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 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: Fringe-theory noticeboard, open arbitration, 2007 notability discussion

Date	Discussion	Result
2007-07-30	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist)	NCDK
2007-11-01	Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 1#Category:Supercentenarian trackers	DELE
2007-11-07	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)	DELE
2007-11-10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Rose Mueller second-oldest living CT	KEEP
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 living US	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 living US	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
2009-11-23	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grietje Jansen-Anker oldest living Neth	KEEP
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	RDIR
2010-11-07	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last surviving Canadian war veterans	RDIR
2010-11-08	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian supercentenarians	DELE
2010-11-10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians List of South American supercentenarians	DELE
2010-11-15	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyleptha Roberts	DELE
2010-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Takii
2010-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berta Rosenberg
2010-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Guzmán-García
2010-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janetta Thomas
2010-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lempi Rothovius
2010-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadayoshi Tanabe
2010-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tase Matsunaga
2010-11-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ura Koyama

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 five supercentenarian cases above were kept, but they appear exceptions to this idea because the discussion had just gotten started; Mueller and Page may be deletable or mergeable on review, along with later cases like Bidwell, Greene, Hannah, Keith, Watkins (and potential 2008-10 cases) 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)

The subject of my tongue-in-cheek "anticipation" has not materialized. I know very few of the active topic-area editors seem to want to contribute to this page, but I will test the WP:SILENT consensus with another round of deletion recommendations, at which point I "anticipate" objectors will comment here. That proposal, accepted silently so far, is that supercentenarian articles may be deleted or merged to lists if they have only local notability and heavy GRG advocacy evident in the sources. It appears that this was also done for many of the 2007 AFDs, so it is not just a one-man silent consensus, but it needs to be restoked. JJB 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

COI notice: the above person has been pushing a radical, far-right agenda that suggests that humans live to 950, so of course age 114 is nothing to him. However, scientific fact establishes that there have been fewer then 100 persons all-time who have verifiably reached age 114. We should be more concerned that Mr. Bulten is pushing systematically to delete material that in most instances should be kept, and he has also recruited others (such as DavidinDC) as a sort of "tag team", which makes their deletion "hit squad" biased an unfair...all this is happening when other, more impartial editors have been attempting to come up with standards, rather than simply turn this into "electioneering," which is clearly happening.

I find it incredulous that Asa Takii, reported to be the oldest person in Japan at her death and the oldest survivor of the A-bombing of Hiroshima, is being treated so callously.Ryoung122 19:49, 3 December 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):

You should strike the above remark as an example of an abuse of Wiki-etiquette. "Silence" does NOT equal consensus, especially when you did not inform others about your post.

However, I do agree we need to come up with a general policy regarding individual supercentenarian and even centenarian biographies, when those persons are noted for age.Ryoung122 04:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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. ADD: Bios with the barest coverage (two RSs or so) can be single paragraphs in list articles.
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)

Comment: "Notability" may not be "temporary," but it can change, especially when someone is still alive, just as notability of sports figures may change (from minor to major leagues) or actors (from bit parts to major roles).

Thus, we need to establish a few basic parameters regarding notability or alleged notability due to extreme age:

1. different rules for living/dead

2. different rules for male/female

3. different rules for verified/unverified

I would generally propose these guidelines, first for verified supercentenarians:

A. Listworthy notability: for living females 110+ (general) and deceased females 110+ (by nationality); for living males 108+ (general list) and deceased males 108+ (by nationality). For example, if we check out the French Wikipedia, they list French males aged 108 and over, in part because the oldest man in France is generally at least age 108:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyen_des_Fran%C3%A7ais

Note that the above article, in another language, came up with their own solution.

B. Mini-bio notability: (This means the person would have a paragraph about them as part of a larger article) for oldest persons by nation, oldest males by nation, but for which a generalized article is not warranted.

C. General biography: If the person was a "world's oldest person" titleholder, "world's oldest man" titleholder, or if the person generally ranked in the top-ten oldest living persons, age 113+, and for which significant media coverage would warrant an article.

D. Longevity claim notability: for claims to age 113+, that are living, to be included on a list (Longevity claims); for claims to age 115+, deceased, to be included on a list.

In addition, those claimants that warranted significant media attention (such as Elizabeth Israel of Dominica) would warrant their own article. This generally would be limited to claims to be the world's oldest person.

