Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

Our Current Status

Our current status is somewhat inactive, with having an absent group leader and such. However, I'll be watching over this page. Neal (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

Not really inactive, as the Project is just beginning. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, just the 2 of us. But our leader is currently working on his thesis, we'll be active again this summer. Neal (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

This WikiProject may have some virtues, but it now reads like a massive promotional statement for the GRG. This is completely against Wikipedia policies. The collage must be removed. Indeed it would be best to remove all mention of the GRG. I also have concerns that you have a project leader who is on a long term block. He can hardly lead if he can not edit. I do not see that he has agreed to be Project Leader on wikipedia either. I hope that you realise that most projects do not have leaders or coordinates. Some of the images seem to have license concerns and if these are not resolved, then the collage has licence concerns also. It also reads as if you think you own articles. This is against WP:OWN. --Bduke (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I don't think we want to spam/advertise anything. Which is why we don't list any urls in the page. We merely only link the word GRG which links to the Wikipedia article. Our project leader, politically, has no power on Wikipedia. This place came as a result of not having members having to post on everyone's talk page regarding articles for deletion, which would be canvassing. So the logical thing to do was have a WikiProject page for announcements. (NealIRC)

It is spam/advertising and indicates a link that is a conflict of interest. It must go. You can add the link to GRG as one of the articles you aim to support. --Bduke (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will remove the link. Neal (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

This project, is of course, for the 'Wikipedians' of Ryoung122's Yahoo group. I pre-maturely started this group before his 2nd unblock request, which he will do this summer. Maybe I created it too early. If Robert Young wants to come back to Wikipedia via his 2nd unblock request, I'm sure some admins will want him to cooperate and not canvass via his own group. This place should (help) solve that problem. (NealIRC)

"This project, is of course, for the 'Wikipedians' of Ryoung122's Yahoo group". That is unacceptable. WikiProjects should not be linked to outside groups and are open to all editors who want to help with articles on a specific topics or series of topics. --Bduke (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, it is open to all of Wikipedia. We don't have the choice to not allow who to come in or not. Neal (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

I just added the GRG collage since I thought it was cute. The Yahoo group started as a board explicitly for supercentenrians, in which the GRG only allowed scientists and people with degrees. (NealIRC)

No, we don't own articles, I just started a "Articles We Cover" section just to list for our own organization. I really don't care to add any button to the articles that point to this group, such as "this article is under the scope of.. <our group>." I know AMK152 has been doing some of that, but I don't quite support it. Neal (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

It's for a purpose of article Assessment. As this WikiProject's goal is basically to improve the World's Oldest People articles, it would help to know which articles need improving, which articles are close to becoming good/featured/etc. and if an article is about to be deleted, and we have the WikiProject banner on the article's talk page, usually someone will go to the WikiProject's talk page and notify people. Over 1,300 Projects are doing this and there's nothing wrong with it. We can just simply organize and see a list of the status of the articles. And we're not ownign the articles by doing this, we're just a WikiProject with goals for a particular group of articles like all the other projects. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AMK152 is perfectly correct. It is fine to add a project template to the talk page of articles that the project is interested in. It also allows article assessment and he has done a great job on it. --Bduke (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, by not supporting it, I also meant I was not against it. Neal (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Purpose of Images

I don't understand the purpose of member's pictures. If someone wanted to know what a person looked like, wouldn't they just go look for it on one person's user page? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something on the individual level to be worried about. ;/ Neal (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Still, is having these pictures here helping us expand, update, and improve articles in regards to the World's Oldest People? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this has nothing to do with what you said. The point of those images were not to help us expand, update, and improve articles in regards to the world's oldest people. But you knew that. Neal (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Yes, it is. But I'm trying to figure out the purpose of the images. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Same purpose as in why any other images exist on articles. -_- Neal (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

There are many different purposes for images. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very true, but as you asked, the images do not actually "help us expand, update, and improve articles in regards to the world's oldest people." Neal (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

I don't understand why we're not gettign anywhere. How about this. "Why did you include the images of some of the members of the WikiProject on the Project page?" -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, good question. So they know what we look like. Neal (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Seriously? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. ;) Neal (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

I know of no other WikiProject that has images of its members on the project page. It is certainly not common. I also note that some of these images have license issues on Commons. --Bduke (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed them to prevent license issues. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, removing an image from a page doesn't solve the problem. If the image itself has licensing problems, it has to be deleted from the servers itself, where the image itself can be nominated for deletion. Removing a linked image doesn't delete the image, afaik. But you knew that, (I hope). Neal (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

There is absolutely no point of those images on the WikiProject page. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This if of course, dodging the question. The issue wasn't that the images are linked on the project pages, but are hosted on the servers itself. Do you think a rational conversation consists of creating your own argument and arguing against that? Or dodging questions? In any event, I'll reply to what you said. Wikipedia has a policy where a no consensus defaults to keep. This is why in an AfD, if exactly half vote for keep and exactly half vote for delete, the default goes to keep. How you can conclude that a 1 vs. 1 consensus defaults to remove, could be a mystery to me. Neal (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

