Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

RFC: Should the world's oldest living people tables identify that their claim has been validated?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There should be no greater weight given to one reliable source over another. If it's reliable enough for inclusion, then no special designation is needed beyond that. If the source is not reliable enough to count as verified, then its information should not be included in the article.--Aervanath (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the table identifying the world's oldest living people separately identify which claims have been validated by particular sources? There are various suggestions but we should have a single discussion section here with all views expressed. One suggestion is for a Separate "verified by" column so that we can separately identify "regular" reliable sources from sources that have "verified" the claim. Alternatively, claims that have been verified can be given a separate note. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconsistency but it's been called "validated" and "verified" in so many formats so that may be a separate discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Separate verified by column

• Support If the longevity claimant's age has been validated (i.e. proven to be true) by an internationally recognised body - such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), Guinness World Records, the International Database on Longevity (IDL), etc., then it should be indicated as such in the "verified by" column, with the citation to the relevant organisation in this column. Verified entries in the tables can still be sourced to other reliable sources such as newspapers. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support A distinction should be made between scientific organisations specialised in the field of gerontology and "any other reliable sources" such as, say, The New York Times, which do not trace legal documents to verify claims; there is a difference between claiming to be a certain age and having been verified by an external, scientific source - not per se the GRG, as Ollie231213 has also noted - to be of that age. In doing so, Wikipedia - an encyclopedic organisation - would educate its readers about the true maximum human life span. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this also apply to biography articles and everywhere else? Should there be categories for "verified by the GRG" biography articles? Or are we again at the "the birth and death dates of very old people is just a special, special kind of information that newspapers just can't get"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Striking it. Not going to go there with this reasoning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support It is important that the level of reliability for the listed people's supposed ages are the same. If not it will give an inaccurate picture to the uninitiated reader. Organizations such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) or the International Database on Longevity (IDL) require thorough evidence on the ages of these people. A random list of people who are supposedly aged 120+ years or a newspaper mentioning a person being 119 years old does not have the same level of reliability. Furthermore I would propose that in order for a person to be listed as "verified" here on Wikipedia there should be documentation that is on the same level as the requirements listed by the IDL.

Please read them and see what they say regarding full validation:

1. Early life documentation such as a birth or christening record or an early census is required
2. The date of death must be supported by either a death record or a mention in a death index

That is not something that, I believe, is unreasonable to require as minimum level in order to list someone as having a verified age here on Wikipedia. 930310 (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be reasonable for whatever GRG's purposes are, but here at WP, while controversy is discussed where necessary, we don't have "levels of reliability" based on blind reliance on one source over others, especially where the "position" of one of the sources (GRG) may be simply "the old person's family hasn't sent us certain documents, or we haven't had time to review them yet [1]". EEng (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The comment that you quoted was my personal opinion and at the time I did not know if that was the reason why the case was delayed. I admit that it was badly worded on my behalf and I should probably have substituted the word "time" with "possibility". I do not claim to be the GRG's official spokesman in any way. 930310 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but the fact remains there are plenty of reasons that qualified people might not be on GRG's lists, and as mentioned elsewhere on this page GRG itself says their lists include only some 10% of those eligible. EEng (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That is because not everybody has the documentation that is required to back up their claim or that they want to be anonymous or that they do not know about the GRG. So one person might be 117 years old, just as they claim, but then another person who claims to be 117 might turn out to be 96. So in order to have a reliable list of people who actually have lived to the age they claim documentation is necessary. 930310 (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what the reasons are. GRG's lists are incomplete, and there are other sources that can reliably report a person's age. GRG has no monopoly. EEng (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Internationally recognized bodies - such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), Guinness World Records, the International Database on Longevity (IDL), etc., should be indicated as such in the "verified by" column, with the citation to the relevant organization in the column. The information will in fact improve the article and help the article stand up to scrutiny as exceptional claims of age require exceptionally reliable sources, of which the group of international recognized bodies represents. Mabidex (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate note

No separation

• Support. If the GRG or any other reliable sources have listed a person's birth and death dates that would qualify them for our tables, they should be included with all sources treated exactly the same. My personal preference is that for living people, all sources follow the birth date (I'd prefer no tables there as ranking them is odd) and for dead people, follow the age. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There are two issues here: reliable sourcing and validation status. From a reliable sourcing standpoint, every source used in these articles should be of equal strength as they're all being used to support the extraordinary claim that a person is a supercentenarian. Highlighting the GRG source does make it appear to be a "super-source" or "extra-reliable" but it should be no more reliable than any other source used to support information in the tables. Regarding validation status, I don't see that including it adds encyclopaedic information to the articles. Anything referenced to the GRG or similar agency has to have been validated, and all other sources must be at least as strong as the verified GRG tables (ie equivalent to being validated) since any claim of supercentenarian status is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sourcing. Therefore, indicating the validation status is moot. Ca2james (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A source is reliable or it isn't. There should be no distinction among reliable sources used to verify a statement. To separate between the GRG and "other reliable sources" would be to give undue weight to the GRG's tables. ~ Rob^Talk 15:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support This argument only seems necessary in a case where an unreliable source gets an age wrong or is flat out lying - couldn't the talk page be used to verify whether the information we put on here is accurate? Seems like separating these sources is an unnecessary extra step. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Recognition of so-called "validation" is really a back-door way of writing a special status for GRG into WP rules, endorsing GRG's particular standards (must have Document A or B, plus two of X, Y, or Z, plus a photo id, or whatever) as the "right" ones. Further, this would implicitly set GRG up as a worldwide gatekeeper for certain facts about living persons‍—‌every oldster must submit documents to GRG, or they don't count (at least in Wikipedia). Some bizarre and distasteful situations have arisen as a direct result of GRG's insistence on this special status for itself (for example this one [2] and this one [3][4]) and personally I wouldn't want to send any of my relatives' personal documents to these people.

  Later addition: There's a very telling post elsewhere on this page [5] in which it is said, "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." See, that's the point—if the New York Times says that someone is 112, in a way that makes us believe they are reporting this as fact and not just the person's claim, then WP will be reporting it too, without waiting for GRG to get their act together. 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification I am not, nor do I claim to be, the GRG's spokesman, so using me to represent the GRG gives an inaccurate picture of the organization. This post was only me voicing my personal opinion since I did not know what reason it was that was keeping this case from being verified. If we substitute the word "time" with "possibility" it gives a better reflection of what I was trying to say. 930310 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains we have no idea how GRG works internally or the timeliness of their work. EEng (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The heart of the long conflict over longevity is that some want WP to be a sort of database of "scientifically validated" information as a basis for research (or something like that‍—‌it's hard to tell). Scientific researchers will get their data from scientific sources, according to their own needs and standards‍—‌not from WP.

