Talk:List of Italian supercentenarians

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Giuseppina Projetto.jpg
 * Sour Cecilia.jpg

Emigrants
The article currently has separate lists for Italian residents and Italian emigrants. However, the subject matter is "Italian supercentenarians", so that the places they have moved during their life should not matter to their status as Italians and ranking as supercentenarians. Therefore I suggest merging the list of emigrants with the main list of 100 oldest Italians ever. — JFG talk 08:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Being born in X but dying in Y is not really defining at all. An American is an American for example, and many Americans came from elsewhere, as Legacypac said, so the reverse is no different. Merge away. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

✅, and added more emigrants from the full GRG sources. — JFG talk 13:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Rosalinda Del Duca
Rosalinda Del Duca (married Di Santo) is listed by the GRG in its full public database of August 2007, but she is not listed in the "Italy" tab of the January 2015 version. Is there a way to find out if that is an error or if her documents have been invalidated between 2007 and 2015? Does the GRG maintain a list of claims that were once considered verified, but were later invalidated? — JFG talk 13:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @JFG They are not reliable sources for our purposes, but the Italian fansite you are familiar with states she actually died at 109, as does a den of the GRG, gerontology wikia (where she's specifically listed under the false and exaggerated claims section). I'd be fine with removing her on the grounds that since both GRG tables are considered reliable sources and they conflict, we go with the more recent source, which by chance is the one that doesn't include her. The GRG appers to have farmed out nearly all their list making/maintaining to Wikipedia and later gerontology wikia. Only Table E, and the two oldest person/man lists remain active, and the former has slowly been withering and the oldest man list has been fading as well since almost no men get verified anymore and several of the recent oldest have had document issues delay validation. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

✅, Newshunter12 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — JFG talk 10:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for regions
Does anybody know where the data on regions of birth and death comes from? I could not find this information in any of the GRG tables that the article is sourced from. If some of you remember how this information got into the article, I'd love to hear that story, so we can fill in the necessary sourcing. — JFG talk 00:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been there from the outset, all at least initially were sourced to a GRG link. It'll take a dig through an archived version of said link to see if it was actually there (I'll certainly look, though anyone else can too!). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's an unapproved link for the information you are looking for through Gerontology Wiki http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Italian_supercentenarians, the source is ultimately Paolo Scarabaggio affiliated with GRG.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks about right. Now to see if the original GRG table had that in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the old GRG tables like this one specifically for Italy, the region information is completely absent and appears to always have been unsourced. The GRG evidently "knew" this info from elsewhere, so just putting it here was enough for them at a time when people didn't ask questions like you are doing now. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The page at Wikia cannot be the source: it was first created on 23 March 2016, and its first version was apparently copied from, merging residents and emigrants into a single table, and cutting at people over 112. says the source is ultimately Paolo Scarabaggio affiliated with GRG. How can we contact this person? — JFG talk 01:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You created the first versions of this list on English Wikipedia in 2008, for example . There were some cities and regions there, but that could not come from the public GRG list which had only countries (see an archive of their Italian list from December 2008). Do you remember where you found this information? — JFG talk 01:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Could it be this site? "Supercentenari d'Italia" — JFG talk 01:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be, but that is most definitely a self-published source, which means it is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. Just trying to establish origin of the information first. We'll see separately whether those sources can be accepted, or if we can replace them. For example, I have found many places of birth and death in newspaper records, but that's a tedious job. Much easier if we find a source that has already done that job and is considered trustworthy. — JFG talk 01:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding regions of birth for several people today. Where is this information sourced from? Still Paolo Scarabaggio? If that's him, where does he publish this data? — JFG talk 21:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

100 oldest ≠ GRG oldest
Since the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) has stopped validating any people under 112, the list is giving undue prominence to cases that were documented earlier, while newer cases are unranked, including many living people. I think that sourcing is adequate for them, and we should re-number the list to include all well-sourced cases, irrespective of whether they are listed by the GRG. The list would then be current and truly represent the "100 oldest ever" Italians. In its current state, it would stop at Teresa Brachetta, 110 years 317 days, currently ranked 88th, who would become 100th if we gave a ranking to everybody. Opinions welcome. — JFG talk 07:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, as long as we have RS rank them all. Even better, cut off the list at age 112 because that is the only people we have a independent expert verification for (according to GRG anyway.) If someone else wants to host a list of verified and unverified old but not really super old people, let them, but Wikipedia can't gather or verify the info with reasonable accuracy. A key problem is there is no reliable source for a list of the 100 oldest Italians, and no one really cares if Amelia or Rosilla is the 75th oldest person in Italy so they don't write about it.
 * Right now we have 118 names on a list of 100 people which is weird. Cutting off at the GRG cutoff would leave 42 names all ranked by GRG, eliminating the ranked/unranked verified/unverified problem completely. Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several other sources tracking supercentenarians from Italy, so I'd say the list has notability and is not synthesis. I don't see why Wikipedia should adopt the GRG's arbitrary criterion of only listing people over 112. Instead, we typically list the top 100 people in countries where supercentenarians are well-tracked and numerous (France, Italiy, Germany, Japan, USA, UK, Spain, perhaps others). We can debate whether 100 people are too many, but I'm against an age limit other than 110, which defines the notable term "supercentenarian". — JFG talk 10:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