You did not even ask me a question, so I can't "dodge" and I wasn't arguing against my agrument. Besides, you are the only one who said they want the images.-AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You were replying to Bduke. Your "agreed" reply to Bduke did not solve the problem. Maybe you thought removing the image from the project page solves the image-licensing problem which Bduke mentioned but it didn't. Therefore, I don't consider what you did a solution. You then decided to make an argument that the image itself is pointless, which was different from Bduke's original argument, and used that as your argument. Neal (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

My original arguement is that there is no need for the images. Bduke's arguement is the licensing. I then agreed ALSO with Bduke's comment. Just because I already stated my arguement doesn't mean I'm not allowed to agree with someone elses arguement. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Group Leader?

Per Wikipedia:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, we shouldn't have a leadership committee or whatever. We work collaborately. Projects can be deleted for doing this. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I know, he's a leader in our heads. You're not inclined to follow him, especially since I don't think you're a member of our Yahoo board. We came as a result of his Yahoo board. Neal (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

But actually saying that he is the "Group Leader" may actually make people think he is the "group leader." Yes, it is important to know that he is part of the GRG, and this fact can be provided to inform people that he has more knowledge in that particular field. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Neal (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Okay then. We have consensus. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(After revert) And by removing the title, "group leader," that contradicts people actually thinking he is the "group leader." Neal (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Let me just make this clear 1 more time so you don't go about reverting that edit for a 2nd time. It simply says he is the "group leader." It does not say he has power over the group. It does not say he has administrative authority over the group. It does not even say he is a Wikipedia administrator. It simply says he is in charge. He is a leader by consent. That means anyone whom has a dispute over something in the group can go to him. Back before he was blocked, we voluntarily edited the articles. Now this page serves as an announcements section so we know what's up. That means anyone whom wants to know about which of our articles are nominated for deletion and such can come here.

In any event, none of the WikiProjects I know of, have members that join in and change the layout of the project page themselves. Sigh. Neal (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

What?? Changing the layout and content of the Project pages is what members of the Project are here for. This is Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You do not own this page, Neal. On the Group Leader stuff, I have two points. First, some projects have a Lead coordinator. A good example is the Military History Project and later, but still a long time ago, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting followed. I do not think it is acceptable to have a Project leader and certainly not a Group Leader. Second, in particular a blocked editor can not coordinate the project because he can not edit. --Bduke (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, project leader, group leader, wikiproject group leader, pretty much same thing, different working. Right, I kind of pre-maturely created this. This is why I labeled this group as inactive. Neal (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Project Point: Educating?

• Are we seriously going around telling people about Supercentenarians and aging and stuff like that? That's not what WikiProject's do. I though we were going around improving the articles. If the Project members were actually teaching people, we would go to their talk pages and tell them about the subject. Or perhaps you mean by the actual articles that tell people about the subject. WE educating people sounds like WE own that articles we use to "educate." -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, the people [us] do. Robert Young said on his WOP group that his #1 goal is to education people about human longevity. And he uses Wikipedia as a medium for that too. Even I like to educate people about human longevity. No, we don't own the articles, we edit them. ..Don't worry about it. Neal (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
    • Yes, the articles are educating people. It does still sound like own. Perhaps we need a third party's opinion? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • *We* - as in, the people of the group. Or the people that *founded* the group. Not every individual whom manually joins us has to agree to that philosophy. I understand you found us through Wikipedia and don't know much about us. Neal (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
        • 2 Questions:
        • Are you referring to the "group" as in the Yahoo Group?
        • Are you referring to "us" as in the members of the said group?
        • -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, in that case, it doesn't matter, because we're on both this group and Yahoo group. So both. Us as in the people. Neal (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

What Robert Young does on his web pages has nothing to do with what should go on here. It looks to me like your are trying to link this WP Project to an outside Group and deter editors who are not members of that outside Group to participate in the WikiProject. This is unacceptable. I also note that you describe the GRC as "Our parent company". Really? This is indicating a gross conflict of interest and is simply not allowed. It has to be removed. --Bduke (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, Robert created his Yahoo group because his parent company, GRG, only allows scientists in their news letter or so. I use the words Gerontology Research Group so we know where our source is - so we do have some sort of a reputable reliable source. Neal (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Am I misunderstanding this?

