User talk:Itsmejudith/Archive 7

Grismaldo is being reasonable, JJBulten is not
Greetings,

I am writing to you in the spirit of seeking consensus. JJBulten is not simply an advocate for a fundamentalist Christian position and an editor for a right-wing website; he is also not all that bright. Neither is he cooperating with any compromise offered. For example, the best thing to do was to leave the articles alone until the merge proposals are decided. His most-recent edits are degrading the article material. He has violated the rules he claims others are breaking, such as the introduction of original research, edit warring, cyberbullying others (such as his talking about Brendanology's age), and most of all inventing synthetic divisions. His attempts to divide everything into post-1955 and pre-1955 is a thinly-veiled attempt to claim that, yes, Noah did live to 950 in the past and the "verified" lists only include since 1955.

That's not the case.

1. Guinness World Records began publication in 1955, but they included cases from as far back as the 1800s.

2. The field of researching ages of claimed supercentenarians began in the 1870s.

3. Myths go back to the pre-historical past, so for his edits to claim that longevity myths are historical misses the point. In fact, most of them date to pre-historic or oral-historic times. Even the Bible says that Moses began writing the first five books around 1500 BC (scientists think it was later than that). So the first few thousand years of the stories must have been oral tradition.

4. JJBulten misunderstands the scientific principle of uniformitarianism, the idea that the laws of nature that apply in the present also applied in the past. So far, evidence from fossils, geology, and many fields support this principle.

So, evidence strongly suggests that the maximum human life span is about 125 or so, at most. The idea that humans once lived to 950 is not scientific but fits in the realm of systems of belief.

5. The real purpose of the longevity claims article was to focus on claims to extreme age that were not verified, well beyond the likelihood of giving the case the benefit of the doubt, but still possible to be true. Thus, it generally made sense to focus on the age 113-130 claims, and save claims beyond that (such as Thomas Parr, 152) for the longevity myths article. Not only is Parr's age beyond reason, but his story became a "legend" (or myth definition 2):

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal.

In short, I don't see a pre-1955/post-1955 divide to be realistic or acceptable. There are myths alive today, just as people continue to believe them.

The real divide is when the ages claimed far exceed the scientific likelihood of being true. Already by age 115, 99% of claims are false. By age 123, 100% of claims are false. We could see the cutoff at Jeanne Calment's age, but most scientists agree that she is at the 12-14% likelihood of being possible. By age 130, the likelihood is zero. So, we use "130" as the cutoff point.

Grismaldo has shown a willingness to cooperate and seek consensus. However, I still see JJBulten writing negative comments on the merge proposal that are directed more at throwing mud than finding a solution.

If a few other editors made it clear that they did not support such shenanigans, he would back off, as he did more than a year ago.

I realize that, if you have an article such as Charles Darwin, there will be "creationist fundamentalists" still giving the article a hard time, but science has long since moved past their inability to think logically. We should here too. The idea of age verification of age claims dates to the establishment of the actuarial industry and the advent of life insurance policies and pensions. After 130+ years, the future is with science, math, and economics, not nonsensical fanatics. Ryoung 122 03:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Judith? JJB 04:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Robert. Very glad to have your civil explanation here. I disagree with John Bulten about this suite of articles, but that doesn't mean I agree with you. It would be quite wrong for Wikipedia to imply that the long life of Noah is scientific fact. But equally, Wikipedia is not the place to debunk that view. Rather, we seek to the best scholarship in the field to which each article relates. The problem with Longevity myths or "claims", or "narratives", or anything is that it lumps together things that don't belong together. The Sumerian king lists, with some reigns in multiples of 3,600 years, aren't the same phenomenon as Old Tom Parr's inflated age. The Sumerians are investigated by archaeologists and ancient historians. Perhaps we will never know whether the Sumerians really expected anyone to believe people lived that long. Perhaps they were attempting to describe dynasties rather than individuals. It's a matter for specialists in that field. The Old Tom Parr case is a matter for historians of early modern Europe. Different field. Biblical exegesis is a further field. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. (Actually I was hoping you'd note the personal-attack nature of "I still see ... throwing mud", "inability to think logically", etc.) Anyway Judith, if it's your view that these are not the same phenomenon (I disagree), then you simply need to source someone saying so, or (more likely) source the analyses in each case separately to show that the handling is somehow different. I might say instead that the first segment of the king list is a different phenomenon, while the rest of it is the same phenom as the genealogies, in that the difference between the first 8+ kings and the rest has been noted by the source in the article, and that the remaining kings' age range overlaps the (early) Biblical ages (a nonoriginal mathematical observation). But the fact is that whatever their differences, these phenomena have been grouped together as in the same category (unverified old-age claims) by two sources, and more demonstrations of this being "the same phenomenon" would be easy to find, if you would like me to do so. I appreciate your reasonability but I don't understand why you are so certain the phenomena are different just because certain cases are (sometimes, and sometimes not) of interest to different people. Since this is a question of what is sourced, I've been arguing from sources, and frankly you've been arguing against sources; but I still trust you will source your concerns. JJB 12:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the personal attacks thing, I'm hoping that matters can be de-escalated, rather than escalated. Robert Young's post wasn't extremely civil towards you. You'll decide whether to take that up or not, and the diffs on this page are here for all to see. Now back to the question of the article. I don't think I have to show by diffs that the ancient history is a different topic from the recent history. I think it is common sense. Sometimes editing comes to an impasse like this, when people just can't see each other's side of the story. At that point it helps to have more people coming in. Since the biblical chronologies are part of the article, and I think you want to keep them in there, what do you think about us posting at WikiProject Christianity, asking for more eyes or a third opinion? I have encountered wise people there in the past. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject is actually a very conciliatory suggestion (3O is contraindicated because too many editors), and I look forward to how you would implement it. Aside, common sense doesn't always work on WP; even the idea "1+1=2" took hundreds of pages for Whitehead and Russell to prove, and then Gödel debunked their proof by meta-proving that it was either incomplete or inconsistent. So I like to stick to sources rather than common sense, much safer in this arena anyway. JJB 16:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll post to the talk page of WikiProject Christianity saying, as briefly as possible, that the Longevity myths includes material about the Bible, and that we would welcome people from the project coming to have a look at it. I'll put a note on the talk page saying that I've done that. And then we try and stand back so that if anyone does come over we don't frighten them off. Does that make sense? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, although without mentioning that there is a question or dispute there is much less likelihood of response IMHO, and either of us while "standing back" may need to deal with other editors and ongoing talk issues of coruse. But I hope you can tell I'm not an abrupt editor. JJB 16:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'll say that there is disagreement about whether the material should be included in this article, in related articles, or at all, and that some input on sources would also be welcome. Agree that we can continue to comment on ongoing issues. But I've seen so many RfCs torpedoed by failure to stand back and let commentators have their say. See a cross-section of open RfCs for what happens when you ask the question and leave at that vs what happens when you ask the question and then two sides continue to argue it out. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK sounds good, we'll do our best, Taoism as you suggested is also good. JJB 17:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Where's the request for input from Science? Also, to focus on just Christianity misses the point. Most, if not all, religions include ideas of extreme longevity. Ryoung 122 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FTN deals with the boundaries of science. And John Carter came along from WikiProject Christianity, but he made an interesting point about Hinduism. It's a collaborative encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's Go Back to Wikipedia's Core Policies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies

Wikipedia's core policies include "no original research." Wikipedia articles should reflect the outside sources, not create new material.

I disagree that Sumerian king lists and Tom Parr don't belong in the same article. Such thinking is divisive and fails to take account the view of world history, universalism, and the scientific principle of uniformitarianism. We are all humans, and human nature is remarkably similar across cultures. Claims to extreme longevity vary in type: but that's why there are subsections. I find it difficult to believe that you can simultaneously argue that the article longevity myths covers too much material (too broad of a scope) while arguing that it should be merged. If anything, the solution is to use the article as a "main page" and create separate articles, with links, for the main sub-sections. Anything else is going in the wrong direction.

Wikipedia is not paper. We have articles not just on states, on counties, on cities, on towns, but even schools. We have articles on not just TV shows but individual characters. We have articles on not just major sports figures but every major league soccer, baseball, football, or basketball player.

To think that "longevity myths" does not deserve or need its own article is simply not rational.

These articles grow out of "idea trees." If the tree gets too big, it may require pruning, but let's not cut the whole tree down. Ryoung 122 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When an article gets very problematic the solution is sometimes to "nuke" it, as some people say, or "stub it down". Then it can be expanded again, but carefully. Subarticles can be broken out, but there must be logic to the focus of each subarticle. If you look back on FTN you'll see that I thought there might be studies of mythology that dealt with longevity as a theme. But I couldn't find any. For example if you search for Claude Levi-Strauss and longevity nothing of interest comes up. So I still need to be convinced that this isn't an original synthesis. An original synthesis to make a WP:POINT, the point being to allege a that there is an essential human need to "make up ideas about longevity". Without a good scholarly source from an appropriate discipline we can say, or even imply that. Do you now see where I'm coming from? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, I would back you 100% that Ryoung's idea of the essential human need to falsify ideas about longevity is complete OR. It's even OR that has been on WP 5 years and accumulated a lot of mirrors; he even just now referred to a 2009 book by T. Harris that relies heavily on his version of the longevity myths article and, I believe, even admits using Wikipedia as a primary source. In other words, we now have a book containing a major section that is all mirror OR, a fascinating phenomenon. I suppose I mention this to let you know the question has been asked and unanswered many times, and to repeat once more a polite advocacy for a scope of several articles that list unverified old-age claims and then a subdivision of this scope into an objective breakdown. Maybe I'm just blowing off steam. JJB 21:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom?
Hi. Are you going to submit BPP University College of Professional Studies for DYK, or do you want me to nominate it for you? --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I submitted it, since today's the deadline. The article likely will need some work to get approved for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I didn't realise there were deadlines. Hopefully I/we can do the work and then it can go to DYK. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)r
 * Comments received at Template talk:Did you know. I did a partial fix... --Orlady (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for BPP University College of Professional Studies
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't know! Congratulations Judith! Aquib (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks, Aquib. Orlady did the nom for me and helped edit it ready. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you've dipped your toe in the water, your next DYK should be easier. (Smile) --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucracy much??
I see no reason to visit the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard", since my only point was to suggest that you should use a light hand in sprinkling tags over things whose sourcing does not currently seem to be any kind of high priority. I've said all that I'm going to say on the article talk page, and I haven't and won't revert your article edits, so there's really nothing further to discuss. AnonMoos (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I find it bordering on the grotesquely bizarre that right at the point where the discussion was petering out and dying a natural death -- with your edits reigning unchallenged on the article itself -- that you chose that moment to try to make a major federal case out of it and invoke bureaucratic interventions... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is -- it's a bureaucratic process which for some reason you saw fit to invoke on a discussion which was already concluded and over with by the time that you invoked it. AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Please read my comments. Can you figure it out yourself? Bearian (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is back on
PhilKnight has offered to co-mediate between Ryoung122 and myself. JJB 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you have expressed a desire to make disagreements between us part of this mediation, could you please follow through on your stated position by commenting on Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans (2nd nomination), at which your stated view is being controverted by Ryoung122 et al.? Thank you. JJB 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings,

As much as I disagree with JJBulten's views on many things, mainly his attempts at promoting religious viewpoints as de facto mainstream, I tend to agree with him on issues of "keeping" material that is encyclopedic and is appropriate for keeping on Wikipedia. Your pro-deletionist bias is disconcerting, as is your anti-interdisciplinary views. Attempting to compartmentalize everything in separate fields of expertism, separated by walls, is not a good idea. It also violates the very spirit of Wikipedia, whose #1 advantage over a traditional encyclopedia is the wiki-link.

