User talk:Ryoung122

Notability of Paul Baltes

In 2006 you started the article about Paul Baltes - it is marked with a "missing notability" template since January 2009 - I am not an expert of these guidelines, but this seems strange to me. Unfortunately I am not a frequent contributor here, because my English is too bad. Perhaps this template should be simply removed? Best wishes Plehn (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just see that you was involved in a small edit war about this problem Plehn (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

this discussion is old and can be deleted or archived. Fortunately, the notability of Paul Baltes is clear. Ridiculous problem. Plehn (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Further blanket removals of edits will be reported as edit warring. Please see WP:OWN. Thank you. 2tuntony (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am shocked — shocked— to find and accusation based on WP:OWN is going on here!

David in DC (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

David in DC: STAY OFF MY PAGE OR I WILL REFER YOU TO ARBCOM. The above is clearly a conflict of interest given your prior history with me. You are NOT impartial.

2tuntony is an editor who didn't even exist until a few days ago, and his edits FAILED TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS, CONSULT SOURCES, AND WERE IN MANY CASES INCORRECT. I WILL BLANKET-REVERT INCORRECT EDITS. If there are acceptable edits to be made, they should be made one at a time, starting with the non-controversial edits first.Ryoung122 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: 2tuntony backed off, but I'm suspicious given that a "new" editor is already citing "RS" and using other Wiki-speak terms. Is 2tuntony a sockpuppet?Ryoung122 02:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I "backed off"? OK, then. I "backed off" after you finally stopped your disruptive editing. As far as your "sock puppet" nonsense, which you seem to have based on the fact that someone actually bothered to familarize himself with the place before joining, I believe the appropriate link is WP:SPI. Thank you. 2tuntony (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was your editing that was disruptive, going against consensus and failing to consult the "talk" page first.

Fortunately you came to your senses, but false accusations such as WP:OWN is little more than wiki-lawyering. You made the accusation (above) first, so who was the real disruptive one?Ryoung122 05:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Get yourself some help, dude. 2tuntony (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would let u know that Jozef Kowalski is for the moment not verified therefore he can be added on any wiki lists or else. His case is very difficult.Anthony GRG correspondent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarface1812 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules

Hi Ryoung122, I have made a contribution to the debate regarding Mr Choules at the surviving veterans of the First World War talk page which may be of interest to you, Regards, Moldovanmickey Moldovanmickey (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of the verified oldest people#New Spanish anonymous cases .28M.A.C.C..2C and M.C.L.L..29

Hi Robert,

You may want to contribute to the above discussion. Similar additions have been made to List of the verified oldest men. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

L Tables on GRG

Hi, for the pending cases section of the L tables that haven't been updated since 2007, I was wondering if those are still pending and ones that haven't been added to the Wikipedia pages can be added on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.129.251 (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find more-recent data on the Table E lists (for example, 2007 deaths, 2008 deaths, 2009 deaths, etc.) Ryoung122 (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Instinct (magazine)

You asked me on my talk page to restore Instinct (magazine). I would happily have done so, but found that Mkativerata had already done so, as you evidently know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, however, that Amazon.com customer reviews are notoriously not reliable sources for anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I just discovered Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths, delayed due to a miscommunication. You may proceed with it in any way you like; our last related discussion is at User:John J. Bulten/DR2. As always, please feel free to let me know of any specific improvements I can make to the articles in accord with policy. JJB 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Way out: I dare you

[Atama and I] are ready when you are. Please respond at User talk:Atama. JJB 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Longevity myths. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TFOWR 20:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I still have some doubts if your last commentary was direct to me or not. If it is the case and you think what I said was inconvenient you must agree one thing with me - Wikipedia is not the proper place for discussing scientific nomenclature. If you and your coleagues use the expression "longevity miths" no wikipedia discussion can change that. You only need to give proof that the expression is used.Japf (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Swedish following Astrid Zachrison's death: Mikaelsson or H. Karlsson?

Hello,

I notice that Rut Mikaelsson (16 October 1899 - 24 August 2009) was listed here as the oldest living Swedish following Astrid Zachrison's death on 15 May 2008. However, I notice she is younger than Hulda Karlsson (2 February 1898 - 22 April 2008) who is a verified supercentenarian according to the table of validated Swedish supercentenarians above it.