• Is this just a group to teach people about the World's Oldest People? Did I mistakenly assume this was a Project to improve, expand, and update the articles? I assumed it was the second one, because I have been trying to shape this into a Project, but apparently there is conflict. The title has "WikiProject" in it and I hope I assumed correctly. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also yes, and yes. But you're also expanding and deleting and removing comments in the project page itself. You're welcome to contribute to the articles which everyone has default control over it. But whether or not you come to the WikiProject to edit and edit content of the project itself is something else.. In any event, I do appreciate you *adding* the project assesment, showing all the grade high medium low class articles, etc. As well as tagging. But I don't need you changing our philosophies or appreciate you editing our goals when you know little about us. Neal (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
    • When you say "us" who are you referring to? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Robert Young and his Yahoo group. Everyone listed in this group is/was a part of his group with the exception of you and Kitia. Neal (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

The reason I added Kitia to this group (as he is blocked), he has showed to me tremendous love and dedication to the group. I mean, him, me, and Bart, would vote the same thing in all the articles. He even posts on my talk page 4 supercentenarian articles (plus others) that were under deletion. He of course, got in trouble for that. As he is blocked, he can't add himself to this group. Then on his unban requests, he talks about how he felt Ryoung122 didn't get a fair block and did his doings for him. You'd also understand if you read his talk page. Wow, what a tremedous sacrificer. So of course I added him here. Neal (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Wow, that seems to be the first positive review of Kitia. [adding name to list] Editorofthewiki 21:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no "of course" about it. You do not add others to WikiProjects. They have to do that themselves. It is strange that people who edit these articles get blocked. I noticed quite by chance yesterday that User:Joseph A. Spadaro was indefinitely blocked, but then the block was lifted. --Bduke (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only known Joseph A. Spadaro for a few days, and his block will be lifted in a couple of days or so. Neal (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Future of this Project

(After edit conflict - after a quick read of Neal's recent edit that cause the conflict, I still think you need to consider all these points) It is quite clear that this Project has a whole host of problems. It needs to be fixed or it will not have a sound future. I am reluctant to fix it myself, but I urge the members to thoroughly consider the many points I have made above and edit the project page appropriately. In particularly you should remove "members" who have not added themselves, list all members under a single heading of members or participants not separating GRG members from others, remove all the other spam to the GRC, including the collage, and make it quite clear that this is a regular WikiProject to improve articles on the World's Oldest People and not something linked to any other group. --Bduke (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I just tried fixing all the problems to where it is appropriate for Wikipedia. If anyone wants to readd what was removed, it is best to discuss it first before readding it. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke's sentiments. The project page and the agenda in some of the comments above are very concerning and conflict with Wikipedia editing principles. By "leader", I assume Neal is referring to User:Ryoung122 who is blocked indefinitely. WP works on consensus and a user who has been blocked for violating editing policies and engaging in personal attacks certainly has no role to play in project coordination (even by proxy). —Moondyne click! 03:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. This does now look like a standard WikiProject main page. I strongly support the view above from AMK152 that any reversion of the changes made by the two editors above should be discussed here first. --Bduke (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Name of this Project

Would Wikiproject: Longevity be a better name for this project? It sounds more encyclopedic. What do people think? --Bduke (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bduke: I note your edit comment "just list articles without confusing paragraph - thanks to Robert Young for suggested deletion," (in the project page, not the talk). Moondyne clearly stated that blocked users can't get things done even by proxy. So I would think that means you can't delete stuff sourcing Robert Young said so/told you to. *shrug* Neal (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC).

Where did Moondyne say this? The edit, that I thanked Robert for suggesting, was to the Project page where I removed a very confusing and unnecessary sentence at the beginning of the section on articles covered. Robert suggested its removal. I removed it because I had already thought it needed attention. I certainly take responsibility for removing it. The courtesy blanking on the talk page was a living person issue because you had accused Robert of encouraging harassment of admins off wiki. He rightly took exception to that and denied it. I therefore removed that comment. Just because a user is blocked does not mean that you can make accusations about them. --Bduke (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sentence, but paragraph. This particular edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People&diff=202993391&oldid=202212703. We do cover biographies, such as Jeanne Calment, Sarah Knauss, etc. I didn't see anything relevant in removing it completely, except maybe clarify. Neal (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Then add something back that makes sense. Do not talk about ages, as that was totally unclear and inappropriate. Just say something like "Biographies of oldest people". The articles covered are defined by those with the Project tag on their talk pages. From the assessment table, that means the project covers 90 articles. There is no need to list them all. In fact their is really no need to list any of them, but you might list the most important. --Bduke (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I obviously didn't want to list all the supercentenarian articles, so I mentioned the age group we cover. We don't cover people below 110 nowadays. There are exceptions going back in the 1970s and 1960s. And then I added we'll cover certain underage articles at our discretion. My point was you removed it because Robert Young told you so, and Moondyne said blocked users can't play any role in project coordination even by proxy. Neal (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Robert Young did not tell me to do anything. He has been commenting on the WikiProject page and said that the paragraph in question was unclear and he thought it would be better if it was removed. I agreed and that is why I removed it. I still do not know what Moondyne said, but from his comment below he does not seem to think there are any issues other than you twisting his words. --Bduke (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right, he didn't tell you to do it, but merely suggested, as the edit comment goes "thanks to Robert Young for suggested deletion." This of course, could contradict why he would tell you what he thinks is unclear/should be deleted. Of course, 1 way you could argue this by getting around it, is say you also agree with him, so you also did it for yourself, but you merely did it because he came up with the idea instead. However, I don't support or enforce Moondyne's statement since I really don't give a damn whether blocked users play a role in WikiProjects to begin with myself. Neal (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Neal don't twist my words—you know what I said and what I meant. Also, I agree with a rename to the much simpler and broader Wikiproject: Longevity, but frankly I do not wish to get involved in this project other than helping to ensure it stays on the rails as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. —Moondyne click! 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very easy to say that - much harder to show why. But I feel the above was in a misunderstanding edit. Neal (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Joining team

