Talk:Oldest people

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

"live longer then men" should be changed to "live longer than men"

99.241.102.71 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@99.241.102.71:  Done NottNott talk|contrib 17:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that the phrasing be changed to "women live longer than men, on average".--184.58.31.41 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I agree, it also corresponds better with the section it links to. Gap9551 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah a fraud actual age 97

Lucy Hannah is a complete fraud and the GRG knows it. They refuse to remove her even though there is overwhelming evidence she was an impostor who took another persons identity to claim government benefits early. Age 117 no way. Age 97 is the correct age at death. Come on GRG own up to this and remove her. It is insulting to have a fraud in the top 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.49.5 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of oldest living people

Oldest people has long had an arbitrary Top 10 list of this article, which itself is a roughly Top 50 list of oldest people. This creates an unnecessary duplication of lists. Since the Top 10 are all women, men have been arbitrarily excluded from the Oldest people page, which presenting the Top 50ish solves.

I have completed a merge of the Top 50ish list into where the Top 10 list was before in Oldest people. No loss of data or info happens with this. Only the spinout article with just the top 50ish list turns into a redirect.

Oldest people is a more natural page title then List of oldest living people. Presenting the oldest ever recorded people near the oldest living also facilitates cross checking the lists as people age or die. Naturally the List of oldest living people will become a section specific redirect. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This obsession with merging everything into one list, or even one article, is counter-productive to readability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support As I stated at the related Afd this would seem to be entirely consistent with "readability" and simplified navigation for our readers. The main article is not too big to accommodate this list as one of the centrepieces of Oldest people, and readers can find everything in one main article. Also, if the main article can accommodate a list of "100 verified oldest people" why can't it house the 50 oldest living, too? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

For that matter - if 10 oldest living were a key part of the article, why not 50? If 50 are too many we can cut the list down in either location. No one cares about the 47th tallest or fattest or fastest living person on earth for example. Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide the link to that AfD? I wasn't able to find it. aremisasling (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose These are different - and should remain separate. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

So are you proposing to remove all the Oldest living people from the Oldest people article? Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose @Shawn: In the first place I am a reader! When this article is merged it will be much more difficult to follow all the changes. I want

the oldest living people in a seperate article. And Legacypac, when you don't care about Nr. 47, what the hell are you doing here? Every time I come here I find another action from you trying to delete something and destroying structures that worked for years now. If there is something bad sourced, remember sometimes bad sources are the best to get. But Oldest living people isn't bad sourced, it's completely sourced. And it can be linked from oldest people, so your natural page title argument doesn't count. Please stop changing everything only to change anything.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Who is arguing about sources? The ArbComm case shows that there needs to be a restructure and simplification of Longevity. Join the effort instead of fighting change. Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please link to the ArbComm case as well. My apologies I'm not used to digging up all of these AfD's and ArbComm cases and I suspect other editors may be in the same boat. It would be helpful to understand what was decided if we could find the discussion. aremisasling (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is supposed to be a pool of information. Why do people keep on insisting content relating to longevity be removed from Wikipedia? It is a never ending battle to keep these articles intact and consistent with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crveni5 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I'm suggesting is that where possible, information be 'pooled' in one place. But again, there seems to be very strong feelings based on past Afds, I suppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support But there's clearly not enough support for this. Suggest putting this into an RFC and following the requirements at WP:RFC and getting broader community output. There is a few obscure topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, oppose. Both articles could use more context and explanation with content from Longevity claims and the like to distinguish between living individuals who aren't listed there for whatever reason and people who died but aren't listed in the overall numbers for whatever reason. That becomes impossible with a merged article unless you just want to have tables and nothing more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I've followed these lists for years, and the recent amalgamation of oldest people ever with oldest people living is confusing and unnecessary. They should remain separate articles. As stated by others above, there seems to be a recurring desire on the part of exclusionists to make sure that useful and interesting information on longevity is removed from Wikipedia. Can you please find something else to work on that adds useful content to Wikipedia? // Internet Esquire (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You realize the Top 10 have been in the Oldest people article all along and you are fighting to keep out the next forty? If the merge is not allowed to stay, the Oldest living people will be removed completely from Oldest people with just a link provided. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note List of oldest living people has been fully protected to stop the back and forth edit warring. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• The living list has been removed from Oldest people to satisfy the people who reject that information there. I don't expect that it will be restored in whole or part as editors insist it should live on standalone page. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose User merged some lists without consensus and has no grounds for this. The lists are not the same and merging will cause loss of information. 930310 (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose If it is a suggestion to merge the lists, why has the merger occurred before the suggestion was discussed? This is not a suggestion but a change forced upon the people against their will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crveni5 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Merging mutiple lists into a single page would negatively affect the readability and usefulness of the list. Also, trying to merge the lists before a consensus has been reached displays a lack of respect for the policies that exist on Wikipedia. Bodgey5 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is no need to have several articles where oldest living people are listed. Listing them in the article Oldest people is enough, that's why I'm trying to blank this article and redirect it to Oldest people, why do other users always revert me? No need to revert me! BjörnBergman 12:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Because you are contravening Wiki guidelines by attempting to implement a redirect during an ongoing discussion. And you are not the only one. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

