514:-- This table is the GRG's most recent one and the one that they (Robert and Calvin) said should be used. The GRG said that they no longer change their old tables, and that thus this new table that I just linked to should be the one used since it is the most up to date. The GRG has removed Hongo and White from its newest list due to the fact that they were debunked (I provided the links to their debunking on the Oldest people Knowledge page). Anyway, since the GRG is an expert in this field and since they said that Table B2 is the table that should be used, I have changed the Oldest people article to have its info match up with that of Table B2. For the record, I am aware that the GRG also removed other disputed cases from table B2, and they said that they are no longer counting these disputed cases for now but that they might add some of these disputed cases (Mathew Beard, etc.) back to this table later on in the future if they will deem it necessary. As for their behavior, I deeply apologize if Robert or someone else from the GRG was a bit abrasive at times. However, their views in regards to this issue are still very valid considering that they are experts in this field.
459:'s inclusion. I don't know that Robert Young (or GRG) can provide substantial proof that Hongo or White didn't live to the ages that were claimed. What they can do, is confirm that they failed to validate Hongo and White's claims. There may be additional evidence beyond that. However, due to existing ArbCom sanctions it may be difficult for some of the GRG people to contribute. I believe the sanctions were for behavior and not for lack of credential. My synthesis may be wildly off-base, but that's what I've seen. It's a pretty kettle of worms. --
258:, so Robert and CalvinTy are experts in this field. However, a particular editor has a problem with modifying the Oldest people Knowledge page right now despite the fact that he is not an expert in this field like Robert and CalvinTy are. He says that the GRG should modify an old list of supercentenarians, but Robert and CalvinTy said that the GRG doesn't modify these old lists anymore. Should we listen to Robert and CalvinTy in this case?
976:
627:. It says "To see the feedback page for any of the articles in our, (sic) click on “Talk” at the top of the article page; then click on "View feedback" at the top of the talk page." Besides there being something missing from the sentence, when I go to any talk page I do not see any link for View Feedback.--
437:
I've been following the general case off-wiki (though I don't know all the details of the dispute on-wiki), but a few issues stand out to me. GRG is notable, and treated as a (generally) reliable source by experts in the field. Robert Young is a researcher with them, who is possibly an expert on the
901:
I added "may be wikilinked if relevant" to the periodical documentation. This is in line with the discussions and with other modules of the documentation. The major view is that linking well-known locations, publishers or periodicals is not that useful, but links to little-known elements may be of
576:
POV, and hoping I didn't botch it too badly. My feeling is that, by
Knowledge standards the list should only contain names from reliable sources. If there are "reliable sources" that meet WP's standards (but not GRG's) then the names should be included. If those sources are individually disputed,
843:
I've participated in discussions about this before, but for some reason I can't find them in the archives. My memory is that in the most recent discussion, there was consensus that wikilinks can be used more frequently in references than in an article body, as reference lists are not read in the
857:
A-ha, so I'm not the only one who's asked this question (didn't think I was). But perhaps I am the first to ask the specification be noted on the page? Thanks for your reply. It makes sense. And to save editors creating articles and reviewers checking them, the item should be specified to avoid
827:
states author names and publishers can be wikilinked. But what about names of newspapers, journals, etc.? Would there be anything wrong with making these names wikilinked, too? It's something editors preparing FA articles would like specified. (watching the page for a
979:
If you're just trying to relist for the third time, I just do it with the script and then add my comment after the fact (resulting in an extra edit... but it won't kill anyone.) Are you saying that there's a malfunction with your script or something of that nature?
844:
same manner as prose so there's no concern about low-value links "diluting" high-value links. I think links to journals etc are valuable as they make it easier for readers to find more information about a source and therefore evaluate its credibility.
213:
It depends a bit on what you mean by "how a particular article was written", though. If experts are saying that an article is somehow misleading, or that it covers trivial issues in great detail while barely explaining key concepts, or that it puts
104:
If there were some neutral, non-biased experts in a particular field who disliked how a particular article was written, should their opinions hold more weight on that
Knowledge article than someone with no professional qualifications on this topic?
