Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Didlake again

Canada Jack says above [1]:

EEng recently brought up an example of a claim which he said should be considered "verified" as it was published both in the New York Times and its information came from the American military: Emma Didlake, at 110, America's oldest veteran. (She was honoured last year, and died later in 2015.) While her specific age was incidental to the story - she was honoured by the White House for being the oldest veteran, not for reaching the age of 110 - he nevertheless said this was a prime example of why we need not rely on GRG for verification purposes. The problem is, preliminary research on the Didlake case suggests that both the New York Times and the military had her date of birth wrong.

Canada Jack 's referring to this discussion [2], in which he takes it for granted that GRG is correct‍—‌that GRG has proven Didlake was born in 1904‍—‌and thereby NYT, the US military, and other sources are put to shame. But that's far from the case. Here's the "research" to which he refers:

The GRG "validation process" in action "110 Club" validation discussion

From [3], which leads to [4], which leads to http://z3 DOT invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/ar/t12392.htm: Ecad - March 30, 2015 05:48 PM (GMT) ... Some information: - Emma Underwood claims to have been born on 13 March 1905 in Alabama - She was one of more than 10 siblings (around 15 siblings according to the article on her claimed 107th) - She married Oscar Didlake in Kentucky My findings: Possible 1940 US Census match: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:K7T7-12W * Supports 1910 Possible 1930 US Census match: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XM6T-FFL*Supports 1907 1943 Army enlistment document: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:K8LQ-7KN *Supports 1905 Marriage of a daughter: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2QQN-835 Birth of a daughter: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N9TF-7RL Birth of a son: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N9TF-W2J There were some possible 1910 and 1920 US Census matches, but at this point, without knowing her parents names, it'd be mere speculation. 930310 - March 30, 2015 05:58 PM (GMT) Since there is only one "Emma Underwood" residing in Greene county in 1910 and 1920 then this is probably our person. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MKQ2-CNN 1910 US Census - Supports 1904 https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MXZY-WH1 1920 US Census - Supports 1905 Ecad - March 30, 2015 06:31 PM (GMT) I missed that part completely :D ... that surely narrows the potential matches down to the above you've posted! Those possible matches fit well with the fact that she had more than 10 siblings as well. 930310 - March 30, 2015 06:59 PM (GMT) And the earliest document suggests she was born in 1904. I checked the Census and it is a '6'. deblee1969 - April 5, 2015 11:46 PM (GMT) Inactive reserve is the same as the modern delayed entry program. It means you are waiting to go into the military. It does not mean your a veteran. Unless she went into the regular reserves or active duty she is not a Veteran of WW2. deblee1969 - April 16, 2015 06:16 PM (GMT) Actually Emma Underwood/ Didlake is a year older than she actually claims. The 1910 census says she was age 6 when the census was taken on 27 April 1910 . This would have been after her 6th birthday she would of celebrated on March 13 , 1910. If you look at the 1920 census it says on January 9, 1920 she was age 15 . She would turn age 16 on March 13, 1920. Therefore we have 2 matches out of the required 3 that prove she was born on MArch 13, 1904 and not March 13, 1905. So she celebrated birthday 111 on March 13, 2015. if we can find one more document that says 1904 she is a lock. deblee1969 - April 16, 2015 06:23 PM (GMT) The military document may support the 1904 birth but is out of the 20 year window time frame. If she claimed she was 38 when she enlisted that would show a birth year of 1905, even though she actually was born in 1904. She would turn 39 on march 13 the next month following enlistment of February 11,1943. 930310 - April 16, 2015 06:40 PM (GMT) I know, I said that two weeks ago. I'll see if I can find something more here... deblee1969 - April 16, 2015 09:18 PM (GMT) I believe we have more than enough for her to be listed as "pending" with two documents supporting a March 13, 1904 birth date. What do others think? 930310 - April 16, 2015 09:23 PM (GMT) I think she should be pending with 1905 since that's the "safer" option. Once everything has been gathered they can decide which one of 1904/1905 is likelier. Ecad - April 16, 2015 09:35 PM (GMT) Even though there was only one person named "Emma Underwood" in Mrs. Didlake's native county, we haven't located any articles reporting her parents' names and I am not sure whether this guess is enough to "upgrade" her claim... I will post our findings on WOP later. deblee1969 - April 17, 2015 12:59 AM (GMT) When you have a choice of one out of one possible. A pretty safe choice I believe. Ecad - April 17, 2015 06:40 AM (GMT) Personally, I believe the 1910 and 1920 Censuses are matches... It's not me you should convince ;) Waenceslaus - April 17, 2015 11:33 AM (GMT) In the light of the recent discoveries, I believe this thread should go to "Potential cases". ;) deblee1969 - April 17, 2015 12:17 PM (GMT) I agree with you this is definitely a potential case with 2/3 documents for a 1904 birth. One more document showing a 1904 birth in the 20 year window it will be totally valid according to GRG standards. 930310 - July 17, 2015 11:28 AM (GMT) http://news.delta.com/oldest-wwii-vet-gets...light-delta-jet Ale76 - July 17, 2015 05:53 PM (GMT) Topic moved to "Potential cases" section Ollie - August 17, 2015 09:37 PM (GMT) The 1920 census was enumerated in January so "age 15" supports March 1904. Personally, with two documents supporting 1904, I think there's enough evidence to say that she was actually 111 when she died. 930310 - August 17, 2015 09:47 PM (GMT) Yes, I know. I also find it plausible that she was born in 1904.

This "research" shows what stumblebums these "validators" are:

• The participants consider...

• the 1910 census (listing Didlake as 6 years old in 1910, implying she was born in 1903 or 1904), and
• the 1920 census (listing Didlake as 15 in 1920, implying she was born in 1904 or 1905),

from which they conclude she was born in 1904. Yet...

• the 1930 census lists her as 23 in 1930, which implies she was born in either 1906 or 1907, and
• the 1940 census lists her as 30 in 1940, which implies she was born in either 1909 or 1910.

The 1930 and 1940 census returns are linked right there in the discussion, but they simply ignore them, sticking with the 1904 conclusion, which is unfortunate because what they should have concluded is what real researchers already know i.e. that ages listed on census returns are highly unreliable. That GRG uses them for "validation" is amazing.

• One participant writes: "Therefore we have 2 matches out of the required 3 that prove she was born on March 13, 1904 and not March 13, 1905 ... If we can find one more document that says 1904 she is a lock." Another says, "One more document showing a 1904 birth in the 20 year window it will be totally valid according to GRG standards." Apparently the "validation" process consists of finding three documents on a checklist: "check!, check!, wait... wait... one more... check! OK, add her to the collection!" They're like birdwatchers totting up sightings. As seen in the previous bulletpoint there's apparently no understanding of how to weigh and judge historical evidence.
• Here [5] Canada Jack tells us that the Didlake case "underline[s] the contention I and others are making - regular media sources don't have the wherewithal to properly assess these claims." Really? From the above it appears that GRG's "scientific validation process" consists of internet searches of ancestry.com and familysearch.org, followed by a selective misinterpretation of the documents thereby found. I'm pretty sure the New York Times has at least that much "wherewithal" (and I'm pretty sure more, actually).

So what we have is major sources, including NYT, ABC News, and the US military, telling us Didlake was born in 1905, versus this chatroom of birdwatchers ignoring much of the evidence to conclude it's 1904. It may very well turn out that 1904 is right after all, and when reliable sources report that, Wikipedia will as well. In the meantime, Canada Jack might try to argue that WP should report that "sources conflict", but given the above glimpse into GRG, I doubt that will fly.

EEng 06:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First, could we be more off topic here? Second, she's dead isn't she? Third, so the source isn't the GRG but the forum? The forum who's blacklisted here, right? Canada Jack, are you arguing that the wikia or the forum are reliable sources? Because the GRG, the actual reliable source, only has a line in an excel spreadsheet. The actual background is unknown. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack isn't claiming the forum is an RS, rather he's trying to use the forum post to "prove" that NYT etc. aren't RS. But what it really proves, via the rare glimpse it gives into the workings of validation, is how haphazard and sloppy the "scientific validation" process is -- and as mentioned by one of the participants there, they're following GRG's "standards". EEng 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack, is your proof that the NY Times isn't a reliable source the forum? Are you just here arguing WP:TRUTH with everyone? Again, I don't care about the forum, the forum isn't a reliable source but if that's Canada Jack's argument that the NY Times isn't reliable based on that, Canada Jack isn't particularly far off from this discussion above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng, it has been years since we last talked on Wikipedia. Hope all is good with you. While I'm here, of course, as a Wikipedia editor, to prevent confusion or clear COI (conflict of interest), I thought I had to comment to this particular section as a GRG "senior" member, if you will. Before I get to that, yes, I have not edited in quite ages so I have to brush up on my editing, grins, but as you or any administrator (are you one? Not sure if I recall that) would naturally check my diffs, pattern of my past contributions, *and* lack of one in the past year to see why I'm here after a while. Rest assured, there was no canvassing by any persons and that I simply have more time because I am both unemployed (unfortunately, and hope it's temporary) and not a current part-time graduate student anymore (I have also moved from Virginia to Arizona as an IP check will show). By now, a bit of sleuthing on any editor's part will identify my real name but I do not give permission for anyone to say it in any talk pages here on WP (so thanks in advance). Anyway, I have been busy with GRG stuff lately, and then I checked Wikipedia and saw all this controversy. You can feel honored that you have elicited a response from me first, ha. Now, onto the subject at hand, I have to advise you that you quoted The 110 Club forum (which is where longevity fans do flock to) as how it was "The GRG "validation process" in action". That is erroneous. That is not the GRG validation process, simply put. That longevity forum, while some members of that forum are/or later become GRG members, are not associated with GRG at all. I have seen quite a number of mis-characterizations of GRG here on Wikipedia, but I can't or don't have the luxury to clear up every single one of them (and there is that COI issue, of course). Of course, as a Wikipedia editor, I can only offer feedback on the current WP policies including WP:RS and WP:V. I thought I'd start with this one mis-characterization, at least. Can you make a correction or a retraction of some kind? I can't remember but I think you can strike through the erroneous comments? Thanks! CalvinTy 18:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I will agree that we have no idea what the GRG's process is. The fact that there exists a wikia that is edited (perhaps managed) by the main GRG researcher is relevant but itself not a reliable source without more information. The fact that there exists a forum that seems to be on the topic is interesting and is appropriate for a discussion at WP:RSN if EEng wants to argue that the GRG itself is not a reliable source (the forum clearly is not and I believe is blacklisted as well). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• One of the participants said, "I agree with you this is definitely a potential case with 2/3 documents for a 1904 birth. One more document showing a 1904 birth in the 20 year window it will be totally valid according to GRG standards", and Ryoung122, who participated briefly in the discussion, didn't correct that statement. Nonetheless I've modified the title of the collapse bar above.
• I'm not a WP admin.

EEng 05:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Migod, EENg, what is all this? First off, you say this: he [i.e. Canada Jack] takes it for granted that GRG is correct—​that GRG has proven Didlake was born in 1904 When did I ever say that? In fact I was careful to state that there is good reason to believe she was not the age, NOT that GRG or anyone else had claimed to have "proven" anything - if they had, they'd have validated her claim, eh? As an example of how I couched it, go no further than the quote you've pulled from me: "preliminary research on the Didlake case suggests..."

Then, you conflate GRG's research with a chat forum. This isn't GRG discussing the issues, it's a longevity forum! You guys seem to have a hard time making the distinction between the "fanboys" and the actual GRG. The "fanboys" want that Japanese man who just turned 110 to have his age "validated" before it goes in his infobox. I doubt the GRG gives a shit! So your snide remarks towards the GRG don't apply to some chat forum. Are these people "validators?" Are they with GRG? I don't know, personally. Do you?