An IP editor (79.12.67.41) today changed the ranking as proposed here; I reverted because there is no consensus yet. Perhaps we should open an RfC. — JFG talk 17:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅: RfC below. — JFG talk 08:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Defining the 100 known oldest people

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this list enumerate the 100 known oldest Italians as reported by various reliable sources (proposed change), or should it assign a ranking only to GRG-validated people, and keep other entries unnumbered (status quo)? — JFG talk 08:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Rationale, partly from various threads above
The oldest people from Italy are being tracked by various sources: news reports on birthdays and deaths, articles and studies about longevity, and various special interest groups and forums. A prominent tracker of supercentenarians worldwide has been the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), which maintains a network of correspondents in several countries dedicated to discovering and validating cases of extreme age. The present article, and various others, have been historically largely sourced to the GRG's public lists of supercentenarians by nation, and a usual practice has developed of assigning a ranking only to persons that have been validated by the GRG. However, since 2016, GRG correspondents in most countries have stopped documenting people under 112 years old, so that recent cases are mostly sourced from newspaper reports; this is apparent when sorting our list by death date. As a consequence, this list is giving undue prominence to cases that were documented earlier, while newer cases are unranked, including most of the living people on the list. On the other hand, we have ample and adequate journalistic sourcing for many elder Italians, and few cases are actually disputed in this country. Accordingly, we should re-number the list to include all well-sourced cases, irrespective of whether they are listed by the GRG. The list would then be current and truly represent the "100 oldest ever" Italians. In its current state, it would stop at Teresa Brachetta, 110 years 317 days, currently ranked 88th, who would become 100th if we gave a ranking to everybody. The proposed change is also in line with general Wikipedia policy, whereby all relevant WP:RS should be considered in order to enhance our coverage of any particular topic area. — JFG talk 08:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey
''Please express your preference with Support (for ranking all well-sourced people) or Oppose (for ranking people from GRG only) and a brief rationale. Longer comments should go to the section below.''


 * Support - I am happy with reliable sources however I think the list should not extend to 100 people. That is too long a list to properly maintain for just one country. I would suggest a list of the top 10 or top 20 at most. Oska (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The size of the list could be discussed separately, as this particular RfC should focus on the sourcing and ranking question for which I am seeking wider community input. To your specific concern, I would note, however, that there has been no shortage of volunteer maintainers for those lists over several years, and they have been kept up to date on a daily basis. — JFG talk 11:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. There should be a very good reason to ignore reliable sources, and I don't see one here. —⁠ 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 22:45, 02 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support There is adequate journalistic sourcing for many elder Italians and the GRG's sharply decreased number of validations makes this a necessary change. The page no longer functions using the GRG alone and they screwed up Renata Bianchi's age a few months ago, while journalistic sources were right. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support We should use all reliable sources available to us. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @  05:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. We all see a lot that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Anything that could potentially exclude good information should be pushed aside. However in some cases (not this one) we must show restraint even with WP:Ignore in mind. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Yes to using all reliable sources.  Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: List of 20 vs. list of 100

