Jump to content

Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Gertrude Weaver

Gertrude Weaver was born April 4, 1898 and died age 117 years and 2 days old on April 6, 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.90 (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Census records prove she was born in April of 1898. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.90 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Census matches are considered a WP:PRIMARY source. Your original research doesn't belong here. Reliable sources report July, not April. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Fatime Ibraimi

Fatime Ibraimi (sr:Фатиме Ибраими)) born in 1898/1899 in Macedonia is still living and is the oldest person in Balkans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.21.207 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Not only is there no exact date of birth, there is no report of her being alive since 2012. So, no chance of her being included here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2016

Trinidad Alvarez Lira

Perhaps this is of interest to this page: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/30/mexican-woman-117-years-old-dies-birth-certificate Familiars (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


Familiars (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I cannot tell if you are being serious. It's pretty straightforward. Add Trinidad Alvarez Lira to this list. Familiars (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Tanzilya Bisembeyeva

This 120 year old woman has just made the Russian book of records, legit? [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else know if the Russian book of records is a reliable source on this subject? It sounds legit and the ref is from TASS, which is generally a reliable publication, but the article doesn't mention what their vetting process is. If it's reliable it may be a possible additional source for records. But I think we need to know if they did more than ask her if she was 120 and take her word for it. aremisasling (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent improve and reverts

Could someone (especially TFBCT1) explain why is this done?

Please refer to the changes I introduced one by one:

  1. {{Use dmy dates}} template name is not a sentence and does not need capitalization (same applies for {{about}} as well as for {{pp-protect}}, {{note}}, {{legend2}} etc. which were already non-capitalized).
  2. Use dmy dates template can go after {{about}}; if this is not desirable, please revert this change of mine (it is now before about template; meanwhile—during reverts—it found itself there).
  3. The oldest verified person on record is still French woman Jeanne Calment. Why is this being changed to was?
  4. Construction "who died at the age of 122 years, 164 days" is better as {{age in years and days}} (which I forgot to capitalize) gives x years, y days format (not x years y days). Why is consisteny being broken with "122 years 164 days"?
  5. What is wrong with stating "The list includes only 6 men among 94 women."?
  6. {{Legend2}} I removed as shading and stating "Living" + no death date given is more than enough for a reader to know that particular person is alive. Why is legend template being introduced back?
  7. Specifying table widths is very useful because when some long cell content is removed or longer than the prevoious longest added – width of the table changes and for someone who displays this table regulary on smaller screnn this is frustrating. By defining width all column widths are maintained constant. What is wrong with this? If something really is, please explain first rather than reverting.
  8. № is better because it significantly reduces first column widths that has no wide entries (only one, two or three numbers). What is wrong with №?
  9. Important: Please explain reverting to | publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' | date=5 August 1997 | a and similar instances. I did very thorough cleanup for references:
  • named them properly,
  • fixed unconsistent spacing,
  • fixed double references with wrong dates and names (in particular: GRG Table E),
  • fixed apostrophes (’ → '); even newspapers, magazines etc. that use in their publications or online editions ’ are used to be represented with ' on English Wikipedia (' is always better than ’),
  • changed google.se to google.com, removed italics for BBC and other publisher as they are not newspapers, books or something similar that should be italicized etc.
  2. Important: What is wrong with flags? Where is guideline for not including flags in tables similar to this one?
  3. "Colonial Cape Verde" is not a direct link to the article so I changed it to "Portuguese Cape Verde". Why is this reverted too?
  4. Tag <br /> is sufficient at the very end of notes list. Why is it introduced back?

Generally, please make selective reverts if needed, and explain them before recklessly making them. --Obsuser (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The purposing of editing is to improve an article, not to arbitrarily make changes that suit your specific need. Your edits to the the intro are unnecessary, they are redundant, and can be deemed by perusing the table. Your adustments to the dimensions of the table go oustside of the norm for all other similar tables and are unnecessary. Removing the "Rank" column needs consensus. Introducing "redlinks" for all individuals is reckless especially when their has been great pressure to delete longevity articles in the past year. Inappropriate overuse of flag icons was addressed 8 years ago. It was determined that this should NOT be done because it detracts from the page/table. You need consensus before making any significant changes to an established article. TFBCT1 17:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Could explain your edits (i.e. non-selective revert) one by one as I thoroughly explained them above? Changes are not arbitrarily made, it is only your opinion that edits to the intro are unnecessary (I respect it but you have to explain that, you cannot claim that noting something already in the article is more important than something that was missing), dimensions of the table are improvement, rank too, there are articles on almost all of the persons on the list so other ones can be made too, guideline for flags is still not cited on the talk page etc.
What if you or others refuse to take part in discussion? That cannot mean I am restricted to make improvement till someone approves my edits. In order not to create/continue wdit warring, let's try to achieve consensus, one by one edit as numbered above (especially references).--Obsuser (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war between User:Obsuser and User:TFBCT1. I've fully protected the page for three days. Please use this time to reach consensus for any change you think is needed.See WP:Dispute resolution for how you can arrange for a wider discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. A change to the intro including the sentence: "The list includes only 6 men among 94 women." is unnecessary and redundant in that this information can be readily discerned from the table. The phrasing also implies bias.
  2. Adding "red links" for all those listed on the table is inane. Augusta Holltz already had her individual article deleted after review and all those remaining do not meet the criteria for stand alone articles. There is also a precedent to try to avoid "red links."
  3. Replacing countries with Flag icons violates WP:ICONDECORATION and WP:TOOMANY. It detracts from the overall aesthetic of the page. It also removes important links to the countries of origin.
These are my main concerns/contentions with your ongoing edits. TFBCT1 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. Can you easily scroll down to see how many persons are on the list: yes, so This is a list of the 100 verified oldest people. would be redundant. Can you see that The oldest verified person on record was French woman Jeanne Calment (1875–1997), who lived to the age of 122 years 164 days. by easily reading relatively simple-to-understand table (not physics or maths algorithms): yes, so this would be redundant too. Can you easily see very clearly green-shaded-with-no-death-date-given-and-with-note-Living-and-with-legend that There are eight verified living supercentenarians on this list: yes, so this would be redundant too. Can you easily read table data or sort table to see that oldest person is x y that is old a years, b days: yes, so the oldest of whom is Italian woman Emma Morano, aged 116 years, 229 days would be redundant too.
    Regarding bias: Why is it bias? It is simply true that there are only 6 persons that are males and 94 that are females, what is useful as reader can use that information elsewhere. It could be that there are only 6 females and 94 males too.
  2. It is not insane because only about 1/4 of the persons have no article, 3/4 do have it. Why is Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian) more important than let's say Mary Ann Rhodes (btw, she has "article" i.e. redirect to other list and is not linked); someone can write few lines on Mary Ann Rhodes (supercentenarian) too.
  3. I guess this is not table on some NASA project; it is very simple, people will not assume № denotes number of their children or flag indicates their pet birth plase. Overall aesthetics is actually improved, and wikilinks are not removed but added for to the countries of origin (isn't it?).
PS After seeing you writing style, I would say it is not pretty aesthetic so discussing on such topics might not be good this way.--Obsuser (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