Greetings,

It may be COI for me to assess some of the articles in the WOP project, but I'd like to stay informed through the newsletter. Also note the name of the project was blatantly copied by Neal Conroy from my Yahoo webgroup, World's Oldest People, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/

(founded in 2002)

but I do not object to the use of the name so long as proper credit is given as to its origin. Ryoung122 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Neal was blocked and didn't return at all. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for World's Oldest People

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography focus should be biography

Greetings,

It seems to me that for some, the focus of supercentenarian biographies is off-target. Firstly, "as of" comments should be used sparingly...if it needs to be updated frequently, then's it not very encyclopedic. Consider using other terms, such as "person A broke record B on date C."

Second, the focus of a biography should be more on unique identifiers for that person, their life history, how they managed to overcome the extreme odds (5 million to one or more) to survive to 110+. Please consider the use of more biographical material and less made-up stuff like "the oldest person in the Southern hemisphere." Ryoung122 03:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli at FAR

User:Tony1 has nominated Lazare Ponticelli for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 07:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:53, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Longevity myths

I would like to chip in, on a very temporary basis, to deal with the sad state of articles in relation to Biblical longevity, in that nothing like proper weighting or encyclopedic treatment is going on IMHO. I have begun by proposing, among other things, that longevity myths be renamed to "longevity narratives" or "longevity lore"; that better scopes be defined for that article and for what is almost a content fork, longevity claims; and that a simple navigation template "Biblical longevity" be created. I will also be doing some basic cleanup and sourcing and removal of POV.

A couple other concerns that I have (and this may simply be due to the project members having more experience with GRG than with WP) are that articles generally break self-reference and timelessness rules. Any breakdown that uses the word "this" (this list, this article), should be checked for whether it is WP:OR, or whether the reliable sources actually use the same criteria that the article is defining ad-hoc and self-referentially. For instance, supercentenarian properly establishes a reliable-source cutoff of 110; and the priority for year-and-day counts rather than total-day counts is also relatively well-established; but the cutoff of 130 between longevity claims and longevity myths has no real basis in reliable sourcing and I have reasonably proposed removing it, and other issues exist. As for timelessness, any article that is structured in such a way as to need nonautomated updating every day breaks one of the basic ideas of what WP is not. There are ways to handle this but they need new consensus to support them.

Anyway, please comment on my proposals here and/or at the "myths" talk. JJB 01:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am back to continue this process. Those favoring rename of "myths" appear to prefer "longevity traditions". Also that unclear scope definition and questionable 130 cutoff still need fixing. JJB 07:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's more than clear that you are simply biased in favor of Biblical myths. There's no scientific evidence that humans live to 950 now, or in the past. It's also clear that you are pushing an agenda. Go back to WorldNetDaily.Ryoung122 10:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of surviving veterans of World War I/archive1

I have nominated List of surviving veterans of World War I for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maiden names

User:Pascar has recently been changing names to maiden names on a number of longevity pages with the reasoning here that the "same criterion for all supercentenarians, i.e. for all them maiden names" be applied. Is there any basis for this? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 01:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham navbox

Folks, someone added navbox code to this article. The navbox should probably be put in a proper template and transcluded on the appropriate articles. Before I do that, does this exist as a template anywhere? I did a few searched but no relevant hits. Any ideas? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Honorary" titles

Greetings,

I'd like to remove the POV word "honorary" from the "oldest person" titles navbox. The word "honorary", ironically, carries the connotation that someone didn't really 'earn' something (such as 'honorary degree') but was just recognized as such, a sort of system of flattery. To be honest, the titleholders have EARNED their title by living to be the age they did, and having documentation to prove it.

On the other hand, just because someone has the title doesn't mean they are an "honorable" person. So, I'd prefer a NPOV "titles".Ryoung122 23:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for what to do when the final veteran of WW1 dies

At the talk page of List of surviving veterans of World War I‎, I have started a discussion about what to do when the final veteran dies.

My proposal is at the article's talk page, and your input would be appreciated.