As for your critique on them, obviously you've not spent a lot of time doing this sort of research. I come from it from a genealogical perspective, and the rule of thumb is the closer to an event, generally the more accurate the information is. The mere FACT that the 1930 and 1940 censuses show such disparities suggests someone by then was not reporting their age accurately. Perhaps Didlake herself. Or her husband. Which suggests the possibility she was lying about her actual year of birth, and this is the approximate time she enlisted and thus she may have given wrong information then. That's a potential avenue to explore. But, because the 1910 and 1920 censuses corroborate each other, and because the information likely came from her parents, it suggests it is more LIKELY that they are accurate, but that is not yet good enough for GRG, so further documentation is needed because, as you note, census information is often inaccurate. A simple cross-check method I've used is to establish via birth registration when others in the household were born, and see if the census accurately reflects that more-certain information. (A contemporary birth record may have the day wrong, but it's exceedingly unlikely to have the year wrong.) This is an indirect corroboration, potentially. It's a bit easier in the Canadian censuses of this era - 1901, 1906, 1911, 1916 - as birth DATES are included. Another issue is the turn of the 20th century was when people started to report their age as "the number of years I've lived as marked by my last birthday" as opposed to "the ordinal number of years I've lived since my birth," so you are in your "20th year" until your 20th birthday - a convention still used in death notices. Corroboration can also be done with neighbours taken by the same census-taker. Using this method, I determined, for example, that the 1891 census which shows my gg grandparents and my g grandfather, had unreliable information, the census-taker was pretty incompetent and sloppy, but that the 1901 had accurate information. But, for 1901, I realized that though the census-taker was accurately recording the information, it was wrong information supplied by my family - my gg grandfather was in fact 2 years older than he, presumably, claimed. I used this as evidence that he lied about his age when he came to Canada as I located his birth certificate which also showed the same parents he listed elsewhere and that he was born in 1858, not 1860. This is partly why GRG needs even more corroboration. A birth registration would likely seal it in the Didlake case, as long as we can definitively link Didlake to the individual mentioned in the documents (another basic requirement - is that person in the census the same person making the claim? Not always a simple matter to resolve - especially since people have been shown to take on their dead siblings or parent's identity for whatever reason - keeping the pension cheques coming, for example).

Sorry for going on at length here - I know it irritates you - but all this is to underline some of the issues we face when we look at census information and what we can indirectly conclude from some of it.

Your "bird-watcher" comment is misplaced - the GRG has a particular set of criteria in validating claims. Why? Because of the recognition that much inaccurate information is out there and basic information was often not reliably reported. This, as has been discussed elsewhere, is not some arbitrary rule: it reflects decades of research and numerous "validations" which were found to be lacking subsequently. And, as we move further into the 20th century in terms of accessing validating documentation, that will likely change as registration was more universal and with more detail, depending on jurisdiction.

From the above it appears that GRG's "scientific validation process" consists of internet searches of ancestry.com and familysearch.org... Again, this wasn't GRG, it's a longevity forum, so that critique is invalid. Further, from what I understand, GRG usually directly contacts the people involved for documentation and information. When they have whatever documentation exists and biographical information, then that information is cross-referenced with census and registration information. Often, families are surprised to find out that what they thought they knew about their elder... was wrong. I've discovered many secrets about my ancestors, and realized many inaccuracies were carried down over the years... deliberately. People ROUTINELY lie about their true date of birth, either adding or subtracting years, and many people who thought they knew everything about grandpa are often stunned to learn the truth. And, some people do not like to be told that certain information is wrong or inaccurate - but that, like people lying about their age, is also human nature.

Canada Jack, is your proof that the NY Times isn't a reliable source the forum? I didn't post the forum, or refer specifically to it when I made my comments. But my point in saying she was likely not the age she said she was is not that the NYT is not a "reliable source," it was to show that age validation is a very tricky endeavour, and that if we are to apply the "reliable source" criteria for age validation, a host of issues arise, not least of which is the likelihood of lots of inaccurate information being posted here. Someone else mentioned the high percentage of inaccurate claims for 110+, and here is another likely inaccurate claim, and it was touted by you guys. Canada Jack (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

CJ: Your statements, and my responses:

• "GRG has proven Didlake was born in 1904". When did I ever say that?

Answer: You said it here [6]: The supreme irony here is that GRG has in fact done some investigation on her case and it seems from census research that she WAS NOT born in 1905! She was likely born in 1904, meaning those "reliable sources," the New York Times and the American military, got her date of birth wrong!

• my point in saying [Didlake] was likely not the age she said she was is not that the NYT is not a 'reliable source,'

Answer: Your words quoted in the bullet point just above show quite clearly that you meant to imply that NYT is not a reliable source.

• Then, you conflate GRG's research with a chat forum.

Answer: In the chat it was stated that the participants were following GRG's standards, and GRG's Ryoung122, who also participated, didn't contradict that statement, nor did he criticize the "validation" method employed on in the chat.

• obviously you've not spent a lot of time doing this sort of research

Answer: Well I have, actually, being a published researcher and recognized expert in a specialized area of 19th-century biography, in the course of which work I've reconstructed hundreds of otherwise obscure lives in fairly deep detail. Old US census returns are generally reliable for the number and names (though not spellings of names) of persons at a particular address; for everything else, they are usually right but frequently wrong, and therefore can't be relied on in general.

• Further, from what I understand, GRG usually [does such-and-such]

Answer: The "from what I understand" bit is truly telling: no one seems to know exactly how GRG goes about doing what it does.

EEng 05:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Didlake was born in 1904. If you look at the 1910 and 1920 census the information was given by her father. Her father knows when she was born. The 1930 and 1940 census was given information from her husband a man that had a 3rd grade education as stated on the census record. He probably could not even count to 10 let alone know when his wife was born. He just guessed. The news reports that you wiki fans take as fact are wrong all the time. Dewey defeats Truman is a great example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.147.37 (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And where is the evidence that her father was any more literate than her husband and herself? He could've easily overstated her age then, too. Not that it matters: In my opinion, she should've been listed here when she was alive since the US military verified her as being born in 1905 and was definitely either 110 or 111 when she died. Subsequent research would be taken into account following the GRG's inevitable verification of her age (whether they'll choose to list her as being born in 1904 or 1905, I don't know). But she is now deceased so it is pointless to talk about whether she should or shouldn't be listed here. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree her own father knows when his daughter was born. To try to say her illiterate husband has it right is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Big problems - whole list unverified and not allowed to add Zhou Youguang

Zhou Youguang passed 110 and he is very famous. He does not need to send documents to GRG to prove anything, and since they don't accept Chinese people, trying to get verified would be pointless anyway. His name was removed 2x [7] (Undid revision 700055553 by 192.254.104.217 unverified) and [8] (Undid revision 700058247 by Legacypac This was already thoroughly discussed with the case of Vera Van Wagner; sourced does not equal verified, nor does it justify the 54th rank, reverting .)

Unverified means Unverified by GRG. That is not right. I don't see a discussion for Vera Van Wagner.

The GRG table this list is all sourced to [9] lists 3 people older then the oldest here, with WP#2 being #6 at GRG, our #3 is their #7, our #4 is their #10. I can't see our #5 on the GRG list at all, and the problems continue. Table E says "As of December 15, 2014" which explains somethings - like that some people likely died and have been removed from WP, but not how Chiyo Miyako got on our list sourced to Table E in the first place? It seems to actually be sourced to [10] where 53 people are listed same as here.

Suggestions? Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding Zhou if there is an RS which confirms that he was alive on his 110th birthday. As someone whose notability is independent of his age he does not need to be "verified" by any organisation such as the GRG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo with his 110 b-cake. 111 by Chinese count (bday 1 is day you are born in China)[11] Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

How does a media report on someone turning 110 establish that that person is in fact 110? This same logic was cited for the Didlake case, the oldest American veteran, despite the fact that GRG research indicates she was likely not born the year claimed. Why is this case different? Canada Jack (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to determine if reliable sources are perfectly accurate. We simply report what they say. clpo13_(talk) 22:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

But the "reliable sources" do not say they verified the age of the claimant! This page is for verified claims. The fact a claim was published doesn't establish its veracity. Canada Jack (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we need sources verifying his birth place? His name? What school he went to? clpo13_(talk) 23:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No, don't you see? We have to defer to the GRG and the GRG alone on its verification the moment he became 110 years old. Before that, we can use our basic sourcing policies when a person crosses into that supercentenarian zone, the only people in the world who can say his birth date is accurate is the GRG. And in case this isn't obvious, I'm joking. The hubris of the GRG's proponents knows no bounds. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I can follow your logic here Ricky81682; other famous people - such as Anastacia and Jennifer Lopez - have turned out to be not the age they were claiming initially, so it makes sense to me that the older someone becomes, the more closely a reputable, respected, and utterly reliable encyclopedia such as Wikipedia would want to scrutinise his age. In this case, 110 was chosen as the cut-off age for supercentenarian validation, and as Wikipedian editors must adhere to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV I suggest you send in documents verifying his age to any of the globally recognised authorities verifying supercentenarian claims as, remember,many 110+ claimants have turned out to be not true; take this article in a scientific journal as an example, which proved that out of 421 claimants only 81 - about 25% - were true [12]. Should you be interested, please note that the GRG is only ONE of the respected authorities in the field, so I am not sure why you are ridiculing them for something you could initiate action in. Fiskje88 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion. The ranking though is probably incorrect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of verified from oldest people page: "This is a list of tables of the verified oldest people in the world in ordinal ranks. In these tables, a supercentenarian is considered 'verified' if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) or Guinness World Records (GWR)." The fact that someone is famous or has gained some degree of notoriety does not verify their age. Zhou Youguang is an unverified Asian supercentenarian and does not belong on this list. TFBCT1 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So you redefined the terminology while ignoring the discussion section below to specifically exclude the claim? Seems like a lowball way to get a win to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact there is no support for his birth date at all. It hasn't been verified by the GRG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.94 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So his birthdate was fine until 3 days ago, sourced to normal stuff like books and newspaper accounts but now he needs to check in with GRG or we can't believe his age. Of course since GRG does not accept Chinese documentation that will never work. So now we have IPs removing his unverified B-date over and over. Change the criteria description if it conflicts with how we normally do things at Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the GRG has a Chinese correspondent [13], so I am not sure why you would state that "of course [the] GRG does not accept Chinese documentation". Seems to me that if documents exist, it will (eventually?) verify the claim.Fiskje88 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is, is the IP editor right that, regardless of whatever other sources exist in the world and that we have, since the GRG has yet to verify Zhou Youguang's birth date, we should try all that out of the window because he turned age 110 and only they know how to figure out birthdates for people who happened to be age 110 and older? If not, then why it is ok for his biography page to state that he is 110 years old right now but not this page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I trust the 'renowned scholars' at China's first western style university who celebrated his 110th birthday and wrote about it on their official website over some self appointed researchers of old age any day. [14]