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this list enumerate the 20 oldest known Italians (proposed change) or should it list the 100 oldest known Italians (status quo)? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Rational for change
Despite the recent change in sourcing standards, this list has historically been and continues to be primarily free webhosting of the Gerontology Research Group's (GRG) data. This article and the whole oldest people project on Wikipedia has long been abusively used as a directory of old people sourced to this private organization, with implicit financial gain for that organization (content exposer will logically lead to donations). Almost all the entries in this list posses unsourced region of birth or death/residence information, in violation of WP:V. The information came from GRG folks, like almost everything else. This article lists 13 currently living individuals or individuals who died within the past year. Adjusting entries and finding truly reliable sources (not fan websites) is a tiresome gymnastics-like maintenance burden that saps editors' time and patience. Such a large and easily enterable list is also acting as a WP:MEMORIAL to unnotable living and dead individuals, and acting as a supercentenarian news listing in violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. A list of 20 is far easier to maintain and would only list the truly oldest Italians. It would also eliminate the bulk of the GRG and unsourced data in this article, which are both unwholesome relics from the time GRG affiliated editors outright ran these pages. It further opens the door to reasonably finding non-GRG sources for remaining individuals so that GRG citations can be removed, to finally give this article the encyclopedic independence it has always sorely lacked. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, my concerns about undue financial gain for the GRG from this and similar articles falls under WP:PROMO. Articles overwhelmingly or entirely sourced from the GRG are clearly meant to unduly promote that organization. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey
''Please express your preference with Support (for listing only the 20 oldest Italians) or Oppose (for listing the 100 oldest Italians) and a brief rationale. Longer comments should go in the section below.''
 * Oppose – The nomination rationale speculates on GRG abuse and "implicit financial gain", which does not strike me as a valid motive to trim the list. I'd be more inclined to interpret the earlier state of such articles as a combination of fanclub mentality and historical lack of other sources easily accessible online. As the GRG's tracking of supercentenarians has been drastically reduced in scope over the last few years, and journalistic tracking of those elders has improved overall, I do not see any current issue with our use of certain GRG lists, which are still valid historical research. A prior RfC gave unanimous support to accepting a diversity of sources to maintain this list. In my editorial opinion, there is enough encyclopedic interest to keep a list of the 100 oldest Italians, and of the 100 oldest Germans, Americans, Japanese, … for any country where such people are reliably tracked and sufficiently numerous. Despite the difficulty of the task, there has been no lack of volunteer maintainers, and those articles have been quite stable over the last year. — JFG talk 23:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * JFG, please see my comment in the discussion section below. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose- The nom's speculation on the GRG's financial interest reads like WP:OR and should be excluded from consideration as it has no basis in policy. His maintenance concerns would be valid if the list was poorly maintained. However, it isn't, and I'll working to improve the sourcing of cities over the coming days. But my main concern with the nom's proposal is that trimming the list to 100 could potentially trim all living individuals from it. This would not be beneficial for the reader, (who we write for) who may appreciate knowing if there are any living Italian supercentenarians. schetm (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - being predominantly from a single source is an issue. But I don't see that making it a list of 20 would change that, so the action would not be a solution to the issue and is not justified by it.  There are at least some other sources in here.  It seems worth putting a tag on the article for improvement - to find more cites - but not of deleting most of the content.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm adding individual citations to address concerns of "unsourced region of birth or death/residence." schetm (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I've been doing the same on the French list, when I can find appropriate sources. — JFG talk 23:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He's added citations for two people in the top six and cleaned up a disputed entry down in the throng. Let's be clear this article has not as of yet been meaningfully changed. It's still a WP:V disaster. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Newshunter12, dude, do you want this list improved, or do you just want it trimmed and removed? There's a lot to sift through, and I have a life outside of enwiki. Rome wasn't built in a day, and this list won't be improved in a day either. So, be patient and assume, in good faith, that when I said I'd be working on it I actually will be. Feel free to assist by, well, newshunting! schetm (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just stating a fact. Saying they will find sources or make edits but never do is a common deletion stalling tactic on Wikipedia, so I wanted to make it clear to all that very little has as of yet changed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * @JFG A list of 20 notable people is of more encyclopedic value then a huge hodgepodge of random old Italian people readers are expected to sift through. You know perfectly well the GRG used these pages for their own gain from the beginning, but because you previously admitted you WP:ILIKEIT supercentenarian content, you're pretending this is for other readers' benefit besides yourself and that there's no problem with the GRG. You also recently added a fan website as a source to this article (despite knowing it was self-published) and have previously "snuck in" blogs and other unreliable sources to other lonegivty list articles like List of French supercentenarians, apparently using their tedious length as cover for your invalid edits. Respectfully, given your history of fan-crushing on this topic and abusing longevity list articles, the closer shouldn't put any weight into your vote, which brings me no pleasure to say as I respect you as an editor. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @schetm 80+ unsourced region of birth/death listings for over decade is a massive WP:V and maintenance failure. If a reader wants to know if there are living Italian SC, they can visit List of the oldest living people, List of the oldest people by country, or one of many fan websites. Wikipedia is not a community newspapers feature section per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, they could view them in a broader context with a wider lot of Italian supercentenarians. We should strive to make research as easy and informative as possible for WP readers, and keeping the chart as is would do so. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, as you've cited it, doesn't appear to be germane to this issue, and the WP:V concerns are being actively dealt with, as laid out below. And, yes, a reader could look at any number of fansites, but that could be said about anything whatsoever on Wikipedia. With that rationale, why even bother with Wikipedia anyway? schetm (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are other Wikipedia articles with much of the same content but easier for readers to understand and access. What do we need this tedious time-suck (as-is) for? Would you mind schetm if I (or you) move these bottom three paragraphs down to the discussion section? It's become inappropriate for the survey section. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for it. schetm (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, huge lists dedicated overwhelmingly or exclusively to GRG entries falls under WP:PROMO, we're clearly promoting the GRG as an organization, so no, my concerns about undue financial gain are not unfounded or WP:OR. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)