User talk:Itsmejudith

AfD nomination of Dorje Shugden

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

AfD nomination of New Kadampa Tradition

An article that you have been involved in editing, New Kadampa Tradition, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Albigensian Crusade

I have posted some updates on the discussion page, some of which concern your comments which may be deleted if you're not prepared to support them with action. Jel

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs) 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Jan Goossenaerts for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Jan Goossenaerts, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Article was created immediately after subject turned 110. JJB 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• The subject already turned 110, and thats a notable age, and I was reasonable enough to wait for him to be validated before starting the article, and quite a bit of people agree that its well noted being the oldest verified man in a continent, everyones opinions matter wether you agree with them or not, its not all about you. Longevitydude (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we want to hear people's opinions which is why there was a !vote. If you think 110 is intrinsically a notable age, then you need to say why. Not here, in the WOP project talk. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do on different places thank you very much, its just that no one listens to our views. Longevitydude (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to get the project working like a proper WikiProject and not an extension of the Yahoo! group - if it is. You need some notability criteria like we have on WikiProject Universities. If I recall correctly, WikiProject Football is particularly careful with defining notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We have tried to define notability, but others always criticise us and don't let the grg do their job, what would be a more reliable source than the grg, they have by far the most information on the subject.Longevitydude (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source is one thing, defining notability criteria is another. The BBC is a reliable source but it doesn't control any WikiProjects. See what I mean? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but wikiprojects should decide the notability guidelines for themselves. Longevitydude (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the things they're for, but remember anyone can join a WikiProject and anyone can post to the discussions whether they're a member or not. WOP seems to be concentrating on the wrong things and operating as a "Walled Garden". Do look at lots more WikiProjects and decide which ones you want to be like. I'm on WikiProject Vietnam, and we want guidelines as to when to use diacritics (accents on letters), but views are so strong we haven't reached consensus yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oldest People merger

Judith, I would suggest you take a look at the oldest people article again.

1. It's the MAIN article. Merging this to list of oldest verified people is akin to cutting a tree down and trying to graft the trunk to a branch...it's illogical.

2. It has information not found elsewhere. For example, the list of the world's oldest person titleholders, and the oldest living man titleholders.

3. There's no need to merge at all. This article gives a quick summary, and details may be found at the "branch" articles.

Is that so hard to undertstand?

Also, JJBulten has vested interest in causing confusion here, and has been doing so. If your goal is clarity, you are going in the wrong direction here.Ryoung122 21:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI

A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested deletion of mini-bios regarding oldest persons

In regards to the below discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People&action=edit&section=37

It may come as a surprise, but the idea of having mini-bios of supercentenarians all lumped together by nationality was, in fact, the idea of WIKIPEDIAN editors, NOT the people (such as myself) who preferred to have:

A. list articles for national pages and

B. stand-alone articles for individuals, such as Jeanne Calment.

For you to now suggest deletion of what was suggested in 2007 by other Wikipedia discussions is a bit disconcerting.

There are, in fact, a few major ISSUE questions that should be dealt with BEFORE you decide to go on a deletion binge.

That can start with, "how notable does someone have to be to be notable due to age?"

Everyone would agree that Jeanne Calment is notable for her own article.

Almost everyone agrees that persons who attain "world's oldest person" status are notable enough for their own article.

After that, things become more tricky: is oldest in the UK enough? What if there are a lot of reliable sources?

Let's take a step back and consider some other fields that are threatened to be overpopulated on Wikipedia: sports and television characters. Rules have been set up that, in general, ANYONE who so much as played a single game, ever, in major league sports gets their own article...and then on top of that, college players may get their own article if media coverage warrants.

With supercentenarians, some have suggested an age minimum of 110. Others would prefer even tighter criteria, but I must ask: at what point does deletion stop? If age '112' isn't enough for Nyleptha Roberts, then what is?

So, I would kindly ask you we discuss this main issue FIRST. Most of these individual articles I didn't start, because I didn't feel it was worth "fighting over." However, the reasons given for deletion are often opinion, rather than policy, and that needs to change.Ryoung122 03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of the GRG

Greetings,

I find that you seem to be moving towards reasonable solutions to some of the disagreements we have been having. That said, we can see that as soon as JJBulten thinks he may have an advantage, he presses too far.

For example:

I would treat GRG (and thus OHB) pages only as data dumps, i.e., subject to correction by reliable secondary sources (while also keeping in tension the credulity of newspaper sources on this topic); and I would treat Yahoo WOP as deletable as inaccessible if no quote is provided in a reasonable time, and as a data dump if a quote is provided. JJB 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse him, since when did JJBulten become the de facto arbiter of what the GRG is or was?