TFBCT1 is correct, your changes add nothing to the article and generally violate Wiki guidelines and/or consensus for longevity related articles. The use of flags violates MOSFLAG, arguing for inclusion will get you nowhere. Adding redlinks for articles is pointless, most of those without articles have previously been deleted because the article was not justified. Recreating them will almost certainly see them Speedy Deleted. Persistently recreating them led to the last editor who tried it getting blocked. Note that Longevity articles are subject to discretionary sanctions, I have added the appropriate notice to your talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will not insist anymore on these (flags, redlinks). I tried. What about numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 I listed in my first comment in this section? What is wrong with references formatting, or removing legend, or specifying column widths, or small formatting like removing sufficient tags, correcting redirects, adding comma? Why do you say "my changes add nothing to the article", I think they add at least something...--Obsuser (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Rewriting the intro (other than the inclusion of the comma) is not OK without consensus. Removing the legend, specifying column widths, replacing rank column is not OK without consensus. Anything that adds nothing to the article, is unnecessary, or redundant will likely be dismissed. Also, personal attacks like the one directed at me above are not OK, but I see you've been warned about this on your talk page just today on another issue. TFBCT1 00:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
So it is not possible to improve it anymore, now it is like default or 100% perfect so any addition is reduntant or if you say it is like that than it is like that?
What about references formatting?
There were no personal attacks from my side directed to you; I noticed broken lines in your comment, numbering not using # etc.; that was not looking very nice and it was not possible to indent shortcuts that were breaking left margin, that's all. --Obsuser (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Your edits can be categorized as follows:
  • Acceptable edits: Changing color coding to italics (this is consistent with changes in other articles and should have been done before now); changing the "Rank" header (I would prefer this were left blank rather than changing to "No.", Rank is not good as it defers too much to the GRG and their fans; fixing any references, including formatting; fixing apostrophes.
  • Unacceptable edits: Replacing a template with text (templates are used for valid reasons and their format is consistent with Wiki policy/guidelines.
  • Edits which require consensus (but only because the change is disputed): Changing the text in the lede.
DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, thank you for reply. What template I "replaced with text"? --Obsuser (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
When the issue of removing the "Rank column" was discussed on List of oldest living people, it was overwhelmingly favored to keep it. This was not to cater to the GRG or its fans, but to facilitate in the updating process. It would be the same case here, and I would prefer it to stay. TFBCT1 12:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I also support stance of TFBCT1 concerning your edits. There have been several long discussions about the existence/content/format of the list and current page is a result of a hard-fought compromise. Any material changes to the page (and other longevity pages) should be subject to proper discussion prior to the changes are made. I am a longevity enthusiast and visit the page every other day, and I do not see any added value in most of Obsuser's edits.
Plus, thanks to TFBCT1 for keeping the page updated! Koristka (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The page is no longer semi-protected?? TFBCT1 18:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Indonesian claimant to oldest person

To head off the controversy at the pass since it's all over the news, I think the Independent does a good job of summarizing the case, ending by noting his documents have not been verified as accurate as yet. Wanted to put this here as I suspect this question will be raised at some point and there are reliable sources confirming he is still not yet verified.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/worlds-oldest-person-man-mbah-gotho-indonesia-145-years-old-a7213191.html

aremisasling (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well the Russian Book of Records had recognized Tanzilya Bisembeyeva who turned 120 in March as the world’s oldest living person. [2] Seeing that both these cases haven't been verified yet though. This person might be a candidate for Longevity claims if you can convince editors to raise the max age range. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just found this story and see it hasn't been added yet. Can't edit from phone atm. Anyone else able to add this? Amazing isn't it?!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/worlds-oldest-person-man-mbah-gotho-indonesia-145-years-old-a7213191.html%3famp?client=safari DrMel (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah amazing if it is true, there have been numerous people over the decades. I don't mean to burst your bubble but it needs to be independently verified before it can be an official record. I am a bit skeptical about this record as there have been zero verified claims between the ages of 122, and this "record" of 145, it is a noticeable gap. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
...and despite dozens, if not hundreds, of claims for Indonesians to have surpassed 110 years, none has ever been verified by an independent body. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How often do they update this list?