The field of gerontology is, by definition, interdisciplinary. Not only that, but fields such as history, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, etc. often overlap. We even have "economic historians." Attempting to quelch something by using the "it can only be dealt with by individual experts" argument is a bit trite, but overlooks the fact that we do, in fact, have individual experts studying both human longevity from a demographic standpoint and from a biological standpoint and from a cultural standpoint. Consider that the man who began the sub-field of age verification research of longevity claims, William Thoms, also coined the term "folklore" and was an important political figure in the Victorian era. Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, also studied centenarians and high age claims. Attempting to box things in is inappropriate.

A template on Biblical longevity is a good idea, as is a Sumerian king list. Where JJBulten and I disagree are issues of semantics and interpretation, but at least we agree the topic is important. Your attempts to "clean this mess up" through inappropriate merging of material is not a solution.

In Wikipedia, articles rank from of highest importance (no one would delete an article on the United States) to very important (New York City) to somewhat important (White Plains, New York) to of minor importance (local high school).

An article on longevity myths is well above those of minor importance. It's a concept not limited to Christianity or religion. I think that people like JJBulten have missed the point, as have you. An article on longevity myths or the myths of longevity revolves around the social/cultural need for humans to believe that they live longer than they do, due to fear of death.

An article on longevity is going to focus on the facts of longevity: cats be expected to live to 17 years, 38 is the record. These are facts. Dogs can be expected to live 15 years, 29 years is the record. The oldest field mouse lived to 4.98 years, that's the record.

An article on longevity myths is, firstly, focused on human longevity (but perhaps we could expand it by including myths of parrot and turtle longevity)---but not longevity as per facts, but longevity as per ages believed but for which the facts do not support the claims. Since the word "myths" is plural, this can include a great variety of myths. If the article gets too big, subarticles can be created/linked to the narratives (for example, Fountain of Youth; Shangri-La). The fact that subarticles might be needed is sufficient argument to say that there's no logical reason to merge this article anywhere.

If longevity is of highest importance, then longevity myths is very important still...and clearly NOT the same, with not the same focus.

One more thing: we now have a triangular argument. I don't agree with you or JJ; JJ doesn't agree with you or me; you don't agree with me or JJ. But one thing I do agree: it logically makes sense for me to support someone who agrees with the article existence first, then have the second discussion focus on the article tone and what it includes or does not include.

The truth is, I don't have time for this, but I will make time if need be. Ryoung 122 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory and Terra Novus at ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing "shouting" references
I realized I never thanked you for removing all the capital letters in the references in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. It was a lot of work. Thank you! For my defense, the capitals come from the UN itself; I merely copy & pasted the title from the original document. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

En passant, je vois que tu parles Francais. Ou l'a-tu appris? Emmanuelm (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Jan Goossenaerts for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Jan Goossenaerts, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Article was created immediately after subject turned 110. JJB 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject already turned 110, and thats a notable age, and I was reasonable enough to wait for him to be validated before starting the article, and quite a bit of people agree that its well noted being the oldest verified man in a continent, everyones opinions matter wether you agree with them or not, its not all about you. Longevitydude (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we want to hear people's opinions which is why there was a !vote. If you think 110 is intrinsically a notable age, then you need to say why. Not here, in the WOP project talk. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do on different places thank you very much, its just that no one listens to our views. Longevitydude (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to get the project working like a proper WikiProject and not an extension of the Yahoo! group - if it is. You need some notability criteria like we have on WikiProject Universities. If I recall correctly, WikiProject Football is particularly careful with defining notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We have tried to define notability, but others always criticise us and don't let the grg do their job, what would be a more reliable source than the grg, they have by far the most information on the subject.Longevitydude (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable source is one thing, defining notability criteria is another. The BBC is a reliable source but it doesn't control any WikiProjects. See what I mean? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but wikiprojects should decide the notability guidelines for themselves. Longevitydude (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one of the things they're for, but remember anyone can join a WikiProject and anyone can post to the discussions whether they're a member or not. WOP seems to be concentrating on the wrong things and operating as a "Walled Garden". Do look at lots more WikiProjects and decide which ones you want to be like. I'm on WikiProject Vietnam, and we want guidelines as to when to use diacritics (accents on letters), but views are so strong we haven't reached consensus yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oldest People merger
Judith, I would suggest you take a look at the oldest people article again.

1. It's the MAIN article. Merging this to list of oldest verified people is akin to cutting a tree down and trying to graft the trunk to a branch...it's illogical.

2. It has information not found elsewhere. For example, the list of the world's oldest person titleholders, and the oldest living man titleholders.

3. There's no need to merge at all. This article gives a quick summary, and details may be found at the "branch" articles.

Is that so hard to undertstand?

Also, JJBulten has vested interest in causing confusion here, and has been doing so. If your goal is clarity, you are going in the wrong direction here. Ryoung 122 21:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI
A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested deletion of mini-bios regarding oldest persons
In regards to the below discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People&action=edit&section=37

It may come as a surprise, but the idea of having mini-bios of supercentenarians all lumped together by nationality was, in fact, the idea of WIKIPEDIAN editors, NOT the people (such as myself) who preferred to have:

A. list articles for national pages and

B. stand-alone articles for individuals, such as Jeanne Calment.

For you to now suggest deletion of what was suggested in 2007 by other Wikipedia discussions is a bit disconcerting.

There are, in fact, a few major ISSUE questions that should be dealt with BEFORE you decide to go on a deletion binge.

That can start with, "how notable does someone have to be to be notable due to age?"

Everyone would agree that Jeanne Calment is notable for her own article.

Almost everyone agrees that persons who attain "world's oldest person" status are notable enough for their own article.

After that, things become more tricky: is oldest in the UK enough? What if there are a lot of reliable sources?

Let's take a step back and consider some other fields that are threatened to be overpopulated on Wikipedia: sports and television characters. Rules have been set up that, in general, ANYONE who so much as played a single game, ever, in major league sports gets their own article...and then on top of that, college players may get their own article if media coverage warrants.