If you ignore the GRG fanclub and follow policy, we would have the redirect done. I like User:Ricky81682's idea of an RfC to pull in more well rounded editors. Maybe Ricky will draft one. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There is considerable disagreement at present with the mergers that have been made with respect to wiki policy, not all of which is in agreement with your stance. Broad-brushing the opposing viewpoint as a 'fan club' and suggesting they are merely in the way of a particular vision for a page with respect to wiki policy is unhelpful to the discussion. aremisasling (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm supportive of some sort of change to reduce some of the redundancy, but just jamming the articles together, to several other people's points, negatively impacts the readability of the page. Originally I didn't speak up on it, though I was opposed. But upon seeing the merged version I'm more vocally against it. If we are to make an attempt to solve the problem it needs to be a smarter solution than this. The edit war that is brewing over this certainly needs to be abated. I'm aware Wikipedia is not a democracy and we are charged with being bold, but the vast majority of respondents to this proposal have been vocally opposed. At the very least it merits further discussion before it's completely reworked. aremisasling (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added an RFC (it's my first go round with an RFC so hopefully I've gotten it about right). I've made an effort to be neutral and fair in my language. My apologies if anyone feels that is not the case. Being as there is an ongoing conversation and a definite lack of consensus on the merge, I would suggest that no more mergers or major changes be undertaken until we can get further input and come to some consensus. aremisasling (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to start an RfC. Unfortunately it's too vaguely worded without a clear proposal to get a clear result in my opinion. This topic has many years of history and is under ArbComm sanctions because of editor behavior. It would be inappropriate to broadly stop the rationalization efforts to bring it within Wikipedia policy because mythical consensus is very unlikely. See [1] and [2] for recent examples, and there are quite a few others who have been blocked too.

Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I get your sentiment and your intent, but I feel you're being grossly heavy handed here. And as far as I can tell the closest we have to consensus is overwhelmingly opposed to the actions you're taking and by many more than the ones you and others have proposed for sanctions. This is not one or two POV editors, this is the vast majority of those commenting. And I've read 930310's Arbitration request. It seemed very much like while the conclusion was against him, all but one of the people who commented felt your behavior was out of line. I would take that as a sign you should at least temper your activity a bit and offer more than an hour or two on the RfC before calling it dead and continuing on your merry way. There is no screaming urgency for making every change you see fit immediately over all of the dissenting voices. aremisasling (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of my proposed changes have been implemented including deleting a number of articles here. I'm only looking to present an accessible, easy to follow, accurate presentation of the topic. It was none of those things when I started on this project, even after other editors had been trying to clean it up for years. I've now been subjected to trolls mimicking my account and vandalizing Wikipedia, which suggests my efforts are making some headway on the problems. I'm not calling your RfC dead, I gave my considered opinion on it's structure - an opinion that I'm confident other editors will share based on my experience in other contentious areas. Please take a good look around at the issues here before lecturing me please. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've taken quite a good look at a number of pages involved in your recent edits. All I'm looking for is some measure of moderation in at the very least the rate at which you are implementing what is fundamentally a complete overhaul of the longevity section, justified or not, keeping in mind there is both active talk page discussion and an RfC involved. I feel as though a vast number of actions have been taken with input requested post-facto and generally disregarded. Those who were engaged with have been frequently subjected to arbitration to the point I'm hesitant to even post here for fear I'll be labelled as some form of violator of one wiki policy or another and topic banned. I want it to be accessible, easy to follow, and accurate as well as you do, but there has to be a middle ground between doing nothing and burning it to its foundations, rebuilding on a singular vision, and requesting formal reprimand of large numbers of dissenters. aremisasling (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of deletion

Not on point here. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 and express yourselves there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 is nominated for deletion? The years of the other lists not? What is the sense of such a behaviour? Is someone paid here for nomination for deletion of supercentenarians articles? Just discuss, please.--37.4.93.114 (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Since you started editing today, only in this topic area, and already found your way to the Project and AfD pages with strong opinions, would you mind telling us which editor you are normally? Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Firstly, Wikipedia does not require someone to have an account to edit. Secondly, editing as an IP is fine for someone to do so long as they aren't doing so to dodge a ban or for the sake of sockpuppetry. If you suspect either of those, I suggest having a check user ran. More likely than not, it is someone who has an account and just doesn't realize they are editing while logged out. And as long as they aren't making detrimental edits or building a faux consensus on a vote or something, that's perfectly fine. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Page Merge RFC