This topic fascinates me...how often do they update the living people's ages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.99.62 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Daily. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Johanna Mazibuko

This list doesn't include Johanna Mazibuko. 121 years old. This list doesn't include anyone of African descent. I understand records from Africa might be hard to verify but I find it hard to believe that there are no supercentanarians from the continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.176.84 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah

Can I ask why she is not in the list? Thanks in advance. Paolotacchi (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It was vandalism, has been reverted. Marbe166 (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Lucy Hannah died in 1993. This list is for oldest living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.176.84 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi

Why isn't Shigechiyo Izumi included in the list? Is it really proofed he was born 1880, not 1865? How do we know it was the 1865-born Izumi who died as young, not the 1880-born Izumi? Or is not the theory that he used his older brother's identity as a necronym false? Izumi has been considered as the oldest man ever, shouldn't we put him back in the list? BjörnBergman 22:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Check the page Shigechiyo Izumi to find the explanation. He was 105 when he died. --Paolotacchi (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

He has not been debunked! He belongs n the pages. We should hold it to a vote.Mjjd226 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Archives

Can we delete the MiszaBot archive? It makes no sense to keep two of them and other is more updated. --Paolotacchi (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not just combine them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako

Hi, someone created a link for Chiyo Miyako, by putting the [[]] around her name. However, the link goes to a page that simply lists Japanese Centenarians. If there is a link for Chiyo Miyako, I would think it should go directly to a page that is specifically for Chiyo Miyako--otherwise it may not be completely useful/applicable to the specific person to have the link. It would be good if someone created such a page for Chiyo Miyako, since all of the other 4 top 5 oldest living people have specific wikipedia pages for them. Are there enough reliable sources out there about Chiyo Miyako for someone to create such a page? It may be difficult to meet the needed criteria for page, given that Chiyo Miyako has not really reached the public eye/been in the news as much as some of the others yet. JasonPhelps (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the link. Linking to another list is not useful. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs)

I have created a page for Chiyo Miyako and attempted to link this page to hers, but the page is still currently under review. Mzimmerle (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Other than being the oldest person (so far) born in the 20th century (and that likely isn't "notable" for wikipedia) she is neither the oldest living person or even oldest living Japanese person/woman. She'd warrant her own page if she achieves one of those things. Canada Jack (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not enough out about Chiyo Miyako yet most likely. Probably because she is only 2nd oldest Japanese person at this point. Like DerbyCountyinNZ mentioned above linking to another list is not useful. Need to wait until there is a specific page for Chiyo Miyako before creating that link. JasonPhelps (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Addition of other Disputed Cases

If Lucy Hannah is on this page, than all of the other disputed cases belong here too! Mjjd226 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. If there is sufficient evidence that Hannah's age is below the minimum required for this article then she gets removed, not the other way round. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Most sources show that Lucy Hannah was born July 16, 1875 and died March 21, 1993. However, when she was alive she had claimed to be one year older, which would have made her 118 years, 248 days when she died. I believe I saw somewhere that a case study was done on Lucy Hannah that proved she was actually 117 years, 248 days when she died. So, I don't think Lucy Hannah's case is really a disputed case anymore...though it might be useful to put a question mark after the year of Lucy's birth and the 117 years on her, if it is not 100% certain, in order to have truthful information on the site. Again, I don't think it is that disputed anymore. But if anyone knows any further information on this about why some people say Lucy Hannah's case is disputed, it would be interesting to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.3.26 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
But recently, Hannah's claimed age of 117/118 has been disputed since some research by members of the 110 Club has proven that she may have been born 12 August 1895, then she died at age 97, not 117/118. So I think she should be removed. 81.230.149.213 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The 110 club is NOT a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Gertrude Weaver actually older than 116 years, 276 days

Hi, on the Verified Oldest List of people, it lists Gertrude Weaver as being born July 4, 1898. However, the GRG gives Gertrude Weaver a 95% Confidence Interval of being older than having been born July 4, 1898, and suggest an April 1898 birthday for her, which can be found on this website: http://www.grg.org/GWeaver.html. I have tried to make this correction to the verified oldest people list, but every time I do someone changes it back. I tried to put a [q] next to Gertrude Weaver's birth date, like how there is a [p] next to Emma Morano's noting that she might have a birth date two days different. When I tried to put the [q] next to Gertrude Weaver's birth date and denote below that Gertrude's birth date may have been April 1898, this was removed too. So, I think something should be done to denote that Gertrude Weaver likely had an April 1898 birth date. Thanks, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.37.3.51 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The citation used in conjunction with Weaver's entry, GRG World Supercentenarian Rankings List, makes no mention of any doubt about her date of birth/age. That article was last updated on 23 December 2016. The article you have cited is dated 4 July 2014. That article speculates that she might have been born in April and also states that "If future evidence can be found to support an exact birth date, we will investigate this further." As they have not commented on this matter since then the conclusion must be that there has been no further evidence found supporting an April birth. 2 other matters bear on this issue: where there has been equal evidence for 2 dates of birth the younger age is used (e.g. Moses Hardy), and if that age is too low for inclusion then the person is left off the list. Secondly, if there is no day or birth, only the month, then the person is excluded from the list (e.g. Martha Graham, who was removed from the GRG list for this reason (I believe)). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to concur with the user above that Gertrude Weaver's birth date may have been in April 1898. Are you aware that the 1900 census record shows Gertrude Weaver's date of birth as April 1898 and not July 1898? It seems like a census record would be a pretty reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.3.26 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The 1900 census record can also be viewed on Ancestry (I have a free account with them). It might be available on other partner sites for those who don't have access to ancestry. But this shows Gertrude Gaines born April 1898 in Arkansas and Ophelia her mother living with her at the time. Gaines was Gertrude Weaver's maiden name before she was married. http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc=QHp7&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&gss=angs-c&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=Gertrude&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Gaines&gsln_x=0&msbdy=1898&msbpn__ftp=Arkansas,%20USA&msbpn=6&msbpn_PInfo=5-%7C0%7C1652393%7C0%7C2%7C0%7C6%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C&cp=0&MSAV=1&uidh=qed&pcat=35&h=14841959&dbid=7602&indiv=1&ml_rpos=3
This violates WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY, more specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY (although Weaver is not living the issue here is the same). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't know that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so still getting used to what all the rules are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.3.26 (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
What about Gerontology Wikia? Is that considered a source that can be used on wikipedia or is that not allowed either? Gerontology Wikia lists Gertrude Weaver's birth date as 4 July (or April) 1898. They include both possibilities of an April or July 4th birth date on this site: http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Gertrude_Weaver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.3.26 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
What about it? That Wikia isn't sourced, someone edited the page to put whatever date they wanted to in the article. I can do that too if you want and make her birth date January 2, 1785 but it wouldn't make it true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Many of the editors at Gerontology Wikia are banned from editing Longevity articles, or banned entirely, from Wikipedia, which is one reason is not considered a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense then that it's not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.3.26 (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