With supercentenarians, some have suggested an age minimum of 110. Others would prefer even tighter criteria, but I must ask: at what point does deletion stop? If age '112' isn't enough for Nyleptha Roberts, then what is?

So, I would kindly ask you we discuss this main issue FIRST. Most of these individual articles I didn't start, because I didn't feel it was worth "fighting over." However, the reasons given for deletion are often opinion, rather than policy, and that needs to change. Ryoung 122 03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of the GRG
Greetings,

I find that you seem to be moving towards reasonable solutions to some of the disagreements we have been having. That said, we can see that as soon as JJBulten thinks he may have an advantage, he presses too far.

For example:

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)

Excuse him, since when did JJBulten become the de facto arbiter of what the GRG is or was?

The Wall Street Journal has covered the GRG:

http://www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm

Further, far more than just a "data dump," the GRG has been involved in biomedical research, such as supercentenarian autopsies, DNA testing and gene sequencing, etc.

The Gerontology Research Group has been the de facto source of most of the Guinness World Records "oldest person" records since 2000 (all but the Maria Capovilla case coming from the GRG), and has been acknowledged as such...that's why when you open Guinnness World Records 2011, there is a credit given to the GRG...which, by the way, is a NON profit scientific organization.

What JJBulten is attempting to do is to subvert a system of recognizing the world's oldest person according to scientific principles that dates to the 1870s, with William Thoms of the UK, and in accordance with actuaries, who noticed that no one with life insurance policies reached fantastical ages. In the 1870s, the oldest insurance policyholder was just 103...Jacob Luning...while fictitious age claims to 110, 112, 120, and even higher were often made. Check out this 1873 work, which is still the standard for the field:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Rz0DAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Human%2BLongevity%2BFacts%2BFictions&source=bl&ots=aC2GGTLCqg&sig=CPU1u3ZW16QwhSCP3bLNKCIA3IE&hl=en&ei=22XfTLzLB8SqlAfdo432Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note that reliability was based on several factors, including early-life documentation and having proof of age well before someone claimed to be famous for old age. No one when they are three years old thinks "one day, I'm going to be the world's oldest person."

I note that ages that were unverifiable in the 1870s have become true today. Check out the progress of age verification since the 1780s:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/DD.HTM

In other words, if people are living longer today than in the past, what was scientifically unlikely in the 1870s has become possible today...but we're still talking about a gain of 19 years since 1785, and much of that gain might be due to better recordkeeping. So this cannot be used as justification for saying that Noah lived to 950. Such a claim violates the scientific principle of uniformitarianism: the idea that the natural laws of the universe that exist today also existed in the past. Any SMALL increase in maximum observed lifespan...about one year gained per 12 years...can be explained by improvements in recordkeeping, care of the elderly, use of antibiotics, and other scientifically documentable procedures...not apologist junk like Custance, who simply reiterated a list of bogus and questionable modern claims as "proof" that people still did reach Biblical ages in modern times...or did they? Reading Custance, we see that he offers rationalizations for the apparent lifespan shortening of "man" kind since the times of Noah. It's sort of like a UFO-sighting report; if you gather enough "reports" do you prove your point...I don't think so.

Guinness World Records began publication in 1955, and from its inception, they began with the scientific view, using work published in the 1930s by demographers. That's why Time Magazine in 1997 declared Guinness "the official arbiter of longevity."

Against this background of secular, objective research we have JJBulten, insisting that humans live to 150 or 950 because the Bible says so. Never denying the accusation, he instead attempts to operate as if he is rational, but his motivations are thinly veiled ulterior motives.

Personally, he threatens to make a mountain out of a molehill. His proposed changes or policies for the WikiProject WOP need to be conforming to outside sources. If they deviate, then he is guilty of original-research violations. As Timmneu noted, a lot of what he proposed was vague. I suggest further scrutiny is needed here. Ryoung 122 04:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I work with more than just the GRG
You'll find that I'm more than just an expert in the field...I'm involved in most of the major groups that study supercentenarians, from Boston to Germany to France to Los Angeles.

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian/our-staff/

No, I don't have time to continue arguing on Wikipedia. I do appreciate if your goal is to IMPROVE the coverage on Wikipedia regarding supercentenarians and articles on topics under WIKIPROJECT World's Oldest People...but I think some of that improvement needs to come from better understanding of the field and the situation.

The ultimate truth is that the scientific facts suggest we humans aren't going to live forever. Telling that to some adults is like telling children there is no Santa Claus. But in fact, there is no Santa Claus...those presents under the tree came from parents, not some corpulent man coming down the chimney.

Likewise, people like JJBulten are fighting for the right to not just self-delusion but the "right" to delude others...which is no right at all.

If he doesn't want to read these articles, he doesn't have to. Wikipedia has consistently come down against censorship, including some topics that makes many people uncomfortable. Saying that the oldest verified living person is just 114, and not 134, is nowhere near extreme. Neither is it fringe theory; it is in fact mainstream consensus. JJBulten, a Republican fundamentalist operative who is manipulating Wikipedia for religious and political reasons, is the one who has come down on the side of fringe theory. Ryoung 122 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands
Hi, could you wait a few hours before editing this article further? I'm going to revert most of the edits Jim Fitzgerald made over the past couple of days (as discussed on the talk page), and your edits are making that a bit difficult. Thanks, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

travelling monarchs
I liked your flippant comment, no need to ensmallen it. see also Heil dir im Sonderzug. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson
Hello, I recollect that you commented on NPOV and other issues in articles on Paul Robeson. If you are interested, could you please have a look at and comment on my recent overhaul of the article. Cheers! Str1977 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 14:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comments are solicited at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop. JJB 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in providing evidence for this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW ( Talk ) 18:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar
Hi,

Could you clarify your RSN statement in the discussion at Talk:Adnan_Oktar? There is some difficulty in interpreting whether you would support this source as a single-source for biographical information or not. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment re. RD-question removal
Hi Itsmejudith, I saw that you removed this question from the RD. I wasn't sure that was really trolling, and engaged the questioner about it here. That person then responded on my talk page, here, asking for the question to be re-instated. What do you think? Regards, Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  17:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

RS/N question
Hi Itsmejudith,

As one of WP:RS/N's most prolific contributors, I was hoping you'd be able to give an opinion on this: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of mini-bios for supercentenarians
Greetings Judith,

I was surprised and disappointed that you deleted mini-bios of supercentenarians from the national supercentenarian articles.

