Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Portal and question

Hi,

I have a request and a question :

• The Portal:Supercentenarians has been left unfinished by Leoj83 since september. Could somebody finish it ?
• Is the List of supercentenarians who died before 1980 complete or not ? ie. is there any unexploited sources or something like that ? (it's for a matter of Authors' rights/pma, I need to know who was the oldest people to die at specific years like 1951 and 1941)

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut.

Shivakumara Swamiji

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

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

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

So how do we proceed?

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

I was in fact planning to make a post on this talk page about this project, and more specifically its guidelines. The ones that exist currently are outdated and are being used as a tool to remove information on articles in the scope of this project. Let me firstly put forward my views on these:

1. Let's start with this statement: "There is currently no consensus about the reliability of the tables of data hosted at www.grg.org, nor of the journal Rejuvenation Research." ---> I don't know much about Rejuvenation Research but I don't know why it would not be considered a reliable source given that it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's also clear that the Gerontology Research Group is a reliable source. The GRG has several thousand citations in Google News at the moment. Do a quick search for articles on supercentenarians such as Susannah Mushatt Jones, Sakari Momoi, Jeralean Talley, etc., and you will see that most articles reference the GRG (i.e. "according to the Gerontology Research Group"). This, this, and this are but a few examples. I understand that there may have been some disagreement about the reliability of this source but consensus appears to have changed over the last few years based on greater media acceptance. The GRG is also considered an authority on longevity by Guinness World Records.

2. "Gerontology Research Group data from grg.org should be attributed and used only as backup for reliable sources." ---> No, it should be the OTHER WAY AROUND. It's the news outlets that quote the GRG! The GRG does the initial work to verify people's ages, which the media certainly do not do - just take this article about a "160" year old man.

3. The final point regarding the GRG is that being verified and included on the GRG tables does count as coverage in reliable sources. Supercentenarians are not celebrities like Kim Kardashian who are just famous for being famous - their notability should not be determined purely by the amount of media coverage they get. This issue was debated at Lucy Hannah's AfD. She's the third oldest person ever, living to the age of 117, but was not covered widely in the press. On the other hand, it's common to see people as young as 100 covered in media articles. Does that make Lucy Hannah less notable for her longevity than a 100 year old? No of course not.

4. "Some long-lived people are notable principally for their advanced age, e.g., Jeanne Calment. If the individual is not notable in any other way, the article is subject to Wikipedia policy guidance on one-event biographies." ---> The "one event" guideline is meant to deal with people who, say, were witnesses to an event but were not largely involved, but who might have been interviewed by the press. It's these kind of people who are only notable for being involved in one event and are likely to remain to low-profile. In other words, people whose notability is not substantial or long-lasting. On the other hand, as discussed at Antonia Gerena Rivera's AfD, longevity is not "one event" - it's an integral part of the person. Furthermore, someone who holds a record is notable in the long-term, because that record lasts for a (often long) period of time.

This leads me on nicely to my next point, which is this: I feel that some people hold the view that supercentenarians aren't important/aren't famous. This has been the most-persistent issue recently - the push to delete supercentenarian articles as "not important", "one event," Firstly, the media itself shows that someone can be famous for age alone (such as Jeanne Calment). The question after that is: "how famous"? Consensus seems to be that "World's oldest person" and "world's oldest man" titleholders generally merit an article, but after that, there is no consensus. Secondly, a birthday party is "one event," but someone setting a record such as "Minnesota's oldest person on record" is a recurring citation, as I have discussed above. Take, for example, this article about 110 year old Hermina Wahlin. This article references Catherine Hagel, Minnesota's all-time longevity record holder, who died in 2008. Also, two birthdays are two events...someone turning 113, 114, 115, 116, etc. is a person with multiple-event coverage.

Regarding your question about the Oldest in Britain website, you can see that it is maintained by Dr Andrew Holmes, who is the GRG's correspondent for England, Scotland, and Wales. It is definitely reliable.

Finally, I will address the original question of "how do we proceed?". Firstly, I appreciate that sourcing is an issue in certain articles, particularly "chronological list of oldest people in country X" articles. Something needs to be done about that. But certain users, such as yourself CommanderLinx, need to take a more positive approach to editing. Looking at your user contributions, almost all of your edits involve removing information or placing tags on articles. That's all very well, as long as you also make an attempt to add content to articles to improve them. But you don't, and in the past, you have even taken it upon yourself to redirect biography articles (effectively deleting their content) without gaining consensus, which is not on. Maybe consider trying to search for some citations yourself. For example, you added "citation needed" tags to Emma Tillman's article. I did a quick Google search and was able to find plenty of citations to add and cleaned up the article.

So in summary, we all need to work together to not only solve the problem of unsourced content, but to recognise that people can be notable for their longevity and also to improve longevity-related articles by making constructive contributions. Sorry for the long-winded post. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

First, Ollie, nothing is gained by labeling people as "positive" or "negative" editors here. If someone wants to add content, fine, if someone thinks that the content should be fixed, that's also fine as long as it's not overall disruptive (and placing tags in and of themselves is not considered disruptive). This WikiProject has gotten in trouble with Arbcom specifically because it only wanted to let in people who "supported" the project, regardless of how the sourcing and other issues worked within the greater Wikipedia policies and procedures. The issue isn't "is GRG reliable or not" on its own. The issue is context. GRG is generally I think reliable for general points about oldest people (and it's been used that way) but it depends on whether we are talking about the GRG peer reviewed papers as a source or simply their webpages. The real question is if GRG alone is sufficient as a reliable source on a person's birth and death dates (i.e. their age)? No one is really disputing the peer reviewed material, just the use of their webpages alone. My view is that GRG was doing their analysis based on secondary source review and while they are experts on something (it's not aging itself but basically on data regarding the oldest people I'd say), they aren't say experts on birth certificates from 100 years or death certificate or history in general or the other points, that's not their training necessarily. For that reason, I'd say we need to have another source (even if it's a secondary peer-reviewed source that just supports the GRG), even if it's a pretty lazily done newspaper source, that supports the claim. In that line, absent some particularly terrible almost absurd newspaper source, even if the GRG doesn't include them, I think it's fair to include other names here as well. I think the best thing would be a general RFC on sourcing rather than individual discussions like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's say "constructive" editing then (used to mean actually searching for citations and adding content sometimes, rather than just removing content or adding tags). As for your comments about the GRG, they appear misinformed.