Since GRG has yet to 'verify' a single Chinese 110 year old, even with a person in China, it's pretty safe to say they don't (yet) accept Chinese applicants. And I do mean applicants because you have to submit your documents to GRG to get verified so everyone who does not want or care to send their personal info over to some self appointed researcher will NEVER be verified. This is clear from how GRG describes their process and the reluctance to send documents is addressed on their website were they talk about how they keep personal info with two people and don't disclose it. 'Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure where you have your information from, Legacypac. The GRG was appointed by the GWR to become its consultant in 1999 or 2000 - even before Wikipedia existed. I do find it interesting that Wikipedia is now on its way to become self-appointed experts in determining people's ages. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Directly off the correspondents page here http://www.grg.org Site does not allow deep linking making it extremely hard to use as a reference. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting link, Legacypac, thank you for that. To quote the words: "[s]ince 1998, the GRG has established a broad network of correspondents throughout the world. GRG correspondents monitor, investigate, and attempt to validate supercentenarian claims in their respective region. Case applications are sent to the GRG administration team for review and potential case acceptance. In recognition of their work, a partial list of these Country Correspondents follows[.]" I understand why you feel that people should send in their application to the GRG, but that's not how I read it. I see that correspondents monitor, investigate, and attempt to validate supercentenarians, whereas an administration team validates those cases. Therefore, I do not see that people themselves should send in their documents. I wonder how you interpret the text? Fiskje88 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you squint hard enough you might get a tortured reading of what is otherwise obvious to fit a preconceived idea. 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a problem here may be that most supercentenarians are notable only for their age. Zhou Youguang, on the other hand, is a famous linguist, and it probably doesn't matter to him at all whether some "Gerontology Research Group" verifies his age. I don't know how they work, but if it's as Legacypac describes it here, i.e. you have to submit your documents to this GRG for verification, I strongly suspect that this wouldn't seem to be something this linguist would bother to do. But still, his age is widely known, seems undisputed, and is supported by other dates of his career. So isn't it rather strange not to include him here? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's why TFBCT1 redefined the criteria for this page, deleted his name and ran off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Felix Simoneaux

Felix Simoneaux born 5/24/1905 is completely valid with solid proven records. Frank Levingston born November 13,1905 is also completely valid with solid proven records. He is also the oldest completely verified WW2 veteran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.147.37 (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

None of this is appropriate for this talk page UNLESS you are referring to an appropriate reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any announcement that Felix Simoneaux's age was verified by any group/organization yet. Citing his birth certificate or census records for him might constitute original research. That said, there are plenty of news articles about Frank Levingston being 110 and recognized by the VA as the oldest living American WWII veteran. Maybe this article could be used as the source for him and he could be added on? 66.168.191.92 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Since no one has objected to using that news article on the United States Army's website as a good enough source for Mr. Levingston and now that IPs can edit the article again, I have added him to the list. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Frank Levingston is 100% verified. He has been verified by Social Security, VA,US army, Census records from 1910,1920,1930,1940 and an a entry in his family Bible. At least 10 known documents proving his age as being born November 13, 1905. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can be added with good RS. What are we debating? Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What primary sources people want to put up as evidence. An IP address opened a discussion below on the same theory. The fact that we don't sit around evaluating primary sources seems irrelevant to people here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Global vs American - big discrepancies

Could someone please explain why these two lists are so far out of sync? Legacypac (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

From this page minus the non-Americans

Rank	Name	Sex	Birth date	Age as of 23 December 2024	Place of residence
1	Susannah Mushatt Jones	F	6 July 1899	125 years, 170 days	United States
14	Goldie Michelson	F	8 August 1902	122 years, 137 days	United States
16	Helen Wheat	F	16 September 1902	122 years, 98 days	United States
20	Adele Dunlap	F	12 December 1902	122 years, 11 days	United States
23	Irene Zito Ciuffoletti	F	19 January 1903	121 years, 339 days	United States
29	Sina Hayes	F	27 June 1903	121 years, 179 days	United States
32	Viola Jacobi	F	25 July 1903	121 years, 151 days	United States
34	Delphine Gibson	F	17 August 1903	121 years, 128 days	United States
35	Ila Jones	F	21 August 1903	121 years, 124 days	United States
42	Foy Ingram	F	28 November 1903	121 years, 25 days	United States
43	Ethel Boltz	F	2 December 1903	121 years, 21 days	United States
44	Tameko Shijo	F	1 January 1904	120 years, 357 days	United States
46	Edna Lawler	F	13 January 1904	120 years, 345 days	United States

Living American supercentenarians

Below is a list of supercentenarians living in the United States.

Name	Sex	Birthdate	Age as of 23 December 2024	Birthplace	Residence
Susannah Mushatt Jones	F	July 6, 1899	125 years, 170 days	Alabama	New York
Goldie Michelson	F	August 8, 1902	122 years, 137 days	Russia	Massachusetts
Helen Wheat	F	September 16, 1902	122 years, 98 days	Pennsylvania	Maryland
Adele Dunlap	F	December 12, 1902	122 years, 11 days	New Jersey	New Jersey
Irene Ciuffoletti	F	January 19, 1903	121 years, 339 days	Italy	Pennsylvania	Missing off global list
Sina Hayes	F	June 27, 1903	121 years, 179 days	North Carolina	North Carolina
Viola Jacobi	F	July 25, 1903	121 years, 151 days	Wisconsin	Wisconsin
Delphine Gibson	F	August 17, 1903	121 years, 128 days	South Carolina	Pennsylvania
Ila Jones	F	August 21, 1903	121 years, 124 days	Georgia	Georgia
Foy Ingram	F	November 28, 1903	121 years, 25 days	North Carolina	North Carolina
Ethel Boltz	F	December 2, 1903	121 years, 21 days	West Virginia	West Virginia
Tameko Shijo	F	January 1, 1904	120 years, 357 days	Japan	California
Edna Lawler	F	January 13, 1904	120 years, 345 days	Indiana	Illinois
Fanny Thornton	F	February 11, 1904	120 years, 316 days	Georgia	Georgia	From here on down are all missing
Vera Van Wagner	F	May 24, 1904	120 years, 213 days	New York	New York
Helma Graham	F	June 28, 1904	120 years, 178 days	New York	Florida
Alberta Lyles	F	August 20, 1904	120 years, 125 days	North Carolina	North Carolina
Lessie Brown	F	September 22, 1904	120 years, 92 days	Georgia	Ohio
Emma Hough	F	December 2, 1904	120 years, 21 days	Iowa	Iowa
Maggie Kidd	F	December 8, 1904	120 years, 15 days	Georgia	Georgia
Veta Walters	F	December 14, 1904	120 years, 9 days	Jamaica	New York
Ruth Adler	F	January 11, 1905	119 years, 347 days	Illinois	Illinois
Bessie Porter	F	January 31, 1905	119 years, 327 days	Alabama	Michigan
Leta Nolen	F	February 17, 1905	119 years, 310 days	Arkansas	Arkansas
Clarina Hudon	F	March 4, 1905	119 years, 294 days	Canada	New Hampshire
Mary Spingola	F	March 25, 1905	119 years, 273 days	New York	California
Tressa Bartholomew	F	March 30, 1905	119 years, 268 days	Iowa	Iowa
Sarah Raymond	F	April 16, 1905	119 years, 251 days	Maryland	New York
Katherine Bodenbender	F	April 19, 1905	119 years, 248 days	Germany	Illinois
Felix Simoneaux	M	May 24, 1905	119 years, 213 days	Louisiana	Louisiana
Mattie Cisrow	F	May 30, 1905	119 years, 207 days	Georgia	Florida
Chrystal Harper	F	June 28, 1905	119 years, 178 days	Idaho	Idaho
Clara Anderson	F	July 2, 1905	119 years, 174 days	Missouri	Alaska
Alelia Murphy	F	July 6, 1905	119 years, 170 days	North Carolina	New York
Roberta Farris	F	July 19, 1905	119 years, 157 days	Texas	Texas
Molly Schmidt	F	July 22, 1905	119 years, 154 days	Canada	Washington
Ruby Clodfelter	F	July 26, 1905	119 years, 150 days	North Carolina	North Carolina
Agnes Fenton	F	August 1, 1905	119 years, 144 days	Mississippi	New Jersey
Lena Dick	F	August 5, 1905	119 years, 140 days	Minnesota	Minnesota
Armida Sholar	F	August 9, 1905	119 years, 136 days	South Carolina	North Carolina
Hester Ford	F	August 15, 1905	119 years, 130 days	North Carolina	North Carolina
Iris Westman	F	August 28, 1905	119 years, 117 days	North Dakota	North Dakota
Carlos Valenzuela Castro	M	September 24, 1905	119 years, 90 days	Peru	New Jersey
Juliana Koo	F	September 26, 1905	119 years, 88 days	China	New York
Mary Marsh	F	October 8, 1905	119 years, 76 days	Virginia	Virginia
Frank Levingston	M	November 13, 1905	119 years, 40 days	North Carolina	Louisiana
Maggie DeVane	F	November 17, 1905	119 years, 36 days	North Carolina	North Carolina

Also missing here:

• Alicia Corveleyn (born 8 January 1905 in West Flanders) — aged 119 years, 350 days.

Living French supercentenarians

Below is a list of the oldest living people from France. Only 7 of the 14 are on the global list here.

Name	Sex	Birth date	Age as of 23 December 2024	Region or Country of birth	Region of residence
Eudoxie Baboul	F	1 October 1901	123 years, 83 days	French Guiana	French Guiana
Thérèse Ladigue	F	15 February 1903	121 years, 312 days	Rhône-Alpes	Rhône-Alpes
Elisabeth Collot	F	21 June 1903	121 years, 185 days	Champagne-Ardenne	Rhône-Alpes
Honorine Rondello	F	28 July 1903	121 years, 148 days	Brittany	Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
Mélanie Leblais	F	4 September 1903	121 years, 110 days	Pays de la Loire	Pays de la Loire
Mathilde Dupray	F	31 October 1903	121 years, 53 days	Upper Normandy	Brittany
Henriette Bouef	F	4 November 1903	121 years, 49 days	Champagne-Ardenne	Champagne-Ardenne
Renée Boisseau	F	3 December 1904	120 years, 20 days	Centre	Centre
Marie-Antoinette Radix	F	7 December 1904	120 years, 16 days	?	Rhône-Alpes
Marie-Claire Brissaud	F	12 March 1905	119 years, 286 days	Poitou-Charentes	Poitou-Charentes
Mathilde Lartigue	F	24 March 1905	119 years, 274 days	Languedoc-Roussillon	Languedoc-Roussillon
Madeleine Ragon	F	27 March 1905	119 years, 271 days	Île-de-France	Picardy
Roger Gouzy	M	23 July 1905	119 years, 153 days	Languedoc-Roussillon	Languedoc-Roussillon
Léontine Rousselot	F	23 July 1905	119 years, 153 days	Brittany	Brittany

The GRG table updates are haphazard, screwy and inconsistent? It's rare that the As of template (if there is one) is correctly updated to reflect the reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Seeing as how no one particularly seems to care and the discrepancies and continued, would you object to archiving this discussion? This talk page is lengthy enough and I think it would help if RFC voters didn't have a lot of the various distractions here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Frank Levingston

Regarding this addition, I don't know but for sure but I can probably guess that Mr. Levingston isn't the 55th oldest person in the world considering the significant drop from Mr. Yoshida age 111 and 250 days to his 110 years and 85 days. As discussed above, the counting is problematic. Amongst the various sources, this one states that he is "believed" to be America's oldest veteran, but 1, 2, and 3 seem more definitive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

All I can say, Ricky, is welcome to your mess. What a disaster this page has become. Canada Jack (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Helpful as always I see. I've removed it based on the fact that he's probably not the 55th oldest person and per my review that the list should be cut. I'd hope to have the number one resolved and make this moot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No he is not the 55th oldest person in the world. He is without a doubt a man over 110 years of age with proof from a dozen sources. He is also the oldest fully verified WW2 Veteran also provable without a doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

He is verified by the United States Army as being the oldest living American WWII veteran. They said he is 110. The "ranking" he has on this list doesn't imply he's the 55th oldest person on Earth, just the 55th oldest person whose age has be verified by a reputable source. Hell, the header states there are anywhere from 150 to 600 supercentenarians. That alone demonstrates that none of these "ranks" are set in stone, not even number one. I see absolutely no reason why he was removed. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

He belongs on the list of oldest men over 110. He is clearly not the 55th oldest, and the 27th listed is not the 27th oldest, so we should cut the list down to 50 names or 25 names and remove all the ranks. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The anonymous editors have a point. His age has been reported by reliable sources, therefore he warrants inclusion as per the new rules on who gets on the page. So on what basis has Ricky removed him? I've asked repeatedly "what's the criteria" if we ignore the expertise of those who actually specialize in assessing longevity claims. It seems there is NO criteria, just Ricky's POV that, well, this claim is credible, this one is not, and, well, they seem too old (so forget it, Laurent in Quebec and the guy in India) - and in this case, well... I still have not figured out what criteria is being applied... Is it simply that, well, there is a big gap between him and the next oldest... and that doesn't look good? Or that the numbers no longer make any sense? Is that your criteria, Ricky? You sneer that I am not being helpful - actually, I was. I told you EXACTLY the mess which this page would become if you insisted on the "reliable source" rule for inclusion, and I told you how to avoid it - stick to those who specialize in this field. So, I ask you, Ricky, who knew better, me or you?