Please reconsider:

1. The mini-bios were a compromise solution suggested by other Wikipedia editors in 2007. While ideally, it might be better to have individual stand-alone articles, we see JJBulten going around trying to delete as many as possible.

2. Some of these included persons, such as Camille Loiseau of France, older than any verified person currently living. Loiseau was also a doyenne (France's oldest person)

3. Do lists of home run hitters include stats only? Or do we see biographies for the players?

Let's get real, stats cover only half the story (the "right-brained approach) and leaves out the verbal approach (the left-brained approach).

Unless you've been tasked to save money by reducing articles on Wikipedia, there really is no explanation for why there is this sudden push to delete so much. A lot of this is "recentist bias."

I suggest a fair solution: if someone was an oldest person in that particular nation, and they have a mini-bio, they should be kept.

Also, I thought we were going to come up with standards for supercentenarian biographies. The fact is, the current system is like a political race; whether the article is kept or deleted depends on who campaigns more...and yes, I am insinuating that JJBulten is campaigning. He has canvassed to delete articles, and often recruits people, such as DavidinDC. That's not fair, and that's violating the rules.

It also suggests the downside of Wikipedia: nothing is safe, anything can be deleted, altered, modified by anyone at any moment.

This isn't a good trend.

There has been coverage of supercentenarians since Roman times...err, Biblical times. It's a topic that comes up a lot...such as St. Paul of Thebes, allegedly 113. Paul wasn't considered "notable" until he was very old. Old age does, in fact, confer notability in many instances.

Much of the recent edit work on the supercentenarians articles have haphazardly overpruned, without considering why the material was there in the first place.

If someone is a top-100 person, they deserve at least a mention on the national page, if not their own article.

Again, lists are not enough; people need a human angle as well.76.17.118.157 (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Robert. Your points about notability and article content should be made on article talk pages or in the Wikiproject. Editor conduct is separate. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate" RFC
Hi, don't know if you noticed, it seems you !voted twice on the "Climategate" renaming RfC. I guess that was accidental? You might want to clarify your entries. Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just didn't remember I already voted. I'll reformulate. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson
I have responded to several of the points raised by you on Talk:Paul Robeson, to some of Catherine's reply and chimed in on the "hate speech" allegations. However, I must reject Catherine's version of the article as I feel it is not a salvagable template. I am afraid that in my reverting I also reverted three of your edits. I hope you don't take this as being directed against you. Your edits were certainly improvements upon Catherine's version (which was the status quo when you came along) but on problems that didn't even exist in my version. I object to her version not only for reasons of neutrality but also for its structure. IMO, my version's structure makes more sense. Also, my version was through a string of edits which I did in my sandbox evolved from Catherine's version, taking new developments while I was working into account. I had accompanied my overhaul with an explanation for the structural changes. If need be (and I guess it will be), I am willing to argue each and every item again. At the same time, I am willing to any changes deriving from reasonble discussion. I hope your presence can help in that regard. Str1977 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Str1977 has simply too many factual errors and povs for me to work within (please see the discussion page). He has written key parts of Robeson's life from an Anti-Communist point of view. And sadly, he and his advocate Radh have displayed too much racism (expressions like "Uncle Tom" and "Nigger" either being used or rationalized ) for me to work with and now they are even accusing me of "sock puppet accounts" and leading users now. I am working on a much more chronologically sound version of the edit that is sourced properly and would appreciate your feedback when it is completed. You great edits made on the 10th will of course be factored in. Thanks User:Catherine Huebscher (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work with everyone, Catherine. As I said, I don't accept any hate speech being used. If you wish to take it up with diffs, then I would support that. I haven't seen that Str used any such expression, but if you bring out the diffs I will consider them. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Tom usage by Radh, approved by Str1977
Str1977's actions are even more reprehensible than Radh's because he tries to use sophistry and bogus history to rationalize such a gross slur instead of just being blatant in how agrees with Radh's vulgarity.There are thousands of other words and expressions they could have used but because their slurs (be they blatant or thinly veiled) go unabated this will now continue on-where are the repercussions for racism here? Uncle Tom is an(ethnic slur) an offensive and derogatory name for a Black man who is abjectly servile and deferential to Whites. What more is there to consider? One can be fired from their place of employment from using it. I would lose my job if I used it against a black colleague. User:Catherine Huebscher (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "It should be obvious, that (in political matters) Robeson simply was an Uncle Tom for Stalinism (e.g.: "imperialist Germany" for the Westallied German zones)"
 * Str1977: "The latter is a bit less loaded. The editor in question labelled Robeson's approach to the Soviet Union that way, taking up polemics found within the black community. Still, it was a good choice of wording."
 * Catherine, true, but he is using it against Paul Robeson, who is dead. The main point for me here is that his views are irrelevant. An article is based on the sources, not on the assessment of some random WP editor. He didn't use hate speech against you or any other editor. This edit is therefore unhelpful but not, in my assessment, a breach of Wikiquette. Deliberately winding up other editors is called trolling and is best ignored. One thing some experienced editors do is collapse sections on the talk pages as "off topic". I've never done this, and don't know how to without looking it up. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"but he is using it against Paul Robeson, who is dead." With all due respect I think that is a saddening (and predictable) response to hate speech. If I had used "foul white inbred Limey trash" or "German Nazi scumbag" to described Robeson's enemies I'd have been banned or at least cautioned. Best wishes to you. User:Catherine Huebscher (talk) 5:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'd seen it at the time I would have removed it from sight and asked Radh to avoid inflammatory language. You can still take it up. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what Catherine wrote, I did not approve it - I explained what he meant. Given all the insults from Catherine, it is no wonder that tempers got hot. Still, no excuse for using of such inflammatory language, which does nothing to help progress on the article issues. Towards Radh, I offered criticism, towards others (Catherine included) I offered explanation.
 * This mirrors what Catherine thinks about my work. I did not approve of government harassment or blacklisting of Robeson - but I explained why it happened. WP is about information, not providing good-vs-evil stories. Readers can judge for themselves and might arrive at several, nuanced views. Str1977 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Robeson
Feel like helping to knock heads? I feel I have entered a hornets nest but have made a proposal on moving forward here. I'm not wedded to it so open to other ideas, but we need a process (or so I think) -- Snowded TALK  08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BOUML
I was thinking of WP:SPA myself. See also my answer to. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments at the RS noticeboard. However your advice is still sought at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and the AfD. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Robeson
MLK's legacy section makes similar "unsourced" claims and so does Baker without any sources. (Baker's article also incorrectly she was the first AA to not play segregated houses when it was Robeson according to three historians)I have sources for each sentence I write, I'm simply making sure they are not reverted as the article is in flux. Also as Str1977 tagged the article and then vanished, how long does his tagging have to stand? Do we have to wait weeks for him to show up again? Thanks for your time. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Put back anything you have a source for. If there are issues in the Martin Luther King or Josephine Baker biographies, the solution is to fix those. Re the tags, an obvious way forward is for all of us on the talk page to agree a to-do list for the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Robeson and related articles
Hi. Thank you for your efforts to bring peace. Sadly, I gave up weeks ago. I'm afraid Catherine doesn't listen to anybody; she's too busy attacking editors who disagree with her. Her ownership of the articles has become a serious problem. I was reluctant to bring it to AN/I myself because I thought it would be dismissed as a content dispute.