1. They are the ones who do the research to verify the person's age, so I don't see how any other source can be more reliable than the GRG for a person's birth and death dates. I also don't know how you can be an "expert" in birth certificates. How much expertise do you need to say that if someone has a birth certificate saying "born 1 January 1900", then they were born on 1 January 1900?

2. The GRG is an authority on ageing. Just look at their publications in scientific journals.

3. Why would a terrible second newspaper source be helpful? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ollie231213 on GRG as a reliable source. Any other source on age verification whether newspaper or academic, traces back to the GRG. On the notability of supercentenarians, we have thousands of articles on cartoons, TV, and movie characters, many much longer than any articles on supercentenarians. I think if cartoons are notable enough for Wikipedia, the extraordinary lives of supercentenarians (as covered in reliable sources) are clearly notable. And certainly a life is not merely an event. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if GRG is a reliable source. It's been brought up at WP:RSN several times[1][2][3][4] but there doesn't seem to be consensus one way or another, although people not involved with the GRG seem to indicate that it might not be reliable. Personally, I think that Table E (Verified) is probably reliable because the entries are fact-checked whereas all other tables are not reliable because they haven't been verified. I propose that we take this issue back to WP:RSN and try to get consensus from the community on whether GRG or any portion of it is a reliable source.

Whether or not GRG is determined by the larger community to be reliable, we need to find other reliable sources to support the information in the tables. Are there any? If information in the tables isn't supported by reliable sources, it can't be included in Wikipedia, full stop. This isn't about these people being not important; it's about sourcing.

While the GRG RSN discussion is ongoing, I think removing the "pending" indication on tables is the next step because that's an internal GRG designation; for Wikipedia readers, the information is not verified by the GRG. Ca2james (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with declaring that GRG is not a reliable source is that any resulting tables become encyclopedically meaningless. Treat any source that passes RS as have the same validity as the GRG (or any other independent organisation with similar standards/purpose (if only!)) is that we would end up with one list including GRG verified, unverified and the fringe entries at Longevity claims. I don't see how that would improve Wiki. On the other hand I totally agree that GRG pending cases should be treated as unverified and any such cases removed from any lists which are for (GRG verified) supercentenarians only. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is it such a bug bear to you that the GRG is the only widely recognised organisation that verifies supercentenarian's ages? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Ca2james - Three of those discussions you linked are over four years old. As for the recent one about Violet Brown, read the discussion on the talk page. I will repeat what I said above: I don't see how any other source could be more reliable than one that actually verifies the ages of supercentenarians. Derby is right in the sense that if you give other "reliable" sources as much weight as the GRG, you will end up with tables including both Jeanne Calment and the "160" year old man I mentioned above. Furthermore, the media very often quotes the GRG, and they have many publications in scientific journals. How could they not be considered reliable? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the discussions are so old is a good reason to take this to RSN again. It is true that if GRG tables are found not to be reliable by the larger community, many of the pages associated with this project will be decimated unless other sources can be found. However, that's not a reason not to find out what the community thinks. This discussion has been ongoing for years and some closure on it would be welcome, I would think.

"Reliability" on Wikipedia is a term of art, with a specific meaning that may not correspond to the meaning used elsewhere. On Wikipedia, WP:SOURCE says to [b]ase articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and that [t]he appropriateness of any source depends on the context. This means that a source may be reliable for some things but not others (ie context matters) and is why I would think that the "verified" table is reliable to support information regarding its entries (because the information in it is fact-checked) but the other tables wouldn't be reliable (because fact-checking is not complete). Ca2james (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do we go from here

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

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

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

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

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

"Assess everything sourced to Table EE; if no independent source exists, it must be removed" ---> The utter ridiculousness of this is that you're saying that media reports are reliable enough for inclusion but a scientific organisation is not. Ollie231213 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ollie231213. The GRG is a scientific research group and certainly not just some kind of amateur group that lists various names just for fun. While all cases on Table EE do not go on to be verified the utter majority of them does. Table EE also is mentioned to list cases as "Pending Verified", which means that there is documentation supporting their ages, but that the GRG hasn't had the time to verify their ages completely yet. 930310 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, we should just strip out everything not verified. If someone brings up a reliable source for it, then we can discuss it. And we include it if/when the GRG has verified it. There is no deadline here. We aren't saying that information is the same as the stuff they have verified and I don't know of a single other source where we play this game of "they aren't confident in stating this but we're going to list that they don't have confidence in this for whatever reason." We don't quote unverified scientific data from NASA or unverified unpublished journal articles or anything like that so why this insistence here? It's either the GRG is a serious source and we take what they verified seriously or we treat them like some of the nonsense where we don't really care whether or not they have verified something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of this project also need to recognize that this is not the GRG; it's Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia community has determined that Table EE is not reliable. We now have two options with respect to entries supported by Table EE: remove them entirely or reference them to news articles. If referencing them to news articles is not an acceptable solution, then the entries must be removed. I'm totally fine with that. Ca2james (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest we start with List of oldest living people. I've already attempted to remove the GRG verification from the headers, and remove the pending listings with the expect reverts without discussion. We then need to merge the non-verified GRG listing with other reliable sources into the main table so that it's properly a table with either a GRG verification or other reliable sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, it appears that this change is not going to be made without a fight. It's been reverted by TFBCT1 and Special:Contributions/45.73.24.113 and I've re-instated the change. Like it or not, these pages are currently being used by the GRG as a WP:WEBHOST and that is not allowed. I appreciate that the GRG does a lot of research but Wikipedia pages are not just an extension of the GRG and they must conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not just those pages. Some editors here I believe are part of the project itself. The entire WikiProject subpages are just a way for the GRG to use Wikipedia's resources to host their notes. At least the personal userpages tables have been deleted from what I can tell. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, I think several of this project's members are members of the GRG or do research for them. Many of the pages associated with this project appear to be just regurgitations of the GRG tables, which isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to be used. The GRG would be better off setting up their own wiki (I think two have actually been started) where they could make articles and tables and use colour as much as they want. Ca2james (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE explain how the GRG are using Wikipedia as a web host? Just sourcing all longevity-related list articles to the GRG doesn't mean it's being used as a we host, it means that it's the biggest and only major organisation that verifies longevity claimants and members of the WOP project want to ensure that information in these articles is reliable. The reason I spend my time frustratedly editing these articles is because I want to help to educate the wider public on this subject. Remember, many people (unfortunately) will turn to Wikipedia to find out about longevity, not a specialised scientific source. I don't work for the GRG, and even if I did, it's a nonprofit organisation. So, in short, I want to make sure that these articles are as accurate and educational as possible. Ollie231213 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Including verified and pending designations, which are internal to the GRG and are useful only for them, is using Wikipedia as a web host. Applying colours to tables against MOS:COLOUR is using Wikipedia as a web host. Writing the articles to refer only to the GRG and its processes in the List of articles (like List of the verified oldest men and List of the verified oldest women is using Wikipedia as a web host. Writing several articles to display GRG table data in different ways is using Wikipedia as a web host. Ca2james (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, they are NOT internal!! How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? If they were internal, they would not be available publicly. The GRG is a nonprofit, scientific organisation, which has a database of the oldest living people in the world and the oldest people ever. The media regularly refers to the GRG as an authority. Guinness World Records uses the GRG as authority. This is how science works, James: it's about determining what is fact and what is fiction. There is a reason for insisting on only including verified entries when compiling a list of the oldest people because THEIR AGES ARE KNOWN TO BE TRUE. If a load of claims with no evidence to support them are thrown in it makes the list pointless, because you have no idea what is true and what is not.

