Talk:List of oldest cats

Using primary documents as "proof"

I've reverted the restoration of Poon, the cat whose documentation consisted solely of papers uploaded to Commons by an editor here. "Reliable sourcing" means that the source must have been published, and these veterinary records were not published anywhere. And because they haven't been published, I don't see how they can support inclusion on this list. There's also the question of authenticity. When the cat was first added to the article, the documentation was a scan of a hand-written 5-page document that proved (if it proved anything at all) that the cat was still alive in 2006. But now, that evidence has been augmented with a sixth page, the additional page being a scan of a computer-generated piece of paper. Is it authentic? I'm sure the uploader will say that it is. But how do we really know? I think we'll need to see some reliable sourcing before Poon is added back to the list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we can't use primary sources. Another problem is, how do we know that cats reported as being a particular age several years ago are still alive? The table assumes that they are unless it has been reported otherwise, but how do we know that this cat, for instance, is still alive? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't. The statistic of interest should be called something like "Last known age". And of course, that column should not be using the automatically-adjusting {{age in years}} template. Is there any objection to me making that change? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not from me; that sounds like a good plan. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: Go fur it :P Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Will the jokes get better if I do a good job of it? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

sadly no, the article's a cat-tastrophe Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! I've set you up for two bad jokes in a row. I think I better paws to reconsider. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive newness here...

I would submit that the newspaper and other referenced links for most of these cats do not substantiate age either. In court, this kind of evidence would be considered "hearsay" rather than direct proof. Simply because a journalist reports what an owner says does not make the statement more true than a primary document claiming the same data (date of birth, in this case).

If I had to choose between direct documentation and an indirect source such as a newspaper article, I'd vote for direct documentation, even with the small possibility of forgery. If forged documents have been a real issue on Wikipedia, then perhaps some documentation standards could be developed.

For full disclosure, I'm the one who uploaded Poon's documents, which were original veterinary records that my wife kept from the time she picked up Poon from the Hong Kong animal shelter in 1997 until her most recent vet visit in Maine last year. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, though worked as an editor for the Annals of Emergency Medicine for many years, so understand the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistEscape (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The relevant standard here is explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability, ArtistEscape. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Larry. I just read the guidelines and they help clear things up for me. For what its worth, based on the verifiability standard, I think many of the references in the existing "oldest cats list" are insufficient. ArtistEscape (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)