I hope the new idea of using a to-do list helps focus the editing of the article. It's on my watchlist and I'll continue to look in on it from time to time, but I don't have the patience to deal with the day-to-day noise. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Sheepwalk


The article Sheepwalk has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ► 20:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpretive science
See my comment on the situation WP:FTN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. My view is no, this is not a reliable source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

JJBulten confesses
Greetings,

Check out these admissions from JJBulten:

I. Message I About supercentenarians on Wikipedia:

DHanson317 Posted: Dec 25 2010, 11:18 PM Report Post

Youngster Group: Members Posts: 46 Member No.: 1,043 Joined: 31-October 10

User BrownHairedGirl has decided herself the necessity to remove all flags. Why she's doing this now, I do not know.

JJB Posted: Dec 26 2010, 08:40 AM Report Post

Youngster Group: Members Posts: 2 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10 I'll tell you what shes doing, by taking away the flags, shes showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation. Shes making the way for me to delete articles on all the supercentenarians who arent the WOP.

John J. Bulten

The above message was posted on InvisionFree, and is publicly available, even though this is an "embargo'd" site on Wikipedia (it's a site that hosts video-game conferencing and other blogs; this particular group is a supercentenarian discussion group).

So, from the above message, JJBulten has clearly linked BHG's behavior to his own prodding, and his own conspiracy to "delete all articles on all the supercentenarians who aren't the WOP". Of course, he even deleted a few WOP articles, such as Louisa Thiers and Elizabeth Watkins.

II. Message 2

1. What Alexandr said (and quoting Brendanology):

Alexsandr Posted: Dec 17 2010, 10:18 AM Report Post

Supercentenarian

Group: Members Posts: 149 Member No.: 1,021 Joined: 29-July 10 QUOTE (Brendanology @ Dec 17 2010, 10:07 AM) JJB has employed a number of tactics on Wikipedia, including:

-POV pushing -converting editors -use of flowery language to scare editors (like DHanson317) -smoke-and-mirrors tactics to distort facts -and a number of others.

I feel that as long as he presents his arguments in a RATIONAL manner, he can stay. But if he begins trying to convert or recruit members here who are also editors on Wikipedia (such as myself, DHanson317, and NickOrnstein), out he goes. The 110 Club is a place to discuss supercentenarians, and is not a recruiting ground or an extension of his practices on Wikipedia.

If I were him, I'd find it strange to be banned from the 110 Club before I have even made my first post.

It's a free forum; we should let him stay for at least a while. If he causes disruption, criticises, or offends members who edit on Wikipedia, then it's straight to Complaints.

Just my 2 cents.

You right: here be place for the discuss of supercentenarians. but JJb is not beings interested in that. Has anything ever that he do on wikipedia indicate that he has interest like us?

No.

All he do there is try destroy all work for maintain coverage of not-bible supercentenarians. If it be JJB then he not here for right reason.

2. JJB's response:

JJB Posted: Dec 27 2010, 12:15 PM Report Post

Youngster Group: Members Posts: 2 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10 QUOTE (Alexsandr @ Dec 27 2010, 11:43 AM) Read what he posts yesterday. he not here for good. Delete his account I think.

Alexsandr, are you trying to say I should be banned because I disagree with you? I'm standing up for the Bible and you can call me narrow-minded all you want, I am proud of it, by pursecuting me you'll only increase my reward.

From the above message, JJBulten admits that what he THINKS he is doing is "standing up for the Bible" by destroying the scientific standard. Can we allow this kind of agenda-pusshing on Wikipedia?

(part II) Ryoung 122 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow all of this. Is it Wikipedia posts or something else from the net? Whichever, I think you need to work on your evidence to ArbCom rather than sending messages to me. We all have a window of opportunity to explain the issues to the Arbitrators. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Itsmejudith, I just noticed this point copied here, it is two posts to the "110 Club" (110C) chatsite made by an identity thief ("JJB"), which I denounced to ArbCom when I discovered it in his evidence. I mention 110C in the stipulations at Workshop. I could work out who said what in the muddle above, but it's not worth it. However the person seemed to do a nonpareil job of pushing Ryoung122's buttons. JJB 12:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers
Would you mind cleaning up the Alexandra Powers article. I added a reference and messed up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

RSN comments about Gibraltar international dispute
Hi Itsyoujudith!

