Talk:Edwin Wilson (academic)

Cenetenarian
User has edit warred out any centenarian categories, stating it needs a source that specifically uses the word centenarian, claiming "that's how we've always done it." I asked the user to explain that "policy" or "guideline" or give us evidence that "that's how we've always done it", but user refuses to do so. It's sourced in the article that Wilson was born Feb. 1, 1923, making him 100 years old. There is no other way to define centenarian. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a 100th birthday article he got, so there should be no problem here. The categories should be sourced though. Going by math alone, we could tack them on to swathes of pages where there's really no evidence the person is still alive. (As a random example, Carey Matthews is a guy with a sourced DOB who's a recent "centenarian", but based on unusable primary sources, he's probably been dead since the early 1990s.) Nohomersryan (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , thank you for bringing Carey Matthews to my attention. I've added his death date and place with 2 newspaper obituaries. --Jkaharper (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * – edit warring begins when you revert the same thing for the second time, therefore I believe that one was on you, not me. I never said that a source has to contain the word "centenarian", but if you are adding categories to a BLP, then the text and sources in the body must reflect them. The centenarian categories are loaded – they make a statement that they reached that age. As I said in one of my edits summaries, too many times in the past have editors added these categories without a reliable source and then it has subsequently been revealed that the subject died days, weeks, months, even years before the 100 milestone. I invite you to go to any of the centenarian categories and you will see that all the articles contained within have citations on their page that verify they reached such an age. It may also help to revise WP:BLP and WP:RS. I see that a source has now been added which verifies that he reached his centenary, so I think this matter is now closed? If you wish to labour it, I'm more than happy to keep going. This could have all been prevented if you had just sourced your edit in the first place. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You reverted as much as I did and, even worse, refused to discuss until someone else stepped in. But the issue is resolved unless you decide to continue nitpicking, so you go your way and I'll go mine. Sundayclose (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)