Thread:Arthur de Moraes Silva Barbosa/@comment-258494-20191018190324/@comment-33034960-20191105224710

I did not say that Gerontology Wiki is or intented to be a "scientific research institute". I have just said that Gerontology Wiki can also be a useful source of relevant information for scientific research (lots of information and sources in one place). I really do not know what is "inappropriate" in this statement an what was or would be an "attempt to misuse" the Gerontology Wiki in this case. In my opinion, mentioning "request for privacy" and non-cooperation (of sc relatives) is completely inadequate (I can say this from my own experience with the relatives of (super)centenarians).

In short, my comment to Dorglorg was was primarily a disagreement with his statement that an information whether a supercentenarian had children or not it's "just an interesting piece of trivia". I absolutely disagree with that. Leaving aside the science: if this information were irrelevant, it would not be mentioned in every (more detailed) article about an individual supercentenarian. Or vice versa: what is and what is not "trivia"? Affiliation to church / religion, veteran status, sc advices for a long and happy life etc etc?

Last but not least and what is most important: a category "Childless supercentenarians" was also mentioned in this thread. I agree that "childless" may not be the most appropriate word, so I ask for the more appropriate name for the category. "Supercentenarians with no children"? Sounds neutral and there are also categories like "Supercentenarians with centenarian children/parents/siblings" etc.