Now, Wikipedia may not be the GRG but answer me this: why should Wikipedia be different? Why should Wikipedia's list of oldest people contain some cases which "might or might not" be true? What's the point? Yes, Wikipedia is not a scientific organisation but it's an encyclopedia, and it should have a certain standards when it comes to the accuracy of the information it contains. That is why the GRG has, for so long, been cited as a reliable source in these articles. And as no other major body like it exists, Wikipedia articles have been reliant on it. But so what? Isn't that better than a mish-mash of good information and rubbish? Let me point you to the article List of earthquakes in 2015. Earthquakes this year have been listed chronologically and the ONLY source used in this article is the United States Geological Survey. Does that mean that the USGS are using Wikipedia as a web host? No it doesn't, it means that it's the most reliable source and it allows for an informative article that is factually accurate. But tell me: if some dodgy newspaper in Tibet claims there was an earthquake caused by the mountain gods, but the USGS detected nothing, should that be added in to the article too? Ollie231213 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Verified", "pending" and "unverified" aren't scientific terms. Those a GRG designations. They aren't providing a confidence level and standard of error. They could call it "Larry, Moe and Curly" for all it matters. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's about time. The reason not to refer to the website as a reliable source is the same reason we don't refer to the Internet Movie Database as a source. Crowd-sourced websites without editorial oversight are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, period. The external website could reorganize in a way that makes it comparable to a peer-reviewed journal, if it became clear who the editors are and where the buck stops in deciding what is posted there and what is not. (Some scientific journal publish only online, after all.) But I've been to the website to look for the indicia of actual editorial oversight of the website, and I have to agree with the decision that the website (currently) doesn't meet the criteria for Wikipedia reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 23:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted the attempts by User:Waenceslaus to ignore the RSN discussion. I'd suggest those who support more usage of the GRG to work more collaboratively and not to simply ignore all discussions in favor of their personal views. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• And already we are seeing issues caused by the exact thing I descibed above. See List of oldest living people. Verified and unverified cases are being merged in to one list, with absolutely no acknowledgement that not all cases are verified. This need to be changed right now. Mixing true and potentially false information is unscientific, unencyclopedic, and misleading to the general public. Ollie231213 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Verified" is a GRG designation and has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The general public doesn't care whether the GRG has verified someone's age or not; this is something that is useful only for the GRG. Ca2james (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james: Stop. Right. There. That's an unbelievably ignorant thing to say. You think the public shouldn't care about WP:Verifiability? People might want to know who the oldest people in the world are. If so, they might turn to Wikipedia. And if so, they should be able to see a list of the oldest people in the world whose ages are proven to be true. What the hell is the point in creating a list of the oldest people if some people included might be younger than claimed?