One can imagine a situation in which a particular source (or class of sources) is acknowledged as authoritative, for example in an area of historical research in which "the dust has settled". A dynamic database of living (or recently deceased) people, with new evidence coming in all the time from a variety of sources, is the polar opposite of such a situation.

EEng (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Other suggestions

• An alternative suggestion (one I'm thinking mainly would be good for List of oldest living people) is to have two separate tables, one of which is a ranked list of oldest people according to the GRG, and another which is an unranked list of other cases which have been reported on by other sources. We have one reliable source, the GRG's Table E, which has a ranked list of the oldest living people in the world. We then have a variety of other sources like newspaper reports that report on other claimants individually. WP:NPOV requires that we represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If we have one reliable source (which is reputable and considered an authority on this subject) that has a ranked list, then Wikipedia can't just simply overrule it and create its own list. The best way to fairly represent all viewpoints is to have the two separate tables. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Ranked lists have the inherent special property that they not only state that Persons P1, P2, P3... are A1, A2, A3... years old, but are also implicitly stating that every one of the remaining billions of earthlings have lower ages. Now that's an extraordinary claim, and while we may be able decide that a certain source is reliable for the claim that a particular person is a particular age, it's quite a different problem to decide that a source is reliable for excluding everyone else from being that old.

Thus I'm not sure we should be reporting lists of "oldest people" at all, at least not described as, flatly, "List of oldest people in the world" or whatever, because that implies there's a single source willing to synthesize that information for us, and that we really believe can do that reliably. GRG claims to have that status, but it's a small volunteer organization whose internal workings we don't understand and whose ongoing stability we can't predict. I can see us deciding to believe their conclusions that particular persons really were born on particular dates, but I don't see any way to convince ourselves that they are able to exclude everyone else.

We might be able to talk ourselves into "List of people with reported ages above X years" (where reported means, as always, reliably reported per WP:V, including any special provisos needed to address the extraordinary nature of such claims). This would give no special status to such claims just because they come from GRG or any other particular source -- if the extraordinary-claim WP:V bar is met, the person is listed. People can click the button to sort the list if they want, and that would find the highest reported age which passes the WP:V standards just mentioned, but we shouldn't be saying, explicitly, who's oldest except if we have a source that says that specific thing -- and says it reliably according to the standards needed for such an extra-extraordinary claim.

If the NYT or AP says, flat out, that Person X is the oldest in the world, then I'm sure they have a really good reason for saying so. Perhaps they believe the GRG? I don't know and I don't care‍—‌if it's good enough for NYT or AP, it's good enough for me. But given my reservations just mentioned about GRG itself, I think that even it we accept their claims that various people are very old, we should not be accepting their implicit claim that everyone else isn't very old, unless a conventional RS, meeting the extra-extraordinary V test, passes that claim on to us. (And even then if NYT says, "Oldest according to GRG", we'd somehow repeat that qualification in our list.)

This isn't the most focused post I've ever make, but I hope it gets my point across. EEng (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Read what the GRG has written on its website: "The total number Supercentenarians that we have cited above has been frequently been misconstrued in the news media as representing every single person in the world aged 110 and over. The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between 300 - 450 persons. For the USA, we predict something like 60 - 75 Supercentenarians. While the total number of validated cases cited above is only about ten percent of the suspected real-world total, it should also be noted that the bulk of the true Supecentenarians actually fall between 110 - 113 years old; hardly any ever survive to live past 115. (Our estimate of 300 - 450 persons is based on a survival percentage of centenarians-to-age-110 to be between 0.15 - 0.25 percent.) It should be noted that a significant majority of worldwide claimants to be age 110-or-over have subsequently been proven to be false; these individuals and more often their family or friends have their own personal motives for claiming these persons and, we are sad to report, are occasionally disingenuous (not well-intentioned)." ---> So, the GRG is not claiming that every single person below #50 is younger than #50. But what they are say is that the top 50 on their list is the top 50 people whose ages are proven to be true. There's a difference in science between what is true and what is verifiably true. In this particular field, it's impossible to create a full, comprehensive list of the true oldest people in the world because there's so much fraud, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother - and it doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't bother either. It's just a question of distinguishing what is "validated" and what is "unvalidated". See my post below for more. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Something GRG said that you just quoted is so important I'm gonna bold it here:

the total number of validated cases [listed by GRG] is only about ten percent of the suspected real-world total

That means there's abundant opportunity for other sources to reliably report names not on GRG's lists. EEng (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and there's another thing that I just quoted which is even more important but you decided to completely ignore: "It should be noted that a significant majority of worldwide claimants to be age 110-or-over have subsequently been proven to be false" ---> So what does that mean? There's abundant opportunity for other sources to report FALSE CLAIMS. The solution I have proposed solves the problem perfectly: if an organisation that specifically deals with the validation of longevity claimants has validated the age of any given person, they are included in a "verified" table. Those who have not been validated are included in an "unverified" table. I'm not saying exclude them entirely, I'm saying put them separately.

And I know what you'll say: "But that's making the GRG a super reliable source and that's not allowed!" ---> Hold on, use common sense: an organisation that specialises (and is recognised by many as an authority) in this particular field, proves (and disproves) the ages of longevity claimants, and creates a list of the oldest people in the world is, generally speaking, a more trustworthy source than any newspaper. NASA is a more reliable source for information about astronomy than the the Daily Telegraph. And Wikipedia policy clearly states that not all sources are equally valid, not all sources have to be given equal weight, and articles should be written to give a balanced reflection of the sources so that they have a neutral point of view. Your suggestions violate all three of these policies. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The New York Times, which you seem to think is incredibly trustworthy, has previously said that the GRG is "an authority on the matter". [6]. And look, they've previously published a List of World's Oldest People With Confirmed Ages according to the GRG. Why are they only including names validated by the GRG? Because no one wants a list full of people whose ages might not be true. We want to know the oldest people who are DEFINITELY as old as they claim to be. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"No one wants a list full of people whose ages might not be true. We want to know the oldest people who are DEFINITELY as old as they claim to be." Actually, that's only one of several possible policies. Instead of a list with only 10% of those qualified included, and 0% of those listed unqualified to be there (i.e. false age claims), people might want a list that has 90% of those who belong on it, knowing that perhaps 20% of those listed are false. See Sensitivity and specificity. Indeed, the insistence that the only valid polisy is 0% false positives may be the true heart of this obsession with GRG.

As for the rest, I'll say it again:

One can imagine a situation in which a particular source (or class of sources) is acknowledged as authoritative, for example in an area of historical research in which "the dust has settled". A dynamic database of living (or recently deceased) people, with new evidence coming in all the time from a variety of sources, is the polar opposite of such a situation.

01:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The NYT said that the GRG is an authority, not the authority. In terms of content, Wikipedia is not the NYT. Moreover, the GRG is not infallible and they can certainly be wrong. I understand that supercentenarian fans want to know definitively who is the oldest, as if this were some kind of competition, but as I said at RSN: no one, not even the GRG or Guinness, can conclusively say that they know who the oldest person is. They know who the oldest person in the set of supercentenarians they know about, which is a strict (or proper) subset of the set of all supercentenarians. Because we know that the GRG doesn't check all cases, Wikipedia need not - and per NPOV, must not - restrict its entries to the GRG's set of names. We must define our own set of supercentenarians based on all reliable sources and that set will certainly be a proper superset of the GRG set (but still a proper subset of the set of all supercentenarians).

The argument that the GRG validates age claims makes their validated tables a reliable source for table entries but is a red herring when discussing excluding other sourced data. Ca2james (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose from me as well. Separating tables creates the same "super-reliable" source issue that I see in setting up a separate "Verified" column. I also oppose having rankings on these tables. Currently there's a question at NORN asking whether it's OR to rank List of oldest living people according to their ages and a question at RSN regarding the reliability of particular sources for inclusion of another name on the table. When those are closed, if there's still opposition to removing the rankings, I'll set up an RfC asking whether to include rankings. Ca2james (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to copy what I wrote at the OR noticeboard, because not only is it more relevant here but some people may not have seen it:

Think about what the GRG actually does. It's a completely different type of source to newspaper articles - it's not just reporting on one individual, it actually validates the ages of longevity claimants and has a ranked list of the oldest validated people in the world. Creating the List of oldest living people article on Wikipedia is not a simple question of just throwing a load of names from various sources in to one list - which it would be if nothing like the GRG existed - because an organisation outside Wikipedia is attempting to do the same thing. So, if people reported on in newspapers are not featured in the GRG's list, you have to ask why not. If an organisation trying to create a list of the oldest people has not included a particular person, why should Wikipedia? It's not a question of the GRG being some "super reliable source", it's about giving due weight to the sources that exist. By all means list them separately ("according to this source, person X is 112 years old" or whatever) but don't mix them in with the GRG lists and rank them because it violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "[GRG] has a ranked list of the oldest validated people" -- No, GRG has a ranked list of the oldest validated-by-GRG people.
• "So, if people reported on in newspapers are not featured in the GRG's list, you have to ask why not." There could be a million reasons. (Maybe it's because they didn't want to send their personal information to a group of amateurs, one leader of which got himself indefinitely blocked at WP for abusive use of sockpuppets and other such behavior, and another leader of which sustained a long war here for the "right" to omit spaces after punctuation marks in his his talk page posts, because it "saves server space"?)
• "If an organisation trying to create a list of the oldest people has not included a particular person, why should Wikipedia?" Because that organization is only trying, and given that elsewhere in this page you quote that very organization as saying they think their lists carry only 10% (yes, 10%) of eligible names, leaving plenty of opportunity for valid reports from others.

EEng (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What any member of the GRG did on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to this conversation. It's funny how people like me are accused of being "biased, pro-GRG advocates" because we insist that an authoritative body in a specialist field is used as a major source in Wikipedia's articles, when comments like yours suggest you are the total opposite. Maybe it's your past experiences with a GRG member on Wikipedia that cause you to denounce them as a "group of amateurs" but whether you like it or not, this "group of amateurs" is a recognised authority in the field of gerontology, which you want to ignore. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's one recognized source in the field of gerontology. Not the only one. That's the key point here. ~ Rob^Talk 00:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the point about GRG being amateurs was primarily re the problem of their lists not being updated timely. I think (think -- I haven't looked into it specifically) that if they list someone, that person probably belongs on the list, but there's little significance to someone not being listed, and thus the need to look at other sources. EEng (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Another alternative suggestion, put forth at NORN, is to place a note on birth dates not validated by the GRG or similar indicating that the birth date is unconfirmed. @EEng, Ollie231213, Ricky81682, BU Rob13, Comatmebro, and Canadian Paul: apologies for the ping if you're already watching the page, but I thought it was prudent to ping editors who have previously !voted or commented on this RfC so that they are aware of and can weigh in, if they choose, on these new suggestions. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• • That's really the same suggestion packaged in a slightly different way. Whether the note is via column, footnote, or unidentified third option, it is not appropriate to segregate sources between GRG and "all other sources" in terms of reliability. It never will be, either. ~ Rob^Talk 19:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See my post above. The GRG is a totally different kind of source to newspaper articles, because it is actually trying to make a list of the oldest living people, whereas the others are just reporting names individually. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

See my post above. "Trying" isn't enough. EEng (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, all of these separation proposals are variations on a theme. The reason I'm suggesting them and encouraging others to bring them here is to ensure they're discussed. I don't want to be in a situation after this RfC closes where editors say, "But the RfC didn't talk about this other separation method!!" I'm hoping that when this RfC is closed, the issue stays settled. Ca2james (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting discussion. :) Please note that the following post is an attempt to think along. I notice that a lot of weight has been put on the GRG issue; I agree that it is one recognised authority in the field of gerontology, and that's the distinction that I feel should be made: an authority within the field of gerontology, much like Guinness World Records, the International Database on Longevity, the Max Planck Institute, and the New England Centenarian Study - all organisations which have proven to base their output on study, analysis and verification. One should understand that GRG validations are merely a subset of all validations within that aforementioned field of gerontology. As such, I consider those organisations and the source output that they generate to be of a different level than, say, the New York Times, which might be a respectable, reputable, and even reliable source - but not in the field of gerontology, unless someone can provide multiple sources that prove so otherwise. On top of that, I would also like to point out that the GRG does not claim anywhere on its site to be the only recognised authority within the field of gerontology and age validation [7]. As such, I can understand how some would then say "so the NYT is also a reliable source", yet I do feel that people should use common sense. I am very much aware that, of course, there are people in for instance China and India who are among the oldest people in the world, yet if there are no organisations working within the field of gerontology - read well: thus, not only the Gerontology Research Group but also other authorities within the field of gerontology - which have verified their ages, then how could a (reliable) source working outside of this field of experts - be it the GRG or another gerontology authority - take precedence over them? That is a genuine question I have. Fiskje88 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Coupla things:

• the New York Times, which might be a respectable, reputable, and even reliable source - but not in the field of gerontology, unless someone can provide multiple sources that prove so otherwise The "multiple sources" mantra is for notability; WP doesn't require sources for the reliability of sources, otherwise we'd be in an infinite regress of sourcing requirements.
• I'm not sure why you're discussing the question of "precedence". If there's a conflict of assertions e.g. NYT says Person P died on Date D, while GRG says P was still alive as of that date, then we have to figure out what to do about that. But the usual situation is that (let us say) NYT says an event has happened, or lists a certain person as being a certain age, while GRG simply says nothing about that person, or says "We haven't got all the documents yet". That's not a conflict of sources, because we know GRG doesn't claim to be fully up to date and list everyone qualified. The push that's been made in the past is for GRG's silent omission, or not having validated someone according to their rules and procedures, to be treated as superior to NYT's (just using them as an example, of course) explicit assertion. And that's something I don't think WP is going to do.

