestion that we restructure all the material that's floating around and instead organize it by year of birth. This isn't ideal but rather than the various craziness, we move Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians as a single holding page with links to 1907 sublist, 1906 sublist, etc. Each list must include both birth and death dates so we're keeping track for now of potential living people and then the overall dead ones if anyone cares. We'd have to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases in even though those are incomplete to these lists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

An explicit criteria of two years before being discussed here[edit]

I think there should be an explicit criteria for all listings. I propose one year so we only include people who are at a minimum 109 years old. One year is sufficient time for us to keep track of various individuals. If people don't comment, I'll make a RFC so we can get everyone's views. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 I agree with you that there should be an explicit criteria for inclusion in the table on the project page. However, since no one else is commenting on the issue (I'm beginning to suspect that the WOP members don't watch or keep track of this page), an RFC would be a good idea. Ca2james (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I suspect they watch the page but not likely the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought that watching one automatically meant watching the other, but maybe there's a setting that doesn't do that. I wonder if it's worth doing some kind of MediaWiki message to all project members to bring the to this page, since the outcomes of the recent sections will impact all editors active in this project and it might be better that they're explicitly told about the discussions. Ca2james (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems in "list of oldest people" articles[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
  • Comment Because these pages all include information regarding living persons, don't we need reliable sources for their birth and death dates whether they're in article space or not? Ca2james (talk) 18:41, 8 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.