Ok, so the GRG's Table EE is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Fine. But if that's the case, then neither are any news reports, because there is at least some documentation supporting pending cases. But some cases reported on by newspapers may have absolutely no evidence supporting their claim. Why are you concerned about the level of "fact-checking" of Table EE but not news reports? If you want to include unverified cases, you had better take every single source to RSN. And please read my post here. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny. These same newspapers will conveniently be reliable sources when someone wants to create an article about said supercentarian but heaven forbid we trust the paper for their birth and death date. I don't know why this seems like a foreign concept to you but the GRG isn't the be-all-end-all of birth and death dates for old people. Anonymous claims from editors here about the work the GRG does in the shadows does not help its cause. Someone could create a single page at the GRG that provides detail about their methods but since no one has, people aren't going to trust anonymous users who yell and scream about what the GRG is doing behind the scenes. It has a website, it can just post something if it wanted to. As people have noted, it's very unusual behavior for scientific organizations to not post something specific about how they made their determinations but that's the GRG's issue, not ours. I wouldn't trust the results from a medical organization that refused to provide specifics on how it conducted its tests but it's not like the GRG couldn't post something vague and benign ("this listing is based on a review of X") if it was actually serious here. If you want to argue about a particular news report as a reliable source, we can do that. If you want to argue that all newspapers should be ignored (and only for birth and death dates), there's currently an RSN discussion about that but people will ignore you there as it's quite disruptive and counter to the real goal here which is an encyclopedia with a breadth of a knowledge not just tables of who the oldest people in the world are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? I'm saying that newspapers generally do NOT attempt to verify the age of the person they are reporting on. I've literally just demonstrated that. But if we're talking about biographical details - such as who the person married, for example - we should be able to trust that information because there's no reason to believe it might be dubious. Now tell me, why is the idea of distinguishing between verifiable and unverifiable information a foreign concept TO YOU? Ollie231213 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously on this still? What is your point here? Do you really want to argue that all newspapers do not verify ages and therefore no newspaper is a reliable source for ages? Fine, go ahead and argue that, no one will take you seriously. I doubt you even seriously believe that. I suspect you'll have no issues with the newspaper when they agree with the GRG verification or when a million other times but knock it off with the same tired argument we have had for close to a decade here. If you want to discuss a particular newspaper for a particular citation to a particular person, fine, we'll discuss that but otherwise your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine is getting old. So the issue is, going forward, what do you plan on doing? Are you going to edit war whenever someone suggests a name that's based on newspaper but the GRG hasn't verified? Fine, we'll deal with it as is but if you haven't been able to tell, there are very, very little sympathy for that viewpoint and the more you continue this bizarre stance, the more absurd you look and the more likely you're find yourself topic banned from the whole thing. Else, what is the point of your argument here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Are you in agreement with me? No. So of course I'm still on this, because I see this as a very important issue.
• "Do you really want to argue that all newspapers do not verify ages and therefore no newspaper is a reliable source for ages? Fine, go ahead and argue that, no one will take you seriously." ---> I beg to differ. I think we need to do an RFC on this or something like that.
• What am I going to do? Take this issue to RFC. I don't think there will be "very, very little sympathy" for my viewpoint that entries in this table should be verified. Ollie231213 (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good for you. I suspect it will backfire but that's just me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have remained respectful in my interactions with you and everyone else associated with this project and I ask that you behave the same way with me. Telling me I've said something ignorant is disrespectful and inappropriate. Of course I care about verifiability and reliable sourcing. I did read your post saying that everything the GRG does is reliable and newspaper articles on supercentenarians aren't. It also sounds like you're threatening to engage on WP:POINTy behaviour if you don't get your way.

I realize that the GRG doesn't want to use any source other than their own tables but that's not how things work here. Without fact-checking, Table EE is just a bunch of names on a website. I know the GRG sees that table as more than that, but from a reliable source perspective, that's what it is. Generally, there's a presumption that fact-checking happens in newspapers whereas with the Table EE we know that fact-checking has not occurred. Some of the entries in the deaths in 2015 article were also cited to obituaries. I'm not sure whether or not those are reliable and that's something that should be brought up at RSN. Ca2james (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• ignorant (adjective): lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. ---> Your comment that "The general public doesn't care whether the GRG has verified someone's age or not" was just that. How do you know what the general cares about? I would like to think that people care about the accuracy of the Wikipedia articles that they are reading.
• How am I threatening to "engage on WP:POINTy behaviour"?
• Well DON'T presume anything! Firstly, I just demonstrated that newspapers often don't fact-check. Secondly, Table EE isn't just a few random names on a list - it's a list of cases for which there is at least some evidence to support their claim. Many do have enough documentation to be verified but need to be looked over. Even if "fact checking is not complete" it's far closer to complete than with many newspapers. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213, I understand that you're frustrated. From your perspective, it must seem that we're not getting what you see as obvious and that it seems like your project is being taken over by outsiders. I know it's hard to have people come in and tell you what you can and can't do. Even so, there's no call for rudeness or condescension. The thing is, this project has been working on its own for ages, and it was quite insular from the start and set up its own rules that didn't conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines - operating in the darkness, as it were - and it's time to shine the Wikipedia light on this project. The light is harsh, I know. I'm doing what I can to see your point of view and to work with you.

When I said that it seemed that you were threatening to engage in WP:POINTy behaviour, I was referring to your statement about taking every single newspaper reference for supercentenarian birth/death dates to RSN. I think the status of newspaper-written obituaries and articles for supercentenarian birth/death dates can be covered in one RSN post and family-written obituaries for them in another. Ca2james (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you felt I was being rude. But I was not making a personal attack.
• What I'm frustrated by is that you can't seem to understand my point of view. Ok, your point of view is this: newspapers are considered a reliable source in general, so why shouldn't they be reliable in this instance? And why should the GRG have to verify every entry, when this is Wikipedia, not the GRG? But my point is this: journalists writing news reports often don't ask questions. A lot of longevity claims turn out to be false, as I've demonstrated. There's really no way of telling whether or not a claim is genuine just from reading a news report. So, what's the value of a list full of some people whose ages are true and some whose ages might be true. This is a simple WP:Verifiability issue: readers should be able to know whether or not the age of any given entry is known to be true or if there is some doubt. Do you agree or not?
• "I think the status of newspaper-written obituaries and articles for supercentenarian birth/death dates can be covered in one RSN post and family-written obituaries for them in another." ---> My point here was that if Table EE is unreliable, then there's no way that newspaper reports are. This is what you and Ricky don't seem to be getting. Ollie231213 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• File the RFC if you want (sounds more like a discussion for WP:RSN). If not, drop the issue as it's only been argued for probably close to a decade here. To me, you're being intentionally disruptive to make some point here but that's my take. I don't think you're being rude. I think the WOP crowd has gotten so used to just speaking to themselves that Waenceslaus has this version of events that completely run counter to what everyone else sees. User:Waenceslaus is already threatening to take his views to ARBCOM and I suspect ARBCOM may just ban him as a result but there's no one to blame but Waenceslaus then. The truth is, 99.999% of the editors here don't care to waste time in any argument about whether we should dismiss newspaper articles as a source because people aren't going to let some Excel spreadsheet from some webpage of some organization be treated as gospel (especially when it's an argument about some subpart of the the GRG's results anyways) and to them, this line of thinking is purely disruptive to the vast, vast majority of what's done here. In the course of this entire time wastage, has anything you've argued for greatly affected a single article in the millions that are here? I see that you ignored the colors discussion once I asked you for an actual solution that solves the MOS problem. A real resolution would be helpful there but the crowd here doesn't care about listening to anyone else, they just want their colorized tables all to themselves. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please tell me exactly 1. What I am doing that is disruptive 2. What basis you have for thinking that I'm not acting in WP:GOODFAITH. I've explained my reasoning for continuing this discussion. Just because I'm not agreeing with you and doing what you say doesn't mean I'm being disruptive.
• The GRG is NOT just a "Excel spreadsheet from some webpage". It's a scientific organisation and it's quite clear to see from looking at media reports on (verified) supercentenarians that they are considered an authority on the subject of age verification. See This, this, and this for just a few examples.
• Your total lack of consideration for age verification is what is disruptive. It is not beneficial to the encyclopedia to have a mish-mash of cases thrown in to one list with no mention of whether or not their age has been proven to be true.
• I can't speak for the "crowd" and I apologise on their behalf for any disruptive edit-warring. Ollie231213 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Break