I repeat what I said elsewhere, that there are situations where one source can be considered reliable for its statements and comprehensive i.e. what it doesn't say has great weight as well. But that makes the most sense in a situation where an expert is the recognized authority on some static subject from the past. It's doesn't work well at all in a dynamic situation such as who's-oldest-this-week?

EEng (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Reliable sources policy says that we have reliable sources. We don't have reliable sources and "super reliable" sources. I haven't seen an actual real debate here in months (years really) over any particular individual regarding a discrepancy in sources. In theory, we could be arguing maybe Guinness Book of World Records or another source but the only source used is the Gerontology Research Group (GRG). The GRG is not some "super reliable" source that should get some most favored source status. The argument would be when the Gerontology Research Group has not verified a source but we have other reliable sources that support adding the person to our tables here. (A) I say that is entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS of using making this list up but that horse has long left the barn but this whole debate is particularly frustrating because (B) no one has yet to provide a single example of this scenario. This looks entirely like another way for the GRG to inflate its credibility which has been a severe problem here for close to a decade. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In the past, color was used to identify "pending" and "unverified" GRG claims (and still remains on a number of pages due to the extended edit warring). Along with the MOS:COLOR problems with that, an RSN discussion concluded that pending claims (table EE) is not considered a reliable source and so I see zero reason for including them. A claim that is entirely unverified by the GRG similarly has zero reason to be included (let alone distinguished). I can't even think of an equivalent here but people can suggest re-introducing it if they wish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am in favour of a "verified by" (or "validated by") column. Let me explain my reasoning as clearly as possible: News media sources (generally considered to be reliable sources for most things) often run stories like this one: 110-year-old Valley man says 5 foods helped him live long life. Now if we followed Ricky's suggestion, this man, Bernando LaPallo, would be listed in articles such as List of North American supercentenarians in the same table as Susannah Mushatt Jones, the person recognised by Guinness World Records as the world's oldest person. The main difference between these two cases is this: Susannah Mushatt Jones's age has been independently validated by the Gerontology Research Group and Guinness World Records, two internationally recognised bodies who deal with the validation of extreme longevity claims. We know that she is 116 years old as claimed. On the other hand, investigations in to Bernando LaPallo's claim have suggested that he is several years younger than claimed - see here, here, and here for more. Under Ricky's proposal, both of these people would be listed in the same table, with absolutely no mention of the fact that one person's age is known to be true, while the other person's age is in doubt. What is the point in having a list like that?

Now ok, you may say "but there are reliable sources that cast doubt over his claim, so he wouldn't be included". Well yes, but the same principle applies for any longevity claimant: if their age has not been validated by an independent organisation, there always has to be some doubt about their claim. Please have a read of Typologies of Extreme Longevity Myths. Let me pick out this important quote: "Invalid age claim rates increase with age from 65% at age 110-111 to 98% by age 115 to 100% for 120+ years." ---> What this shows is that many supercentenarian claims (age 110+) are false. And what the first article on Bernando LaPallo shows is that newspaper reports alone aren't a reliable enough source to state a longevity claimant's age without any doubt.

So really, this boils down to giving the correct weight to reliable sources. Ricky's assertion that we don't have reliable sources and "super reliable" sources isn't true (although I wouldn't word it like that). Extraordinary claims require a stronger level of sourcing. When so many claims to 110+ are false, it's not really good enough to say "a newspaper says person X is 113, so it must be true". See Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. Note this particular quote from this guideline: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ---> If you create a table with validated and unvalidated claims mixed together, with no distinction made between the two, then you are not following this policy.

My suggestion is for tables like that List of North American supercentenarians to have a "validated by" column - which states whether or not the person has been validated by an international body - and if so, a reference to the appropriate organisation(s). It could be done so that people are only positively identified as validated (so for those not known to be validated, this column could just be left blank or with a dash). I am also in favour of colour-coding entries based on validation status so that A) The table is sortable (so users can separate validated and unvalidated cases should they wish) and B) It makes it easier for the user to access this information.