Is it an error? Thank you for your time. Brendanology^ContriB 08:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hulda Karlsson died in April, which is before May, 2008.Ryoung122 15:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. Thank you for your patience. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 06:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I would appreciate it if you could leave messages on my talk page, rather than my user page. Thanks. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 01:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi

Guinness World Records even doubts Izumi's claim (now), either on p.81 or p.82. Both sources (GRG and GWR) doubt the claim, this is enough to remove him, yes?

How many documents must there be necessary to debunk a claim (e.g. Carrie C. White)? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick and Robert, I also addressed this issue at Talk:Longevity claims#Proposed principles #2. The issue to me is whether the POV of believing the claim is sufficiently widespread to be one of the POVs mentioned. With your new information, the question is the weight of the prior GWR reportage in many people's minds vs. the validity and verifiability of the doubt-inducing documents. IMHO one on-point and public document would probably do the trick, especially if the oldest claim-supporting document is also available for contrast, and this is perhaps even true for Izumi. If the doc is not public then GRG can quote its key claims on talk. If the document after posting to WP is agreed to be right on, I think we can safely say WP can demote the case. PMFJI. (And this from an Izumi fan who kept buying the book every year to see if he was still alive!) JJB 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Another idea

Thank you for entering into mediation, and here's hoping Atama comes back soon. Your latest comments to TFOWR reminded me of something: I can really empathize with someone's wonderment at how Wikipedia permits that other editor (in this case, me) to get away with everything while this poor editor (meaning you) is slapped down and unheeded. This has happened to me in spades once, and occasionally in other suits too. The fact is, and we both know it, Wikipedia is largely no-man's-land and Wild West, and we must each work together to get what we want, especially when there is a conflict between our desires. But if we are both dedicated to improving Wikipedia in general, there is no ultimate conflict. I really appreciate that you have held off on further sudden moves, and I'm hopeful that a mediative process works. Can we start by agreeing on our baseline so as to prevent anyone from seeing us as continuing belligerents? As of this second, we have "myths" in "your" version and "claims" in "mine", and that is a good way to start; I have also agreed theoretically that we could have both articles in "your" version temporarily while we discuss; but you haven't told me where you will agree to start the baseline. I've made several "edit requests" at mediation, and have gone ahead with some, due to asking for and not receiving any objection within 24 hours, and because the requests are in the category you seem to hold as noncontroversial. But I need to know you are engaged in or committed to reaching consensus rather than other motivations I'd not care to surmise. Can you commit to work with me one step at a time toward obtaining agreements on basic principles going forward? The first one is what article baseline we agree on. (The next is how to handle ongoing noncontroversial edit requests.) Can you give me some input on that while you're here? Thank you. JJB 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The best I can suggest is to combine the categories into longevity myths and legends or longevity myths and traditions. It would then be up to the individual reader to choose, in their mind, which cases belong in which...because the way I see it, myths date to time immemorial. Traditional myths are, by definition, stories that were invented to explain how things came to be the way they are, before the advent of the scientific method. Colloquial myths are something else, but in some ways are related. As I mentioned, however, there are actually four main definitions of myth, not two; thus Methuslelah is a traditional myth; Thomas Parr is what some might call a "legend"; William Coates is a colloquial myth (definitionally speaking). However, sometimes these boundaries are not clear-cut. When a pastor at Mr. Coates's funeral service insisted he "really was" 114, that wasn't appealing to the colloquial idea of mythology, but to the religious, tribal-elder/patriarchal sense that this man's passing had on the religious group he was in a kinship network in. Ultimately, the real point is that humans have a desire to believe in immortality, even when that desire conflicts with observational reality. Thus, we see people as "114" rather than the truth (he was 92) because we want to believe that we, ourselves, aren't going to die.