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

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

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

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

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

• What do you mean Table EE is "an anonymous, crowd-sourced table"? Why is it any different to Table E in that regard?
• I've already started a discussion at RSN on this issue.
• "On Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." ---> The whole point of this is so that readers can check if the information they are reading is true. This is why I've brought the issue up at RSN.
• Any definition of "verified" is ultimately arbitrary and dependent upon context, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. If the GRG lists a person as "verified", then why on earth can't Wikipedia say as much (i.e. these cases are considered verified by an international body such as the GRG). Just citing information to a source doesn't mean the source is using it as a web host. If NASA discover an exoplanet, and have verified that it exists, do we not mentioned that it is verified to exist on Wikipedia (as opposed to "unconfirmed")? Ollie231213 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Table E is also an anonymous, crowd-sourced table - and that could have been a reason for the community to find that it's not a reliable source. However, since the entries on that table have apparently been fact-checked by the GRG, the community decided that this fact-checking makes the table a reliable source.

For clarification, the RSN discussion you started is here. Thank you for starting that discussion.

You're still trying to say that verifiability on Wikipedia is the same thing as GRG's "verified" and they are not. Verifiability here means that the information is not original research, not that information is true.

I don't know if you noticed the changes I made to List of supercentenarians who died in 2015, but I did in fact note which entries had been verified by the GRG via a note. Referencing them to Table E would serve just as well for that purpose. As I've said elsewhere, I do see why verified entries should be noted, but the use of colour (which is against MOS:COLOUR and a table column seems UNDUE and WEBHOST to me... especially when members of this project won't include entries not from the GRG tables, and also want to include notations about which claims are pending. These articles are not just for the GRG to use to display only their data in their way; if the GRG wants to do that, they'd be better off doing that on a private wiki. Ca2james (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding: what you wrote at RSN didn't ask the question about whether these news articles were reliable sources for the List of articles but instead attempts to answer that question. I've added a tl;dr comment asking the question we need answered and giving the necessary background because many editors will not read such long posts. It is to everyone's benefit for as many uninvolved editors to weigh in on this issue as possible. Ca2james (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

break

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

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

No you don't. That kind of nonsense was what got WOP taken to ARBCOM in the first place. This project is a part of Wikipedia not the other way around. It's an accurate reflection of what the RSN discussion concluded. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see we're finally getting some long and overdue results in fixing up this mess of a project. That's a very bizarre attitude, Waenceslaus. Did you know that this Wikiproject nearly got shut down on day one because of it? CommanderLinx (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the best course of action would be to remove this project entirely. It is not helping Wikipedia to have a mouthpiece for an off-Wikipedia organisation. The amount of fanfluff and OR in pages started and edited almost entirely by members of this group is execrable. The attitude of most of its active members is typified by recent postings, they have either no intention or no ability to edit co-operativley and/or abide by many of Wiki's core policies and guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

We also need to better track these pages. We shouldn't be having GRG correspondents "maintaining" our pages as disclosed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oldest_people_in_Britain. That kind of COI needs to be dealt with more seriously than ARBCOM did in the past. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing about GRG correspondents maintaining pages on Wikipedia, only that particular website. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Colour in tables

• The use of colour in tables goes against MOS:COLOUR. Currently many of the tables use colour to denote verified/pending/other cases and this must be changed. Since pending will no longer be a designation, colours really aren't necessary. However, I do think it's valuable to note which of the entries in a table have been verified by the GRG; it just can't be done by colour. I can think of two solutions: split up the tables into verified and other cases, or denote verified cases with an asterisk instead of another column. Which do the members of this project prefer? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213, per [6], I've removed all pending entries from List of supercentenarians who died in 2014 and List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 - even those sourced to newspapers and obituaries.

I don't think removing the entries is the best thing to do but reverting the changes without an edit summary, as TFBCT1 has done, is not acceptable. Personally, I'd rather keep entries sourced to newspapers and obituaries because those are considered reliable sources whereas the GRG pending table is not. Newspapers are generally considered reliable because they usually engage in fact-checking whereas GRG table EE is a user-created list of entries that has not been fact-checked. Also, I think using primarily table E as a source for these articles is too much like the GRG using Wikipedia as a webhost. Therefore, I'm going to rework those pages to remove all entries sourced only to pending tables and the colours. Ca2james (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reworked List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 to remove colour, to remove anything sourced only to table ee, and to add a note showing which entries have been verified by the GRG. I'm not sure about the note being called GRG but I couldn't think of anything better; if someone wants to change its name or move it to a different place that's fine. However, please don't just revert the changes because you want things to be the way they were. The use of colour in that table and the use of table ee is not supported by the broader wikipedia community. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