364:
exist. Get outside opinions from other editors. If it's one editor vs. one editor, then the problem can't be resolved. If it is 20 editors against 1, it starts to be obvious. If one side is clearly in the right based on their sources,
450:
was a page on the GRG website, listing them as unverified candidates for "oldest person". GRG now considers them unverified non-candidates, but hasn't updated their own web page still being cited as evidence for
581:
the "Oldest people" page, and although theirs could be the best scholarship available, they're still only one source. Knowledge is a collaborative process, which sometimes works well and is sometimes awkward.--
766:
I just saw a reg. user who wrote on the user page namespace for IP address. (Just wrote welcome to my user page and misc. but nothing controversial) What should be done for things like this. Thanks in advance
797:
Can you provide a link? There's actually no rule against IP addresses having user pages, even though they don't have the technical ability to create them. But if a registered user wrote "welcome to
801:
user page" on the user page of an IP address, they might have made a mistake, and perhaps inadvertantly revealed their IP address. If that's the case they might want their edit
699:
Thanks for pointing out an error with your sic. A colon was missing in a link syntax so it didn't display. It now says: "To see the feedback page for any of the articles in our
1062:
577:
the Talk page would work. If there is dispute over the reliability of individual sources that the Talk page can't address, RS/N should be able to make a decision. GRG doesn't
1057:
888:, it appears such links are permissible but not required. It would be interesting to see whether there'd be consensus for encouraging (though not mandating) their use.
880:
is the most recent discussion I'm aware of. Note the more permissive view toward such links in the second discussion taken by Tony, who has been instrumental in
1153:
I'm curious as to whether there was anything that led you to believe that code would be automatically generated for you. Could you tell me where it said this?
326:
Okay, but there is a dispute over which of the GRG's sources should be used. Wouldn't the opinion of someone who actually works for the GRG have more weight in
62:
41:
51:
81:
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
55:
873:
624:
47:
1118:
I've uploaded an image; where can I find the embed code to place it in my entry? Upon upload, the ended code was not automatically generated.
1002:
Yes, I believe there is. When I click the arrow next to the watchlist button I only get the button "Move". I'm using
Timotheus Canens' script.
947:
877:
1096:
1042:
1013:
961:
729:
671:
628:
176:
146:
Even if this editor was a professional expert in a given field and had his/her work published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
742:
It requires JavaScript. Do you have JavaScript enabled in
Firefox? It disappears for me when I disable JavaScript in Firefox.
218:
on discredited ideas, then we would do well to listen to these experts (assuming their claims to expertise can be confirmed).
160:
The idea is that if
Einstein writes an article about General relativity, he still has to cite someone, maybe himself :P
782:
21:
950:
for the third time, but my AfD script wouldn't let me. All I can do is add the relist template. How do you finish it?
254:
Knowledge page. I can provide their quotes for you if you want. The GRG is an organization that deals with verifying
239:
196:
1031:
On closer inspection, it looks like I also had Mr. Z-man's script. I've removed it now but it still doesn't work.
272:
If they are experts in the field then it should be easier for them to provide reliable sources for proposed edits.
1070:
707:
700:
192:
703:, click on “Talk” at the top of the article page; then click on "View feedback" at the top of the talk page."
290:
thinks that these sources are not good enough, despite his lack of qualifications in this field of research.
1091:
1037:
1008:
956:
733:
675:
632:
586:
464:
204:
872:
Agreed, though it might be necessary to clarify current consensus before putting anything in a guideline.
1162:
1146:
1127:
1103:
1074:
1049:
1020:
993:
968:
927:
913:
896:
867:
852:
837:
813:
791:
751:
737:
723:
692:
679:
665:
636:
590:
523:
468:
443:
398:
384:
339:
321:
299:
281:
267:
226:
208:
180:
172:
155:
137:
114:
987:
889:
845:
806:
747:
719:
519:
394:
335:
295:
277:
263:
219:
151:
110:
1123:
1119:
1066:
1065:→ save. Note that it appears your relisting text was reverted by the next editor to the discussion.--
785:
690:
456:
247:
164:
572:
Thank you for not taking comments personally. I was trying to describe the scope of the issue from N
1142:
366:
317:
133:
82:
33:
17:
452:
243:
1086:
1032:
1003:
951:
824:
711:
658:
643:
582:
460:
377:
200:
646:, in the title line, right next to the page title, is a link that says "View reader feedback »"
923:
863:
833:
255:
168:
1160:
982:
743:
715:
515:
390:
331:
291:
287:
273:
259:
147:
106:
769:
686:
215:
1138:
906:
439:
349:
313:
231:
129:
1134:
651:
578:
447:
370:
361:
353:
251:
235:
125:
100:
How much weight does
Knowledge give to the opinions of experts in a particular field?
