Talk:Zhou Youguang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of birth date[edit]

The birth date has not been verified by the GRG. It should be removed per WP:V as an unverified claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.79 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GRG may have some authority when it comes to longevity, but the birth date is sourced in the article. It's completely verifiable. clpo13(talk) 23:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable does not mean it was verified. And it's a non verified claim by the GRG so it's not verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.79 (talk • contribs) 15:15, January 16, 2016‎
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. WP:V makes no mention of the GRG or its authority. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a reliable source is all that's needed, not the GRG's blessing. clpo13(talk) 23:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And a reliable source has said they haven't verified it, so it's an unverified claim. 107.72.97.94 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the age is supported by three citations: [1], [2], and [3]. That's enough for WP:V, which is the only verification that Wikipedia should care about. clpo13(talk) 23:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And many additional cites could be added. I found one with a picture of him and his 110th birthday cake. Let me understand this correctly - No one disputes the birthdate of one of the greatest most famous Chinese people ever until he turns 110 and now we have to remove it until some old people hobbyists at GRG verify his birthdate? The same GRG people that have refused/failed to ever verify any Chinese person? That is craziness. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy but pretty logical for the GRGcruft fans. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all claims regarding his birthdate from this page. That claim hasn't been verified by the GRG and thus it fails WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.94 (talk • contribs) 16:33, January 16, 2016‎

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13(talk) 00:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a BLP. Information that isn't verified can't be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.24 (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's right. I'll get right on removing the unsourced information. Wait...it is sourced. Welp, my job here is done. clpo13(talk) 00:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say sourced, it's sourced but not verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.24 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP and WP:V again. There's nothing there about being "verified". It's "verifiability", which means the ability of a reader to check the sources. clpo13(talk) 00:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP posting here is ban-evading. There's no need to engage them in debate. Just roll back on sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not sure what the problem is here; if the man claims to have been born in 1906, then I am pretty sure you could leave the birthdate at that.
What I do notice (yet again) is that some editors here either seem to be having a problem understanding what the word "verified" means, or respecting the fact that, worldwide, reliable newspapers/journals/institutions rely heavily on international organisations verifying supercentenarian claims in their reporting of the world's oldest. For some reason, various people here tend to believe that if a person comes from a country in which record-keeping wasn't quite as up to the standards as it was in other countries 110 years ago, these age-verifying organisations (of which the GRG is only one instead of the sole one, so where is the criticism towards other organisations?) will never verify them. However, I doubt that is true. A simple look at, for instance, the correspondents list of the GRG reveals that there even is a correspondent for China [4] who has a degree, meaning this man must surely know what he is doing. As such, it seems to me that if a Chinese claimant ever wished to be verified for his age, then I think any international organisation verifying supercentenarian claims would be more than willing to welcome his documentation. In other words, I don't quite understand why you blame organisations such as the GRG - once again, organisations often cited in newspaper reports, so surely the world outside of Wikipedia has no trouble accepting their authority on the matter - for not verifying Chinese claimants when you haven't even bothered to check whether they have their contacts in China. Introspection is a gift. Fiskje88 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, do you actually think we should remove his birth date from this article regardless of what these sources say just because he turned age 110 and the GRG hasn't verified it? It was fine and all when he was 109 but there no evidence that the GRG is some expert in determining forget Chinese birth certificate or whatever other basis they have for their "verification" process (which is opaque and never explained). There is no "science" to stating whether or not someone is lying about their age. So yes we will blame the GRG when its proponents come here and say that because it has yet to state that he has or lived to age 110, then there's no truth to the claim about his birth date. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, perhaps I should've worded my comment differently... let me be clear in the fact that I do support inclusion of Mr. Youguang's birth date, as that is not the issue. (Instead, I do feel that Mr. Youguang's birth year should receive the same amount of scrutiny that other supercentenarians have received.) What does surprise me is that Ricky refers to the GRG as "its proponents [coming] here," whereas I think it is obvious that the people who come here are (young?) fans whose actions are, at times, detrimental to trying to establish a (sensible) consensus about the longevity area on Wikipedia; confusing these fans as actual representatives of the GRG might be easily done, but I doubt this really is the case. Fiskje88 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the argument? His birth year is fine for his own article but not for any article about people of his age group? Should he not included in the Chinese supercentenarian category? Should he not be included in an living Chinese supercentenarian table? Can be included at Lists of centenarians? If his birthdate can be sourced here based on these sources, then why should we ignore that if we created a table of Chinese supercentenarians? There needs to be consistency. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If "GRG" means the Gerontology Research Group, who cares? They're just one potential source. We don't treat a single publication or organization as magically superior to all others in the world, per WP:UNDUE. The alleged fact that GNG doesn't have information about this person isn't even relevant anyway. All it establishes is that they're not a source we can use for this article, not that they're somehow more reliable in their having no information than all other sources that offer some.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GRG sucks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.42.119 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the main problem with this guy is that unlike 99.99% of other supercentenarians, he's also famous for something other than his age. His inclusion in Wikipedia is justified not only as someone over 110 but also (and mainly) because he was instrumental in designing pinyin. So I highly doubt that he'd need GRG's stamp for his inclusion, even though that might be a reasonable requirement for other claimants that are famous solely for their (claimed) age. DingiDingi2345 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, nobody tried to delete the article - there is no question about notability. What was proposed was to remove the birth date - which had prior to the 110th birthday been verified by what Wikipedia (but not GRG) considers reliable sources.
Ultimately, it was decided that, whatever GRG say (as it happens, they still haven't accepted him, or anyone else from China), if newspapers and the like say he was born in 1906, we're allowed to say he was born in 1906, and chances are it's probably true anyway.
(The problem was that for a few days in January he was the only living male 110-year-old with a reliably sourced age, which led to people declaring him the oldest living man. He was not, however, and the current list shows him at 9th place.) --85.140.246.141 (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank whoever worked on this article, and note how much I appreciate Wikipedia. I had never heard of this person until I logged in today. Too bad it had to be the day of his death. At the same time how many people get to celebrate their 111th birthday.

Yo — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoMenashe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hjsr (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)He died in Jan 14th, 2017. The date should be corrected.[reply]

Appearance on Google Doodle[edit]

On January 13, 2018, Zhou Youguang appeared on a Google Doodle. This could increase traffic significantly.2602:306:C559:8860:5553:E774:98A5:B3E6 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I came here from the Doodle. MaigoAkisame (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018[edit]

Died is written 14 January 2018. He died on 14 January 2017. Aramgevorgyan1987 (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done - recent vandalism. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zhou_Youguang&oldid=1195084262"