Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

New draft on claimant to oldest person

Johanna Mazibuko is in the news again, with a claim to be 128. See Draft:Johanna Mazibuko. Fences&Windows 11:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Knauss

Since the last discussion almost nothing about the article has changed, but one of the major claims of notability has. She is now the third oldest person, not the second, and unlike the first two on the list there's literally two sentences of biographical information in the biography about her. Given how contentious the last discussion was, I figure I'd raise this here; my own thought would be to merge it somewhere (most likely List of American supercentenarians), but this is obviously a case where being bold would be counterproductive. Thoughts? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP seems to contradict that a drop in notability can take place while moving from second to third place. I would oppose a merger, as the article is of substantial size as is, and the verification of age section is useful for those studying how extreme age is verified. schetm (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged, if Maria Capovilla (spot 12) should have a page, Sarah Knauss should too. LockzZ (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:WAX That mentality is how we ended up with around a hundred useless pages that took 8 years to clean up. Obviously the corollary is that just because those articles were deleted doesn't mean this one has to be, that's why I sought input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

To fluorit or not fluorit

On 31 July I reverted the removal of a person from List of supercentenarians by continent on the basis that they had a reliable source that made them eligible for inclusion in the list. The removal was on the basis that they had no proof of being alive in over a year. The latter criteria only applies to living supercentenarian lists. I was reverted twice by Chicdat (talk · contribs) on the basis that there is no consensus that someone continue to be included if there is no report that they are still alive. I have pointed out at Talk:List of the verified oldest people that the ONLY criteria for inclusion is that defined here which requires only that the person have a WP:RS which identifies their age as being old enough for inclusion, there is no requirement that they continue to be reported as alive until there is a report of their death. Chicdat tried WP:OTHERSTUFF by suggesting that the removal of a GRG verified person because they had gone into limbo set the precedent for such a removal, however the cases are different: the GRG person was validated at an age too low for inclusion, and the GRG, with their typical lack of suitable information, does not include a date when their "limbo" cases were last reported alive.

So, can we have a clear consensus that any person that has a WP:RS which reports them alive as at an age which would be sufficient for inclusion in ANY all-time supercentenarian list is included until such time as either their age is debunked, OR they are reported to have died at age that no longer qualifies them for inclusion OR, if they are not reported to be alive in over a year then their age is adjusted to that of the last report and fluorit and that date are included in the Date of death column. Regarding the GRG list and going into "limbo" inclusion in the living list, provided that list has been updated within the last year, constitutes evidence that they are still alive. Moving to limbo means their age should be taken at the age of verification or any other WP:RS which indicates they are old enough for inclusion.

Pinging a few regular contributors to this topic: @JFG:, @MattSucci:, @Georgia guy:, @Newshunter12:, @The Blade of the Northern Lights:, @TFBCT1:, @Knowledgekid87:, @David in DC:, @Canada Jack:, @Softmist:. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Been a while. I no longer edit regularly and on the rare occasions that I do, it's to fix spelling or formatting or such things. But I got notice of this ping and am a bit nostalgic and quite pleased to see many of the names of the other pingees (if that's a word - or even if it isn't). Thanks for tickling a couple of my memory neurons. As my Teamster friends say in salutation: Keep the shiny side up and the rubber side down. David in DC (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Involved, not !voting: The current practice appears to be to just keep them on the list, but exclude them from List of the oldest living people, see Talk:List of the oldest living people/Archive 19#Marcel Meys and others. I'm not saying that's a good idea, but that's the status quo. However Longevity claims does use fluorit, so maybe there is a consensus there. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Both of your points of view, obviously, have merit, however, I'm going to side with DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs) and say that the availability of a reliable source is enough to keep the person on the list, but Chicdat (talk · contribs)'s argument is quite persuading. MattSucci (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I respect DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs)'s point-of-view because this proposal would keep a record of supercentenarians who've gone under the radar reporting-wise and allow them to remain on all-time supercentenarian lists instead of their memory being erased from Wikipedia. However, I do see several issues with this proposal that, in my view, outweigh the benefits:

• Floruiting a date last confirmed alive instead of removing the unreported supercentenarian would mean we're making a commitment to a perhaps inaccurate rank and age in a table when we could be avoiding this altogether by removing them and keeping the table as close to correct as possible. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that the GRG WSRL indeed does not include a date their limbo cases have last been reported alive, as Derby mentioned. As such, this would force us to use the age at last report, which for many supercentenarian cases is their previous birthday. If this floruit proposal is implemented and remains for the long-term, we would have limbo cases accumulating on the all-time lists and being ranked right around the 114th, 113th, 112th, etc. birthday marks. If we don't know where to rank them in a table as we have no way of knowing their final age, why rank them at all?
• Supercentenarians we floruit with a date last confirmed alive by a reliable source may not even be dead. Keep in mind Facebook posts that contain new birthday pictures—photographic evidence of a new age achieved (a birthday cake with "113" on it, for example)—that, barring Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources, would otherwise be considered "new reports" and "proof of life." While I understand why sites like Facebook are not reliable and feel that a lack of an actual reliable source is sufficient justification for removal from the List of the oldest living people, removing a supercentenarian from this list does not necessarily mean we're saying they're dead. Floruiting a date on another page for a supercentenarian who is known to be alive but only via Facebook, in addition to changing their row color from green to white and leaving their rank stagnant in the table (not to mention lowering it by a whole year), is essentially claiming a living person is dead—an inaccuracy introduced by a strict adherence to Wikipedia's reliable source rules and something that can be easily avoided by simply removing the supercentenarian from the table.

Other concerns worth noting:

• Longevity claims is not a good model for whether other supercentenarian lists should use floruit. Only two (out of 58) cases on the past claims list are floruited in the first place. Criteria for inclusion on this list are also different; cases have a two-year no-report limit before they are listed as dead (or, technically, as "past" longevity claims). Such is not the case for other supercentenarian lists, nor should it be. This is because all of these lists are ranked. While longevity claims are listed in order of descending age, they are not ranked. Surely, the annual report rule that is in place on the List of the oldest living people ensures that supercentenarians on that page have a more accurate rank than they would if we allowed them to go unreported for over a year and still be included. We should care about these supercentenarians being ranked as accurately as possible, especially if their cases are more plausible than those on Longevity claims.
• Regarding Chicdat (talk · contribs)'s comment, how Marcel Meys was handled—"status quo" or not—is definitely not a good idea. In the discussion Chicdat linked, Newshunter12 (talk · contribs) said: He (Marcel Meys) has not been shown by reliable sources to have been alive in well over a year, so he does not qualify for inclusion in this article (List of the oldest living people). Anyone is free to remove him from that other article (List of the verified oldest people) on the same grounds. Meys should have been removed from the List of the verified oldest people long before this discussion took place—on 7 June 2021—because his source dated back nearly two years, to 10 August 2019. Despite Newshunter's invitation, however, Meys was not removed. All supercentenarian lists should be consistent with each other; it doesn't make sense for a reader to see a supercentenarian listed as "living" on one page yet nowhere to be found on a list that is specifically for living supercentenarians. Derby's proposal would prevent this from happening, but again, is it better to commit to listing an unreported supercentenarian with a rank that is likely inaccurate, or even intimate that a supercentenarian is dead when there is evidence to the contrary? Or is it better to remove that supercentenarian—perhaps temporarily—and re-add them if/when a new reliable source emerges? Softmist (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Tekla Juniewicz

Another non-article. Will go to Afd when I have time. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

And done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tekla Juniewicz. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)