Please note that my suggestion does NOT violate WP:COLOUR: Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. ---> As long as the relevant information is displayed in the table (in this case, the validation status) it is perfectly acceptable to colour-code entries. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You've brought all this up before. All supercentenarian claims are extraordinary and require extraordinary sourcing. The fact that so many of them are false is not a reason to display validation status but is a reason to ensure that all reliable sources are of the highest quality. The links you give for LaPollo, which include the Daily Mail and a yahoo sports blog, are not high quality reliable sources and would not be included in articles here. Only some news agencies would be considered reliable sources for supercentenarian birth date claims; the New York Times, maybe, but each has to be examined individually, and many news articles won't be reliable enough. Just because something appears in a newspaper does not mean it'll automatically be used as a source. Ca2james (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: a newspaper citation is enough for the claim (i.e. it's enough to say "this person claims to be age X) but it's not good enough to say "this person is age X". That's pretty clear from the fact that such a high number of claims to 110+ are false. Appearing in the New York Times and having your age validated by a specialist body are NOT the same thing. The fact that someone appears in the NYT isn't enough to assume their claimed age is true, and likewise, if someone appears in a blog it doesn't mean their claimed age is false. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability - and not in the "this entry had been checked and validated by an agency" sense but in the "is reliably-sourced according to wikipedia's own definitions" sense. Ca2james (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Let's not forget that the GRG also just removes names after the fact without explanation. This isn't just a random resource we're talking about here. We're talking about a resource run by someone sockpuppetting here for years before he got himself taken to Arbcom, brought along an entire Yahoo! group of people who started this project, got himself personally banned due entirely to this being a professional COI issue and who still has legions of supporters in the woodwook (including various "correspondents" here protecting particular pages), who's work product consists entirely of anonymous print-outs of Excel spreadsheets on his website with no actual peer-reviewed secondary journals confirming his work, who is the great "Super Duper Source" that needs a separate column/color/note here. So LaPallo may have been listed here for about a year (even that is questionable) and removed because when someone brought up the credibility issues and at the same time Thomas Peters would have been listed for about seven years even though we have nothing else resembling a source about him, but the difference being the newspaper sources we can still find their old versions and there are other sources fact-checking them while we just have that the GRG deleted Peters and maybe someone would have noticed that line from the Excel spreadsheet removed. Point being, there are no "levels" of reliable sources and ignoring all the prior discussions doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia doesn't exist so that the GRG can WP:WEBHOST lists of possibly 108 year old people on its servers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going there right now. I'm just going to remind myself that it took months to get rid of the 107 years olds. This will take patience. However, this comment naming those three bodies again leads to the same question: why those three bodies? Is there a source that says those three bodies (and while I have heard of Guinness, the IDL is never actually used here). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You are either misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring WP:UNDUE. A widely-recognised organisation that deals with longevity validation is more reliable than newspaper reports when it comes to stating a longevity claimant's age. I've mentioned those three because they are three main ones in this field. The IDL is referenced at List of Spanish supercentenarians. The GRG's "verified" tables have been found to be reliable as per this RSN discussion, and it's pretty clear that GWR is a reliable authority when it comes to world records. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat. But I'd say a peer-reviewed medical journal including information from a longitudinal study would better. It would. Just because no one has searched for the source (I can search Pacer for federal cases and probably find some judges who have to make rulings related to people birth and death dates) but that doesn't mean the source can't or won't exist. The issue is the why the need for a separate column? So we can argue about whether something is a reliable source at all and then if they are the "really" reliable source after that? That's not what we're doing here. If one or more of the three of those sources are there, then we're arguing about the formatting and placing of the citations themselves (especially if you want them still separated from "other" sources). The issue comes if there is a name not based on any of those three organizations. My view is it is a case-by-case basis with the possibility of newspaper (or medical journals) or something else and rather than us making up or changing the sources that could or could not be those greater sources. Why? Because arguing over levels of sources is navel gazing here essentially and isn't a long-term solution that can be resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, there are other organisations out there that do research on supercentenarians, including the Okinawa Centenarian Study and the New England Centenarian Study. However, with the exception of the GRG and Guinness, no agency publishes the names of their participants. The only names that get acknowledged outside the GRG and Guinness are the world's oldest person. Therefore, I think the only articles that satisfy GNG are the lists of the world's verified oldest person/man/woman articles. Oldest person and oldest living person might survive but the general idea of, let alone the names in, the country- and region-specific oldest people articles, along with the supercentenarian "deaths in year" articles, haven't received any independent mention outside of the GRG and so I'm not sure they're notable subjects. (After all, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion.) In that case, would it be better to figure out which articles to keep and then to determine their format? Or am I interpreting GNG too strictly? Ca2james (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The entire argument here is that we, the editors at this project, are deciding which authorities are the real authorities on gerontology and which aren't. My view is that, I don't care to because that information will change and other than people just spouting names out, ok, point out how the consensus will form about which ones belong where. This isn't something you can bring to WP:RSN, it's not something that's anywhere else precisely because it's complete nonsense. For the editors here, why these tables alone? Does every biography articles need to separate the "super" reliable source versus the newspapers? I know the answer: no they do but we must do it for their birth and death dates when we're talking about very old people, because for very old people, only certain sources really matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Right now I'm still trying to wrap my head around everything, so forgive me if this commentary is a bit nonsensical. I think I genuinely see both sides of the argument here; on one hand, I see the GRG perspective that Wikipedia should not be treating every claim the same regardless of how likely it may be, because newspapers are in the business of reporting stories that will draw attention to their reporting, not (necessarily) verifying accuracy. For an argument ad ridiculum, if The New York Times were to write a story about someone claiming to be 200 years old, I don't think anyone would want to include them on the list of the oldest people as being older than Susannah Mushatt Jones. But where and how could we draw the line objectively? Everyone younger than Jeanne Calment? I think separating credible claims from others is a good application of WP:IAR. An analogous article might be cancer research: lots of "reliable" sources discuss potential cures or treatments that lack any scientific basis, but including those claims would give undue weight to them in that article, since they are not as valid as the scientifically-backed ones.

On the other hand, obviously much of what I mentioned above straddles or even crosses the line of how material is dealt with through Wikipedia guidelines and policies, because it is making a subjective value judgment on sources that may be true, but not necessarily verifiable. I also agree that privileging the GRG is problematic, because that organization (like all others) has its limitations and biases and it does bother me that the implication is that if you are not "validated" (or in the process of such) you must be false (not that the GRG claims this, but it's definitely an interpretation that people get), when in reality they just might not have the documents or the language accessibility. As much as I don't like the List of North American supercentenarians, I do like what has been done with it... all claims are included, but there is a distinction made between those that have scientific backing. This kind of contradicts with my comparison to cancer research above, although I think that one could include the most prominent dubious research and treatment in that article and label it as such (through, for example, reliable sources that discredit them) without giving them undue weight. A mention rather than an emphasis, which seems to be the way List of North American supercentenarians is dealt with currently. So I'm not sure where my !vote should go, given all of that. Canadian Paul 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, I hope it's ok if I reply. I apologize for being a bit long-winded here. As I said above, I see two related but separate issues: the reliable sourcing issue that Ricky81682 brings up; and the desire to ensure that readers know which claims are true (or validated) brought up by Ollie231213. The issue is complicated by the fact that members of this project have been misunderstanding WP:RS by thinking that anything that appears in a newspaper is a reliable source (which isn't the case). If reliable sourcing actually worked that way, then I can sort of see why they would feel some concern about the entries in the tables because practically anything could go in there and how would anyone know what's true or not?

I think one option for dealing with the reliable sourcing issue is to develop a project guideline, in partnership with the broader community, stating what constitutes a reliable source for supercentenarian birth/death dates and age, much like WP:MEDRS extends WP:RS by describing which sources are best for medical articles and where to find them. MEDRS is the reason is why potential cures and treatments for cancer research require better sourcing than just a newspaper.

The validation issue is trickier to deal with because it's a philosophy issue, and I think it would be to everyone's benefit to know what the broader community thinks about that. It seems to me that members of this project are looking to include only true and accurate information in the tables but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth so it's most important that everything be reliably-sourced. I personally don't agree that it is necessary to separately indicate which entries have been validated if all entries have been reliably-sourced.