I'd like to hear what some others have to say about this. The problem is that media coverage often is dependent on whether the person wants attention or not. Thus, we can have verified 114-year-olds from Spain that are anonymous and thus warrant only list inclusion, not an individual biography.Ryoung122 04:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this comes close to actually discussing the problem, it attracts interaction. My notes:

• Insofar as this proposal reflects current practice among the workgroup it does not have special pride of place among other proposals.
• Overspecific notability rules do not have consensus like general notability rules; note that #3 and #5 are deliberately vague to retain that consensus.
• Particularly, the current rule for living/dead unverifieds is that a living unverified under 113 is list-notable for list of living supercentenarians but if that person dies under 113 they are removed from that list and not replaced, as nonnotable anywhere. This contradicts notability not temporary.
• A. The age-108 portion of proposal A is a rejection of current consensus, by appeal to fr.wikipedia, a tertiary source, so it need not be considered without further backup. As to two other portions, I fully agree with using the accepted age-110 criterion as established by RS, and the idea of listing living "general"ly and dead "by nationality" could take a little discussion, as follows.
• If someone has a supercentenarian claim not on WP and wants to find the "correct" or "base" article for potential insertion, there is zero guidance right now. I've argued in my notability point #2 that verifieds should be split into living (all) and dead (by year). It is possible to regard the base articles as the nationality articles instead of the by-year articles, with the living article regarded as a permissibly redundant subset of the nationality articles, to accommodate R's ideas. The difficulties are: (1) determining nationality, which is often dual; (2) housing some people in one-item lists, or creating arbitrary continental arguments (see current AFDs). That is, how could an inserter find the "correct" article for discussion if the nationality itself is unclear and the party may have to start a new article for a small country that is itself not a notable article, and how could this be tracked easily on the longevity template? It appears that, although moving to a nationalist base might satisfy some group concerns, it does not have an objective enough scope statement to be workable at this time.
• B. Not sure this would be needed: Oldest female and male by nation do not get inline minibios unless RSs permit, and other claimants do not avoid getting minibios when RSs permit, so a separate guarantee for oldest-in-nation does not seem to have any force. This discussion belongs at #"People" sections at end of list articles, where it appears minibios are being tolerated for the nonce. However, I made an add to #3 that might both address this and be acceptable to IMJ per her comments below. JJB 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• C. Same problem as B. If you have significant media coverage (and above I stated that significant is a high bar here), it doesn't matter what title you have been accorded, or not, by Young & Co.
• D. R uses "claim" to mean "unverified under 131y0d". I have objected vehemently, both to the WP:OR cutoff of 131, and to the OR idea that such claims begin at 113 and 115. Again, other editors enforce the same violation of notability-not-temporary, in that if you are a living claimant age 114, you are listed, but if you die at that age, you are delisted as "no longer notable", which phrase is a contradiction on WP. As hinted in point #2, I am fully in favor of listing all claims over 110, with objective scope breakdowns, either in longevity claims, longevity traditions (or folklore or myths), or list of disputed supercentenarian claimants (we'll work on that title later). The exclusion of ages 110-115 due to verification status is inherent WP:BIAS. Thus here, very oddly, I am arguing, via policy, for greater notability of unverifieds, while Ryoung122 and other editors are the deletionists. There are a dozen or two cases that have been deleted and I have not fought to restore on precisely this line. So let's stop the charges that one camp is deletionist, when it's about objective scopes and policy conformity, thanks. JJB 16:55, 14 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 appropriately. 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.

• This point anticipated Judith's preannounced Wikipedia:ANI#Longevity-related articles. JJB 20:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC) ANI was archived with much discussion and zero admin action. Next I will ask other COI editors to comment here, and I think I know what will come after that. JJB 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

• This point reflects WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths. JJB 20:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Prognosis: not so good. David in DC (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

• I think this a good idea. David in DC (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks David. A variation of this is that we start by using this page and talk to start floating the handling, seeing as there is not too much COI flak (yet). Judith has proactively started this, and it might actually work at least to achieve consensus among nonconflicted editors. However, I wouldn't want to join the workgroup as it stands due to the unstated understandings going on in the group already, and I also wouldn't want to just take over this page just because it's relatively abandoned. So maybe this can be the pre-WP:CENT page. JJB 02:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) This can continue while other discussion fora are also tried. JJB 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

• I oppose this on the grounds suggested (fork and more intense participation.) If participation got any more intense we'd be past Nigel Tufnel's legendary "11" David in DC (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

• I think we need to try watching what happens at option 1 and what happens if option 3 is tried before going nuclear with option 5. I fear we'll wind up there but WP:CRYSTAL says I might be wrong. David in DC (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I pressed the shiny red button. JJB 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Abdicate responsibility in the face of incorrigible bullying.