So, Ricky, since you have taken over the page and topic-banned anyone who dares to inject some sanity here, tell us what happens when GRG or Guinness declares a person oldest in the world and/or oldest man and that person is not who is top of the list here. Do you ignore the experts and make wikipedia look foolish by declaring someone the oldest based on a newspaper report because it is a "reliable source?" Or do you omit those people older than who GRG/GWR declares as oldest? Either way, the emperor has no clothes and this ad hoc approach is already an inconsistent mess. Or... is that your intention? To make this page an unmanageable mess so as to get it removed all together? Canada Jack (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Have I suggested removing the GRG names? Isn't the GRG a reliable source here? Is the entire world for you either the GRG alone and no one else? The issue is, will you respect the consensus that's been reiterated again and again and again here? Or is this battle going to continue after a decade with the same complaints and screaming? Now, do you actually support adding the name or are you just making more WP:POINT-y complaints to just argue and argue and argue until the place is the GRG paradise of coloring and nonsense it was before? Fine, feel free to add it if you want to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, why was his name removed? The link I provided clearly showed that a reliable source (the US Army) has validated his age (and exact birth date). The dispute you have is whether or not there should be ranks. That has nothing to do with Levingston's inclusion, and there was no purpose in removing him. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Have I suggested removing the GRG names? Isn't the GRG a reliable source here? Is the entire world for you either the GRG alone and no one else? Actually, yes, Ricky, you attempted to do just that last summer, going to arbitration to remove GRG as a "reliable source." You failed in that regard, but in determining that a) GRG was indeed a reliable source, and b) the "unverified" part of GRG (list EE) was not "reliable," we omitted as a result the "unverified" list from these pages, where claims such as Levingston's would have resided.

But now that it has been established that unverified claims cannot be placed here, you have changed tack, much as the Creation Science proponents did. They, after failing to get Evolution viewed as "unscientific" tried to make their unscientific "Irreducible Complexity" (a Trojan Horse for Creationism) elevated to be taught as science. So now, with the GRG ruling effectively eliminating non-verified claims as listed by GRG, you are pretending that that ruling ONLY applied to GRG - that it's not a "reliable source" when it comes to unverified super-c's, when, obviously, non-verified claims are what were being excluded - and are pretending that the issue then wasn't verified/unverified but reliable source/not a reliable source.

Gotta hand it to you, Ricky. That takes a lot of chutzpah - and it looks like you are getting away with it!

But it's time you actually stated a criteria here. And I've been raising this point again and again, and you avoid it again and again. What is happening with the Levingston case is exactly the sort of mess that was predicted to happen. Going from a "verified" claim page to a "reliable source" page brings a lot of issues. Can we accept a 110-year-old claim from a reliable source, but not a 118-year-old claim from the same reliable source? If not, then why not? If Guinness declares someone the oldest person and we have someone else here, what happens? Do we cut off the list anyone who is older, even if their claim is from a reliable source? Or do we arbitrarily say that no claim will be listed older than what GWR/GRG says who is the oldest?

These are very real and pertinent issues and deserve to be addressed instead of focusing on GRG this and GRG that. Canada Jack (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about with ARBCOM. I asked for and had the discretionary sanctions restored in regards to the longevity ARBCOM case. There was no argument about the actual reliability of the GRG. The problem has always been the people who refuse to accept anything but the GRG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We follow the RS. If in the unlikely case Guinness says Smith is the oldest, and then Jones is confirmed by multiple RS as older, we list Jones above Smith. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. We don't need special criteria or the blessing of each name by a single group, we just follow policy. Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean, Legacypac? The phrases "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" and "[w]e don't need special criteria" - juxtaposed, even! - seem contradictory to me.Fiskje88 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, from what I can tell from the above discussion, the issue is that Frank Levingston is probably not the 55th oldest person in the world since there's a gap of over a year between him and Katsue Hiraishi. However, the note at the top of the page indicates that the list is and likely always will be incomplete. I've added Levingston back since he's older than 110 and reliably sourced and therefore belongs on the list. So, can we now focus on the actual issue of the rankings being inaccurate instead of sniping back and forth about the goddamn GRG?

In my opinion, the list section should either be renamed to "List of the oldest known living people" or have a note at the top saying "This list is not comprehensive and contains only the oldest known living people for whom there are reliable sources." Or we could take the rankings away entirely and sort by date of birth or age with the oldest on top. Either way, this discussion is about the rankings and I'll thank everyone to stop making it about something else entirely. The only criteria that matter for inclusion are "is older than 110" and "has a reliable source to back up birth date". Unless we want to limit the list to the top 25 or 50. clpo13_(talk) 00:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sign me up for removing the rankings that are misleading. Rankings are appropriate in a list of tallest buildings or longest bridges where we are very sure there is no taller building or longer bridge no one noticed when it got built. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If the article is called "List of the oldest known living people", then I would advocate for cutting off at number 50; note that this would leave a list of people clustered closely to each other and it would leave out large 'gaps' such as between Hiraishi and Levingston. On top of that, please also note how some people are only mentioned at age 111 or older, so lots of cased at 110 are even missed. Having a top 50 would partially solve the issue of incompletion (which, I agree, will always exist). Fiskje88 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fiskje88: See the #Limit_on_entries section above. There's no resolution, nor is there on the actual standard for inclusion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is no 50 limit, Zhou Youguang should go back in. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree the rankings should be removed -- I think I advocated that long ago. We might include mention, in the article on those who are or have been the world's oldest, of that, and if there seems to be uncertainty on who was the oldest, then we say "one of two people claimed..." etc. Below the very oldest there's just too much noise in the data, and what's the significance, anyway? EEng 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Remove the word "Rank" from the column, but leave the numbers in place. The numbers then only enumerate the entries on the list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that's just the right touch. EEng 03:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Limit on entries

We never resolved the issue of the number of people to have here. Currently, we have 54 names. I believe we should consider cutting this off at 50. I can do this an RFC if that works better since it's basically voting.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's crept up to 54 now, which is funny because the GRG people will not let Zhou be listed on the Oldest men page, even as a See Also link, because he is a few months short of the 100th man on the list. I'm thinking we should cut the oldest men, women and this list back to 25 each. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no point in limiting this list by numbers at this time. The deletionists and the anti-GRG crowd STILL haven't added the vast quantity of living supercentenarians not on the GRG list despite continually wittering on about not differentiating between the GRG list and any other RS. Until such time there seems no reasonable point in limiting this list. If it ever gets to the point where there are consistently more than 100 on the list then it may be worth limiting it to 100 to keep it in line with the oldest ever lists. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your post is insulting. Every time anyone tries to add one name not on the GRG list reverts abound. Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your attitude, for one thing, is insulting! I've already agreed that Zhou should be added to this article and in the post above I have just pointed out that no-one else has bothered to add anyone else not on the GRG list. In fact one of the earlier anti-GRG deletionist edits was to remove the non-GRG entries in this article thereby increasing the prominence of the GRG list. Yet another example of disruptive editing despite claims to the complete contrary! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we misunderstand each other. I did not say you tried to remove Zhou, but IPs keep doing it. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't get what you want here. If your argument is that nonsense shouldn't be here, then why do you want others to propose to include it here? So you can revert it and demand it be excluded? That seems like a WP:POINTy disruption as this point. Is your response that you don't care about any number until there's a bunch of stuff you don't want here first? Or until anything but the GRG is here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There should definitely be some limit established. Like, would it really be acceptable to have all 600 supercentenarians (the high-end estimate of how many there are currently living) listed? No, clearly not. And given that there will undoubtedly be more and more supercentenarians alive at once, some limit for this article clearly should be established. But doing so may cause our oldest living men to go underrepresented (they kind of are underrepresented right now, though). So would it be better then to split this list into two separate lists - one for men and one for women - like we have for the top 100 oldest ever? 66.168.191.92 (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A combined list of people is kind of useless, since a reasonable long list of the oldest people are all women. A 25 oldest men list and 25 oldest women list is plenty long given we know maybe 3/4 to 2/3rds or more of the super old are not listed anyway so that would mean we effectively are coving the real top 100. Legacypac (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Only problem I could see with that is the current dearth of known living male supercentenarians, so if we were to make a top 25 for the males, we would have to have men under the age of 110. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If the list is less then 25 so be it. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How about two lists? One of 112+ for women (+/-50?) and one of 110+ for men (+/- 10-15?)?Fiskje88 (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Living?

For more of the time this article has been in existence one of the criteria for inclusion has been that the person has been reported to be alive within the last year. This has been because a) the GRG remove cases where there has been no report for more than a year; and b) it is reasonable to assume that anyone who is notable enough to have been reported to celebrate a 110th birthday would be expected to have a report on each subsequent birthday. Should this continue to be the case, or does it fall under BLP? If it is the latter than we will end up with any number of entries of people who are unlikely to be alive and as such distorting the integrity of this list (some users may remember the WOP future supercentenarians list which at any one time included at least a dozen people approaching their supposed 113th birthday with no update for 4 or 5 years or more). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that before any individual is added, there must be a report confirming they actually have made it to their 110th birthday. And yeah, I think dropping those who haven't been reported on/heard from in a calendar-year is fine. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Derby, but I am wondering how that would work in practice. For unverified cases, I see no problem: simply use sources that confirm a supercentenarian's worldly presence within the last year. For verified cases, however, it might be more difficult as I can imagine that an organisation such as the GRG might have inside information or a family contact who can confirm the person being alive. Also, what would count as "ha[ving] been reported to be alive in the last year"? Meta Dishman, for instance, had no news coverage for her 112th birthday, but did have an Instagram confirmation ([15]). Would that suffice? Fiskje88 (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That brings up a good point. Typically, using social media sites as sources are frowned upon as they violate BLP, but if they demonstrate proof that person X is alive, is it acceptable for an exception to be made? For example, the previous WOLM Sakurai Momoi had a relative who would tweet pictures of him fairly regularly when he was alive but there was rarely an official update for him by his prefecture, a news source, the GRG, or Guinness World Records. On another note, there has been at least one instance where there was one person whose family had been in personal contact with the GRG still passed away without anyone informing the GRG. I think it was Ruth Newman, correct? I think contact broke following Dr. Coles passing. Correct me if I am mistaken on any of this, Fiskje. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: How should we word the lede?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both clear consensus and policy support for relying on Wikipedia:Reliable sources for this article, as we do in all our other articles. Every subject is special in its own way, the subject of oldest living people is special too ... just like all our other articles. Any person who thinks "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity." clearly hasn't been following the US Presidential campaign. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---

How should we word the lede? From that follows, what should the criteria be for inclusion into this table? Let's try to have a single discussion section.

Only validated claims

This version which is "This is a partial list of the oldest living people in the world in ordinal ranks. In this table, a supercentenarian is considered 'verified' if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) or Guinness World Records (GWR)."