....and it's been reverted without discussion. Honestly, I thought my new version of deaths in 2015 was much better than my first try, where I took out half of the article: only one entry was removed because it had no other source (which, since table ee is not considered a reliable source, that's what has to happen), all the inappropriate colour was removed, and there was still a way to see which entries were verified by the GRG. So 166.171.121.17, why did you revert my changes? What is your objection? Ca2james (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the GRG should have a separate tag but at the very least the tag should link to the reference and include the date of the reference (see here). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I see your point. I like the reference to the footnote. An alternative would be to just refer all verified listings to Table E and skip the footnote altogether. However, I do see some value in differentiating verified from non-verified listings - it's just that the extra column and use of colour create an UNDUE weight problem, in my mind. Ca2james (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Table E is what they are doing right now. It's a bizarre way to do because they seem to post updated spreadsheets and no archives (rather than say actual like papers or something) but we don't want to ignore it in case they change it and we need to use archive.org for some reason (for example, the GRG in 2007 included Thomas Peters as a verified claim but removed him by the 2014 version). No one has offered any explanation for that. There's no reason to care about non-GRG verified listings. It's not like we're just listing nonsense if the GRG doesn't agree. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

And where exactly did you guys gain consensus to make all these changes? Ollie231213 (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the current version violates the MOS doesn't matter? WP:BOLD then to fix these articles to fit in line with policy (actual policy not just what the WOP thinks of as policy). The consensus across all of Wikipedia is that color alone isn't a way to do things and local consensus here ignoring that doesn't change the matter. Are you just being argumentative now? Care to offer an opinion on how it should be done that does solve the MOS issues? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No one cares that you think the GRG isn't reliable. The GRG is the world's leading expert in longevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Striking troll. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please explain how any of these articles violate MOS:COLOUR. Let's actually quote the relevant guideline: "Do not use color alone to mark differences in text: they may be invisible to people with color blindness." It does NOT say that colour can't be used at all. Previously we've had articles like List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 colour-code verified and pending cases, but with a separate column stating whether cases are verified or pending. That doesn't violate MOS:COLOUR. Likewise, at List of the verified oldest people, living cases are colour-coded green, but the word "living" is included, so it's clear to everyone that they are still living. Using colour in these ways makes information more accessible to most users but does not prevent colour-blind users from accessing it.

So let me make it clear: it is a totally false assertion and misrepresentation of MOS:COLOUR to say colour can't be used in the way it currently is. Ollie231213 (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:COLOUR also says: Even for readers with unimpaired color vision, excessive background shading of table entries impedes readability and recognition of Wikilinks. Background color should be used only as a supplementary visual cue, and should be subtle (consider using lighter, less-dominant pastel hues) rather than a glaring spotlight. The use of colour in the tables is not at all subtle and is definitely a glaring spotlight - especially since the colours of the pending/verified/whatever cell are different than the background colour of the row. The fact that the colour didn't display properly when the table was sorted is also a problem. Finally, while I could see why colour might have been used when there were "verified", "pending", "not verified" entries, we will now only have to differentiate between "verified" and "not verified" so colour isn't needed for that.

The article List of the verified oldest people doesn't need colour, either (which again is not subtle, and which again does not display properly when the table is resorted), because the entry already says the person is living. Ca2james (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• What you consider "subtle" is a matter of opinion.
• I haven't noticed any issues when sorting tables but if there are I'm sure they can be fixed.
• Colour may not be "needed" (i.e. vital) but I find it helpful when reading the articles to see things colour-coded. Ollie231213 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. I can think of uglier colour combinations but honestly, the colouring used on the tables is not what most would call subtle. If the articles were for the GRG then I could see why you'd want to keep the colour as the colour makes it easier to see the which entries need action or need to be followed in the article. However, these articles aren't for the GRG, and encyclopaedia readers don't need to take action or keep track of who is living or validated or whatever. Ca2james (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• May I suggest something? How about we italicize the names that are living? We can keep the color if people want but I think that's a better to distinguish the living from the dead names. See these edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Italics works for me as long as it's ok from an accessibility standpoint. Ca2james (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note that all of the articles in Category:Lists of supercentenarians by country, Category:Lists of supercentenarians by continent, and lists by historical country and macroregion use colour only to define verified/pending/unverified as well as living/deceased. These articles need a significant amount of work to bring them up to WP standard. Ca2james (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The macro and historical ones are probably the worst offenders. Their "introductions" alone all need a massive re-write. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is plenty of work to do. It seems like each article has a bit of edit warring, then possible protection and then some silence. Let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

List of oldest people by nation listed at Requested moves

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

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

List of oldest living people by nation listed at Requested moves

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

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

List of ... naming

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

"I think it's more natural as people aren't really interested in everyone who was over 110 years and died then, they want the oldest people to die then (with 110 as a normal cut-off)." Ollie231213 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Supercentarians gives approximately 90k results while Oldest people gives about 101 million. Can we move on to the actual point? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

And if I type in "oldest people who died before 1980", the very first search result is the article above. But the number of results you get on Google search shouldn't be a factor in defining the content of Wikipedia articles. Having a mish-mash of verified, unverified, and centenarian cases would be a horrible mess. The topic of these articles are the oldest people in the world, not notable centenarians, for which there are separate articles. What's more, if we do what you propose then why shouldn't we have "oldest people who died in the 1970s", "oldest people who died in the 1920s", "oldest people who died in the 1750s" and so on. Where does it stop? It's better to have the cut off of 110 so that the numbers on these lists converges to zero if you keep doing them by year or by decade. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree on the cut-off, I'm asking about the title of the articles we currently have. You want to argue about whether we should include a guy who lived to 40 in a hypothetical "List of oldest people in 10000 BC" article, fine but let's start with 2015, I think a more natural title and more natural naming would be "List of the oldest people who died in 2015" than what it is. There's a reason we have "List of the oldest living persons" and not "List of the oldest living supercentarians", the second doesn't achieve anything more for the same point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Hi all, I have semi-protected the project page and the talk page for a month after the 166.X.X.X IP (previously blocked) started re-editing the main page. Hopefully this will not prevent many useful edits here; it appears that most of the regular users are autoconfirmed. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulleted list rather than tables