• I oppose this option. David in DC (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Very funny new option David. I'll acknowledge about 1 in 20 of your jokes, but only those that are funny, so don't get your hopes up. JJB 02:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"7. [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 aka Robert Douglas Young)

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

• User:Chip69 was indeffed as sock of Ryoung122 by Maxim, last edit 2007.
• User:Aslan119 was indeffed as inappropriate alternate of Ryoung122 by JzG, last edit 2007.
• User:76.17.118.157, probably et al., is an alternate of Ryoung122 per edit history. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• User:Kletetschka (Gunther Kletetschka) was indeffed as sock (but more likely meat) of Ryoung122 by Maxim, last edit 2007. JJB 20:01, 19 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)

Your comments do not seem to state anyone has any conflicting relationships to gerontology advocacy. JJB 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My response to the screed above, beyond res ipsa loquitur, is genuine dismay to discover I'm a member of a cabal. If it exists, I'm not being invited to the meetings. It's because eat too much and drink too much, isn't it?! Cheapskates! I'll have you know I ALWAYS pay my fair share of a bill. I join my distinguished fellow editor in demanding an impartial, third-party investigation. David in DC (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I don't believe people can live 900 years, or even 150. There I was, hardly ever giving a thought to people living beyond 90 or so, perfectly happy that Guinness was checking out the plausibility of stories behind the scenes. Then I find uninvolved comment is asked for on Longevity myths. Then I find that there's a massive walled garden mirroring the work in progress of a group of consultants. And the rest is history (except that some of it is protohistory, pseudohistory...). Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point in my example; what I'm saying is that even though Moonies would certainly know more than the rest of us about the Unification Church, we don't just let them do what they want with it. You probably know more than the rest of us about this subject, but that doesn't give you (or anyone else; this isn't personal) the right to stonewall consensus. I'll say here what I said at ANI; it'd be good for you to take a step back and see what other non-experts in the field have to say about the notability of certain centenarians and supercentenarians. If it were up to me, Mark Farmaner would have an article; however, his name is just a redirect to the organization he heads, which is probably the right way to go given he's essentially unknown to people not attuned to Burmese international politics. Outsiders will have a better sense of how notable a subject is in general, and can make more neutral decisions; that's what I'm here for, because I really don't know much about the subject. I'm open to persuasion, but the constant insistence on using a very narrow set of sources isn't cutting it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

12.144.5.2 (Louis Epstein)

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

StanPrimmer (Stanley R. Primmer)

GRG staff, Florida, last edit 2007. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Petervermaelen (Peter Vermaelen)

GRG correspondent, Netherlands. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bart Versieck (Bart Versieck aka "Extremely sexy")

GRG member, Flanders, last edit 02-2010. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

NealIRC (Neal Conroy)

Yahoo WOP, Illinois, last edit 2008. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Plyjacks (Keith Cody aka Keith G.J. Cody, Keith G. Cody, "SSHGUYQC")

Yahoo WOP, Massachusetts. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cjeales

Yahoo WOP, England, last edit 2009. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevitydude

Yahoo WOP, SPA 2009-present.

• User:Kingcouey was indeffed as abusive alternate of IPs by Kanonkas, shared IP with Longevitydude, last edit 2009. JJB 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

TML

Yahoo WOP and "several other forums". JJB 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sbharris (Steven B. Harris)

This is a "self-identification," if you like, as nobody has asked for it. I've been on WP since late 2005, and have 22,000 edits. Mostly these are to chem, physics and medicine articles, not to gerontology articles, though. I haven't really "edit warred" on any of the "longevity" articles, but (who knows?) I may have some disagreements there in the future. I do recall, long ago, having an argument with user:BrownHairedGirl over whether lists of supercentenarians were worth making. They seem to have survived by consensus. Professionally I was trained as a gerontologist and geriatrician, and both of these I learned at UCLA, where L. Stephen Coles is a researcher. I know Dr. Coles personally. I've been a member of the GRG since 1990, when it was just a discussion group for invited physicians and researchers held in private homes. People like Jared Diamond at UCLA came to some of our first meetings.