• Support This version reflects the scientific consensus on the subject - that claims are subject to error and exaggeration and therefore a competent body is needed to assess claims. Most major news organizations routinely defer to the expertise of GRG or GWR in claims of extreme age, and wikipedia should reflect that general consensus in the need for longevity arbiters. Though, I would slightly amend the "partial list" phrase as though there are likely more unverified or unverifiable super-c's out there, we, by definition, don't know that for a fact. Reinstating the "unverified" lists would allow us to have a greater idea of other claims which may be true. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Only claims that are proven beyond reasonable doubt should be on this list. The cases must have substantial evidence supporting birth and life trajectory. No category of records are subject to more deliberate attempts to fraud than the title of being the oldest person.
• Support but slightly modified. supercentenariditalia.it is run by GRG Correspondent for Italy Paolo Scarabaggio. Oldest in Britain is run by GRG Correspondent for the UK Andrew Holmes. Oldest People of Poland is run by GRG Correspondent for Poland Waclaw Jan Kroczek. The Oldest Human Beings is run by Louis Epstein, one of the GRG correspondents for the US. Lastly, GRG Table EE lists only cases that meet the validation criteria for the GRG but which have not been processed. Every case on there will eventually be upgraded to fully verified eventually. Those cases are very solidly validated. Those four sources are associated with the GRG and thus do not constitute original research. Essentially, my proposal is that only cases listed on GRG Table A, B, C, E, or EE, Oldest in Britain, supercentenariditalia.it, Oldest Poland of Poland, and The Oldest Human Beings should be listed here. No other cases. This would apply to the whole wiki. I think that's a solution we can all agree with. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think that "we can all agree with" your suggestion you are clearly misguided. Try reading the rest of this talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sailor Haumea, not a good suggestion. We can't use those sources as they are self published and are all unreliable under WP:BLPSPS. Table EE, Oldestinbritain and Recordholders are both unreliable as per the WP:WOP page and recordholders especially as it disputes its accuracy and tries to sell you longevity books before you get to the tables. Wikipedia isn't the GRG either. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This version which is "This is a partial list of the oldest living people in the world, according to reliable sources."

• Support - Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support The rest of Wikipedia relies solely on reliable sources (with stricter requirements in cases such as WP:MEDRS). There's no policy stating Wikipedia should doubt the sources because some self-important group hasn't had their say. clpo13_(talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support because anything else leads to absurdity like Talk:Zhou_Youguang and the edit war [16] on that article to remove his birthdate as "unverified" by GRG. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clpo13 (above) put it very, very well. EEng 05:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Concise and to the point. We are to report what is verified in reliable sources, which is exactly what this alternative notes. Anything more specific would be narrowing what can be used as an RS. Meatsgains (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support On Wikipedia we combine one or more RS into a readable article. We should use and cite GRG just as we do with other RS. Given the many questionable reports, we should have a high standard for what is a RS in this topic. I'm not sure if "according to reliable sources" needs to be mentioned explicitly though, since that applies to all Wikipedia content. Gap9551 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have not been involved in this area, but I have seen GRG associated with a long string of abuses, sanctions, and blocks on Wikipedia. We really don't need a move here to enshrine GRG with special status in this lede. Per the above comments we apply RS policy in general. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Appears to be the most suitable wording: this is essentially how articles are sourced. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Providing GRG with an enshrined status has no basis in any policy or guideline. It's likely a violation of WP:NPOV, in fact. ~ Rob^Talk 13:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are drawing religion into the discussion, Rob. Nobody has ever said that bodies validating supercentenarians (again, there are more verifying bodies than the one that keeps being attacked) should receive divine status, and I hope they never will as that would mean nobody could ever question their practices. In principal, I wish this debate were about SCIENCE, not RELIGION. Fiskje88 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fiskje88: Uh ... what? Enshrined is not a religious term. It means "to preserve in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected" or "to enclose as if in a shrine". In other words, an "enshrined status" for the GRG means writing them into our policies and articles as if they deserve special recognition as the only reputable source on longevity. Funnily enough, the fanaticism with which some editors promote the GRG as the only reputable source on longevity does approach religion. I agree with you; that attitude is best left at the curb. ~ Rob^Talk 05:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Wikipedia is built by RS. STSC (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Other wordings

Please create other headings and suggest other wording or criteria in them.

• Support I would like to propose a wording along the lines of "This is a partial list of the oldest living people in the world. In this table, a supercentenarian is considered 'verified' if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research", leaving out examples of such bodies.

The reason I am advocating for differentiating between validated and unvalidated claims is simple: the issue isn't whether someone like Zhou Youguang, who - with all due respect - probably wouldn't even be in the top 100 of oldest living people, whereas the name of the article clearly includes the word 'OLDEST' - were incorporated into the list, but what should we make of claimants such as the following person, [17], who at age "131" would be fifteen years older than the oldest ever validated man as well as a staggering nine years older than the oldest verified person ever, who died at the "mere" age of 122? According to Wikipedia's logic, this claimant would be accepted on the now proposed list as it would unequivocally fall within your category of 'Oldest Living People Original Research List as validated by Wikipedia and "reliable sources" '. What to do with an age limit, therefore? Should claimants at least be younger than people accepted by GWR? Wouldn't that be discrimination towards older claimants as reliable sources seem to have confirmed their ages?

The real question is of course this: Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV requires that major, mainstream viewpoints must be adhered to (whether of scientific or general public interest). With reliable sources having established that, long before the existence of online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia or any of the bodies validating supercentenarians, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, why would Wikipedia try to steer away from that notion by starting to suggest that these newspaper-reported cases do not need as much scrutiny as those who have passed internationally established validation criteria? As we all know, reporters "report" an age claim, whereas authorities "validate" the age claim. If someone said "I ran the fastest 100 meters ever, I have it on tape" without it being a sanctioned event, then it would never be official. I don't understand why accepting internationally established standards is so much of an issue over here.

As a result, I would also propose that, next to a list of validated supercentenarians (unranked, as there might be more people out there whose ages will still need to be validated), there is a list of unvalidated supercentenarians who have been reported in WP:RS. Even Legacypac has referred to Robert Young ([18]), who (probably as a GRG representative?) has acknowledged that there is no problem in reporting someone's claim to old age. Problem is, should you report all of them, the list will be endless - so it might be an idea to limit this list to ages 110-114, as research has shown that only 2% of supercentenarians aged 115+ has turned out to be true. In fact, Mr. Young's comment over on the Gerontology Wikia even suggests that Wikipedia's and the GRG's views (as the GRG seems to be the problem on Wikipedia) are closer than we all think, but that polarisation as well as disrupt continue to be created for whatever reason.

Another reason I am also proposing for two lists is that the Gerontology Wikia differs between validated and unvalidated cases by numbering them, whereas over at Wikipedia numbering seems to be another issue. Therefore, I think having two lists - one validated, the other unvalidated - would take care of that problem. After all, age validation was a concept created in the 1800s - long before any age validation institution, nor Wikipedia, had come into existence. Why suddenly try to alter history? Fiskje88 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

To add some sources to my story: This [19] shows that age validation has been around for a long time, whereas this source [20] provides background information on the history of age validation and is instrumental in proving how important it is to have ages validated (by exemplifying numerous false age claims). Fiskje88 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then what are the bodies? How do we identify them? Where are the reliable sources about tell us what bodies to include or not to include? If I say that Organization X is "an international body that specifically deals in longevity research", and you disagree, should we take that to RSN? Isn't the only issue there whether or not the organization as a source is reliable not whether (a) the organization as a source is reliable and then (b) the organization specifically deals with longevity research? Also, we've already tried the validation argument before on the tables and it was rejected so it seems odd to restart it again so we can identify and distinguish these "bodies that specifically deal in longevity research". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then what are the bodies? How do we identify them? Dead simple, Ricky. We observe what news sources use when they seek verification of these sort of claims. I did a search and quickly discovered there are two sources most commonly cited - Guinness and GRG. Shall I supply several hundred sources from around the world - or does this not suffice? 22:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

News sources? But I thought news sources weren't reliable sources? Oh so they are reliable sources when they agree with Guinness or GRG but not when they don't? The news sources themselves aren't reliable sources when they make assertions about a person's birthdate but they are when they make assertions about that someone else has made an assertion about the birthdate? Do you see how ridiculous this gets? Also, as noted below, the Japanese ministry of health isn't either an "international body" (why international? who knows?) and doesn't "specifically deals in longevity research" (it's a health ministry not a specialist in anything) so of course that while that would be a considered a reliable source under all reasoning and logic here, on these pages and on these pages alone, it would be excluded because (a) it's not international for whatever reason that matters and (b) because it isn't biased and solely focused on longevity alone but the information it reports about old people is just incidental to its actual work. Same as I'd imagine any medical article in a journal on geriatrics or other things like that although I presume people here would advocate that Rejuvenation Research (the only journal that the GRG authors publish to seemingly) would somehow count so again that the GRG is included another way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your logic doesn't fly, Ricky. They are indeed "reliable sources," I never claimed otherwise (so many strawman arguments!) but that's not sufficient for considering claims to be verified, IMHO. Saying they aren't an appropriate source for a particular narrow subject doesn't disqualify them for being RS on other subjects. And when literally hundreds of media sources use these two authorities most commonly for verification purposes, then that establishes the recognized authority of those two. As for your Japanese ministry of health, the problem here is of your own making. If you open the doors to "reliable sources" in general, then we arr faced with potentially hundreds of different "verification" criteria - from the most common of "we take your word for it" to "let's see 50 contemporary documents with your birthdate." And how are we to decide what is RS and what is not? You've already been tripped up by this when it comes to the Emma Laurent case, the woman in Quebec who claims to be 119 - and whose claim is backed by three "RS" - Canada's largest circulatin newspaper, the Toronto Star, the Canadian government, and the Haitian government. Your objections to this - which are unfounded (claiming a "passport" issued by Canada, for example, simply copied information fed by Haiti - is not found in the article referenced, etc.), shows the can of worms your approach will take. You have dismissed the Haiti government in that case... so you are ALREADY applying a moving criteria to who is reliable and who is not. And you dismiss Canada's authority on this while accepting the Chinese government's authority in the Zhou case.

Your narrowly focused campaign to lessen the authority of GRG has already shown cracks in the facade - and the mess which this approach will entail. The answer? Use GRG/Guinness on a "verified" list, use others on a separate "unverified" list. But, apparently, we can't do that anymore. So we are stuck with a GRG-only list. Wasn't my idea.

The bottom line here, Ricky, is news organizations routinely rely on experts in fields when reporting stories. It's not that news organizations are "unreliable" per se, it's that they REPORT news, lacking expertise in the often technical stories they report on, hence good reporters make sure they have their facts correct and contact the relevant experts. Canada Jack (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue in circles anymore. Fiskje88, under this verbage, the Japanese health ministry would be excluded. Same with any singular governmental agency and any medical journal article that isn't explicitly in a journal that's exclusively focused on longevity. Do you think that's right? Do you find those sources unreliable per WP:RS? Do you think dates issued from those organizations should be ignored? Further, if you think they should (or think anything should), why are you allowing for the same "claims" to be elsewhere in the encyclopedia? Do you think different articles here should have different criteria for sources? If so, isn't that against having a single WP:NPOV in favor of separate articles with different POVs? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, a "reliable source" such as the Japanese health ministry still lists a case such as Izumi as verified, even though it has been proven Mr. Izumi was not the age he claimed to be. Similarly, the Japanese health ministry also hasn't confirmed the DOB yet of Japan's new oldest man. As such, how could it be used as a reliable source? The GRG notes that two-thirds of claims to age 110+ are false, and only two percent of claims to age 115+ are true [21]... so I'd want to be sure that a claim is true. If you ask me, relying on newspaper articles which only report an age is an interesting instrument to determine one's age... but if that's what the majority would like to see, so be it. I'm here to show the other side of the argument. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask but how was it "proven" that Izumi was not the age he claimed? What is the actual source? If you keep arguing that things are reliably sourced or not based on how the GRG determines it, it's not surprising that you see only the GRG as a reliable source, only having a hammer and a world of nails and all. As to Yoshida, the argument is to reliable sources and we can discuss if there's enough to put down his age and that's he's the oldest living person. That's why I say use "reliable sources" which is vague enough that someone can say "Source A says X, source B says nothing" and we discuss it. The lazy approach to me is to say "only source A, everything else for this article doesn't matter, debate this elsewhere". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Fiskje88, this just demonstrates, once again, how mixed up is your understanding both of the facts and of how WP policy applies to them. It has not been "proven Mr. Izumi was not the age he claimed". What happened is that in 1987 a report [22] appeared as follows: "A Japanese expert on aging says reports that the oldest Japanese man died earlier last year at the age of 120 are false -- he was only 105. The true age of Shigechiyo Izumi, who died in February 1986, was discovered through research in his family's registration records, says Toshihisa Matsuzaki, director of the Department of Epidemiology at the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology." That's not proof -- that's just someone with a different opinion who does not, apparently, give details on the research that led to that opinion. Nothing's been "proven".