I wonder if we should re-organize these pages to remove some tables. If I were looking at say, List of Australian supercentenarians, I would prefer that we have a bulleted list on top of the living people (alphabetical order by last name as ranking it is nonsensical largely) with less details (just name and birth date is all that matters) and all footnotes at the end of each line. Then a possible table for all supercentenarians (or bulleted list) and then covert the chronological list into a series of paragraph biographies (like at List of Japanese supercentenarians but most of which are one line sentences at the moment). The biographies with more details can be fleshed out into separate articles down the line and referenced in other places. That allows for more working on the actual drafting of text and less on the movement of tables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See the idea for the biographies here. The overall list would need to be fleshed out further and then a shortened males list for the few that fit both. That'll provide some more coherent organization as discussions that go like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo and are just blatantly ignored is not a long term solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some of the tables can be removed from the articles, especially for articles have are basically just a list of tables. Converting the table of living supercentenarians into an alphabetical bulleted list makes sense. Are you thinking that the living entries should also be removed from other tables on that page? I think they should be removed, since the person's rank in the list of supercentenarians won't be determined until their death.

Looking at List of Australian supercentenarians, I'm thinking that the Chronological list of the oldest living person in Australia since 2007 table should be merged into the Australian supercentenarians table - or at least, the Chronological list should be made a bulleted list since information on the entries should be in the supercentenarians table. Ca2james (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessments

I'm a little confused about Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

Mid importance

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

Low importance

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

Discussion

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

Proposed table structure

moved from User talk:Ca2james#Proposed table structure Ca2james (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a proposed table structure for articles with tables to avoid the use of colour and to convey which organization has validated the entry. Ca2james (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that he validation of exceptional longevity is so much a scientific concept as a sociological one, but that's just me. According to the RSN discussion which refers to MOS, we have to note when the birth date is unconfirmed, which isn't the same thing as saying that an entry is unverified. So that's got to be inlcuded as well. So what about this:

Name	Sex	Birth date	Death date	Age	Place of death	Verified by
Gertrude Weaver	F	4 July 1898	6 April 2015	116 years, 276 days	United States	GWR
Anna De Guchtenaere	F	10 April 1904	6 April 2015	110 years, 361 days	Belgium	—
Orma Slack	F	19 February 1903	13 April 2015	112 years, 53 days	Canada	GRG
Made-up name	F	19 February 1900	11 April 2014	114 years, 51 days	New Zealand	My site
Another name	F	19 February 1903[n.c.]	13 April 2015	112 years, 53 days	Canada	—

• n.c.^ Birth date is unconfirmed

References

I don't know if the "n.c" note is sufficient or the best choice. This version of the table allows sorting based on who has verified the information and allows for the possibility that other groups may verify the information. I personally like leaving the entry blank if it's unverified (or just using an emdash as I've used above) so that it's clear that no one has verified it. What do you think? Ca2james (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"According to the RSN discussion which refers to MOS, we have to note when the birth date is unconfirmed, which isn't the same thing as saying that an entry is unverified." ---> Why not, what's the difference? It's not a bad idea to have a "verified by" column, although if we have a potentially dodgy source (like "my site" or whatever) then it will need to be discussed further and/or taken to RSN to establish if it's a reliable enough source for age verification. Alternatively, we could separate verified and unverified cases in to two separate tables - one with a "verified by" column giving the verifying body, and another which says "the ages of all the people in this table have not been verified by an international body". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Because verifying an entry involves more than just the birth date. It is true that an unconfirmed person-given birth date implies that the person's age is unverified; however, the opposite is not necessarily true as the person's birth date may be confirmed but their age may not be verified due to, say, a marriage certificate not yet being verified. Also, saying that a birth date is unconfirmed relates to the reference giving that birth date while saying that the person's age is verified relates to an external check. Therefore, marking unconfirmed birth dates as unverified does not reflect the true nature of the situation and is a form of WP:OR.

I don't think splitting the tables into verified and unverified is the right thing to do. Moreover, I think it's WP:OR to say that en entry is unverified just because neither the GRG nor the GWR has verified it, because that situation excludes the possibility that another organization has verified it and we just don't know that they've verified the age. Moreover, if another organization does verify ages (and it looks like they're out there), we can't definitively say that it'll be necessary to discuss their reliability at RSN. For example, at one point Boston University had a list of current authenticated supercentenarians (under See also). If that pdf was still available, we could certainly use it as a reference. If there's a disagreement between the GRG and this other organization, then that can be noted. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• "It is true that an unconfirmed person-given birth date implies that the person's age is unverified; however, the opposite is not necessarily true as the person's birth date may be confirmed but their age may not be verified due to, say, a marriage certificate not yet being verified." ---> I don't understand what you mean here. When you say "confirmed", do you mean "true"? Because yes, it's fair to say that just because someone doesn't have the documents to verify their age, it doesn't necessarily mean that their claim is false. But, without evidence, there's no way of being sure.

• I also don't understand what you mean when you say "Therefore, marking unconfirmed birth dates as unverified does not reflect the true nature of the situation and is a form of WP:OR." But if the birth date is unconfirmed, then they aren't verified, and vice versa.

• "I think it's WP:OR to say that en entry is unverified just because neither the GRG nor the GWR has verified it..." ---> If we can't any source saying they're verified then I think we have to assume they aren't. I think it's a greater violation of WP:OR to speculate otherwise. And to be honest, I don't think there are many organisations other than the GRG, GWR, and the IDL that deal with supercentenarian verification. None that I know of certainly. The link you gave above was only a one-off study by the looks of it.

• To be honest, before we take this discussion any further, I'm wondering whether to nominate this article for deletion (along with all other "list of supercentenarians who died in year X" articles) and see if the wider community is in favour of keeping them. The reason for this is that I am questioning the value of such articles... they seem to be little more than directories of news reports and are quite trivial. I could see a little more value if only validated cases were included... you could discern data such as mortality rate, growth of numbers over time, etc. But including unvalidated cases changes that. Again, this kind of article seems something of greater interest to supercentenarian "fans" than the general public. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't only the "Deaths in" articles that need restructuring: all of the tables in the List of articles need restructuring. The table I've proposed will work for all of them, including the country- and region-specific articles and the overall "oldest people" "oldest living people" etc tables. Therefore, I see no reason to pause this discussion.