Thank you very much for your comments on the source. I'm the one who proposed it. I have added some more info to the discussion at the RSN and would be terribly thankful if you could add one (or more) comment. Sorry if I disturb you witth these details. Cheers! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Question re DYK nomination for Enid A. Haupt
Hi,

Since you put up a DYK article recently, I thought you might know this. I nominated Enid A. Haupt on January 1, and no one has reviewed it yet. There are others even older which have not been reviewed, but it seems most have, including many newer nominations.

Do you know if I can rely upon someone reviewing it before it becomes stale, or if there is something that needs to be done?

Any suggestions appreciated,

Aquib (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN
Thank you for your input. The matter is not really one of sources, if you look at the 3 texts, the sources supporting each are by and large the same. I was looking for an outside opinion as to which best dealt with the main points in accordance with our policy of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. I don't wish to influence your comments in any way, so I will not comment on the issues I have. I also hope you will forgive me commenting here but I did not wish to deter outside opinion by adding to the walls of text.

Language is also not an issue, I'm half-Spanish. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already done what you suggested. It is always reverted, claiming there is no consensus for change.  Every edit I've done since October has been reverted and subjected to endless discussion with not one iota of compromise.  I have been prepared to move, other editors consider discussion as compromise after compromise until you arrive at their position.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So the point of contention is the three sentences (currently) relating to the events of 1704. There are four inline references given, but two of them are just duplicates. There are Andrews, Jackson and Hills. Jackson is a former governor of Gibraltar, as well as a military historian. Andrews' book is from 1958 and Hills from 1974. I'm concerned that these sources might represent outdated scholarship. What about Garratt 2007? Garratt seems to have a whole chapter on this episode. Having said that, the three sources currently used are acceptable. If what they say is accurately reflected in the article, then that will satisify neutrality requirements, until someone presents further reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to avoid influencing you but the issue is actually related to WP:DUE, one text fails on WP:NPOV by giving undue coverage on certain details, to the detriment of ignoring others, which per WP:DUE, are more significant. BTW Garratt, not come across that one?  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to persuade you that only the texts can determine what attention to give to particular details. WP:DUE is always going to be a judgement call. Discussion needs to refer back to how the sources treat the events. Garratt 2007 showed up in a Google Books search. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm actually well aware of what NPOV is and how texts are supposed to be used. The problem is that discussion doesn't refer back to how the sources treat the events, the discussion if you can call it that, is one editor saying this source mentions this atrocity, we must mention this atrocity and never moving from that inflexible position.  This is supported by selectively quoting from sources to justify an a priori position.  You can try and discuss WP:DUE till the cows come home, the reply is always "this source mentions this atrocity, we must mention this atrocity."  Sourcing is selected to justify a position, not to achieve consensus or NPOV.  I suggest you try it, you might feel some of the frustration at the lack of progress that I feel. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW unless I'm missing something Garratt 2007, appears to be a reprint of a book from 1939. Or am I missing something. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Whitehawk Camp
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Whitehawk Camp, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.worldwizzy.com/learn/index.php/Whitehawk.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * False positive. The site is a WP mirror. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Actually, it's only a false positive if there is no redundant content. In this case, it was helpful in disclosing another problem. Evidently, you have copied content from the article Whitehawk into a new article without attributing. Wikipedia's content is not public domain, but only liberally licensed for reuse. Attribution in the form of a direct link to the original article is one of the conditions of reuse. I've provided attribution in this case, but if you have copied content from one Wikipedia page to others before (even if a very long time ago), please go back to attribute. Copying within Wikipedia contains the recommended procedure, or you can see how I handled it at this article. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Very tentative request
Having seen you at work on the de Brazza page and several other matters which came up on various noticeboards, you strike me as someone who is detail oriented and interested in history. I just completed a draft of my first ever Wikipedia article, posted it for review and nobody has yet responded. I wonder if you might have a few minutes at some point to take a look at it? (If you're too busy, no worries.) Its on Ernst Renan's 1882 essay, "What is a nation?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jonathanwallace/What_is_a_Nation%3F Thanks! Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look, and just a few comments. It's really good for a new article. I wouldn't put Renan's exact dates in his description. Since you link to his biography, his years of birth and death are sufficient. Another was the translation of "everyday referendum". You should add the French phrase in brackets, and I think also perhaps the "daily plebiscite" translation in the article rather than in a footnote. This is because "everyday" in English can also mean "humdrum", and I don't think that is Renan's intention. You summarise the content really clearly - useful and informative stuff. The "Legacy and criticism" section could do with filling out - not necessarily before the article goes live; other editors may be able to help. Benedict Anderson's criticism read a bit like an anticlimax, as if it were a quibble about a minor error, rather than being aimed at the heart of Renan's thesis. Is there more that could be added from Anderson? Eventually it will be good to have a bibliography, so that readers can see where Renan's essay has been quoted and anthologised rather than just being told that it has. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Good comments all, and I will incorporate as much as posible before moving it to mainspace in a day or two. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made changes based on your comments and moved What is a Nation? to mainspace. Since you were kind enough to look at the draft (and at the risk of wearing out your patience entirely) would you mind looking at it again at some point, and then if you see fit, removing the "New article" tag? Thanks....Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Dieter Bachmann (User:Dbachmann) might have a minute to look at it too. He knows a lot about nationalism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What is This?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop#Comment_on_protocols_for_in_absentia_trials

It's more than clear that JJB is operating a passive-agressive, mentally challenged attempt to Wiki-lawyer his way to "victory" on Wikipedia, all the while virtually everything he does is in violation of Wiki policies.