The Wall Street Journal has covered the GRG:

http://www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm

Further, far more than just a "data dump," the GRG has been involved in biomedical research, such as supercentenarian autopsies, DNA testing and gene sequencing, etc.

The Gerontology Research Group has been the de facto source of most of the Guinness World Records "oldest person" records since 2000 (all but the Maria Capovilla case coming from the GRG), and has been acknowledged as such...that's why when you open Guinnness World Records 2011, there is a credit given to the GRG...which, by the way, is a NON profit scientific organization.

What JJBulten is attempting to do is to subvert a system of recognizing the world's oldest person according to scientific principles that dates to the 1870s, with William Thoms of the UK, and in accordance with actuaries, who noticed that no one with life insurance policies reached fantastical ages. In the 1870s, the oldest insurance policyholder was just 103...Jacob Luning...while fictitious age claims to 110, 112, 120, and even higher were often made. Check out this 1873 work, which is still the standard for the field:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Rz0DAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Human%2BLongevity%2BFacts%2BFictions&source=bl&ots=aC2GGTLCqg&sig=CPU1u3ZW16QwhSCP3bLNKCIA3IE&hl=en&ei=22XfTLzLB8SqlAfdo432Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note that reliability was based on several factors, including early-life documentation and having proof of age well before someone claimed to be famous for old age. No one when they are three years old thinks "one day, I'm going to be the world's oldest person."

I note that ages that were unverifiable in the 1870s have become true today. Check out the progress of age verification since the 1780s:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/DD.HTM

In other words, if people are living longer today than in the past, what was scientifically unlikely in the 1870s has become possible today...but we're still talking about a gain of 19 years since 1785, and much of that gain might be due to better recordkeeping. So this cannot be used as justification for saying that Noah lived to 950. Such a claim violates the scientific principle of uniformitarianism: the idea that the natural laws of the universe that exist today also existed in the past. Any SMALL increase in maximum observed lifespan...about one year gained per 12 years...can be explained by improvements in recordkeeping, care of the elderly, use of antibiotics, and other scientifically documentable procedures...not apologist junk like Custance, who simply reiterated a list of bogus and questionable modern claims as "proof" that people still did reach Biblical ages in modern times...or did they? Reading Custance, we see that he offers rationalizations for the apparent lifespan shortening of "man" kind since the times of Noah. It's sort of like a UFO-sighting report; if you gather enough "reports" do you prove your point...I don't think so.

Guinness World Records began publication in 1955, and from its inception, they began with the scientific view, using work published in the 1930s by demographers. That's why Time Magazine in 1997 declared Guinness "the official arbiter of longevity."

Against this background of secular, objective research we have JJBulten, insisting that humans live to 150 or 950 because the Bible says so. Never denying the accusation, he instead attempts to operate as if he is rational, but his motivations are thinly veiled ulterior motives.

Personally, he threatens to make a mountain out of a molehill. His proposed changes or policies for the WikiProject WOP need to be conforming to outside sources. If they deviate, then he is guilty of original-research violations. As Timmneu noted, a lot of what he proposed was vague. I suggest further scrutiny is needed here.Ryoung122 04:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I work with more than just the GRG

You'll find that I'm more than just an expert in the field...I'm involved in most of the major groups that study supercentenarians, from Boston to Germany to France to Los Angeles.

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian/our-staff/

No, I don't have time to continue arguing on Wikipedia. I do appreciate if your goal is to IMPROVE the coverage on Wikipedia regarding supercentenarians and articles on topics under WIKIPROJECT World's Oldest People...but I think some of that improvement needs to come from better understanding of the field and the situation.

The ultimate truth is that the scientific facts suggest we humans aren't going to live forever. Telling that to some adults is like telling children there is no Santa Claus. But in fact, there is no Santa Claus...those presents under the tree came from parents, not some corpulent man coming down the chimney.

Likewise, people like JJBulten are fighting for the right to not just self-delusion but the "right" to delude others...which is no right at all.

If he doesn't want to read these articles, he doesn't have to. Wikipedia has consistently come down against censorship, including some topics that makes many people uncomfortable. Saying that the oldest verified living person is just 114, and not 134, is nowhere near extreme. Neither is it fringe theory; it is in fact mainstream consensus. JJBulten, a Republican fundamentalist operative who is manipulating Wikipedia for religious and political reasons, is the one who has come down on the side of fringe theory.Ryoung122 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)