919:
859:
829:
802:
357:
345:
309:
305:
121:
710:", only some articles have the feedback link at this time. Are you seeing it at
446:. The original source for the disputed persons' (Hongo & White) inclusion on
1155:
728:
I was not and still do not using
Firefox. I do see it using Safari and Opera.--
304:
The editor's qualifications do not matter. What matters is the source. See
1060:→ edit → cut {{Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Rorgue}}<!--Relisted--: -->
442:
appears to be topic banned by ArbCom, after a long stretch of incivility and
918:
Thanks for providing links to archived convos and for changing the wording!
884:
the number of wikilinks in
Knowledge. Based on a quick look through recent
878:
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Repeat_linking_in_reference_sections
70:
975:
625:
Knowledge:Article
Feedback/Help/Monitors#What is the feedback page?
902:
use. That is probably as definitive an answer as you will get. ---
511:
389:
Thanks for the help, Jayron. I will try to follow your advice.
885:
874:
Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_27#Links_within_citation
1085:
685:
Not there for me either, using Firefox with Vector skin.--
670:
It's not there for me. Let me try switching browsers.--
650:. That brings you to the reader feedback section. --
1063:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 2
858:
anyone needing to look up the answer in an archive!
1058:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 25
308:on the criteria for reliable sources. Also, read
191:There is also difficulty confirming claims to be
330:dispute than someone who never worked for it?
1137:explains how to add an image to an article.
8:
242:. They have said on numerous occasions that
128:, not by a particular editor's preference.
75:Welcome to the Knowledge Help Desk Archives
876:is the discussion I was involved in, and
312:for guidance on how to handle disputes.
45:
32:
61:
706:As the corrected text indicates with "
286:They did provide reliable sources but
39:
7:
642:I see it just fine. If you look at
1061:from the page → save → paste into
942:How do you relist an AfD manually?
820:Wikilinking newspaper publications
28:
762:Creating userpages for IP address
195:. It is one of the obstacles to
974:
948:WP:Articles for deletion/Rorgue
623:I went to the feedback page at
512:http://www.grg.org/Adams/B2.HTM
1:
1163:03:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
1147:22:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
1128:22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
1114:Where is my image embed code?
1104:04:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
1075:18:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
1050:17:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
1021:17:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
994:17:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
969:16:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
928:02:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
914:15:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
897:14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
868:14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
853:14:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
838:14:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
814:12:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
792:12:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
752:18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
738:17:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
724:08:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
693:07:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
680:06:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
666:05:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
637:05:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
591:22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
524:07:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
469:07:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
399:07:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
385:04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
340:01:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
322:23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
300:22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
282:20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
268:20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
227:12:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
209:09:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
181:08:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
156:08:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
138:01:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
115:00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
29:
250:should be removed from the
1179:
240:Gerontology Research Group
238:are correspondents of the
438:subject of Longevity.
369:will bear that out. --
619:Feedback is confusing
344:This is exactly why
197:WP:Expert retention
18:Knowledge:Help desk
825:Template:Cite news
712:Talk:United States
644:Talk:United States
1100:
1099:(watch me float!)
1046:
1045:(watch me float!)
1017:
1016:(watch me float!)
965:
964:(watch me float!)
575:
256:supercentenarians
193:WP:Expert editors
184:
167:comment added by
89:
88:
83:current Help Desk
69:
68:
1170:
1158:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1006:
990:
985:
978:
966:
963:
959:
954:
946:I had to relist
909:
790:
778:
774:
661:
654:
573:
380:
373:
183:
161:
122:reliable sources
71:
30:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1154:
1116:
1097:
1093:that can float!
1092:
1087:
1067:Fuhghettaboutit
1043:
1039:that can float!
1038:
1033:
1014:
1010:that can float!
1009:
1004:
988:
983:
962:
958:that can float!
