Talk:Ethel Lang (supercentenarian)

Britain's last Victorian
I don't see why this can't be mentioned in the article. The Victorian era is a distinct and frequently referenced period in history and the fact that she is the last survivor is certainly notable. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless you can find a reliable source which specifically states that she is the last Victorian adding such a statement violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and or WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. If the (British) media latched onto this fact there would be no problem, it would also ensure the survival of this article which is somewhat tenuous at the moment. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding trivia
As per wiki policy if a user is unable to add a citation for a statement, factual or not, it should be removed. The statement that Ethel Lang "is currently the Ninth oldest British person of All time" has no such supporting citation. To take this information from a wiki created list which itself is synthesised original research from a GRG list is insufficient. That there is no proper citation is a strong indication that even the media does not find this information worth noting and as such it can be considered trivial fanfluff. We've been through this before at Talk:Misao Okawa and the consensus was that unless a proper citation was found for such statements they should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a trivia to be written. I think 9th oldest person ever is, and should be noteworthy enough.


 * When Ethel Lang became 8th oldest British person, then I'm going to write about it.--Disputed (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that isn't a GRG table (or a Wikipedia list) that specifically states she is the Xth oldest British person then it will be allowed. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give a definition of "trivial fanfluff", Derby, as you seem to use it often in order to argue for the removal of content that many other people would find useful and relevant?

This is an article about someone notable for LONGEVITY, so I find it utterly absurd that you believe that the fact that she is the sixth-oldest person from her country to be "trivial". Why is the fact that she is the eight-oldest person in the world okay but this information not?

The citation for the statement that she is the eight-oldest from the world is from the GRG, the leading authority when it comes to the verification of supercentenarians. We use information from their tables in all of our supercentenarian-related articles. The GRG's table B includes "country of birth" and "country of death" for all people listed on it. Now that Ethel Lang has surpassed Florrie Baldwin, it can be easily deduced that she is the sixth-oldest ever person from Britain.

You seem happy to use out-of-date tables and "GRG deaths in year X" tables to create the "List of British supercentenarians" article, so why is it not okay in this instance?

And one more point: The fact that the media has not picked up on her all-time ranking among British supercentenarians does not necessarily mean that they don't find it worth noting. It may just be that they have not picked up on this information. And in fact, many lazy journalists may use Wikipedia as a source of information. If you added it in it may well get picked up!

Ollie231213 (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have already noted the relevant discussion is at Talk:Misao Okawa. In particular read the first post by User:Canadian Paul. The discussion was in response to the inclusion of this sort of "fanfluff" (and this ) which infested many longevity articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why it's okay to have Ethel Lang listed as the sixth-oldest British person on List of British supercentenarians but not to include the same information on this article. I fail to see how you can have one but not the other if we are following these guidelines.

Ollie231213 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because wikipedia is not self-referencing. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood.

You clearly think that the citations used in that article are sufficient for Ethel Lang to be listed as the sixth-oldest British person ever, so why are they not sufficient in this case?

Ollie231213 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't bother watching that article. Besides which there is no statement that she is sixth, there is merely a table which lists people by age and as Lang's age is verified and appropriately cited there is no fanfluff to be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Who cares if there is no statement, she is a listed as the sixth-oldest. And if the sources are sufficient enough for that, then I see no reason why they are not sufficient for this.

These articles are mostly maintained by those who follow supercentenarians, and we all know for a fact that Ethel Lang is the sixth-oldest British person whose age has been verified by the GRG, and most people would consider this worthy of inclusion.

And yet you are adamant that it should not be included based on what appears to be something of a technicality. It's a pity that potentially useful information is not being included as a result.

Ollie231213 (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are not sufficient as explained in the linked page above.

And where are the guidelines on common sense?
 * Who "maintains" these pages irrelevant. Wiki is not a fansite it is an open encyclopedia which has a number of clear guidelines, a distinction any number of longevity followers chose to repeatedly ignore.
 * "Potentially useful information"? According to who? WP:RS (a weak, misnamed and often abused guideline) has been used an enormous number of times (that I personally know of) to introduce all kinds of trivia and rubbish to wiki across a wide range of articles. If there is nothing found which can satisfy RS then the information can't be that important. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How can the sources be insufficient if they are being used in that article?


 * There is a clear difference between information not being important and information not being newsworthy.

To somehow suggest that a person notable for longevity being the sixth-oldest person from their country is not useful information is absurd. But is it going to make a good news story? No. It's completely false to say that if "nothing found which can satisfy RS then the information can't be that important."

Everyone knows that she is the sixth-oldest person from Britain and yet we can't include that information because of a technicality. Can you give a good reason why you believe this information to be trivial, other than the fallacious one you gave above?

Wikipedia may have a clear set of guidelines but sometimes bending the rules is not a bad thing.

Ollie231213 (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies
There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ethel Lang (supercentenarian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Tlw9Iuvo to http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)