She was born April 4, 1898 and died April 6, 2015 age 117 years and 2 days old. There is absolutely no doubt what so ever that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:D46B:DE36:CFF4:C87F (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yukie Hino

Anonumous editor 68.175.109.234 has added a death date for Yukie Hino in this edit special:diff/774776223, without any specific source of the information. But the GRG page, which is linked at Yukie Hino as <ref> does not list the death date – she is listed in 'No recent confirmation alive' table. Should the change be reverted?

The source doesn't actually confirm neither that Yukie Hino is alive (so listing her as such is an error!), nor that she died (so listing the death date is unjustified and probably an error!). --CiaPan (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better to take Yukie Hino off the Oldest Verified People list then? I do not see any reliable sources stating that Yukie Hino died on January 13, 2017. The Gerontology Wiki lists her death date as January 13, 2017, but they are not a reliable source for Wikipedia. The 110 Club posted something on April 10, 2017 saying RIP Yukie Hino, and listing her age again 114 years 271 days. But again I don't know how reliable this is. Maybe wait for a few days to see if some reliable source comes out about Yukie Hino, and then if it doesn't, take her off? JasonPhelps (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@JasonPhelps: No, we certainly should not remove her from the list – I would rather keep things as they are, until a reliable source says anything changed. Her presence it justified quite well by GRG pages, which are far more reliable than Gerontology Wiki, I suppose. However GRG themselves say the current status is 'not confirmed', so stating explicitly Mrs Hino is alive may be a bit too bold. OTOH I can't imagine including 'uncertain' state in the table; how would we sort 'uncertain' records by unknown age...?
As for sources, Google finds a note from Niigata prefecture govt. which says (if you belive the Google Translator) a 114 y.o. woman, the oldest in the prefecture, died on January 13 and a 112 y.o. woman became the oldest one. BUT... they do not mention Yukie Hino name (or Google Translate failed to copy it into the English translation), so it's hard to definitely state that she was the the specific person.
Ref: "燕市の112歳の女性が県内最高齢者となりました (A 112-year-old woman in Tsubame City became the oldest in the prefecture)" (in Japanese). 2017-04-10. Retrieved 2017-04-12.
Possibly we should invite some Japanese-speaking wikipedians to browse the Web for information? The alleged death was 3 months ago, so there should exist some news about it. --CiaPan (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As of 14 April 2017, the GRG page http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx, with the head note 'Last Updated On: Apr 13 2017 7:19PM', lists Yukie Hino in the 'Validated Deceased Supercentenarians' section with the death date 1/13/2017. So the issue is finally resolved. --CiaPan (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Technical flaw in sortation - death dates jumbled

Click SORT to "Date of Death" and "recent to oldest" and the LIVING persons correctly go the top. But the first 6 dated entries are NOT correctly sorted by death date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.20.62 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is because there are tied entries, sort function will not work correctly. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ: Isn't it because some entries (e.g. Mitsue Toyoda) have plain dates, without the {{dts}} template...? --CiaPan (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you're right! I've fixed the format of 2 entries which seems to have sorted the problem. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ: OK, I've added three more {{dts}} templates. --CiaPan (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Yesterday I added Maria Félix, along with a source article about her. In the article it says the authorities accept her birth certificate as authentic. Yet, this got reverted 'cause I didn't provide a reliable source. So, if that isn't a reliable source, then what would be considered reliable sources? Devon Young (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

At the top of the article, the first sentence reads "This article is about specific supercentenarian claims validated by modern standards". "Validated by modern standards" means that the claim has been verified by an independent body which focuses on longevity research. In effect this means the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records. For the purposes of this article passing WP:RS is insufficient, as it would mean that not only Longevity claims but Longevity myths would be included in the same list, which would be encyclopedically pointless. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC).
@Soydevon: A newspaper is not an official channel of authorities information. And it is The Guardian who claims 'authorities recognise [the birth certificate] as authentic', not authorities themselves. So there is no reliable enough source of the authenticity recognition. --CiaPan (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Jamaica note

I've removed the footnote regarding Jamaica being a former British colony more than once because this article is about supercentenarians, not about the history of Jamaica. Jamaica has been Jamaica the whole time Violet Brown has lived there; the fact that it was for a period of time a colony does not add to this article. The other footnotes refer to actual changes that occurred in the jurisdiction a person was born in or lived in; no such change has occurred in Jamaica. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia; if readers want to learn about the history of Jamaica, they can easily click the wikilink. In the case of other entries on the list, knowing that someone lives in a different country than they were born in does add to the article, as does knowledge that the place they were born in is now part of another country; no such value is added by noting that Jamaica was once a British colony.  Frank  |  talk  18:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Having thought about it one more round, I agree that the footnote should be removed, but I disagree somewhat with @Frank:'s rationale. The footnote should be removed beacuse of the heading of the column "Place of death or residence" - Brown is not dead and lives in Jamaica, full stop. In the case of Jamaica being a former British colony, I think Frank is contradicting himself somewhat: "[...] a different country than they were born in does add to the article, as does knowledge that the place they were born in is now part of another country"; the place where Brown was born is now part of another country, Jamaica is (very) different to the British Empire. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging the conversation. Regarding the apparent contradiction, you correctly note a nuance that I inadvertently introduced based on my wording. What I mean is that Brown was born in Jamaica, as far as we know has lived her entire life in Jamaica (though your "full stop" comment correctly notes this is probably irrelevant), and currently lives in Jamaica. That it was once a colony and is now an independent country is not useful in this article. Further, it is still a Commonwealth realm (as are Australia and Canada), but such is not (and should not be) noted in the article. Likewise, both Australia and Canada achieved independence during the lives of some members of this list, which information would likewise not be helpful to this article. Puerto Rico changed political status during the lifetime of at least two members of this list - again not necessary to note. I would not suggest - and would in fact disagree with - adding those notes or others that cloud this article with details that do not add to the article, because that's what wikilinks are for. Finally, to clarify, the remaining notes do specifically add useful information; if you read about someone who was born in Austria-Hungary, you might rightfully wonder if it were a mistake since such a place does not exist.  Frank  |  talk  20:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Oldest human dies in Indonesia aged 146