WP's article on Izumi [23] correctly reports this as a controversy. "He was one of only two people verified to have lived past their 120th birthday, although subsequent research has discounted the verification. [etc etc] research into Izumi's family registration records indicated Izumi might have been 105 when he died." (Note the word might.) GRG agrees [24] that the question is an open -- not settled -- one.

So your statement that "the Japanese health ministry still lists a case such as Izumi as verified, even though it has been proven Mr. Izumi was not the age he claimed to be" -- casting doubt on the Ministry's reliability -- is nonsense. As far as the evidence goes, the Ministry might be perfectly correct.

I'll repeat what I said elsewhere months ago. There are indeed topic areas in which a particular source (or class of sources) is acknowledged as authoritative and overriding of other sources, for example in an area of historical research in which all the facts are in, the dust has settled, and careful scholarly analysis has refuted or corrected earlier low-quality treatments. A dynamic database of living (or recently deceased) people, with new evidence coming in all the time from a variety of sources, is the polar opposite of such a situation, and it's impossible in this case to fix on any one source as superior to the others, because no source can possibly be in possession of all the facts about all oldsters everywhere.

EEng 04:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, touché... I should have noted the word might. Still, your last remark is what intrigues me: "A dynamic database of living (or recently deceased) people, with new evidence coming in all the time from a variety of sources, is the polar opposite of such a situation, and it's impossible in this case to fix on any one source as superior to the others, because no source can possibly be in possession of all the facts about all oldsters everywhere." I understand your adversity towards relying on the scientific verification process (which is NOT solely done by the GRG), but wouldn't it be safer to err on the cautious side if academics have researched that out of all 110+ claims more than two/thirds are fraud? [25] I wouldn't, as an encyclopedia, want to be reporting false information to the general public... Fiskje88 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but once again you're pointing to something (the paper "Typologies of Extreme Longevity Myths", primarily authored by the notorious Ryoung122) which proves something quite different than what you think it does. The paper's abstract asserts that "Invalid age claim rates [are] 65% at age 110-111", with the clear implication (which you have adopted) that invalid should be interpreted as false. But that's not backed up by the details given in the paper's text, which says something else entirely:

In the comparison of supercentenarian cases generated by the Social Security Death Index to a validated list generated by the GRG, one observes that the rate of validation [is] 35% at age 110-111.

The 35% comes from this table [26], wherein we see that the US Social Security Death Index lists 610 "Total claims" (i.e. persons listed as 110-111) of whom the "Number validated" (the number for which Mr. Young was able to find acceptable documentation) was 219. And 219/610 = 35% "validated", leaving 65% "not validated". The problem is, not validated isn't the same as false.

A thorough attempt to validate an age claim would have to include searches of local school, church, and public records, local newspapers (for birth announcements etc.), hospital records, and any number of other potential sources, as well as contacting surviving family. (We often hear that a validation was blocked by the inability to contact family and gain their cooperation.) Clearly Young and his helpers could not possibly have brought such exhaustive efforts to bear on every one of these 610 individuals. (And that's just for the 110-111 age range; the table lists almost 3000 people ages 109-120!)

In other words, the 65% of cases not validated simply means, well, that they weren't validated i.e. for whatever reason, appropriate documentation wasn't found. In some cases this will be because the case is in fact false, but in others it's because the documentation is out there somehwere, but wasn't found by Young with the time and resources he had. And there's no way to tell how many cases are one or the other. The interpretation that "two thirds of claims are false" is complete nonsense.

The reason for this mess is that Young made the most rookie of all rookie blunders, which is to attempt to use the entire population of cases as his sample. This never works, because spreading your time and resources over the entire population inevitably gives you far lower data quality than would be obtained by concentrating on gathering high-quality data for a smaller sample. The right way to estimate the true proportion of valid cases would be to take a sample (e.g. N=100) and really beat the bushes to do a completely thorough job on that smaller number, instead of a sloppy, partial job on the population of 3000. This would yield an estimate of the proportion of true claims which is something like +/- 5 percentage points off the true proportion. To be frank I'm shocked by the low quality of the statistical thinking on display in this paper, especially since some, at least, of the authors are well-known researchers. I can only guess that changes were made (especially to the abstract) late in the publication cycle without full review.

EEng 05:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng you just demolished the whole "validated" argument as well as the "GRG is so scientific" story. AMAZING. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

<EEng smiles, acknowledges applause, waves feebly like a member of the Royal Family, brushes confetti and tickertape from face> EEng 18:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how I have been able to miss this intriguing comment for about a month; therefore, allow me to respond to a couple of the woefully wrong assumptions and assertions made in it, as they perfectly illustrate how some editors are, effectively, leading our Wikipedia encyclopedia to overturning a scientific consensus that has been in existence for over 140 years: an issue I do feel should be addressed.

• First of all, the results and conclusions in the scientific article I was referring to were based on an SSA study. I am not sure whether you have ever heard of the SSA, but in effect it is led by the American government; as such, the researchers in the study could base their results on information provided by the American government – an organisation that, I would think, probably has more private and confidential information about its own people than most scientific researchers as well as amateur genealogists would ever have access to. I am therefore quite confident that the presented percentage of verifiable supercentenarians at ages 110-111 is fairly representative of what can really be verified (a word I am not sure you understand the true meaning of).
• Second, the SSA study was based on an entire census, covering all inhabitants of the United States of America. Thus, it will not be necessary to also research school records, local newspapers, hospital records, or whatever was implied… as all American citizens were covered in the study! Once again, having to contact people was not necessary as the researchers had access to governmental information, enabling them to have a myriad of source material to work with; moreover, their access to governmental information explains why it would not have been necessary to only focus on a “small sample”.
• Third, I do not understand why you are referring to the researchers as “Young and his helpers”; this clearly shows you have no idea who participated in the research, as some of the co-authors included Dr. Perls – Director of the New England Supercentenarian Study [27], a recognised authority within the field of age validation – as well as Dr. Desjardins – a doctor in demography at the university of Montreal [28]. Implying that they are merely “Young’s helpers” is therefore, in my view, a libellous comment to make and detrimental to your own credibility in this discussion as you have just proven you have no idea what and who you are talking about.
• Lastly, as your focal point in this discussion seems to be discrediting the GRG and/or this Mr. Robert Young, I have taken the liberty to go to the GRG website and look at its list of publications (go to [29], click on ‘Publications’ and scroll down). To my surprise, I discovered that this paper you are using as a source was in fact not Mr. Young’s first or second paper – my interpretation of a ‘rookie’. As such, you juxtaposing his name next to the word ‘rookie’ implies once again that you, quite unequivocally so, haven’t got an inkling of what you are saying and/or suggesting as you are not even willing to research your own assumptions, leading to once again making a libellous comment about someone who has proven his expertise in the field.
• Concluding, if your goal was to discredit the concept of age validation and/or assert the idea that the GRG is not a scientific organisation, then I really have to disappoint you as you have only been able to accentuate as well as perpetuate the obviousness of your own incompetence in this discussion.Fiskje88 (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The GRG has been validating supercentenarians for nearly two decades, and tracks supercentenarians to well over 100 years ago, Also currently the GRG does not have the capacity to immediately verify every supercentenarian. Priority is there for given to the ones aged 112, or (111.5+). Science works by proper data collection, not including all possible/unvalidated claims directly.

Discussion

• Our policy is for WP:RS so it should be reliable sources. There is no logic to this "verified" if it is "validated" (whatever validated means) by a "international body specifically dealing with longevity research" as all that does is create a "super source" that we need approval of before we can claim a person's birth date about. This is all just typical gamesmanship because the only "international body specifically dealing with longevity research" is of course the GRG so the only people listed here are the GRG. This is just another round of language playing so that people like Vera Wagner can't be included until and unless the GRG and the GRG alone has approved of her claim. See also Talk:Zhou Youguang for how ridiculous taking this to its logical conclusion gets us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• This should apply to related pages too. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I just want to settle this page, but people can create RFCs elsewhere if they want. I think it'd be preferable to organize one criteria here and then see if it's applicable elsewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was invited here by the RfC, I admit to not knowing a whole lot about lists, but pulling on my experience throughout the project, here is a couple of thoughts... If we're simply (and exclusively) relying upon the GRG, this list is effectively duplicate, plus it must be manually updated to keep it up to date with something that could/should be replaced with simply an External Link. If the bulk of the entries are to people not otherwise notable, or known, outside of the GRG list, then how much value is it really providing? As it appears there is some concern over the difficulties or qualifications be listed by GRG. On the flip side, if we reduce it to just WP:RS, as others have stated it might get out of control with dubious claims of age. These types of lists tend to be filled with many people wanting to add "me too" status to the list, or probably better put... "my great great grandfather was..."... I'm wondering if the threshold should be based on WP:NOTABLE people instead? That is, let GRG handing the "everybody" list for those that fit their criteria, and lets keep WP a place for notable people, who extend beyond BIO1E. Admittedly that would be a much short list and might qualify to be merged back into Supercentenarian. This also opens up the possibility for people notable beyond GRG, which have reliable (but perhaps not official) recognition as supercentenarian to be included. To a certain degree, if we have someone who is independently notable outside of their age, and they have passable reliable sources that they're 112, I believe we'd be doing less harm by including them, versus the alternatives. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: People have been giving a parade of horribles for a decade if we just use reliable sources but we aren't idiots here and thus they have always argued to just use the GRG no matter what. Removing pending and unverified claims was said to cause the same insane chaos but that didn't happen. The various tables all over the place do include some claims that aren't verified but it's not lunacy here. No one is going to put the Sumerian Kings on the tables here and I'm certain we can find reliable source academic sources that will explicitly call them out as myths (same with Methuselah). The opposition argument always go into absurdities including going to RSN to argue that all newspapers are inherently unreliable but only when it comes to the birthdates for very old people (otherwise, they're fine for separate articles about them). The issue is more like cases like Vera Wagner, where two newspapers stated her birthdate and stated that her claim hasn't been verified by the GRG. The problem is that the GRG requires that the person give the GRG copies of their personal identification information so it's a self-selecting list of people who actively want to be included so it's going to be necessarily underreporting people and the second issue is that most of these people aren't notable other than the fact that they lived for a very, very long time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng recently brought up an example of a claim which he said should be considered "verified" as it was published both in the New York Times and its information came from the American military: Emma Didlake, at 110, America's oldest veteran. (She was honoured last year, and died later in 2015.) While her specific age was incidental to the story - she was honoured by the White House for being the oldest veteran, not for reaching the age of 110 - he nevertheless said this was a prime example of why we need not rely on GRG for verification purposes. The problem is, preliminary research on the Didlake case suggests that both the New York Times and the military had her date of birth wrong. The New York Times, and, as I have shown elsewhere, media outlets around the world, routinely defer to the expertise of GRG and Guinness (I could supply literally hundreds of example from every part of the world). EENg pulls out a rare case where the NYT did not defer to the expertise of the GRG... and they got the information wrong. Which is precisely why for the purposes of what we consider "verified" claims, an organization specializing in longevity claims is needed. In the past, we had separate sections for unverified claims, but those are gone, but the solution would be to bring those sections back rather than destroy the credibility of what are considered "verified" claims.