As for changes, I would prefer they be made slowly and after consensus was established. Whether something is an "improvement" or not should be determined, in part, by the reaction to it made by others (consensus) and thus to make a lot of changes at once makes a mess of the process. Given we are talking about something covering thousands of years, this is by no means a "current event" that needs to be rushed.Ryoung122 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this at first. Those thoughts on the way you see it would be nice to have sourced. By "baseline" I meant what start consensus we can work from, assuming a free flow of discussion toward resolution of differences via understanding and compromise. For instance, would you agree to start from the current versions of "myths" and "claims" and mediate from there? Now, I don't want to discount your suggestion for article title, because it's the first time I've noticed you to actually propose a compromise that takes account of WP:RNPOV, but I still don't think that title will pass muster with WP:AND, and it wasn't what needs to be resolved first even though it was a good suggestion. Since discussion is quiet now, either we need to restart dialog or I will need to finish the corrections of policy violations by going back to WP:BRD editing. Thank you. JJB 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Estimated living supercents

On the header on List of living supercentenarians, it says "Worldwide there are estimated to be 300–450 living supercentenarians."

I'm having trouble on getting the correct estimate. How many estimated are out there born before January 1, 1900?

Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that there could be some born in 1900. It would be easier to wait until January 1, 2011.

Let's say that we have an estimated 300 living supercentenarians worldwide, with a 50% annual mortality rate. Voila! You would have about 150 from 1899 and before alive as of January 1, 2011. If you go with a high-end estimate (such as 400), then that half-life number would be 200.Ryoung122 05:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Two merge proposals

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with Longevity. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge supercentenarian deaths from 2000 - 2009?

I've been having a think about this. Since the lists of supercentenarian deaths on Wikipedia before 2000 are classified by decade, such as "List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1990s", and that page includes all validated supercentenarians who died between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1999, how about we do the same for the 2000s, since year 2009 has already long ended? Supercentenarians who died between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009 can be kept in one list, "List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 2000s"? It's more consistent and clutter-free. What do you think of this?

Should I contact DerbyCountyinNZ or someone similar about this? Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 09:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot more supercentenarians died in the 2000s than in the 1990s, dont you think an articles about the 2000s would a a little too long, but since wikipedia is not a piece of paper I guess that arguement holds no water. Longevitydude (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody asked for your opinion here, but I'll still say this. Yes, more supercentenarians died in the 2000s than the 1990s, but the 1990s page contains 369 supercentenarians with room for more. I think it can take one more page for the 2000s death. Once we finish 2019, about 1000 supercentenarians will have died. A 2010s page will no longer be feasible by then. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 03:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion, canvassing and battleground mentality

Someone has alleged that you are engaging in off-wiki canvassing regarding the current discussions at Longevity myths. Is that correct? It appears that you and JJB have a history on this and related topics. Well the current suggestions are not coming from JJB, in fact he appears not to even agree with them. Can you please take a step back and realize that this is not some battle in your personal war? When you arrived to the discussion you were hostile immediately to IMJ and now apparently you are enlisting people for some "Wiki war". This is a bad idea. I think there are some rather legitimate gripes with the current entry and they should be discussed towards resolution in a rational manner that emphasizes the appropriate fields of expertise and the available literature. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm all about doing the right thing. The fact that JJBulten and I agree that the "merge" proposal is "throwing the baby out with the bath water" (i.e., not a solution) indicates how far off it was.

But just as the USA and the USSR were "Allies" against Hitler, once the war was over they went back to not being Allies.

There are several issues, but the process works slowly while editing works fast. Unlike in law, where we "freeze" things as they are, the articles continue to evolve even during the discussion process.

If you check back, you'll see the FIRST negative ('personal attack-style') comments on the merge proposal came from IMJ. The typical slap-suit-style wikilawyering where you threaten people with policies instead of dealing with the issue at hand.

And the issue at hand is that there are false charges being made by IMJ and others.

1. "Longevity myths" is original research or synthesis.

Truth: the article existed even before I came on Wikipedia.

The outside sources use the term. It's NOT Wikipedia's place to decide which term is best to use. If the outside sources use it, then it's the appropriate term to use. As for synthesis, my thesis won a national student award. The experts liked it. It's not Wikipedia's place to serve as a court of appeals to overturn expert opinion. In fact, such editing violates Wikipedia's core policies on reliable sources.

2. "Longevity myths" is a "fringe" subject. Not so. The very large of information on the page and lots of editing are indications that the article is of interest to more than just a few. Not only that, but words like "fringe" carry a cachet like "cult". It's a negative label, and an example of the aggressive negativity that characterized the discussion. That's why I responded the way I did.