Hopefully, it'll be a long time before we have to implement any decision made, but I feel we need to discuss it - especially as someone specifically asked about it.

Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Five proposals were made for what to do. If you would like to contribute with what you think should be done, the discussion is at Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I‎#Renewed: Discussion about what to do when the last veteran dies -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yohani Kinyala Lauwo

Any truth here? I guess it's not possible to verify and it's unlikely to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchitt (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oldest military veterans

Could someone with more reputation then I have please make clear to MK5384 that Josef Kowalskis age is not verified? Thank you! --Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

World's Oldest People articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the World's Oldest People articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Might wanna Wake Up!

Massive things may be afoot at WP:FTN#Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths. I would be in favor of significant pruning myself, especially if whole list articles are redundant or not individually notable. JJB 01:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is now a merge proposal at Longevity myths to merge --> Longevity. Many of us who are not regulars at Longevity myths are of the opinion that the page is not encyclopedic and that relevant information ought to be saved elsewhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Counterproposal: An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reposting something I've been barked at, off-wiki, for posting in the wrong place. Has WP:AGF just been totally forgotten in this dispute?David in DC (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David, although I don't think this is about misunderstanding the definitions of myth (as you may perhaps agree), it's about the fact that most (if not all) sources on this topic who use "myth" mean "falsehood" and we would not use them on this point via WP:RNPOV even though we do have articles on creation and flood mythoi. Incidentally, the merge discussions were bogged down with misunderstandings, so I closed them as "no consensus action" and continued editing per my best judgment. It appears, however uncharitably, that the WikiProject members are more interested in (excuse me) rearranging deck chairs as the iceberg approaches; and I'm also disappointed that FTN editors do not seem to be concentrating on proper weighting of the topic set as a whole. C'est la vie. JJB 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion recommendations

Last update JJB 04:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: Fringe-theory noticeboard, Mediation cabal, 2007 notability discussion

Date	Discussion	Result
2007-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florrie Baldwin oldest living Eur	KEEP
2007-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Morris oldest living	KEEP
2007-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Jennings oldest living Eur	KEEP
2007-12-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flossie Page oldest KS	NCDK
2007-12-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gertrude Baines oldest living	NCDK
2007-12-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lydia Newton	DELE
2007-12-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Barnes	DELE
2007-12-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Baker	DELE
2007-12-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Bidwell oldest US living	NCDK
2007-12-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Henry Brett, Jr.	DELE
2007-12-08	Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Delvina Dahlheimer	RDIR
2007-12-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelina Domingues	DELE
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Clawson	DELE
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunhild Foerster	DELE
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Francis (supercentenarian)	RDIR
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrtle Jones	DELE
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Graham (supercentenarian) oldest living	NCDK
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ettie Mae Greene oldest recognized US living	NCDK
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Lazenby	RDIR
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Hartmann	DELE
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mae Harrington	RDIR
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses Hardy last black WWI vet	KEEP
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Hannah oldest black	KEEP
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss second-oldest verified	KEEP
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delphia Hankins	RDIR
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Hagel	RDIR
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Wiggins	DELE
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians (2nd nomination) List of French supercentenarians List of British supercentenarians List of American supercentenarians	KEEP
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Nelsen Jones	RDIR
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelmina Kott	RDIR
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith oldest recognized living	KEEP
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary McKinney	RDIR
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Matthews oldest living Buffalo Soldier	KEEP
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ingram McMorran oldest living US	KEEP
2007-12-09	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Nelson (supercentenarian)	RDIR
2007-12-10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Pouder	DELE
2007-12-10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Plant	DELE
2007-12-10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Parks	DELE
2007-12-10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Richardson	DELE
2007-12-11	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Watkins oldest verified living	NCDK
2007-12-11	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clara Huhn	RDIR
2007-12-11	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Primout	DELE
2007-12-11	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josefa Salas Mateo	RDIR
2007-12-12	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Booyson	RDIR
2007-12-12	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auguste Pahl	DELE
2007-12-12	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Saint-Amour	DELE
2007-12-13	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khasako Dzugayev	DELE
2007-12-13	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Urrea-Hernández	DELE
2007-12-15	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard	DELE
2007-12-15	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mito Umeta	DELE
2007-12-21	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmelo Bertolami	DELE
2010-04-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians from the Americas	DELE
2010-10-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans (2nd nomination)	DELE
2010-10-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service	DELE
2010-10-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest living men	DELE
2010-10-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie McMenamin	DELE
2010-10-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva McConnell	DELE
2010-10-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Dolan Quinn	DELE
2010-10-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dolan (centenarian)	DELE
2010-10-29	Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 29#Template:Biblical longevity	DELE
2010-11-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts claimed oldest living Eur man	NCDK
2010-11-04	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American supercentenarians
2010-11-07	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last surviving Canadian war veterans	RDIR
2010-11-08	Nyleptha Roberts WP:PROD
2010-11-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian supercentenarians
2010-11-10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians List of South American supercentenarians