Hi, a BBC note appears that Sodimedjo, also known as Mbah Gotho (grandpa Ghoto), was born in December 1870, beating the first place to Jeanne Calment. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39768321?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

--179.7.66.160 (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You missed the bottom of the article where it says: "If independently verified, his age would make Grandpa Ghoto older than French centenarian Jeanne Calment, who was 122 when she died, and is considered the longest living human in recorded history.", there have been dozens of claims around the world like this in the past. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Keiji Sakakida

According to IMDB, actor Keiji Sakakida (Seven Samurai, Godzilla) was born on January 15, 1900 and there is no date of death. I have found his date of birth listed as the same in a few other places. If this is correct, he would be the oldest living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.31.69 (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako is marked as a Male (M) when she should be Female (F)

Chiyo Miyako is marked as a Male (M) when she should be Female (F) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.44.130 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nabi Tajima

I am finding no reliable sources that support or confirm the claim that her status is in limbo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The reliable source is the GRG supercentenarian data table, which provides regualr updates and validations of supercentenarians, which clearly states that there is no recent confirmation of her being alive. She was moved to the Limbo table yesterday afternoon when the GRG did their weekly update of the table. Mzimmerle (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I added her death date as August 1, since that was the day she was added to limbo, her date of death could vary, but August 1 seems to be the most fair in accurate date since that was the day the Gerontology Research Group removed her from the living supercentenarians list. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean this source? [3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No I mean this one: http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx You're working off of outdated material. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The source I have says: "Table data based on: Aug. 2, 2017". We cant confirm her death unless it is proven to be true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You also can't prove that she is still alive, hence the "limbo" status that my source has. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Something is wrong with that source then as it says she was added there on 10/11/2011. Are you saying that she has been in limbo for 6 years now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A similar problem arose last year when Matsuyo Kageyama went into limbo, but a conclusion was made, and that was to remove her as a "living supercentenarian", until there is proof she is still alive, as should be the case with Tajima. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The same source is saying two different things, again what bothers me though is the addition date. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, she was added onto the list as a living supercentenarian 6 years ago, however as I said before she was put into the limbo list Last Night as the Gerontology research group no longer found evidence for her still being alive. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

She has been on the living list until I checked it last night, then she was moved to limbo. I check the data table weekly and she was on the living list until yesterday. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay fair enough as this screenshot also confirms this: [4]. You are in the right here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I feel she should be added as 1 August 2017 with a ? (Question mark) confirming that she is in fact in limbo, but a death date is disputed. Now my only question is how the hell can you lose track of whether a 116 year old is still alive or not when she is the oldest person in the country? It's crazy. I don't think she should be left as living though, because her age will continue to surpass others on the list. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Limbo doesn't mean dead. If someone is in limbo, they haven't been confirmed dead, so can't be listed here as dead. 2602:306:3653:8440:3968:A392:4A5D:8E09 (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No as there are others past 120 still in limbo on that list so we would have to include them as well. We could make a separate table somewhere to show this info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
She's listed here. http://www.grg.org/SC/WSRL.htm Not in limbo. The limbo thing was likely hacking done to the site. 2602:306:3653:8440:3968:A392:4A5D:8E09 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
We cant prove that she is alive though as the source contradicts itself, we also cant prove that hacking went on either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that this is a shame, I was hoping to see two 117 year olds alive at the same time which would have been a first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not the first time. Emma Morano and Violet Brown were both alive at 117 earlier this year, until Emma passed away in April. 2602:306:3653:8440:3968:A392:4A5D:8E09 (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Changing the status of a living subject of a Wiki article to "died" merely because they are "put in limbo" is a WP:BLP violation and this goes for any other article in which they are mentioned. Unless there is a reliable source stating specifically that the person has died they are considered living. Any editor contravening this policy can expect to be subject to ARBCOM. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Limbo is a theological concept. The Gerontology Research Group, whatever it might be, has no authority to assign people there. She's either dead or she isn't. We don't say someone is dead if we don't have an iron-clad source, per BLP. And we don't say someone is the oldest living anything if we have no source establishing that they are alive. Relying on a list that's updated and corrected weekly by a bunch of longevity hobbyists (and that, according to one editor above, has likely been hacked recently) seems both foolhardy and in violation of our rules about reliable secondary sources. This one sounds neither reliable or secondary. I don't think this name belongs on this list. Our only "source" concedes that whether the subject is dead or alive remains an open question.
    Beyond that, another RfC might be in order, some day, about all of these GRG-reliant, oldest person lists. But life is short and trying to prune this WP:WALLEDGARDEN has proven to be a frustrating timesuck in years past. David in DC (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Tajima was added back to the GRG list today. Problem solved. Mzimmerle (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

She's still alive. There's been a birthday confirmation. Case closed. 2602:306:3653:8440:4CB2:F6B1:6FC8:5AFF (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Francisca Susano