A lot of people don't have time for this nonsense. Ryoung 122 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

GRG Material Properly Published
Greetings,

Regarding your below comment:


 * Robert, have you read nothing that editors have said about GRG? About how its fact-checking work is of value, but shouldn't go directly into WP unless it is properly published? Please, for your own sake, go to WP:FTN, search for longevity, and find that editors have taken all sorts of positions, not reducible at all to religion vs science. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I disagree that the GRG constitutes a "self-published" source. Wee see from the WP:V policy:

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field.

This is certainly not what the GRG is. It's not "anyone."

2. We see the GRG published in third-party sources, such as Rejuvenation Research:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2010.1120?journalCode=rej

However, JJB has attacked Rejuvenation Research, showing that he is wiki-lawyering rather than attempting to follow Wiki policy.

There's ZERO argument you can really make, the GRG does NOT publish Rejuvenation Research.

Now, the other day you mentioned you wanted to keep scientific material off an article about the "virgin birth of Jesus."

As a third-party analogous issue, Wikipedia is NOT a religious website. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It should be objective.

Therefore, to say that there should be no mention of the scientific likelihood of the virgin birth of Jesus means that, in fact, we have a religious walled garden.

I'm going to take the time to say that many people of the GRG, even Dr. Coles, are Christian.

This is not about religion; it's about religion building a wall of control, a walled garden, to keep scientific perspective out.

JJB originally became involved when someone labelled an article on Noah as a "longevity myth."

JJB stated that he believed that Noah really did live to 950, because the Bible said so.

That's fine for him to believe. That's fine for a church to teach. That's NOT fine to insist that Wikipedia, a "neutral," "third-party" encyclopedia, is not allowed to offer any commentary that MIGHT contradict the Holy Bible. Ryoung 122 04:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Sure What This is About
Cites please.


 * When it becomes an attack on editors who have little or nothing to do with JJBulten? The first diff JJ cites above is between you and O Fenian. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if it involved "O Fenian," JJBulten probably nominated the AFD. Ryoung 122 05:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment About Me

 * Robert Young is not acknowledged as one of the world's leading authorities on human longevity. Keep a sense of reality. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes I am. I'm with the International Database on Longevity:

http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm

I'm with the New England Supercentenarian Study:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian/our-staff/

I'm with the Supercentenarian Research Foundation:

http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/organization.htm

I'm with Guinness World Records:

http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Oldest-Living-Man-Turns-114/blog/2667504/7691.html

It's not just the GRG I'm with.

Ryoung 122 05:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm Talking to You Because I believe you are reasonable
While the current mainline dispute appears to be "Ryoung122 versus John J Bulten", in reality there is a second issue: David in DC. David in DC has NOT shown the religious dogmatism of JJB, but he has shown inappropriate edit-warring and misuse and misstatement of facts.

For example, he has called the GRG a self-published source, a data dump, and other ignoble terms. The truth is, that's not correct.

Let me give you an example. Someone e-mails us that "my grandma is turning 110". We ask them for documentation, which they can mail or e-mail to us. If we publish the person's name or photo, it's not my grandmother, it's not even someone I know. To call the GRG a self-published source is completely incorrect.

To say it is not reliable is incorrect. The GRG has the largest collection of biogerontologists in the world, from Aubrey de Grey to critics like Preston Estep and Jason Pontin. While scientists debate the future of human longevity, Wikipedia editors are arguing over what 99% of scientists agree is, in fact, mundane and generic established material. That is, the human record for longevity is 122, persons above age 110 are very rare, etc. One can easily source this to more than just the GRG. As I pointed out, there is the International Database on Longevity, for example.

In the long run, this is not about me, this is about Wiki editors "witch-hunting" and making accusations that are not true.

Again, if a family publishes their own blog, that's self-published. The GRG has been deemed reliable by third-party sources, such as the AP, APF, New York Times, etc.

Ryoung 122 20:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Robert. It is getting a bit late to enter into discussion now. I wish you had read up on Wikipedia policy a long time ago, and perhaps followed some of the discussions about sourcing, science and pseudoscience, religious topics, and other relevant things, elsewhere in the encyclopedia. I know that you, on behalf of GRG, check on reports of people living to very old age. I think I get the basic picture of what is done to build up a reliable database, both for scientific purposes and for general readers (in Guinness). You don't have to repeat that.


 * Frequently in Wikipedia discussions (see WP:RSN for innumerable examples), we use "self-published source" as a shorthand, for not independently published or not published in a way considered reliable in Wikipedia. You are not the first person to find that confusing. I know that David in DC would gladly have elaborated his argument for you had you asked.


 * Now, something I am still finding confusing is the status of GRG documents. The basic requirement for a Wikipedia source is that it should be published. A paper in a refereed social science journal is reliable; a working paper by the same researcher isn't. Do you see the parallel? The International Database on Human Longevity is a valuable academic resource, but we have to know whether everything on it has been fact-checked to the standard expected of published works. Or is it more like a collection of research papers?


 * I don't know why you are repeating to me that the record is 122 years and that cases over 110 years are exceedingly rare. I thought that was obvious. Moreover there are thousands of biologists all over the world who follow a religion like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism, and who completely agree with that biological fact. If they are asked how they square that with scriptures saying people lived to 900 years or so, they have their own varied ways of squaring it, which don't affect their commitment to scientific method.


 * Now, as to the expert status of the people involved in GRG, nothing you have said reassures me, in fact it rings alarm bells even more loudly than before. The everyday work of what you call extreme longevity tracking is methodologically unrelated to biogerontology. It is work similar to that done by biographers, local historians, genealogists, journalists and others. To that extent it doesn't matter whether or not GRG has biogerontologists on board. But those that you mention above... de Grey and Estep seem to have been involved in a major row about what is mainstream science and what is on the fringe. Pontin, from his biography, is not a scientist at all, but a journalist.


 * I shall post on the ArbCom workshop page that this discussion is here, in case people want to look at it or copy it over. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)