Common deletion outcomes

The 2007 notability discussion seems to establish that most specific longevity records do not establish inherent notability. Even the oldest verified living person (note also subtle difference with oldest recognized living person), listed at Template:Oldest people for holders since 1955, does not confer notability to everyone listed. It is clear that some persons can be retained for notability other than supercentenarianism (Buffalo Soldier Mark Matthews). But it's also clear that consensus favors creating some more reliable guidance (toward delete, merge/redirect, or keep) than previously agreed on, and this is the page to do it. I start by noting the common outcomes shown in the majority of the above 2007 cases are that a couple of longevity-only sources will get you deleted, and a handful of them will get you merged and redirected. Specifically:

• The first four cases above were kept, but they appear exceptions to this idea because the discussion had just gotten started; they may be deletable or mergeable on review, along with later cases like Bidwell, Greene, Hannah, Keith, and Watkins, which have only essentially the basic longevity-group sources.
• Graham has the same problems of having only basic longevity-group sources, but has the additional problem that the "keep" close does not appear to be valid, suggesting WP:DRV.
• Baines clearly passes WP:GNG on five very mainstream sources and several longevity sources, indicating many more; similarly for Hardy and Knauss (and maybe McMorran), which have much mainstream coverage.
• It is clear that by 2007-12-10, AFD nominators (mostly BrownHairedGirl) had gotten enough feel for consensus as to nominate reliably for result of either deletion or redirection, with only one exception. I would propose that criteria similar to the above should be reratified, namely, that the article should be kept only if there are many unquestionable sources, merged if there are a few questionable and longevity-group sources, and deleted if there are only a couple.
• Naturally, as to still-open discussion on Goossenaerts, I find these data to support my position of "delete or redirect", recognizing there are other POVs. Decision should be made on sourcing rather than on "one of several unverified claimants for oldest living man in Europe". When sourcing is limited to mirrors of one wire story that quotes GRG, plus one or more older Belgian-only sources of uncertain provenance (the primary one being a political party), the notability falls somewhere between delete and redirect as per the above outcomes. However, this is only the current and immediate application of what ought to be a wider principle. JJB 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Jan Goossenaerts has now been kept by closer Mandsford, contrary to this logic, I anticipate that the keepers will all come over here to help create some consensus about the general deletion principles different from the logic above that indicates a merge for Jan G. If they should fail to do so, why, the project consensus would remain toward merge at this page, and would force a merge and overthrow the nonconsensus at the AFD for which they fought so hard. Great. Jump in, guys, and show us why the above WP:OUTCOMES show that an article with unexpandable minimal sourcing should be kept rather than merged. I'll give you at least 2 weeks. JJB 04:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for handling both BDP and tabular OR issues

I have drafted a policy proposal for WP:BDP, which mentions a cutoff of age 115, that both addresses its flaws as well as the difficulties in datedness that require near-daily correction of several tables. I trust the workgroup will be interested in ensuring a draft that is salable to the WP:BLP regular editors. Please review User:John J. Bulten/BDP and comment at talk there. JJB 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

List of living centenarians ?vandalism?

Someone has been adding a non-notable entry at List of living centenarians. I've reverted twice. Probably enough hours that WP:3RR does not apply, but would be more comfortable having another editor take the next step. Ma^t_chups 02:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Per Itsmejudith at mediation, I agree that this project needs to thrash out notability guidelines among the editors who have conflicting broad and narrow inclusion criteria. My base proposal would be as follows (and I will be taking silence as consensus):

1. A supercentenarian claim is a reliably sourced statement that reasonable people believe some human to have been over 110 years old.
2. All supercentenarian claims are notable for inclusion in lists; these lists include:
   • List of living supercentenarians.
   • The various "deaths by year" articles listed at Template:Longevity.
   • When claims are controverted by other evidence of an exact age under 110, List of disputed supercentenarian claimants.
   • For uncontroverted unverified claims, Longevity claims and Longevity traditions (demarcation and subscopes being discussed).
3. Individual bio articles are notable if some major interest and coverage is available beyond being age 110.
4. Other list articles are notable if similar lists occur in reliable independent sources.
5. All other longevity-article notability should be determined by consensus, such as those reliant only on GWR, GRG, WOP, and OHB.

JJB 15:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

#3 seems a bit vague. — Timneu22 · talk 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of various WikiProjects, the notability guidelines should concentrate on individual articles, and only when those are agreed turn to the question of lists. So I'm only commenting for now on article notability.