The recent entry made for Francisca Susano only references the GRG page, which doesn't mention her. A brief search of articles related to her turn up a number of news items, all of which note that she is a claimant but her claim has not been verified. If the IP editor in question has a reliable source that mentions her she could be included. But the GRG is not that source until it is updated to include her, if that is ever the case. aremisasling (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Since this is a sensitive topic for this article in particular it should be noted that GRG isn't the only reliable source to be had. It was merely the erroneously cited source (in that the source didn't support the edit) in this case. aremisasling (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Gathoni Koinange

Is Elizabeth Gathoni Koinange's longevity verified?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

For clarification, User:Dcfc1988 claims that this is a verified longevity, not a rumor. I reverted their edit, but was reverted with an edit summary saying that it is confirmed. Georgia guy (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, in your edit summary, you referred to the sources as "a personal web site belonging to her great-granddaughter"? The sources provided are for the BBC and the newspaper Daily Nation. Dcfc1988 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
As per the opening sentence of this article, it is a list of "supercentenarian claims validated by modern standards". This case has not been validated by modern standards. Notable issues:
  1. The ID card showing 1900 as the year of birth was issued in 1996. It is well known in longevity research that the later the ID is issued the less likely it is to be accurate.
  2. Apparently her 6 surviving children total "over 400 years" between them. That suggests an average age of around 70, meaning that at least 1 or were born when she was approaching 50.
  3. She seems far more physically active than most other supercentenarians over 115.
In short while the citations pass WP:RS this claim does not meet the requirements for inclusion in this article and are extremely unlikely to meet the current criteria. Another one of the hundreds of claims to have lived to this age that will never be "validated by modern standards". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Maria Emilia Queseda

This person may be another 117-year-old that could be eventually added to the Oldest Verified People list? She has an Identity Card showing a January 5, 1901 birth. http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?o=rn&id=22979&SEO=worlds-second-oldest-woman-is-cuban

Might want to watch and see if GRG ends up confirming her.

JasonPhelps (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sort by date of birth not working correctly

When the table is sorted by date of birth, Delphine Gibson and Tae Ito show up as being born before Maria Giuseppa Robucci and Iso Nakamura, which is the opposite of what should be happening. I have no idea how to go about fixing it, so it would be great if someone else who knows more about these things takes a shot at it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.200.136 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Falsified data ?

Have you looked that currently in the top eleven name there are 5 who died in the past two years or currently living, or more than half of the 11 if we see the past three years. I would say this statistical fact doesn't pass any chi-squared test. There could be multiple false data in these as we have seen this in the Japanese data some years ago. 213.197.78.83 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Are we relying on GRG too much?

Are there are no other vetted sources out there that deal with age verification claims? We need to present this article in a WP:NPOV and as much I feel we rely on GRG too much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct, there are no other sources which specialize in longevity validation which publish such information, unfortunately. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Magdalena Oliver Gabarro

I see Magdalena Oliver Gabarro has been added to this list, but not on the grg list of the oldest living people. Is this a contested case? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.216.68.132 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that she should not be included on this list until she is verified by the GRG. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Usually to be added to this list on Wikipedia, the person needed to be verified by GRG. At least that's the impression I'm under. There are other people with claims, such as a 117-year-old Cuban women Maria Emilia Quesada that I mentioned above on the talk page to watch and see if GRG confirms her. We wait until the GRG confirms them before adding them to this list. JasonPhelps (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I addressed this on my own talk page when I added her. We have added several entries to the list of the verified oldest men before the GRG has validated them. In fact, we've been doing it on that list for 2 years. There is no reason to treat this list any differently. As long as it's a reliable source/country, which Spain is and Magdalena Oliver Gabarro has. I am adding her back to this list. For the other preposterous argument, Cuba has no validated supercentenarians, no less one who is in excess of 117 years, Spain has over 60.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The current criteria for this page is that they are "validated by modern standards". Ignoring this, and going strictly by WP:RS would mean that all the entries at Longevity claims could be included, which would make this list meaningless. Pick and choosing who should be included on the basis that they might get validated is disruptive. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
And if you revert again without consensus I'll consider it edit warring. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't need your idle threats. I'm looking for some consistency. And how pray tell would you like to handle the 9+ entries that have been added to list of the verified oldest men that don't meet this criteria? There are several entries of individuals who have never been validated or have you not noticed? That's what the whole contention of is it a valid source? with a valid time frame has been for the past 2 years? If this is your contention: I will be removing Gustav Gerneth, Valerio Piroddi, Richard Arvin Overton, Toichi Sasaki, Clarence Matthews, George Feldman, Tsunahei Ogawa, Zhou Youguang, and Kameo Oya from this list. It is absurd to have one set of rules apply to one "verified' list and not apply it to the other. TFBCT1 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually it is not absurd at all, WIki is full of such dichotomies and incongruities, some are due to strictly following Wiki guidelines, some to blatantly ignoring them, and some are mere common sense. As the GRG has seen fit to only announce newly validated supercentenarians once they've reached 112 years there is no knowing if/when those under 112 will be validated (perhaps someone in the GRG fanclub can answer?). Perhaps that is one reason why the Oldest Men article does not have the top paragraph as this one does, it says merely "verified oldest men" which could mean any man who passes WP:RS, although it would make no sense to include extreme claims. Perhaps whoever added the opening paragraph here but not oldest men, or List of the verified oldest women for that matter, could explain? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the one who added that "opening paragraph here", but for the sake of consistency, I've just added that same "opening paragraph" (with improvements) to both List of the verified oldest men and List of the verified oldest women. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the reason they left it more open for verified oldest men was probably because less of the supercentenarian men get verified, simply because less of them make it past 112-113 years. They don't live as long, and so have less time to get verified by GRG. Out of the 8 living people that were on the verified oldest men list, there is only 1 living person on there now. There's just not enough that get verified by GRG. JasonPhelps (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree she should not be on here because this page uses the GRG as it's main source and putting her on is pick and choosing.--Dorglorg (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako

A page should be created for Chiyo Miyako now that she is not only just the 3rd oldest verified Japanese person ever, but also one of the 10 verified oldest people of all time. Mzimmerle (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

A page is only justified is if there is sufficient information, appropriately referenced, to create an article. Where she is listed in any list is not sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
There is very little information out there about Chiyo Miyako right now. I suspect if Nabi Tajima were to pass away, then more news might come out about Chiyo Miyako that would be enough to create a page for her. JasonPhelps (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@JasonPhelps: I created a stub article which I hid in the redirect. I just found an article on ja: Wiki about her [5] the article uses 4 sources, this enough for WP:GNG? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Only 1 source is relevant for creating an article. The GRG source establishes her entry in the various lists, nothing more. The second only confirms where she was born. The fourth is a reference for a list of trivia which is not acceptable in English Wikipedia longevity biographies. That leaves 1 source which does not on its own justify the creation of a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am now aware that there is lacking information for the creation of her own page, but I was just simply stating the fact that all the other top verified people all the way to the 24th oldest lived person have their own pages or lines when clicking on their names except her, so I find it a bit out of the ordinary. Mzimmerle (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mzimmerle: Yes it is strange but that is how the sources are sometimes. If there are WP:RS, then most likely they are going to be in Japanese rather than English. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Difference between 2 articles

In this article, a Cuban woman claimed to be the second oldest woman appears not to belong on this list. But she does belong in the List of oldest living people as if her longevity were verified. What difference is there between the 2 lists that makes it so that this list doesn't deserve her name but that one does?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know.... I think we are relying too much on GRG which updates very slowly as opposed to other vetted reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The difference between the 2 articles is that "List of oldest living people" requires only a WP:RS (as long as the age is less than that of the oldest validated living person as per Guinness World Records. This article requires "validation by modern standards". The alternative, as pushed by many who have no interest in longevity, are more (overly) concerned with following WP:RS rigidly, and/or have become tired of the pro-GRG lobby, is to have a list solely based on WP:RS, in which case, if the restriction were limited to no-one older than Jeanne Calment, there would be maybe 10, certainly less than 20 validated cases and the rest would range from the realistically plausible to the highly unlikely. If the upper limit were raised to 130 years then more than likely the only validated entry on the list would be Jeanne Calment. I think most people, though surely not all, would agree that would make the list meaningless from an encyclopedic point of view. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I have received an off-wiki request to look into this matter. I see the discussion has already started so this is more of a "bump" than anything, but I'll be cross-posting at Talk:List of oldest living people to see about getting some more discussion going. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
"Off-wiki"? Would you care to clarify this? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako

Chiyo Mayako re-directs here. But now that Nabi Tajima died, Chiyo Mayako is the oldest woman. Can anyone create an article for her?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops; Chiyo Miyako, to fix the spelling. Georgia guy (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Added article Rpvt (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Iso Nakamura died on 23-11-17

http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Iso_Nakamura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarni mar (talk • contribs) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikias are not reliable sources, but I'm sure you can find one (possibly one cited in the wikia). EEng 15:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@EEng: The fact is recorded in the GRG data (see the list at http://www.grg.org/Adams/TableE.html) although no specific source is given. --CiaPan (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Date function question

Today's date is March 4th 2018, but the article still says it is March 3rd 2018. Can someone please help me to understand what is going on? Like what the mechanics behind the date function are? I did some research, and according to Wikipedia the date is the 4th, so shouldn't this article have updated to the 4th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.200.136 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Then of course the date on the article changes after I edit the talk page. What sense does that make?

The date goes by the UTC, which means it changes at midnight Greenwich Mean Time. Don't ever change a template as the date will change automatically at the appropriate time. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
However, I think that the article actually has to be edited (re-saved, in practice) each day for the dates to actually update in the article. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The date still says March 3rd for me, so obviously it doesn't change at midnight Greenwich Mean Time DerbyCountyinNZ, or else i'm misunderstanding you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.200.136 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Which date are you talking about? All the dates change as expected for me. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about the auto-dates in the article, the ages of the living people on the list were consistent with the date displayed. So maybe it's a computer issue on my side of it, since it works correctly for you and I assume many other people as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.200.136 (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I was just noticing that today the article is still showing May 19 at 4:30PM (in my time zone on May 20), which is currently 10:30PM Greenwich Mean Time on May 20...weird that it is still showing May 19, when it is May 20 Greenwich Mean Time and I am logged in. JasonPhelps (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
JasonPhelps For it to work, the page actually has to be saved once every day for it to show the current date. I just resaved the page (didn't make any changes) and now it shows correctly 20 May. Could you please verify that it shows 20 May for you as well? --Marbe166 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it now shows 20 May for me as well. Thank you. JasonPhelps (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sort by date of birth still not working correctly

The sort by date of birth is placing Lucile Randon above Delphine Gibson when sorted earliest born first. Could someone please fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.76.97 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako?

Greetings, I've seen that Chiyo Miyako is now a Limbo case. I would update the list myself but that means I would have to remove Miyako and add back Chiyo Shiraishi as 100th oldest, but I'm afraid I would be upsetting the Wikipedia community or vandalizing the article (I wouldn't ever intentionally do either of these), and I don't want to risk getting blocked from editing. But maybe we'll learn more as time goes on. Timothy McGuire (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to remove her from the list because alive or dead, she's still one of the verified oldest people. YantarCoast (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

See the thread above this one. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
According to the "GRG" she died last Sunday, July 22nd: http://www.grg.org/Adams/TableE.html. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah she is dead, my condolences to her family btw. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
R.I.P., or indeed sayonara, Mrs Miyako! Extremely sexy (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Kane Tanaka

I started a draft at Draft:Kane Tanaka. Can anyone add some official info about her to the draft (and if there's enough info, feel free to move it into the article namespace, but before doing so you'll have to delete the re-direct to List of Japanese supercentenarians.) Georgia guy (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It has been done. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thus, I created a speedy delete template on my draft after noticing the new article, but no one bothered it. Georgia guy (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
So far, of course, my friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako in limbo

Chiyo Miyako is now in limbo according to the GRG list. What should be done to her in this article. White Background colour represents deceased people and green for living people. Should we create a new background colour for those in limbo ?

