Talk:Mbah Gotho

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

Really?[edit]

This is pure tabloid trash and does not deserve a wikipedia page.

There is a single human being ever verified to reach over 120 years, and only 4 others verified to have reached 117 or older.

For someone to say they are 140 or 160 or whatever the publicity stunt may be is just completely ridiculous.

It would be like someone saying they were 11 feet tall or that they ran a marathon in 50 minutes.

It is so beyond what is in any way reasonable or realistic that it is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.186.82 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. On the other hand, the subject of the article is notable due to the number of reliable sources, which, as I'm sure you're deliberately ignoring, is far higher than for most longevity claimants. The article makes it clear that this is a longevity claim, not independently verified fact. Please take your moaning elsewhere. Grazie. -- Pingumeister(talk) 23:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to Longevity Claims to inform visitors that this is as of yet unverified. Coverage of this has fully penetrated the english speaking world. Jz4p (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you; however, this longevity claim is too extreme for that list, which only includes claims up to 130 years. A link has been added to Longevity myths instead, where it will remain until independent verification of this claim is made (again, due to the extreme nature of the claim, this is unlikely to ever happen). -- Pingumeister(talk) 13:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish! Every entry in Longevity claims has been removed once the claimed age reaches 130; this has been a long-established consensus. Claims up to 130 are considered to be within bounds of realistic possibility, while those over 130 are fanciful, as in this case. If you want to classify this as a "claim" rather than a "myth" you need to gain consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what the categories are for then Please add a statement to that effect to the Category page. If the inclusion criteria for a category are not obvious from the category name, then it needs to be stated on the Category page for the benefit of the vast majority of editors who are not privy to some private consensus. The current excursus on Category:Longevity myths is useless; it belongs in Longevity myths. jnestorius(talk) 12:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you two are edit-warring over whether to place this in Category:Longevity myths, but has been in Category:Longevity claims the whole time. Is this a mistake or am I missing something? -- Pingumeister(talk) 12:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One is currently a subcategory of the other, so prima facie an article in the subcat should not be in the supercat. However, so long as the inclusion criteria for both categories is unclear, one might argue that the error is not that an article is in both but rather that one category is in the other. jnestorius(talk) 14:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The original text of Category:Longevity claims was

Longevity claims are claims to extreme longevity (usually 110 or older) that either cannot be verified, or for which only inconclusive evidence is available, but for which a slight possibility exists that they could be true or partially true (for example, if someone claimed to be 118 but turned out to be 114). For claims above age 130 (considered scientifically impossible to be true) and those already proven false, please see longevity myths.

This was changed by the subsequently banned John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) (banned for making a myriad of such changes to Longevity articles) and never reverted. I have now reverted this to the original text. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?[edit]

Having created this article originally, I am of the opinion that the subject is notable enough to be given an article. However, the case seems to be borderline. I consider The Daily Telegraph and the International Business Times to be reliable sources, but given some people's reactions to the article, perhaps I am mistaken. Can anyone offer opinions on this subject's notability please? -- Pingumeister(talk) 13:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Significant coverage in reliable sources makes this article notable. I suspect that some may be confusing the questionability of the longevity claim with the notability of the article. Greenshed (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alimihan Seyiti, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam Amash (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna Barysevich and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernando LaPallo. I would also note that the "significant coverage" is mostly clones of the same article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give it a month or so, just to see if any further investigation/evidence comes up. You are right in that the secondary sources all derive from the same Liputan6 interview and report, but I'm not sure how much that tarnishes notability at present. If ongoing notability cannot be established, the article would be better off deleted with the claim listed only in Longevity myths. -- Pingumeister(talk) 09:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is to prefer secondary sources. See WP:SECONDARY. There are many topics (especially in ancient history) with only one primary source but lots of reliable secondary sources and these are deemed to be notable. Greenshed (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick check, the Telegraph, the Independent and the IB Times articles on Mbah Gotho are not clones. Greenshed (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've referenced a separate 2014 article. jnestorius(talk) 13:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I had no idea this was reported on previously. -- Pingumeister(talk) 15:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is "borderline" would not the best place to discuss this article be Wikipedia: Articles for deletion? We could observe reactions to the article there. Carltonio (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age next birthday?[edit]

I notice that the 2014 and 2016 Indonesian sources give ages of 144 and 146 rather than 143 and 145. I surmise the Indonesian convention for reporting somebody's age is not "age at last birthday" but something else: maybe age next birthday, age nearest birthday, or "in his nth year". jnestorius(talk) 14:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP user edits[edit]

User:76.68.209.126 is constantly removing the vital word "reportedly" as well as adding the alleged age and life span to the infobox. Lifespans are never added like that to the name in the infobox, and the age should not be appearing as a fact for a longevity claimant. The IP user doesn't seem to understand this. I will now revert again, and if the IP user reinstates his/her changes he/she will be facing an edit warring report. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mbah Gotho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Longevity myths[edit]

My rationale is this. 1/4 of the text is a massive WP:UNDUE violation from the GRG. The rest states he claimed to be a ridiculously implausible age, lived an unremarkable life (almost nothing in this is about Gotho himself), then died. He got enough attention to warrant a mention on the table, but per WP:PAGEDECIDE there's no way this will ever be more than a permastub; I thought presenting it in the myths article would put the utter implausibility of this claim into context, and obviate the need for the GRG puffery and other irrelevant family trivia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article while doing new page review. I marked the article as reviewed because it meets notability guidelines, but I agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights that it is undue to give the subject a whole article to himself given how implausible his claims of living to 145 are. Also, while reliable sources covered the breaking news report that he had legal documents that established that he was 145 years old, all of the best sources phrase it as "if independently confirmed" or otherwise cast doubt, a confirmation which does not appear to have ever come. signed, Rosguill talk 05:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge, on reflection, simply because there is precedent – the table in Longevity myths does contain detailed notes in several cases. I was not aware of this, and since you correctly point out that this article will never foreseeably expand, we should merge. -- Pingumeister(talk) 10:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with the merger. This guy had a brief flurry with fame a few years ago - I remember the news reports - but his claims are ludicrous and don't deserve a separate article when they can be adequately summarized at Longevity myths.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge removal from Longevity myths[edit]

I hate merges (redirects). I want more info. If you keep merging page Mbah Gotho, read this topic. Everyone wants info. No one wants redirects. Never redirect Mbah Gotho. TheOldestPeople (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldestPeople you should be able to undo this; no formal merge request was ever made. Assuming sources are proper, of course. Yoblyblob (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mbah_Gotho&oldid=1183801561"