I think that this project can agree that people currently living, or who have lived, to over 110 will usually be notable enough to merit a biography. Not simply because of their age, but because there is likely to be independent coverage. That goes against my !vote on Jan Goossenaerts - I might change it - the point is that we need to thrash out a consistent policy here. Where the age is in doubt or it has been positively disproved that the person lived past 110, then notability is entirely dependent on the extent of coverage. The kinds of sources we are looking for in all doubtful or disproved cases will depend on when and where the person lived, but we could state here that we will usually expect more than one reliable source and that sources should be in national or international, rather than local media. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the intent of #3 is to remain vague enough to achieve consensus until it is better honed. The basic position I have taken and seen taken is that being 110 is sufficient for list inclusion but not for a bio article; the discussion over Jan is so heavy because he also has the imaginary title [oldest] [living] [verified] [male] [in Europe]. JJB 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. Since we have no contrary view then I will put it in a notability section on the project page. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I like your phrasing! That will stand well until somebody notices it. :D I would just like to reaffirm: #2. For me, it seems that the first article for a new claim should be the appropriate article out of living verified, dead verified (by year), controverted, unverified (two). #4. I would delete a list article if there is no secondary source that includes a comparable list and if it's wholly redundant with the base articles. #5. Based on GRuban's WP:RSN opinion, I would treat GRG (and thus OHB) pages only as data dumps, i.e., subject to correction by reliable secondary sources (while also keeping in tension the credulity of newspaper sources on this topic); and I would treat Yahoo WOP as deletable as inaccessible if no quote is provided in a reasonable time, and as a data dump if a quote is provided. JJB 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Oldest people and List of oldest people

Proposing merge of these two - an urgent task I think if readers aren't going to be utterly confused. Oldest people begins by saying "this is a list". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. :) David in DC (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist. In case anyone does't like jokes here, I agree with IMJ. David in DC (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To me this is a delete rather than a merge. But (IMJ please see Help:Merging) please continue discussion at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Merge proposal, to which this is copied, and where my reasons appear. JJB 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

End COI

Evidence indicates that User:Ryoung122 (Robert Young) has continuing, massive, improperly handled WP:COI due to his position with the e-group GRG; that User:12.144.5.2 (Louis Epstein) has manageable COI by a similar position; that GRG and the Yahoo group WOP have advocacy purposes contrary to encyclopedicity; and that several admitted Yahoo WOP members are also WP editors. Evidence indicates that this group of conflicted editors has maintained a large number of articles contrary to WP policies and has entrenchedly resisted attempts to conform such articles to policy. Since all WP editors have an interest in improving WP in accord with community policy, we need an effective community solution for the policy violations. Notification: I will notify the last several editors to this talk page of this discussion, in accord with policy.

Please limit discussion below to solutions for policy violations; I have proposed several possibilities. Since the COI has some risk of affecting this discussion as well, I will arbitrarily propose that an editor who perceives a conflicting relationship to gerontology advocacy in another contribution in this section may move such comments to a separate section below for determining the extent of the COI; under the relevant policy subsection, such contributions will only be retained in this section if consensus indicates they contribute constructively to solutions for policy violations. Please comment paragraph by paragraph in the #COI options section below, threading comments appropirately. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

COI options

1. Increased, aggressive warning: editors employ a much larger number of bold edits, user warnings, ANI reports, COI reports even where redundant, and demands for policy solutions through ordinary communal processes. In the past these have often failed due to majoritarianism trumping policy.

2. Voluntary side processes: editors aggressively seek side discussions, such as WP:MEDCAB and WP:RFC/U, in which conflicted editors can make voluntary concessions due to COI. These have failed lately due to such editors not taking the initiative.

3. Community discussion: editors create a centralized discussion page detailing the violations and obtaining input on how to handle, while continuing the segregation of demonstrably conflicted editor comments unless recognized as constructive by a consensus of nonconflicted editors. Not tried yet.

4. Workgroup creation: editors create a second group, such as "WikiProject Longevity", with a different but overlapping scope to the present one (this might be challenged as a "workgroup fork", but many workgroups overlap, and if the alternate group is set up properly with consensus processes it would be sustainable against such challenges). After scope setup, the project establishes general consensus for longevity-article policies (as has not done by this project) and enforces that consensus. Not tried yet due to requiring more intense participation.

5. Arbitration Committee: editors appeal to ArbCom for analysis of editor behavior and wait on content solutions until behavior is resolved. Not tried yet.

6. [Add your own subpoint here.]

COI list

This section is for identification (by self or others) of COI relationships, without WP:OUTING, and for comments by editors identified herein as having COI, such as their asking that their proposals be included in the section above. Discussion by editors unidentified as conflicted, as to questionable cases of COI, may occur in the prior section. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 (Robert Young)

Supercentenarian Claims Investigator for GRG. COI repeatedly found by broad WP consensus. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

12.144.5.2 (Louis Epstein)

Supercentenarian Claims Investigator for GRG. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please use the above two sections for particular discussion of options or of COI identification.