Too often, we blame others for our own behavior. IMJ and PerSoGo didn't do enough research on this. They just offered an uninformed opinion.

3. We can't find a compromise.

In fact, JJBulten and myself have suggested calling this "longevity myths and traditions" to create a more pluralistic viewpoint. But that discussion must be on hold until the merge proposals are dealt with.

4. The article is not encyclopedic or "junk".

That a few editors have made unconstructive edits doesn't diminish the article's value. If you drop a diamond ring in the dirt it's still a diamond. The solution is it needs cleaning and polishing, not throwing it away. Merging or deleting is akin to throwing it away.

Ryoung122 15:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What sources use the term "longevity myths" and how do they define it ... or what do they include in the category?Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lots of sources use the term, or similar constructs such as "myths of longevity." Basically they are ideas that explain why humans believe that people live longer than the scientific evidence shows the maximum lifespan to be.Ryoung122 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me some concrete examples of this. What sources exactly? How exactly do they define the term? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can.

First, it's important to note that terms may evolve. "Ultracentenarian" in the 1870s became "supercentenarian" in the 1970s.

We see that the term for "longevity myths" evolved, from "myths about longevity" and "myths of longevity" to "longevity myths." First, some precursors:

Age structure of Soviet population in the Caucasus: facts and myths ZA Medvedev - The Biology of human ageing, 1986 - books.google.com ... Very little effort is necessary to show this. And yet, very few scientists are really interested in challenging the myths about longevity and super-longevity. The general public likes and easily believes the stories about longevity and super-longevity. ... Cited by 6 - Related articles

[BOOK] Forever young: a cultural history of longevity L Boia - 2004 - books.google.com ... The doctors were not concerned with repeating the feats of Medea. Neither Hippocrates (c. 460-0. 337 BC), regarded as the founder of medical science, nor his emulator Galen (c. AD 130-0.200) were great enthusiasts for the longevity of myth. ... Cited by 9 - Related articles - Find It @ GSU - Library Search

The Mediterranean Diet: Origins and Myths Full Text @ GSUA Trichopoulou - New England Journal of Medicine, 2001 - content.nejm.org ... antioxidants. They review ancient myths of longevity and discuss diets and dietary supplements aimed at averting aging. They point out that proponents of such treatments, in fact, have died at the expected age and of the usual causes. ... Cited by 2 - Related articles - All 2 versions

Note that later, the term used is now "longevity myths":

BOOK] Searching for longevity determinants: following survival of newborns in a in-land village in Sardinia (1866-2006) L Salaris - 2009 - books.google.com ... Since ancient times, the search for a longer life has generated longevity myths such as the existence of a fountain of youth, or of a place Translation: "All civilizations, irrespective of time, place and life's vicissitudes, consider with the utmost regard their elderly, those who have ... Cited by 1 - Related articles - Find It @ GSU - All 4 versions

[BOOK] Living to 100 and Beyond T Harris - 2009 - books.google.com ... 4B.....61 Chapter 5 Longevity Claims: Fact or Fiction 5.1 Introduction.....63 5.2 Longevity Myths.....64 5.2 ... Related articles - Find It @ GSU - Library Search - All 2 versions

Ryoung122 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, the works you cite that discuss things like "fact vs. myth" are not using "myth" in the technical sense, and not surprisingly they are from medical fields. One of your sources states "longevity of myth" which does not mean "longevity myth" or "myth of longevity" ... you might want to double check that one. There is only one reference you have listed which uses myth in a way that is related to the subject matter we are discussing, and is related to myth technically understood, and that is the source discussing the fountain of youth. That is, most certainly, an example of myth/folktale which has human longevity as a main theme or motif. I agree about this. However, those types of tales are unrelated to 99% of the content in the current entry -- including the ancient materials which are merely claims of human age found within mythical stories, or in ancient lists. They are not myths about longevity. Do you see the difference here? If you can source an entry on myths that actually have longevity as a major motif, I'm all with you, but otherwise we just have the same OR listcruft that we've been discussing all along.Griswaldo (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, my name is "Robert."

Second, your above comment is a bit disappointing. You did not seriously consider the material I posted. Look again. "A cultural history of longevity" is NOT about longevity? Clearly that's B.S.

All the above sources deal with the idea of longevity as myth.