One option for the crazy-high 122+ age claims, if they were well-sourced, would be to include the entry along with a footnote saying something about how the oldest person ever has been verified to be 122. I don't think such a note would be necessary for age claims less than 122 because although there's a chance that the information is incorrect, at least those claims are plausible. Ca2james (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ca2james: There are some things which I would like to clarify with you, and points which I would like you to respond to:

• 1. Do you accept/understand that, just because a claim to 110+ is reported on by a newspaper, it doesn't necessarily mean the claim is true? I gave you the Typologies of Extreme Longevity Myths journal which says that over two-thirds of such claims are false, and gave you the example of Bernando LaPallo to prove this point. Also read this article about a woman who claimed to be "127" - note this quote: "She has however lost her birth certificate and so is not officially recognised as the world’s oldest person, who is Misao Okawa, aged 116 from Japan." There is a difference between "reporting" the news and saying that the claim is valid. Hence, the idea to have a "validated" status.
• 2. Do you accept/understand why age validation is considered important in this context, and that it's a concept that far predates the GRG? If scientists or demographers want to use supercentenarian data to discover mortality rates at extreme ages, the change in the 110+ population, etc., they need to know that the data they are dealing with is accurate. Even if you're just an average person interested in the record-breaking side of things, and want to know who the oldest living people/oldest people ever are, then you want to know that the 122 year old Jeanne Calment was actually 122 and not much younger.
• 3. Do you accept/understand the need in science for evidence and verification? And do you accept that verified and unverified information should not be presented as if they both "equal" (e.g. evolution and creationism should not be presented as equally plausible theories)? Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia should reflect scientific consensus, and that different sources do not have to be given the same weight, as per WP:UNDUE.
• 4. Do you accept/understand that I'm not "pro-GRG", I'm pro-age validation and pro-science? And do you also realise that there is a difference between members of the GRG who are interested in the scientific and demographic aspect of longevity, and those amateur "fans", many of whom are on Wikipedia, who are more interested in the trivial aspects. The GRG currently has less than 50 living validated supercentenarians listed... none of whom are under 111. Clearly it's not of interest to them who the 247th oldest person in the world is or whatever... that's something the "fans" care about. Likewise, a lot of the trouble caused around this project has not been caused by people associated with the GRG, but by "fans" like that 166 IP user, who didn't like it when the GRG's Table EE was found to be unreliable.

I don't understand why my suggestion to recognise "validated" status has been met with such vehement opposition. Above anything else, it just seems like common sense for Wikipedia to either only list validated cases (and hence only those whose ages are known to be true) or to make the clear distinction between validated and unvalidated cases (so that it's clear to the reader which are known to be true and which are not). What's the purpose of the list otherwise? You say "Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability" but that just isn't right. There's a difference between saying "Source A says X" if we have no reason to question the validity of this information, and saying "Source B claims Y" if we do have a reason to question it. Are you seriously saying Wikipedia doesn't care about distinguishing fact from fiction? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Haven't we been over this before? Of course newspapers aren't reliable for everything, let alone supercentenarian ages. I accept that age validation is important and required when conducting studies on supercentenarians, when determining who is the oldest in a region, and for insurance/payment purposes. I think the use of "science" in age validation is a misnomer, as the process requires an exacting approach but that's not "science". I don't care whether or not you're affiliated with the GRG or what you call your interest; your endless, repetitive discussions and WP:IDHT when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines are becoming disruptive no matter what your affiliation.

I'm also saying that the point of Wikipedia is to publish verifiable, reliably-sourced, neutrally stated and weighted content. The point is not to publish the WP:TRUTH on any subject. Instead of implying that I don't understand how important all this is (not to mention how science-y it is), please carefully read WP:V and WP:RS and try to understand why others have objected to recognizing validated status. Ca2james (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I sounded patronising or disrespectful but part of the reason why I'm sounding repetitive is because I keep getting faced with straw man arguments, and I want to make sure we understand where we are both coming from here. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Please do take note of my second paragraph above. Ca2james (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The point of WP:TRUTH is that you can't just put something on Wikipedia because you know it's true, it needs to be attributed to a reliable source. It doesn't give you an opening to just to whatever you want as long as there's a so-called reliable source to back it up. To quote: "Verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough)." And also note this one: "Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight." ---> The question here is: are newspaper reports and obituaries appropriate sources for the kind of content in these articles? Are we just going to create tables of the oldest living people in location X by finding news reports and shoving them in a table, even when we know that some claims might not be true? Or, are we going to set a minimum standard of inclusion which is that entries have to have been validated by a recognised body, which reflects scientific consensus? Or, do we compromise these two positions by distinguishing those who have been validated and those who have not?

Statements like "a source is reliable or it isn't" (from Rob) are not taking WP:NPOV and more specifically WP:UNDUE in to account. If an organisation that validates supercentenarians says that Person X is 115 years old, then you can be 99% sure that the person is indeed 115. But if a newspaper reports that Person Y is 115 years old (and their age has not been validated by any organisation) then you can be 99% sure the claim is false. How can you say that both sources are equally valid? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I specifically referenced undue weight in my comment, although in a different way. It is undue weight to specifically highlight verification by a single organization over other verifications that are reliable. If you believe newspapers are not reliable in this area, as you seem to be hinting at, then that is a separate discussion and should be taken to WP:RSN. If it were true that newspapers publish information about supercentarians without any verification of their claims or any editorial control, then they should not be accepted as reliable sources at all in this area. I seriously doubt that this is the case, though; a reputable newspaper fact checks every story before publishing, especially when extraordinary claims are made. ~ Rob^Talk 00:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That isn't true at all. The news media are only interested in running a story. If someone comes to them and says "my granny is 110", then they'll run a story like "woman celebrated 110th birthday". But very rarely in such reports do you see things like "our reporter located this woman's birth certificate, marriage record, and early life census records to verify her age". At best you might see something like "she has an ID card issued three years ago to prove age", which doesn't mean anything because a document issued a few years ago doesn't prove that someone was born over a century ago.