• Comment This appears to be an attempt at removing, and preventing further, input from acknowledged experts in the longevity field. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's great to have experts around, but experts have to take care how they edit. This probably isn't the place to resolve the COI question. I'm going to post on ANI. This will probably kick-start a discussion that editors here can join in. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, it's an attempt to rein in people who are trying to force every single centenarian and supercentenarian into the encyclopedia while disregarding NPOV. It's not that experts can't have input; however, it must be in accordance with other policies. I've been watching this on and off from the outside, and what I'm seeing is a few people with a COI attempting to push through a specific agenda while contravening WP:N and NPOV, which is not good. We don't let Moonies have the final say on which members of the Unification Church clergy get articles, nor should we let researchers on centenarians have the final word on this issue; their input is welcome, but they can't do it to the exclusion of policy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Thank you DavidinDC for the spelling correction; I hate when I do that.

"Experts" maybe, but also "hobbyists" who have interests that are not encyclopedic. We are not a collection of trivia, or lets at least admit that we're not supposed to be one. Blade is correct. There is a lot of reining in to do.Griswaldo (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll be fine as soon as the hobbyists start recognising that Wikipedia is only of limited use in their hobby. I keep being reminded of WikiProject Football and soccer-related articles generally. There's no one as fanatical as a football fan, yet they are serious about maintaining the articles in tip-top quality. I always know that if I find a footy-related bio I can get a quick and policy-informed decision on notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You say we'll be fine "if", but you are also preparing an ANI report. Would you commment on that option above, or others, toward getting them to recognize this? Thanks. JJB 23:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm optimistic that WP editors will come together to insist in a friendly but firm way that the encyclopedia's norms have to be upheld. Let's hope that the ANI marks the turning point. Itsmejudith (talk)

00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already identified Ismejudith, JJBulten, Grismaldo, and DavidinDC as the anti-supercentenarian cabal. This is NOT a matter of trying to force every single centenarian and supercentenarian into Wikipedia. We've seen Itsmejudith and JJBulten in particular attempt to merge or delete mainline articles such as Oldest people and longevity myths. We already know that JJ has a conflict of interest in the same way that an "anti-cult fanatic" would be a COI at a "Moonie" article.

Even comparing this dispute to articles on the Moonies is telling. One, it shows the mindset of these four Wiki editors, who have attempted to label discussion of supercentenarians as "fringe theory," when in fact it is they who are involved in fringe theory (such as the belief that people can live 900 years). Grismaldo appears to have been recruited by JJBulten from discussions on religion. DavidinDC has a COI with me (Ryoung122) and should not really be involved in this.

The bottom line, Wikipedia's norms are being ravaged by inconsiderate, egotistical editing that fails to consider long-established consensus and that fails to consider what outside sources say, instead engaging in original research. This is not even close to a "turning point." An impartial, third-party investigation would quickly find that the edits by these four have been, for the most part, highly unhelpful and inappropriate to Wikipedia concerning this topic of discussion. Comparing scientific mainstream positions to religious cultwatching is the height of witchcraft-hysteria, all the more incredulous considering it is the position of JJBulten, in particular, that is pushing a religious fundamentalist viewpoint. Just like Salem, some 300 years later public opinion is that the hysteria was unwarranted. Hopefully it won't take 300 years for persons to realize that the behavior of these four editors in this particular field of discussion is what is out of line.Ryoung122 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"People" sections at end of list articles

These aren't necessary, are they? A list should be a list; apart from an introduction it shouldn't need extra paragraphs underneath. Biographical info should, where the individuals are notable, be in the biography articles, which should be linked in the main list. So I'm going to start taking them out. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would advise caution and patience here, because it seems to me that most of these are the results of merge orders (listed above, actually). In a list where someone has say three borderline sources, it would be appropriate to have a brief bio, although that may interfere with tabular format (which is why the workgroup editors prefer the separate section. The place to start might be to delete the most unreliable sources, per GRuban's guidance I mention above, and the most trivial statements. Stuff like "she walks every day" and "when [unrelated 110-year-old] died, he became the oldest GWR-verified man in County Essex". Besides deleting trivia and obscure items sourced only to GRG/OHB (apparently Coles/Epstein respectively), we'd add "request quotation" tags to the Yahoo WOP sections, unless there would be too many. I think a balance between list and thumbnail bio will emerge. JJB 16:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done quite few, and while they can be restored, your logic implies we should still omit the entries that refer to "main article", as those people have biogs that are already linked. I wonder if WikiProject Lists is active and would be able to advise. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, naturally it's redundant to see e.g. Nyleptha in a list, in a separate subhead, and in a main-article link after the subhead. There is a whole bunch of (ahem) juvenile formatting like that. Don't worry about restoring them if nobody objects, just move slow is all. JJB 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

RSN opinion, after discussion, was that GRG webpages on their own aren't reliable. Yahoo! discussions definitely aren't reliable. Would someone like to draft a Sourcing section on the project page to that effect? And include suggestions of what sources are reliable, e.g. Guinness. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)