I've long had an interest in the oldest-old, and the question of what mortality risk curves look like, after age 100. I know many of the people who work in this field professionally. For example, my major professor at UCLA for research was Roy Walford, M.D. I've met or corresponded with very many of the leading figures in gerontology for the last 25 years, at one time or another. So, sign me up as a person who doesn't have a disinterested view. I have many "interested views," formed over a long period of time. SBHarris 04:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in! I hope you noticed from point #5 above that we have now moved to ArbCom. I was previously wondering whether to list you as a party due to evidence I'd uncovered, but decided not to because you're somewhat the opposite of an SPA. However, it appears your history (particularly late 2007) would be reviewed anyway due to the case scope, so that indicates I will need to include you on my "informal" list and send your talkpage a technical notification later on anyway. Hope you don't mind. However, a bigger concern now is unmanaged COI. I appreciate any attention you can give to the case. JJB 06:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No COI found

David in DC

Ryoung122 has indicated that I have a COI with him. He bases this on disgreements we've had over content, and over whether I'm an anti-gay, anti-porn cabalist. I'm not any of the three. But be that as it may, would someone this editor respects (if such a mammal exists) please offer him an explanation of what conflict of interest actually means? Here's a hint Ry: it's not about disagreements with another editor. There are policies that cover that situation, but they've got nothing to do with COI. Conflict of interest occurs when an editor's relationship to an article or topic intersects with his off-wiki interests. I'll refrain from using colorful adjectives to describe our relationship, but whatever other policies cover it, WP:COI surely does not. That you think it does speaks volumes about your consideration of the real COI issues in play. How can you see it if you don't know what it is? It's a shame. David in DC (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments do not seem to state anyone has any conflicting relationships to gerontology advocacy. JJB 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I see you might have a "close relationship" with Ryoung122, but I don't think you two collaborate as closely as Marx and Engels. I saw a flareup previously about an article relating to homosexuality, but that flareup relationship looked exactly like any other Wikipedian's relationship with Ryoung122. But maybe we all have COI. I guess consensus among nonconflicted editors will need to decide, and maybe Ryoung122 will be the only nonconflicted editor left by his standards. JJB 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are here, DavidinDC, because you were:

A. recruited by others to be here, or

B. here because you had a personal issue with me in the past, then yes that can be a COI. Judges often recuse themselves from issues. Elena Kagan recused herself from ruling on DADT because she was a former solicitor-general of the U.S. and because she had involved in the issue.

If you were, however, here by coincidence, that is another issue, but there is still the appearance of COI.Ryoung122 03:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My response can be found here. I found a version of this on my talk page before I came here, and I don't feel like retyping it, omitting parts irrelevant to COI.David in DC (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Other accounts

The following accounts have not been found to have formal disclosed COI, but have been found to be WP:SPAs, broadly interpreted, or to be closely following and supporting the COI editors. Users on this list are encouraged to disclose any COI directly, especially Yahoo WOP membership:

• User:Berries and cream 33, SPA.
• User:Brendanology, SPA.
• User:DerbyCountyinNZ, New Zealand.
• User:DHanson317, SPA.
• User:Kitia, was indeffed as meatpuppeteer by Luna Santin, last edit 2008, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kitia, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kitia.
• User:NickOrnstein (Nick Ornstein), Maryland, SPA.
• User:SiameseTurtle, English.
• User:ResidentAnthropologist, new editor. ADD JJB 20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• User:62.235.160.79 and User:94.227.30.79, SPAs who voted at AFD within 25 minutes of each other.
• 208.109.112.0x12, SPA range most active at (formerly) list of the verified oldest people.

John J. Bulten (John J. Bulten)

Though unasked, it occurred to me that I must here self-disclose proforma my oft-alluded relationship with supercentenary researcher A. Ross Eckler, Jr.: I have written pro bono for his journal Word Ways, and have corresponded with him, though not about longevity. From that I have also made some independent determinations about how supercentenary research would be handled in his own idiom, though my determinations in this area are of course my own. Though IMHO this does not meet the conflict standard of close or formal relationship, I invite other editors' comments on this relationship so that I am not the only one making the judgment. JJB 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please use the above three 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)

"It's great to have experts around, but experts have to take care how they edit." What about those that aren't experts? Does the same criteria apply to them? What if their modus operandi is to specifically target an expert because they don't like that experts contributions? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a red herring; the problem here is that an expert's editing is being questioned. But since you ask, the answer is yes; look up what an SPA is. Seeing as that's not the issue here, I think we can safely leave it at that and get back to the matter at hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 14 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)