The point is that the need for age verification of longevity claimants is widely recognised by experts in the field, so Wikipedia should reflect this, as per WP:UNDUE. Guinness World Records insists that titleholders such as "oldest living person" have proof of their age. Yet we see stories in the news media all the time of people who claim to be 120, 125, 130, whatever... So, if you're arguing that newspaper reports alone are reliable enough to state a longevity claimant's age without suggesting there is any doubt, then you have problem - because if Person X is reported on in a newspaper and claims to be 120, but Guinness World Records says the oldest person in the world is Person Y aged 116, then you have two conflicting sources - and because we know that Guinness World Records has validated Person Y's age (whereas we have to assume the newspaper has not validated Person X's age), then more weight should be given to Guinness World Records in this case, as per WP:UNDUE. And what if someone reported on in a newspaper claims to be 150, 160, 170, etc (ages which are clearly not true)? At some point you have to say "ok, this is clearly not true" but if Wikipedia editors are deciding which claims to believe and which to not believe, then they are engaging in WP:OR. This is why I believe Wikipedia needs to distinguish between "validated" and "unvalidated" cases (not the same meaning as "verified" on Wikipedia). Note also the discussion at RSN where the reliability of obituaries for the birth dates of longevity claimants are discussed. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I have stated that if there is proof that usually reliable newspapers are not reliable in this area, which is something you would need to get consensus for at WP:RSN, then we shouldn't use them to source longevity articles at all. Currently, though, the usual practice is to accept usually reliable newspapers as reliable in this area, and so they should be on even footing with your organization of choice. Your recourse here is to try to convince enough people that newspapers are unreliable in this area, not to create a new category of "kind of reliable but not really" sources. ~ Rob^Talk 00:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Logic dictates that any newspaper which is not 100% reliable is, therefore, unreliable. That being the case any paper listed here should be considered unreliable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already tried to have a discussion at RSN but as you can I see I got no decent response, only a call to "close the discussion as a WP:POINTy disruption". So, maybe we should try this again. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's because your discussion was incredibly vague. In order to classify a source as unreliable, you'll need to bring up a specific source and evidence that it's unreliable. There's exactly no chance that any reasonable editor will agree with you that every periodical is unreliable in this area with no evidence. Alternatively, if your past discussions have concluded in a consensus against you, you may consider dropping the stick. ~ Rob^Talk 18:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

How can we practically go about bringing up every source to see if it's reliable? This is exactly why I'm arguing in favour of a distinguishing validated and unvalidated cases, because then sources like newspaper reports can be used to report the claim, not that "this is definitely true because a newspaper says so". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There are a finite number of periodicals used to source longevity articles currently, and the number isn't even all that high. You could start by finding a single article you don't consider valid and explain why. Again, it is inappropriate to take the shortcut of not seeking consensus on validity of sources and instead inserting notes in the articles claiming some sources are more valid than others, which is what this separation would be. ~ Rob^Talk 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In case you haven't read it already, age validation of longevity claimants is a well-recognised concept that exists outside Wikipedia. It's not just that we're saying "Wikipedia says this source is more valid that this one" by adding in a "validated" column, we're saying that an organisation (that specifically deals with validating the ages of longevity claimants and has databases of the oldest validated people) has officially "validated" their age. Guinness World Records will have "validated" the age of their official world's oldest person titleholder. Yet some people don't even want to acknowledge that age validation exists. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And a reputable newspaper has an editorial policy that would require journalists to verify the age of a person before reporting it when the claim is extraordinary. The problem is that you're claiming one organization's "verification" is better than another organization's. It gives undue weight to the specific set of policies used by one organization. We're talking in circles, so this is the last time I'll post, but again, if you think newspapers are not accurate in this area or are not living up to their editorial policies, show proof of this at WP:RSN and attempt to get consensus that they are not reliable sources in this area. Start small (one periodical that appears particularly egregious) and expand from there (not necessarily one at a time, but in closely related groups). If consensus is against you at RSN, then drop the stick. ~ Rob^Talk 01:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Comatmebro: How can we, Wikipedia editors, determine if a source has got an age wrong without engaging in WP:OR? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We aren't here to determine whether or an age is "wrong". WP:TRUTH. We are here to state what reliable sources say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of simply doing your due diligence as an editor and following WP:Verify. If the source can be considered a reliable source per WP's guidelines, there shouldn't be an issue as to the verifiability of the persons age. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

But the point is that many sources that may meet Wikipedia's guidelines aren't, in reality, reliable sources for stating longevity claimant's ages. So, we need to determine what can be considered a reliable source, which I've previously tried to do, but without any luck (see my response to Rob above). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You presume that. In your mind they aren't because they disagree with the three or so sources you consider reliable sources. It's pure circular reasoning: newspapers aren't reliable sources when they disagree with the "reliable sources" because they disagree with the "reliable sources" which shows that they aren't reliable sources. When those three "reliable sources" change and remove listings, that's fine but when other sources do it, it's a reflection on their poor reliability. As noted at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people#Vera_Wagner, we've hit the issue with Vera Wagner: reliable sources (namely two newspapers) report her claim, admit that it's a claim and that's a GRG pending claim but it's been removed on the basis that only listing from the "super" reliable sources should be here. Which means that this table argument is entirely nonsense since the "verified by" table will only include the three or so "reliable sources" if everything else is considered unreliable simply because (by definition) a source is not a reliable source if it disagrees with (one? two? all three?) the "super" reliable sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More from the walled garden

This [8] epitomizes the problems this project.

I just stumbled on Template:Longevity and Lists_of_centenarians. What is the purpose of all these fragmented, specialized sublists of different ways cutting up the same superlist? How many of these can be replaced by a single sortable list? EEng (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit you linked to was the kind of text I'd be inserting earlier and I agree that saying it's the primary organisation or agency is problematic. Lately I've been adding something like, "The Gerontology Research Group (GRG), an organisation that tracks supercentenarians and verifies longevity claims, has validated the claims of x supercentenarians in y country." I think that reads better.

The longevity template is something else. I suspect most of the Centenarian stuff can go, as can some of the lists like the supercentenarian deaths in year articles.

Bringing the notable articles up to snuff is difficult. My edits to Edna Parker which removied fancruft like the fact that she liked to watch balloons float into the sky was reverted by an ip who left a vandalism warning on my talk page. Over at List of British supercentenarians, another dynamic ip is determined to add pointy text to the lede about how the article was better before and its crap now. I'm not sure I should be the one requesting page semiprotection but this army of ips is getting to be a bit much to deal with. Ca2james (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that "someone" (volunteers???) mass-add the DS notice to the talkpage of all these articles, to save time in dealing with such types. EEng (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been adding it to pages I've edited. Is there a quick and easy (aka scripted from a list) way to do it rather than editing each Talk page individually? Ca2james (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Admit it -- I'm a genius! [9] (When you go to look at what I'm talking about, add it to your watchlists, lest The Swarm try to undo it.)