I guess I didn't explain very well why "unverified" can't be used instead of noting that the birth date is unconfirmed. If there is an unconfirmed birth date, then the person's age is unverified. That's a true statement, right? A person's age can't be verified if the birth date is unconfirmed. So now let's represent the statement logically. Let A represent the statement "there is an unconfirmed birth date" and let B represent the statement "the person's age is unverified". We can now represent the words with If A, then B, or even more succinctly, A → B. When you say But if the birth date is unconfirmed, then they aren't verified, and vice versa, the "vice versa" part is represented by If B, then A, or B → A, which is a logical fallacy. A listing can be unverified for several reasons, not just the birth date, and so saying that the listing is unverified does not accurately show that the birth date is uncertain. If we know that the birth date is uncertain because the person said it themselves in their obit, then we need to say that instead of just saying that the listing is unverified.

And as I've said above, I prefer that entries not verified by the grg or gwr be left blank or with an emdash instead of saying they're unverified. Ca2james (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• But in this context, "unverifed" is only referring to the birth date/age, not any other aspect of the listing, and we could make it clear as such. Alternatively, we could use the term "validated" which is often used interchangeably with "verified" in this field, but has a different meaning on Wikipedia. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just remember that the reliable sources discussion deemed obituaries as unreliable sources for birth dates/ages. And news reports should be the same. Therefore, if you're going to list someone who is not known to be verified by an internationally recognised body with only an obituary/news report as a citation, then you need to make it clear that their age is not confirmed (or they are not validated), and I think it's clearer to explicitly state "not validated" than to just put a dash. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Unverified means that the documents have not been checked. An unconfirmed birth date means that the person-supplied birth date may not be reliable. They are different things we cannot use "not verified" to mean "the birth date may not be reliable" as it's logically false and misleading to equate the two.

What RSN discussion are you reading? The discussion I opened regarding family- or person-written obituaries has deemed that these obituaries are reliable for death dates and may be used for birth dates provided that a note is made indicating that the birth date is unconfirmed or unattested. That's quite different than saying that obituaries are unreliable for birth and death dates. The same situation is probably true for newspaper-written obituaries but I'd rather see the uninvolved community make that decision.

The reason I think it's better to put a dash or leave a blank space is that there's no source for saying that a person's age has not been verified (or validated or whatever). Just because the GRG or GWR hasn't verified an age doesn't mean that the age hasn't been verified by another organization. Just remember that it's better to have no information in a table than incorrect or misleading information. Leaving it blank (or an emdash just to put something in the cell) makes it clear that the age has not been validated by an organization. Ca2james (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• If someone's age is "verified" (by definition, confirmed to be true) then their birth date is confirmed... and vice versa. So I'm failing to understand what your point is here.
• "...deemed that these obituaries are reliable for death dates and may be used for birth dates provided that a note is made indicating that the birth date is unconfirmed or unattested. That's quite different than saying that obituaries are unreliable for birth and death dates." ---> Again, I don't understand what your point is. I never said anything about death dates (there's no reason to think they would be wrong) but if a note needs to put next to a birth date taken from an obituary to say "this birth date is unconfirmed" then then how can that obituary be considered a reliable source for that birth date?
• Ok, I understand your third point...but again, this makes me wonder why we don't either keep validated and unvalidated cases separate, or not include any cases that aren't known to be validated by any major body. Because let me ask you this: what's the upper limit for unvalidated claims? Do we add in someone who dies at the claimed age of 170, even though they clearly aren't that old? Because even though their claim is clearly false, at the end of the day, there's no less evidence supporting a claim like that than an unvalidated claim to 110. How do you decide, arbitrarily, which claims to let through and which to reject, without engaging in WP:OR? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving this discussion to the WOP talk page or at least making sure there's a link to the history here in case people need to refer to it later. Just a small suggestion but I would use "Sources" for the final column than "Verified". Verified has little meaning here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; as you can see, I've moved this sub-section in its entirety to WT:WOP so that all members of this project and other interested editors are aware of the discussion and can comment.

I agree that "Verified by" isn't the best column header but I'm not sure about "Sources", either, since to me, "sources" are references, and the purpose of that column is to indicate which organization has validated the person's age. However, I can't think of a better header. Something with "Validated" in it, maybe? Something like "Validating agency?" I'm all ears. Ca2james (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I've already made it clear above that the validation of exceptional longevity is a scientific concept accepted for 140+ years, and that there are several organisations (not just the GRG) that validate longevity claims. You're failing to understand Wikipedia's core policies, which forbid original research and require Wikipedia to reflect the mainstream consensus outside Wikipedia. The mainstream consensus for both the scientific view and the "sociological" view (you could argue that GWR is a culturally accepted arbiter of human longevity) is that extraordinary age claims require age verification/validation. So, you can't continue to insist that age validation/verification doesn't mean much on Wikipedia. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is there are no "levels" of sources. There are reliable sources and there aren't. The fact that the GRG has verified them is expressed in that the GRG's sources are listed as a citation. I don't see what is gained by a separate "verified" column other than treating the GRG (and Guiness or whoever) as somehow a "better" level of sources than most sources. Let's just host a RFC on the formatting since it's probably something that could use some outside eyes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's completely wrong to say that all sources carry equal weight. Read WP:QUESTIONABLE. "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." ---> So, Wikipedia policy says that extraordinary claims require stronger sources. It's clear when it says "reliable sources must be strong enough" that, no, reliable sources are not all the same weight in value. And again, to completely disregard the need for age validation is to not show appreciation for scientific consensus outside of Wikipedia. Read this 1919 article by Alexander Graham Bell. What does this say? "Ann Pouder...the oldest human being of whose birth we have authentic record." Even in 1919 - that is 96 years ago - experts in human longevity spoke of authentic proof of birth, and recognised the need for age validation. Wikipedia should reflect this. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)