It had been noted that there was some redundancy and maintenance inconsistencies between several longevity related lists including the list this talk page belongs to as well as List of the verified oldest people and others. There is some disagreement with the merger of several of these lists and a suggestion that the discussion be broadened has been proposed. In addition to the thumbs up/thumbs down options on the merger, there may be alternative ways to resolve this discussion that have not yet been considered. aremisasling (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There is already a straw poll for this merger above. We don't need duplication. I'd suggest this be closed until the other is settled or close that one and open it up to a bigger discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Several people in that straw poll indicated interest in an RfC in part because there have been suggestions that the parties involved can't, by themselves, come to a reasonable consensus. My apologies for not being aware of Wikipedia procedure in terms of RfC's, straw polls, and the like as I am an occasional editor and not frequently more deeply involved in Wikipedia mechanics. What is needed is outside input into this whole matter in a forum directly related to the discussion and not tangential to it, regardless of the format. There have been numerous here-and-there arbitrations, bans, and ANI's associated with this, but I've seen little commentary directly in the discussion from anyone else regarding this subject outside of the long-time editors of the Longevity articles and a small handful of recent editors to the topic. If there is a better way to get some outside input involved in this discussion I fully support that. But given several statements regarding the insufficient nature of the above straw poll, closing this out with no alternative in its place in favor of reverting to said poll would be essentially sweeping it under the rug. aremisasling (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite new to this topic as well, only interested in seeing the articles restructured to be verifiable and usable. While the attempt is appreciated, the RfC as structured is not focused on a specific proposal so I can't see any clear outcome emerging from it. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to add the RFC template that's at top of this page to get it to be a formal RFC. Otherwise it's considered informal and only based on people who see this page and are notified here. See WP:RFC. It'll then populate to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies and the like for a broader perspective. If Aremisasling doesn't mind, I'd suggest moving this to the above section since it's already being done there and closing this. Aremisasling, I cann't see why you would object, especially given the way the results of that are going already. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections. aremisasling (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

When you will have finished your "restructuring" there will nothing usable be left.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please stop building pages that fail Wp:LISTN Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

As a result of persistently disruptive behavior by User:Legacypac I have initiated a ANI discussion. Posting here and other relevant talk pages in the hopes of getting a balanced response. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

amazingly the editor filing the aaa I continues to make counter changes without the discussion being assessed. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And no surprise at all that you are continuing to throw out petty, unfounded accusations such as this every time you get reverted. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

do you dispute that the tables are entirely from one source? Do you dispute that GRG connected editors are major contributors to this article? If so, show where these tags are incorrect. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously. There are currently 7 sources not 1. And exactly who do you think is connected to the GRG, and how? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

RS confirming Mrs Smith was 111 when she died are very secondary to the presentation of entire lists copied from a single source. There is only one source for the list. Editors that exclusively edit with a GRG is the only authority (especially if that is their only area) are evidently COI. Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What rubbish! yet more evidence that your contribution in this area is biased and unnecessary. You've claimed that there is a single source which is incorrect: 7 is not 1, whether they are secondary sources or not is irrelevant. You can claim the article is "largely" from a single source, but not "entirely". And just because an editor updates this article does not make it COI, such an update requires no involvement with the GRG whatsoever. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you dispute that these lists by definition must mirror the current GRG lists? Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion I agree that there should be a source used other than GRG for the lists. I have tagged two of the tables as needing additional sources that are not as primary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

GRG verification Not Required

when we have good RS we do not need GRG stamp of approval before adding a name. [3] Edits like this demonstrate allegiance to GRG agenda rather then WP guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

To this point, we DO need age-verification from a group specializing in this subject. If you want to change what is a fundamental part of these pages, get consensus to do so. You do not yet have it. A good recent example of why we need this is the recent New York Times-reported claim from the U.S. military (both claimed to be "reliable sources" that Emma Didlake, at 110, was the country's oldest living veteran, born in 1905. Well, guess what? Research by GRG indicates she was probably born in 1904, underlining why we go to sources like GRG for verification, not newspapers or other media outlets which most often simply report a claimed age. The New York Times is an example of a news outlet which ROUTINELY cites a person's age. On the Iran hostage release: "...Mr. Rezaian, a 39-year-old Californian who became the Washington Post’s bureau chief in Tehran in 2012..." Do we conclude, from this report, that the New York Times sent their crack team of genealogists to scour the records to confirm that Mr. Rezaian is indeed 39? Or did they just take that information no doubt supplied at face value?

Why are we even having this silly debate anyway? Canada Jack (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree the debate is beyond silly. Zhou Youguang's life has been extensively documented since he created Pinyin. If he is not 110 (born 1906) then biographical details like "Zhou enrolled in St. John's University, Shanghai, in 1923 (age 17) where he majored in economics and took supplementary coursework in linguistics. He left during the May Thirtieth Movement of 1925 and transferred to Guanghua University, from which he graduated in 1927. (age 21)" are all false. Can we at least try to follow WP:V here? Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You've not answered the question, Legacy - who has verified his age? You have cited REPORTS he was born that year, but I see nothing so far that says "we at news agency xx have verified that he is in fact 110 years old..." or what have you. Indeed, from your response, all we've seen is that YOU personally have confirmed his age, which is clearly POV. Canada Jack (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)