957:
952:
944:
907:
822:
788:
776:
772:
767:
764:
659:
652:
621:
457:Carrie C. White
444:WP:BATTLEGROUND
378:
371:
248:Carrie C. White
162:
102:
97:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1176:
1174:
1166:
1165:
1150:
1149:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1078:
1077:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
997:
996:
943:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
908:Gadget850Â (Ed)
821:
818:
817:
816:
786:
763:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
704:
696:
695:
648:
647:
620:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
440:User:Ryoung122
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
188:
187:
186:
185:
158:
141:
140:
120:No. We go by
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
87:
86:
78:
77:
67:
66:
60:
44:
37:
36:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1175:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1113:
1105:
1102:
1095:
1090:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1041:
1036:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1022:
1019:
1012:
1007:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
992:
991:
986:
977:
973:
972:
971:
970:
967:
960:
955:
949:
941:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
912:
911:
910:
900:
899:
898:
895:
893:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
856:
855:
854:
851:
849:
842:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
826:
819:
815:
812:
810:
804:
800:
796:
795:
794:
793:
789:
783:
781:
780:
761:
753:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
702:
698:
697:
694:
691:
688:
684:
683:
682:
681:
677:
673:
668:
667:
664:
663:
662:
655:
645:
641:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
626:
618:
592:
588:
584:
583:Robert Keiden
580:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
470:
466:
462:
461:Robert Keiden
458:
454:
449:
448:Oldest people
445:
441:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
383:
382:
381:
374:
368:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
252:Oldest people
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
230:
229:
228:
225:
223:
217:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
201:Jim.henderson
198:
194:
190:
189:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
159:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:
143:
142:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
118:
117:
116:
112:
108:
99:
94:
92:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
72:
64:
57:
53:
49:
43:
38:
35:
31:
23:
19:
1117:
981:
945:
904:
903:
891:
881:
847:
823:
808:
798:
770:
765:
730:108.54.25.10
672:108.54.25.10
669:
657:
656:
649:
629:108.54.25.10
622:
453:Kamato Hongo
376:
375:
367:WP:CONSENSUS
327:
244:Kamato Hongo
232:Robert Young
221:
216:undue weight
169:Ebaychatter0
163:— Preceding
103:
90:
74:
803:oversighted
744:PrimeHunter
716:PrimeHunter
708:test sample
701:test sample
516:Futurist110
391:Futurist110
332:Futurist110
292:Futurist110
288:Canada Jack
274:MilborneOne
260:Futurist110
148:Futurist110
126:style guide
107:Futurist110
95:September 2
63:September 3
42:September 1
1120:Deadlinedd
687:Shantavira
1139:RudolfRed
1133:The page
314:RudolfRed
130:RudolfRed
52:September
46:<<
34:Help desk
882:reducing
236:CalvinTy
177:contribs
165:unsigned
124:and the
22:Archives
20: |
989:polisme
920:Zepppep
890:Adrian
860:Zepppep
846:Adrian
830:Zepppep
807:Adrian
350:WP:RS/N
220:Adrian
85:pages.
1156:Dismas
1135:WP:PIC
1088:A boat
1056:Go to
1034:A boat
1005:A boat
953:A boat
894:Hunter
850:Hunter
828:reply)
811:Hunter
653:Jayron
579:WP:own
372:Jayron
362:WP:RFC
354:WP:DRN
224:Hunter
787:Talk」
358:WP:3O
346:WP:DR
310:WP:DR
306:WP:RS
65:: -->
59:: -->
58:: -->
40:<
16:<
1143:talk
1124:talk
1071:talk
984:Theo
924:talk
886:TFAs
864:talk
834:talk
748:talk
734:talk
720:talk
676:talk
633:talk
587:talk
520:talk
465:talk
455:and
395:talk
360:and
356:and
352:and
348:and
336:talk
328:this
318:talk
296:talk
278:talk
264:talk
246:and
234:and
205:talk
173:talk
152:talk
134:talk
111:talk
777:che
773:ani
768:···
574:(?)
56:Oct
48:Aug
1145:)
1126:)
1073:)
926:)
905:—
892:J.
866:)
848:J.
836:)
809:J.
805:.
799:my
779:nu
750:)
736:)
722:)
714:?
678:)
660:32
635:)
589:)
522:)
467:)
397:)
379:32
338:)
320:)
298:)
280:)
266:)
222:J.
207:)
199:.
179:)
175:•
154:)
136:)
113:)
54:|
50:|
1159:|
1141:(
1122:(
1069:(
922:(
862:(
832:(
784:/
775:s
771:V
746:(
732:(
718:(
689:|
674:(
631:(
585:(
518:(
463:(
393:(
334:(
316:(
294:(
276:(
262:(
203:(
171:(
150:(
132:(
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.