The opposition argument always go into absurdities including going to RSN to argue that all newspapers are inherently unreliable but only when it comes to the birthdates for very old people That is a strawman argument. The point is not that "newspapers are inherently unreliable": the point is that longevity claims are uniquely subject to exaggeration, error and fraud. As Guinness World Records often stated: No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity. And, despite what Ricky and others here like to pretend, it is NOT a simple business to verify these claims! The Didlake case is a classic example. Surely, the American military had her date of birth correct? It seems they did not. Likely because she supplied a wrong birthdate when she enlisted in the 1930s, and that birthdate was never verified. Why would they even bother? This is the everyday sort of issue to deal with in assessing claims, yet many editors here think this is wresting control from the GRG gatekeepers of information that others can readily and routinely verify. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canada Jack (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What the Didlake case actually demonstrates is discussed below -- see #Didlake again. EEng 06:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is (for me) a local example of a "reliable source" publishing a claim of a soon-to-be 120-year-old woman here in Canada. [30] The Toronto Star is Canada's largest circulation newspaper, published since 1892. Certainly a "reliable source" by Wikipedia's criteria. The article, published yesterday, describes Laval PQ resident Cicilia Laurent's desire to meet our dashing new prime minister, Justin Trudeau, and describes the proof she has for her age (proof which would not pass muster by Guinness' or GRG's criteria), and mentions who Guinness considers to be the world's verified elder. Now, going by what Ricky says, the onus here would be on GRG or Guinness to publish information specifically debunking this claim for it to be removed, presumably down the road or when she dies. An absurd requirement for it is often almost impossible to prove a negative - that she wasn't born Jan 31, 1896 as she claims - especially since so many births went unrecorded. So, Ricky, EEng, since the Toronto Star, being one of Canada's major newspapers, is a "reliable source," what shall we do with this claim? Put her at the top of the list on this page? Sure, the article mentions that the claim has not been verified by Guinness, but isn't that what we are saying here? We no longer need verification from a recognized authority on the subject, a "reliable source" would be sufficient? Or are we to rely on the psychic ability of you guys to know which claims are bona fide and which are false? Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So the parade of horribles all over again. Care to point out an actual example of a problem here rather than hypothetical ones? Even your source admits it's not verified so the Star isn't going out on a huge limb about her age. We've had idiotic RSN arguments where someone tried to argue that all newspapers are unreliable sources but only for the explicit fact of the birth dates of people over age 110 and for nothing else and that was resoundingly rejected. Yes, yes, let's hear about again about how if we don't bow down and do nothing but listen to the GRG, we may as well put 12000 year old Sumerian kings on top because that's exactly the same. We'll do what we always do here: debate the actual source and see if it makes an ounce of sense when the stupid issue actually comes rather than when people want to shelve the entire RS policy in favor of "the GRG alone" or "the longevity body specialists" (who just happen to be the GRG alone) or whatever the next attempt is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the blantant double-standard here, folks. Even your source admits it's not verified so the Star isn't going out on a huge limb about her age.

Nice try, Ricky. NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them! The Star says that, according to the Haitian and Canadian government, her age is accurate, however that standard is not good enough for Guinness. So, it is quite rich for you to now admit that her case is not "verified".... because one of these very authorities you decry as being "gatekeepers" has not verified it! The Star acts as if it is, the two governments accept it... and her case has not been debunked as far as we know. Can't have it both ways, Ricky. The ONLY difference between this and the Didlake case is that the New York Times didn't mention these verification issues - and THAT seems to in your books fling open the doors to declare is "verified" by a "reliable source," despite there being no mention of "verification" at all. In my books, you have it completely backwards. A claim to be considered "verified" must be said to have been so verified and have it done by an organization specializing in this. NOT mentioning ANYTHING about how or if someone's age was verified is no basis for inclusion, yet that is what your approach entails. Canada Jack (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them!{{cite needed}} No one said what source they want to verify them. It's only you who are asserting that it's just the GRG and Guinness (which coincidentally uses the GRG). As discussed above, there's a discussion about a Japanese man based on the Japanese ministry of health. Does that count? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No one said what source they want to verify them. It's only you who are asserting that it's just the GRG and Guinness (which coincidentally uses the GRG). ??? The only person here claiming that ONLY GRG/Guinness is to be used as a verifying source... is you, Ricky. I never said they were the sole authorities, but media around the world use those two almost exclusively, so we should as well, that's all. But you of course avoid the main thrust of what I was saying - suddenly, in the Laurent case, even though the Toronto Star, the Haitian and Canadian governments accept her claim, when it is mentioned that Guinness has not verified her claim (they consider a younger person to be the world's elder), then, suddenly, that suffices for you. I thought you said we need not rely on GRG/Guinness for verification - and yet, despite the THREE "reliable sources" vouching for her, and no debunking from anyone else... you don't accept her claim. That's a DOUBLE STANDARD. Canada Jack (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Media, which you claim isn't a reliable source when the media states a person's age, that is now a reliable source about the age when they claim that someone else has "validated"/"affirmed"/"verified"/"approved" their age? So what other authorities are there? The GRG proponents have repeated come up with extremely strained and unusual language that always coincidentally the GRG always seems to qualify under. Again, do you actually want to include her or not? WP:NOTFORUM applies there. This source is a newspaper that states that the Star itself doesn't believe her claim (saying that she doesn't have "solid proof"), states that the Canadian government has issued a passport with that date based on an Haitian passport for that date. I see the Star as a reliable source saying there's no proof of her claim and the Star reports two facts about what two governments did. Has anyone here argued for the Haitian government as a reliable source for a person's birthdate? They are a reliable source for the fact that she has a passport with that date. Same with the Canadian government. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Migod, Ricky, do I have to spell this out for you? If you pretend we can use media as "reliable sources" to confirm ages, then this claim passes muster, it's as simple as that. NO WHERE does it say in the article that the Toronto Star doubts the claim - they just say that Guinness hasn't verified the claim. The "solid proof" line is in terms of what Guinness requires for proof, not the Toronto Star itself.

But the proof of her extraordinary birth date is not solid enough for her to assume her title as the world’s oldest living person, a crown currently worn by New York’s Susannah Mushatt Jones, who has been verified by the Guinness World Records as being born on July 6, 1899, making her 116 years old. Are you seriously trying to claim that it is the Toronto Star which has determined that the proof is "not solid enough" instead of Guinness? That the Toronto Star, not Guinness, bestows the crown of "world's oldest person"? C'mon, Ricky, surely you can do better than that!

[The Star]...states that the Canadian government has issued a passport with that date based on an Haitian passport for that date. No it doesn't, Ricky. Nice try. It says this: The Haitian government accepted that Laurent is the age she says she is and so has the Canadian government, which issued her permanent residency in Canada stating that she was born in 1896. Bye, bye, strawman! Then, this: Has anyone here argued for the Haitian government as a reliable source for a person's birthdate? They are a reliable source for the fact that she has a passport with that date. Same with the Canadian government... This response brings up some interesting issues. 1) Are you suggesting that there are "reliable" and "unreliable" governments in terms of age verification? If so, what is the criteria here? And, is there a list of governments somewhere saying who we can rely on in terms of age verification, and another list of those we can't rely on? 2) Since Canada is, I would hope, on the list of "reliable" governments, and they accept the claim, and there is nothing in the article, despite your statement otherwise, which says they simply copied Haiti's birthdate for her, then why can't we accept this claim? 3) Who mentioned anything about a passport? Not the Star. The word isn't even in the article!

Bottom line, if we accept Zhou's claim (I guess the Chinese government is "reliable"?), then we have to accept Laurent's claim, as her age was cited by a reliable source - the Toronto Star - and accepted by not one, but two governments, one of which is a modern industrialized country, a country, I should note, which has something like 50 verified super-c's under its belt, by GRG's tough criteria compared to.... ZERO for China. And, mentioning Guinness in the Star but not with Zhou doesn't help you wiggle out of this one, as if Zhou is not on the verified list of GRG, then, obviously, the evidence for his birthdate is currently "not solid enough" either, as if we need to see a REPORT saying specifically that a person is not on the GRG/Guinness list instead of, you know, taking a look yourself? Hello? Canada Jack (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So if you don't accept Zhou's birth date here then I'm certain you're supporting its removal at his page, correct? The project should be logically consistent, shouldn't it? Or else this page is meant to be just another example of the walled garden that are the longevity articles, which was the problem a decade ago and remain a problem today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, IMHO. I know others disagree, but I don't have a particular issue with stating a birthdate that is unconfirmed on a notable person's page, even if that age is 110+. There are several other examples already here at wikipedia. After all, an article describing a notable person's life should have the biographical information as reported, age being one of them. But in terms of verified claims - as on this page - he would need to have an organization which specializes in these claims verify that date so as to appear here. The one caveat - if the biographical page makes an age-related claim (say, "Zhou is the only Chinese scholar to reach 110...") then it should be noted that his age has not been verified by an organization which specializes in claims of longevity. If a person is noted ONLY for their unverified age, then the page should clearly state that that age has not been verified. Canada Jack (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no solution to propose. (1) The GRG is totally right in saying that "usual sources" cannot be trusted about the topic, due to an overflow of unverifiable claims. If we try to cook some article using our usual receipes, it will quickly turn into an intractable mess. (2) On the other hand, publishing a list of GRG-verified facts is not writing, i.e. editorializing, but only a robotic copy. (3) What do we do when A.HTM contradicts E.aspx ? Pldx1 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the solution is to propose a WP:MEDRS for longevity claims and we can be consistent with treating the claim as true everywhere or nowhere. I don't think anyone would argue that reliable sources actually confirm many of the claims at longevity claims as the sources are basically either barely blog-type newspapers or reliable sources with this kind of hedging. Frankly, I'd support deleting the entire section and rebuilding it with more details on hoaxes and nonsense claims in prose form. MEDRS doesn't have articles with different criteria for inclusion; they just define the sourcing requirements across all of Wikipedia more strictly. Here, we don't have that other than rampant arguing that there could be terrible claims included, which everyone alleges but no one has ever argued for in a decade of these arguments. Canada Jack's ranting above about a claim that no one else supports is more distracting than productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both clear consensus and precedent against. Our articles, all of them, are as accurate as we can make them following our policies. --GRuban (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The GRG adds the word "validated" in their list of oldest people, so we should follow the GRG's example. That's what Wikipedia's list is. A list of the verified oldest living people. Does anyone else agree with me that the title of the article should be "Oldest Verified Living People" instead of "Oldest Living People"? Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose If the GRG wants to host a list of verified blessed GRG confirmed oldsters they can call it whatever they want. At Wikipedia we follow RS across the project, and everything follows WP:V so adding GRG's preferred term is inappropriate and redundant to Wikipedia policy. Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia goes off of reliable sources to the best of its ability 'verified' can be and should be assumed. Wiki is littered with pages for which "verified" could be an appropriate adjective. It's an unnecessary addition. aremisasling (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's source for it's list comes from the GRG list, and the GRG states that the number of supercentenarians has been frequently misconstrued as the number of every single supercentenarian in the world. So the word "verified" should be added to the title of Wikipedia's list, because just "List of Oldest Living People" seems a bit misleading since there are probably other people who deserve to be on the list but are not verified. Wikipedia also has "List of Verified Oldest Men" and "List of Verified Oldest Women". And nobody has changed this to just "List of Oldest Men" and "List of Oldest Women". Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The GRG list is but one source for this page. The word verified should be stripped from the other titles, and now that some of the GRG control agents are topic banned someone should try that. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't the Time 100 or Billboard 100; no one actually about the GRG list as a notable list on its own. They care about what the list claims to represent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit academic at this point, it would seem, but I had missed the reply. But to add to User:Legacypac's comment the understanding is that the wiki page will do adequate due diligence to ensure their entries are accurate to the best documentation available. So again, the 'validated' is implied. If they aren't validated by a reputable source, they aren't on the list. I support retaining separate articles for 'claims' and 'myths' as they make sense as an exception to the rule of the assumed 'verified'. What GRG has or hasn't done is irrelevant unless the logic behind their decision translates to Wikipedia. And given Wikipedia is a citation-driven resource, I don't believe it has to be explicitly stated that they've been verified. Not only that, I agree with other folks here in that requiring a 'verified' qualifier suggests all of the other Wikipedia pages out there are 'unverified' as we've decided to set this apart as notably different. aremisasling (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And it claims to represent the oldest VERIFIED (or as GRG puts it, "validated") living people. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's being argued above. That wasn't my wording and it doesn't seem like the one that reflect the consensus of the people here. Please comment in the RFC if you can. Just because one person put that there without any further explanation doesn't mean it's likely to stay. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The implication is that there exists a List of unverified oldest living people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