Here's my own thesis, which won a national award.

http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=gerontology_theses

Ryoung122 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Robert you may be interested in the response to my query at the RS/N. See here for instance.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Image of Kama Chinen

I missed your March comment about the upload of the Kama Chinen image. I've re-uploaded it. Sorry, Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 09:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is back on

PhilKnight has offered to co-mediate. I responded to quite a few of your edits before noticing this so I'd propose you bring any new issues that may currently exist to your opening-response section there, in a short appendix, and we proceed from there. I'm still good with my issue list. Thank you. JJB 19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight is now mediating disagreement between Itsmejudith and us on whether longevity articles should exist at all. Would you like to join in so that we can get to the point of mediating between me and you instead? Thanks. It's no time to default now. JJB 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a link. One thing about Wikipedia is that it is NOT as stable as it should be. It's incredulous that this is even being debated.Ryoung122 18:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Referring to:

Regarding THIS: Garrett Morgan did not only invent the traffic signal. He invented the gas mask and also some hair dye and other things. These are just the popular things he invented. He is probably a great man because he saved lives of workers during an explosion in an underground mine. Blacky98 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC) It's a 100% fabricated lie that Garrett Morgan invented the traffic signal. Do some research. Checking the documents, this myth was invented in the 1970s by the U.S. Dept of Education as a way to promote feel-good stories about African-American "heroes." However, checking the actual, real evidence, it's clear that Garrett Morgan's traffic signal device was NOT first, NOT the first to be patented, and NOT the device that led to the modern traffic light. In fact, it was more like a railroad-crossing device. It's a shame that people are still judging others by the color of their skin, rather than by what they really did.Ryoung122 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for teaching me that Garrett Morgan didn't invent the traffic signal. How kind. Also, I didn't judge because of his skin... just to let you know I actually apologize, because that was 2 years ago, and I was pretty immature... I shall no longer post opinions and things I got from my school in the Talk section I apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacky98 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found out about Garrett Morgan in a graduate class, where an older white man told me that African-American students needed to be told stories like this (even if not true) to feel better about themselves.

Personally, I think there are plenty of true African American heroes without the need to make up false ones. Of course, these aren't the only kinds of historical-invention myths; the most-popular is the "Wright brothers invented the airplane," but that involved the use of political and contractual influence to force acceptance. The Wright brothers' monoplane was able to lift off the ground only due to the wind blowing about 40mph that day; replicas made in still air have never succeeded in attaining flight.

Check out also the article about Gustave Whitehead.Ryoung122 18:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jan Goossenaerts

I would like to know what your opinions are on this recently created, Jan Goossenaerts has been given an afd, please send this information to anyone who can help. Longevitydude (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Oldest Living Men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_oldest_living_men

Ryoung122 00:24, 7 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 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

More attacks from JJBulten, who has politicized Wikipedia.Ryoung122 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm obliged to put this here, sorry to clog up your talk page. In fact this whole issue is a load of rubbish and is getting quite tiresome, those people really need to "get a life". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Accusation against me at AN/I of wikistalking

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.David in DC (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sudhakar Chaturvedi

Please, let's not get into an edit war over a single punctuation mark. You have been around long enough to know very well the policies at WP:BLP and WP:V. If you don't have a reliable source that questions his age then, as a living person, his age should not be questioned on Wikipedia. Verifiability, not truth, is the standard. If you have a source that calls his age into question, feel free to provide it and insert your doubts. Canadian Paul 05:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity etc

Hello Robert

Thanks for your long post on my talk page. I'm going to reply to your points one by one below.

• Suggested deletion of mini-bios regarding oldest persons

"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."

Afraid that this sort of thing happens all the time. A solution in 2007 can be revisited. Perhaps I should have read the earlier discussion but you can't expect me to read everything related to longevity, because there are a lot of articles.

• "how notable does someone have to be to be notable due to age?"

See my addition to the project main page. We already have notability guidelines for biographies. There are some extra ones, like WP:PROF that are frequently referred to. I suggest that the project uses the main biography guidelines until project members are willing to thrash out supplementary guidelines. I suggested that a clear policy might be: over 110 and there is a presumption of notability. But only JJB responded, and he didn't agree. So the default is "if there is coverage in independent sources, then notable".