BTW, this should be helpful in planning cleanup efforts. EEng (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well done! Although some of the articles didn't have the WOP project template. But now it's all fixed up and awesome and it's on my watchlist. There's so much to do.... Ca2james (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You may deposit the fee in the usual account. EEng (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's appropriate but I'm fine with it for now. WP:AWB is also an option. The centurion stuff is different in that it lists only independently notable people who happened to become centurions rather than presuming that someone who is a supercenturion is itself notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right about the centenarian lists, though having said that I don't see why a category wouldn't do as well (though having said that, one wonders what the point is of highlighting centenarian string collectors, centenarian cat owners, centenarian people with bursitis, and so on). EEng (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. A centurion is a kind of Roman army commander. ;P

It might be worthwhile getting clarification from ArbCom on whether this meets the requirements for notification. This method does not show as a new edit on a watchlist, so it may be treated differently. I'm not at all familiar with discretionary sanctions and their requirements, just noting the possible issue. Disregard if this doesn't apply. ~ Rob^Talk 07:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Before a ritual crucifixion can be carried out a warning message must be placed on the victim's talk page. The warnings here are just early warning for people to stop being WP:DICKs. EEng (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Are we allowed to just plaster one of those on the main page? Heh. ~ Rob^Talk 07:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

At ANI we go straight for the kill [10]. EEng (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to use AWB but it's Windows-only and I'm running ChromeOS on this here Chromebook and Android on my phone. I thought there was some kind of AWB extension or something that ran in the web browser; I'll see if I can find it. Ca2james (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

2012 deaths

I need a sanity check. Have I lost it or are the only source for List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 here is pending claims table EE5? Removing the 26 pending claims removed table EE6. I don't know what is going on with but aren't those both inappropriate sources and thus shouldn't the table be blanked pending an actual reliable source? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an old pending list. Shows how slack the GRG and there fans are at page sourcing. I've fixed the link. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The sober GRG

A peek at "Listing of Incomplete, Exaggerated, or Fraudulent Cases" is a real eye-opener as regards this sober scientific organization. EEng (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Longevity_claims

Can anyone explain why this isn't all SYNTH/OR i.e. "Here's a newspaper report claiming this man is 115, but he's not listed in Authority A's tables, so his claim is bogus"? EEng (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the most ridiculous claims used to be at "unverified" claims or "incomplete" claims or "myths" or other places. That should be claims where it has explicitly been debunked by a reliable source, not nonsense claims that aren't good enough for the other lists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the citations for the debunkings. EEng (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The tables in the article are problematic because the assumption is that these people are not the age they say they are; in other words, Wikipedia is implying that they're lying about their age because the GRG hasn't validated the age. I understand that the oldest documented person was 122 so it's unlikely that claims of older ages are true, but I don't think it's encyclopaedic to list those claims here and I'm concerned there's a BLP or BDP violation; therefore, I'd like to see them removed.

The non-table part of the article has potential (as long as it doesn't become a WP:COATRACK for the now-redirected Extreme longevity tracking) but is problematic because it's poorly-referenced. It also isn't clear that the article reflects knowledge on the subject and appears to be SYNTH. I'd expect an article on longevity claims to define what they are, talk about their history, have a section on why such claims exist and how they're identified, discuss historical and modern validation procedures, and possibly list a few notable claims that have received much study and press. It would be easier to write this article if there was a few books/papers that covered all this so that we knew we were giving everything the correct weight. Ca2james (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible merge with Longevity_myths too. EEng (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. I don't think myths is the best descriptor so I think the articles should merged into Longevity claims or a third title. Ca2james (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Longevity_myths/Archive_3#Discussion_moved_from_Talk:_List_of_the_verified_oldest_people (and the rest of that archive) is worth taking a look at for how we got into this mess of articles. Good points are made there which somehow got lost. EEng (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There's more history with Longevity myths. It first showed up at FTN, then it went to mediation that a notice about mediation appeared at FTN. Things went downhill into the Arbitration case from there. From what I can tell, it was called Longevity Myths, then Longevity Traditions, and now Longevity Myths, but may not be using "myths" in an encyclopaedic way (although I think the editor that argued that interpreted Myths in a very specific way), and Longevity myths/traditions is not a separate field of study (except perhaps for Robert Young's master's thesis).

I think it was recommended that Longevity myths be merged back into Longevity. I'd suggest merging the text part of Longevity claims and any truly notable false claims - as in have received significant mainstream media coverage of the false claim - into Longevity. Longevity myths is just long lists of religious, ancient, and some modern supercentenarian/extreme longevity claims with a couple of definitions at the top. I suggest it stand alone as its own article but be renamed to Longevity claims or something similar. Which would be confusing, I guess, but to me the myths article really is just a list of claims, some of whom happen to be some religious myths (I don't see any Norse, Roman, or Greek myths there, but maybe they didn't claim that people lived a long time in those traditions). Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A test case for discussion

Longevity_myths#Afghanistan lists (without further comment):

• Khanum Hasno (1877 - 12 January 2013)

with citation to [11].

What is the point of including this (or any of these)? Obviously the claim to age isn't true. Is there a secondary source commenting on this claim having some significance, thus making it of interest to our readers? How is this whole section anything more than an indiscriminate list of obviously false claims? EEng (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see a good reason to include these claims: undoubtedly people will come across them, and compare them with Wikipedia. If they are uncritical and do not find them here, they may well embark upon a fruitless task of updating Oldest person in the world or some such.

Secondly showing the extent of such claims is useful.

Thirdly providing links to "further reading" helps readers who want to look in more depth to understand the uncritical acceptance of these claims in the reporting media, and examples of the typical elements of the claims.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC).

I see your point, but nonetheless without a secondary source commenting on the individual claim I don't see how we can include it; otherwise it's just a jumble of internet-trawled OR. It may, however, make sense for the preamble to the table of cases we do include to explain why it is that one finds claims out in the wild that don't qualify for listing. EEng (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant material in longevity biographies

Interested parties may wish to contribute to this discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oldest men notice

I've listed Template:Oldest men for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 11. My concerns are expressed there but I think listification via List of the verified oldest men is sufficient given that List of the verified oldest men only has a source for one name anyways. I'm putting the notice here as the project doesn't have WP:ALERTS set up (which maybe we should consider). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely set up alerts. EEng (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It'll appear when Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts is blue I think. I'll unhide this comment so it's on the front page as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Manual alert: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Nelson EEng (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not tagged with WOP so it wouldn't appear. We need to do a few runs through our templates here and catch all of these pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC) On the front page now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Great work setting up the alert machinery. EEng (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kay Kāvus

This edit adds your WikiProject to the talk page for a mythological figure. I gather from the Arbcom warnings plastered around this is a bit of a ball of snakes, but I'm guessing that was not a sensible edit and am coming here for advice. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It probably got tagged because it's listed at Longevity_myths#Persian_empire. It's been a decade-long struggle to clean up this "ball of snakes" (great phrasing, I must say) so there might be overcaution at work. It's an interesting question how to find and remove such warnings after they're no longer needed -- should that day even come, God willing. EEng (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. It was in Category:Longevity traditions which includes Longevity myths and is a part of Template:Longevity. I'm wondering if we should rename the project to WikiProject Longevity for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)