Policy points for discussion

I reviewed my first-ever post at this page at #Talk:Longevity myths, 19 months ago, and I was surprised to find that I presciently identified almost all of the dug-in issues on my first pass reviewing the topic area, and yet not one of my major points has been addressed. I believe the primary reason is my not challenging the nonpolicy consensus of conflicted editors that, every time, has drowned out the ability for nonconflicted editors to discuss. But let's attempt, once more into the breach, to discuss certain policy points toward nonconflicted consensus: just so I can see if I really have been sane all these months, or if the (cough) bullying was correct. Compare the original post above with the following list: there are more than these, but the fact that they have been unaddressed all this time indicates something! JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Rename "longevity myths" to "longevity folklore": first, the former violates WP:RNPOV and WP:SINGULAR. The faulty article name was first challenged in 2004 and repeatedly ever since. While some editors have agreed with the policy and such a move outright, others have opposed it in that two or three or more topics in the article do arise from mythos; but there is a clear continuum to the present day with no "end-of-myth" point. The bigger problem, though, is that not one sociology or mythology source uses the phrase "longevity myth(s)", though Ryoung122 has been ostensibly searching for 19 months; every source whatsoever uses the term "longevity myth" in its policy-forbidden, colloquial sense of "falsehood". Thus there is also the WP:OR violation. In 2005, Ryoung122 essentially took over the article, inserting most of one section of his then-nascent thesis: this insertion contained at least 26 phrases he invented relating to his original concept of "longevity myth" (and at least 70 sentences of unsourced OR), now gone (but the diffs are fun). Thus there is also the need to counteract, via a rename, the 5 years during which this OR has been accumulating mirrors and derivative works attributable to WP contrary to policy. I would have relisted this properly on the article talk page, but it was slapped down three times, as were several bold moves (usually by others), so I haven't re-broached this until now. What about finishing this rename after 6 years? JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Define the complementary scopes of the two articles, (myths/)folklore and longevity claims. I believe these two articles should list all old-age claims found in RSs but not verified by GWR standards (except when there is more than one birth-to-death lifespan found in sources, for which we have a third article for disputeds, list of disputed supercentenarian claimants). The wholly arbitrary scope demarcation maintained by several editors is: under age 131, claim; over age 131, myth/lore. (Don't ask me how Ryoung122 picked 131, I'll answer.) Of course, they're all claims, and they're all lore or traditions or stories or what-have-you, but there is a reasonable article-sizing argument for maintaining the demarc. I have sought various ways to differentiate by more objective standards; for instance, we could use "claims" for updates after the GWR epoch (fall 1955), and "lore" for those prior; we could also include all claims with complete birth and death dates; we could combine both. In the two articles, I defended their distinction by saying that the more complete and/or modern cases are easier for lists and the more incomplete and/or ancient cases are easier for narrative presentation. But the first question is: should we stop separating by that wholly arbitrary 131st birthday? JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Limit list articles to those that appear in WP:RS (or even in less reliable sources). While we were breaking down poll data for WP:USPE, different presentations or analyses of the same data led readers to different conclusions, and the choice of analyses was disputed: but what we all agreed on was not to use original presentations not found in any source. While I admit some leeway, I think the group's entrenched insistence, saying that this top-100, that top-10-plus-addendum, the other by-branch-of-service are all necessary to answer people's questions, presupposes that people are even asking without proving this presumption is WP:NOR. Should we review all list articles to retain only those that are nonredundant, that have objective inclusion criteria, and that have some recognizable relationship to reliable sources? JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

4. Remove WP:DATED material that requires near-daily list updates by (cough) drudges. A full explanation and proposal for this appears at User:John J. Bulten/BDP, which also resolves slight problems in the BLP policy (which were actually the reason I first investigated the articles). JJB 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page discussion of interest

People may be interested to read the interaction between User:Ryoung122 and myself on our talk pages. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've actually inured myself to this such that I don't go point-by-point anymore with proof of the error of each statement and implication. I will volunteer the fact that I voted for candidates from four different parties this month, if it helps. However, I fully support a third-party review of the interaction. JJB 18:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the left-right politics. I'm assuming it has little or nothing to do with this particular debate. We certainly shouldn't deliberately introduce it if we don't need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's relevant that I voted for Quisp over Quake? David in DC (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Sweetened breakfast cereals are a con. What's wrong with plain rolled oats? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I plead juvenile status. My age was in single digits when I cast my vote.David in DC (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Future of WikiProject

ArbCom evidence deadline was moved to 2011-01-15, announced by Kirill Lokshin. My first reaction is to shift gears from case planning to WikiProject planning as the best use of spare time for the nonce. This means I will be occasionally continuing to field proposals here as the appropriate page (and starting AFDs), and to guide the project from its original barely-compliant status to becoming a functioning topic hub. I would want to ensure that WikiProject members (whom I might join temporarily) and topic-area regulars have a full chance to share in forming these proposals; and we should do our best not to continue patterns of silence as reflected on significant talk sections above. JJB 04:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)