See Longevity claims.Japf (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd question whether those are actually based on reliable sources at all. Looking at the first name here, it is based on a Chinese article which translated hedges the claim and a BBC article which explicitly states that no one outside China will believe it. Then I'd argue it's a classic WP:FRINGE theory that she's actually 129 years old since the sources barely assert that. Perhaps there's one or two with some level of dispute but I'd rather we actually work through these sources as we are supposed to rather than just separate GRG-approved claims from GRG-unapproved claims into separate lists. This is nothing compared to more complicated issues but it's just laziness to me the way it's done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment We should let the earlier RfC on the lead wording finish before suggesting a rename, since that RfC may remove the wording requiring verification by the GRG. clpo13_(talk) 05:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed but there isn't a single push-back discussion about longevity that doesn't result in absolute chaos like this page has become. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ricky I thought you said I caused the chaos in Longevity... I think we are making serious progress now with the annual death deletions, mergers to mini bios and now getting a couple non-GRG blessed names on the lists. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Chaotic good and chaotic evil are different things entirely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment "Verified" and "not verified" is very important in this subject. The oldest verified person living today is Susannah Mushatt Jones with 116 years old. In opposition, there are dozens of people who claim to be much more than 120 and even more than 130 years old! Not surpringly, no one has means to prove their claims. They are just liers, and mixing everithing is a mistake.Japf (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I prefer to keep the title simple and it should be obvious that 'verified' is implied. But I understand User:Ebaillargeon82's argument of "List of Oldest Living People" seems a bit misleading since there are probably other people who deserve to be on the list but are not verified., as technically it is more correct to include 'verified'. Therefore the lede should clarify that the list is almost certainly incomplete. The term 'verified' is not the best choice though, as it appears to refer to a certain method or standard of verification. I'd prefer the more general 'known' IF such a word would be used (see also Largest known prime number for example). There was a recent discussion in WP:Astronomy on this issue for those interested. Gap9551 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Everything on WP is supposed to be WP:V anyway, according to WP's standards (not GRG's etc). This would substitute GRG's standard for WP's. EEng 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Possibly rename to GRG's list of oldest living people, as that seems to be the appropriate name for a proposed content criterion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - It would be clumsily unnecessary. STSC (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Request for clarification: as a Wikipedia editor, not as a GRG member, I wanted to clarify on what "verifiability" means in which context: a.) "The claim is verifiable because it was published by a reliable source" as in the editor did not make up the story, or b.) that "the reliable source cites another body and/or independently verifies the age claim"? Clearly, since we editors cannot do original research, we clearly have to rely on WP:RS. I can see the confusion about whether "verified" in the title would be necessary or not. All I can suggest is that if we treat (major?) news media as reliable sources (see: WP:NEWSORG), due to their fact-checking procedures, without the word "verified" in the title, we may still face the issue of having a lot of age 115+ living claims be found online and then placed on the "The Oldest Living People" list here. After a while, it would have a Top 50 or 100 list of living claims over 117+. Then Guinness World Records (GWR) and/or GRG announces that the oldest verified living person is only 116. What is next then? I don't know the answer to that, but perhaps two different lists are needed here? CalvinTy 19:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The GRG uses the term "verified" to refer to a claim that it supports as true (although it has been known to retract those years if not decades later without explanation). Some claims are considered "pending" and others "unverified". I think there's (perhaps intentional) mix-up of phrasing between the GRG's term "verified" and our use at WP:V. According to those supporters, anything that isn't directly a copy of the GRG must be listed as "unverified" claims (because of course, if the GRG hasn't verified it, we need that advertised here). My view is that we have some random newspaper says that a person is actually age 120 or older (see Longevity claims or the Star article that Canada Jack mentions above for examples), and in contrast we have the GRG and/or GWR explicitly states that the oldest is 117, I say we can treat those properly as WP:FRINGE theories, not put that as a fact for them and not include them here. I'd rather this page expand and distinguish fringe living people right now to give a proper representation of the fact that this isn't so clear-cut as we pretend it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I'm rusty as I forgot to sign my previous request for clarification! Sorry about that. Ricky81682, as you can imagine, I cannot talk about GRG matters here so forgive me for not responding to those (i.e. retractions, why this claim is verified or not, and etcetera). I also see that I still have a lot of reading to do in previous discussions above. While I need to do that, I can only say, to clarify for everyone here, that GRG is not the only authority in longevity research and/or age validation process, nor do we pretend to be. It's just that I can understand some editors wanting to separate the chaff from the wheat (did I say that right?) in seeing which age claims have been verified or not in order to put them on the correct list here, whatever it may be named. If this "verified" sense means #a above in where a reliable source says a man is claimed to be 114 years old, then yes, that claim would be placed here per the intent of the "Living Oldest People" article. If that's the desired effect, then I agree that adding "verified" wouldn't be necessary since it is already covered in WP:V. However, would Wikipedia readers see this list as the de facto "list of oldest people" but still understanding that they are not verified (in the sense where an entity, no matter who, did validate the claimed age by reviewing the necessary documentation)? Just wondering. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing about a WP:TRUTH problem. The RFC above is about the wording for the lede and some people there advocate expressly that the GRG is only "reliable" authority that should be referred to. We should just report what reliable sources say (and the GRG is one) and if there's a discrepancy, it's worth noting. The fact that there are unknown unknowns is never going to be resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Ricky81682, when you quoted WP:TRUTH. Fair point, and right, for here, we are only interested in ensuring something is verifiable, as in being published by a reliable source. You brought up WP:FRINGE, which was a very good point. If we have reliable sources showing a list of age claims to age 117+ but GWR and/or GRG says the verified oldest person is age 116, you agreed they would "not be included here" because they could be considered fringe living people, in your own words (and also supported by WP:WEIGHT). Just to be sure, you do mean that we should be excluding those age 117+ claims but still including age 110-116 claims here then? Is that the goal/intent here in the attempt to establish what the lede should say? Just trying to see from all perspectives here (as I always strive to do so). Cheers, CalvinTy 20:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't use WP:FRINGE for whether or not to include something in a particular article. We do not have their biography (if it exists) continue to report that age, have them in a category of supercentenarians and then just exclude them here. We would use it to determine whether the fact of their age should be reported at all or hedged similarly everywhere. That way it is entirely consistent everywhere in the encyclopedia. Above, I use the analogy of WP:MEDRS (reliable sources for medical stuff). They do not have separate articles with differing levels of "this is a cure, this is a *verified* cure, these are nonsense cures", etc. We shouldn't the same here. There's a discussion above about Zhou. He turned 110, is listed in the supercentarian category and in the Asian supercentenarians page. He's not GRG verified, the sources are three Chinese ones I believe but they seem like reliable sources from all accounts. He's too young for this list but on principle, rather than this page creating its own criteria about whether to include someone like Zhou, the determination is all around whether or not it's a valid claim. As such, if there is a claim that someone is 120 years old, we wouldn't have a biography article about her, put her in the category and then say she doesn't belong here. What should be done is a claim-by-claim factual allegation-by-allegation analysis not this lazy "it's reliable enough to say that on her biography page and reliable enough for the category and maybe reliable enough for the Asian supercentenarians page but for this page of the oldest living people, no that's a separate higher level of reliable sourcing we require." That's a complete violation of WP:NPOV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion: Wanted to outdent to left side, but couldn't seem to do so. What is the code? {{od}}? Been ages. First, I have no problems with claims that are listed in other categories and should be listed here if the verifiability is only regarding having a reliable source for the age claim. That makes sense and I would have no qualms opposing to the additional "verified" word in the lede. Now based on your comments, Ricky81682, I am struggling to understand the historical background of several articles such as Longevity claims. I don't remember the history but if we are listing solely of all oldest living people with reliable sources, we shouldn't have a Longevity claims article (as those living people should be consolidated here, then?). That article seems to have an artificial cut-off point, which according to you, "would be in violation of WP:NPOV", as we "don't use WP:FRINGE for whether or not to include something in a particular article"? I guess I still have lot to understand and maybe one of the reasons why I gave up years ago as this discussion can be draining to new editors and/or returning editors. :-) Cheers, CalvinTy 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There used to be unverified (formerly incomplete) longevity claims but there were merged together for the same reasons that verified here violates WP:NPOV to me. As to why those claims are there, we have articles on both popes and on antipopes because even the facts that are wrong can still be covered by reliable sources and be important to note. Are you suggesting the deletion of longevity claims? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I am quite logical (and can be literal) so this is what I am seeing, Ricky81682, regarding both this article and the Longevity claims article. They are not currently differentiated by an age cut-off limit, i.e. there are 4 entries on this article aged 115+ but 35 entries aged 115+ on the Longevity claims article at the moment. They *both* have reliable sources (otherwise, those entries would have been tossed out a long time ago, right?). So now, keeping that in mind, why are there two different lists? If the rationale is that they all should be in this article "because they have reliable sources", there would be 39 entries over 115+, if not more. If the difference is because "the 4 entries here" has been validated by an independent body (such as GRG having done so with those 4 entries), then I do now understand why the articles are separated. Perhaps to avoid the confusion regarding the "verified" wording, this article should be re-worded to "Validated Oldest Living People" instead? Regards, CalvinTy 00:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you proposing merging those articles? I'm not. I find it WP:POINTy to say "this is all wrong because you should also be merging a bunch of different articles which I don't even want to happen and if you do that even though no one actually suggests it, it'll be chaos and therefore it's all wrong." This is the definition of the slippery slope fallacy. There's articles out there every day being taken to AFD. If the fact that no one wanted them deleted until someone wanted it deleted evidence that they shouldn't be deleted. I moved to get the stupid incomplete ones deleted. I support getting rid of the verified one. The moderate position was the merge. No one could get rid of the claims articles because everyone kept coming in yelling and screaming that it would go all to hell if we lost one of those because there were pending claims or whatever and now of course there's crying and screaming that this page can't be touched either precisely because of the nonsense they created. People cried over this deletion but no one cares now. If you want those merged into this article, go propose that and then propose getting rid of them. If you want them rid of, propose geting rid of them. Don't come here and say "this idea will never work because I could make a gigantic WP:POINT-y game of merging a bunch of crap into this based on the way you worded it and so you need to go with my proposal to prevent the possibility of me making your life miserable here." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as articles are sourced from reliable sources, so this appears redundant. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.