"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?"

Existence of independent sources should be the main criterion in a biography.

"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."

WP:OTHERCRAP applies. But actually, that's far from my experience. I gave the example of WP:FOOTY, where the criteria are tight and rigidly adhered to.

"So, I would kindly ask you we discuss this main issue FIRST."

I did, you see. I argued for notability guidelines, and then when there was no response I went away and wrote some myself.

• Reliability of the GRG

Before we say anything else, there's a distinction to be made between the reliability of the GRG work in general, and the status as reliable source in Wikipedia of individual web pages.

• as soon as JJBulten thinks he may have an advantage, he presses too far.

JJB's behaviour is an entirely separate point that, if necessary, needs to be taken up in an appropriate forum. I find myself frequently in disagreement with him, but we are managing to discuss civilly and I don't have an issue with his behaviour at the moment.

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

Obviously he's not, but he's entitled to express opinions about RS. My wording was "work in progress", and User:GRuban came to agree with me.

• The Wall Street Journal has covered the GRG

Clearly there is worthwhile work going on. That doesn't mean that everything appearing on a GRG website is RS for Wikipedia.

"What JJBulten is attempting to do is to subvert a system..."

The rest of us aren't attempting to subvert anything. Obviously advanced age is checked out ever more carefully.

"this cannot be used as justification for saying that Noah lived to 950."

Just to be clear. Wikipedia is not going to say that Noah lived to 950. End of.

"apologist junk like Custance"

I haven't seen a convincing argument that Custance is reliable for anything. He doesn't seem to be a notable theologian. Theologians are reliable for theology, though, and biologists are reliable for biology. Simple principles like that are our most useful guide.

"His proposed changes or policies for the WikiProject WOP need to be conforming to outside sources."

You don't need a source to suggest a policy.

"As Timmneu noted, a lot of what he proposed was vague. I suggest further scrutiny is needed here."

If at any point you think a fringe theory is being promoted, come to WP:FTN. Even if you withdraw temporarily or permanently from editing these articles, you can always post there and be sure we will take it up.

"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"

That's all good, but being an expert in a field has its disadvantages when it comes to editing Wikipedia. I'm also bearing in mind that it's a narrow field, and one would also expect an experienced investigative journalist, or a historian used to working with archives of a particular period to be able to investigate longevity claims reliably.

"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"

It always was.

"...but I think some of that improvement needs to come from better understanding of the field and the situation."

It'll work best if there's a division of labour. You go and contribute to sources like GRW, then people who know WP policy will work up good articles based on the sources. We have people here who care really passionately about copyediting, spelling, list formatting, all that sort of stuff. So you don't have to bother with it.

"The ultimate truth is that the scientific facts suggest we humans aren't going to live forever."

Er, yeah. It still needs a reliable source though.

"a Republican fundamentalist operative who is manipulating Wikipedia for religious and political reasons"

He isn't manipulating it because everyone will make sure that we don't say Noah lived beyond 122. We don't say there was a Noah. We don't even say there was a Jesus, but we make it clear that the majority view among scholars is that there was such a person, while also presenting the minority view that there wasn't.

So where do we go from here? I'd be quite happy never to look at any of these articles again. I referred to longevity cruft, which is a bit blunt, but that's how it seems to this outsider. And then there's the walled garden aspect, with people reverting me for so much as changing bold text. Longevity myths needs sorting. If you think that making up stories about long-lived people is a human universal, or that there is a continuity of myth-making from 3,000 BCE till now, then that needs a qualified source. I'm still not convinced there's an encyclopedic topic in there, whether it's renamed "longevity narratives", or claims or stories or anything.

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity 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:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert - I come in peace, please don't shoot. The ArbCom case needs your participation. I believe, quite strongly, that you've acted as a bully, throughout our dealings. No doubt you can cite a thousand instances on which to base a claim that I'm a troll.

Nonetheless, having this discussion without you would diminish its value. The panel has expressed interest in reviewing other editors' behavior, noting on your behalf that some folks have been "pushing your buttons." I'm likely one. In my response to you in our latest exchange on my talk page, I urged you to seek comparisons between our edits and our tone by neutral authorities. Here's an appropriate venue for at least some of that. David in DC (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)