PrithviMS (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Her article should not be touched. It is a BLP violation to indicate that someone recently known to be alive has died without a reliable source. The same applies to her status in this article, because there is a link to her article and her article would still have her as living. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Chiyo Miyako has been removed just because she went into limbo. We know for a fact that she made it to her 116th birthday, so shouldn't she still be on this list? The only problem is that we don't know her exact position in the list. PrithviMS (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. There are multiple violations of ARBCOM sanctions on this topic. I will be dealing with these when I get back from work in about 10 hours. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
A link would help, if you have it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean a link to Miyako's 116th birthday? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
To the GRG putting her in that category is originally what I meant, though this seems resolved now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any news articles or reliable sources saying that GRG moved Chiyo Miyako to limbo. If this is just based on a GRG table, doesn't it need more backing up to remove Chiyo Miyako from this list? JasonPhelps (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes it does! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ: It has always bothered me in general that we rely on GRG so much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Japan's health ministry has announced her death. [6]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Nabi Tajima's place of residence (Japan) should not be hyperlinked, as she is not the eldest (first) person on the list who has Japan as their place of residence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DHLister (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Don Celino born 26 JUL 1896 should be the oldes living person currently

I can't find this person on wikipedia. Many he sholud be added? 8 April 2018 Born in 1896 and still going: meet the world's oldest man (probably)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersoonasd (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing number between 15 and 16

On 5 December 2018 there was a blank numerical reference for list of oldest men between #15and #16. Gustav Guerther from Germany is between 15 amd 16 on the ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.47.140.187 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A note on top of the men's table says: "Unranked entries have not been validated by the GRG, which only publishes recent cases above 112 years old." — JFG talk 01:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Verification standards and sources

Today I added some people to the list of men, taken from our list of 10 oldest living men, and accompanied by recent reliable sources. I was reverted by TFBCT1, who stated that Only those "verified by modern standards, not just reliably sourced can appear on a "verified" list. This was thoroughly discussed and determined over 1 year ago and coincides with the womens list. That sounds like a fair enough standard for inclusion, but could we please see what exactly are those "modern standards" and discuss which sources can be considered valid? A pointer to the "over 1 year ago" discussion would also be helpful. — JFG talk 16:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Until we can determine precise rules as to who can be considered "verified", I suggest adding the relevant living people again, without a ranking, as seems to be the practice on several national lists of supercentenarians. — JFG talk 16:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Note also that the article currently does not define the verification criteria. Those should be added and sourced, otherwise readers can't guess the meaning of "validated by modern standards". — JFG talk 16:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
TFBCT1 is quite correct. "Verified by modern standards" essentially means validated by an organisation specialising in extreme age validation, the only one of which publishes regular updates is the GRG (Guinness using that same data for the most part). To use only WP:RS as a requirement means that almost every entry in Longevity claims (whiuch is not even close to being a comprehensive list) and many from Longevity myths meets the criteria. Trying to make a list including all such entries would not only take an extremely long time, the result would be encyclopedically meaningless. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
We have determined who can be verified, you just weren't around. Also, you've deleted the appropriate pages to go back and look at the discussions- they were on the "list of the oldest verified people" and "The list of the oldest verified men" which no longer exist. A body that can verify must be one primarily dedicated to age verification, such as Guinness World Records or the Gerontology Research Group. We cannot add those individuals back because it violates prior consensus. It also creates an inconsistency in criteria for inclusion between the mens list and the womens list. If you will not accept this clear information from me, check with DerbyCountyinNZ who was key in making these determinations.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Note that articles were merged, not deleted, so that all prior discussions are still available. Looking for the discussion you alluded to, I found this relevant thread in the archives: Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 16#Magdalena Oliver Gabarro. Editors were discussing the discrepancy between the men and women list, and DerbyCountyinNZ remarked that the GRG only verifies people above 112. This creates an imbalance between men and women, because all the 100 oldest women are above 114 years old, whereas the 100 oldest men are mostly under 112 (60% at current count). Consequently we cannot possibly track the 100 oldest men by relying only on GRG data, and we should accept other sources. I'm not familiar with criteria used by Guinness World Records: do they track the 100 oldest men somewhere? — JFG talk 17:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I suspect that the reason the GRG now only publishes ages from 112 is due to lack of resources/funding as they previously published 110+ then more recently 111+. For this and many other reasons, it is regrettable that there are no other comparable organisations. It is unfortunate that this creates a discrepancy between the frequency which men are "validated" as opposed to women. Either we put up with it, as with the discrepancy between the oldest ever and oldest living lists due to the different criteria or we ignore any criteria except RS with the major problem that would ensue. I believe that Guinness no longer does its own research, except possibly in very rare cases, and doubt they maintain any sort of list independent of what the the GRG publishes. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with everything DerbyCountyinNZ has said. And please note that it was also brought up at that time that for reasons of "consistency," we cannot maintain separate standards of inclusion for the mens list and the womens list. Thanks.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I have made a note in the list of men, to explain why some of them are not ranked. That takes care of the discrepancy while being as informative as we can for our readers. — JFG talk 18:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
You cannot make these edits without consensus regarding verification which DebyCountyinNZ has already pointed out "major problems will ensue." You also cannot maintain a separate set of standards for the mens and womens lists which has already been previously pointed out to you and was voted by consensus. These lists are not as the country list criteria, perhaps that is causing the confusion here.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not see any clear consensus in the archived discussions I have perused. Could you kindly point me to the relevant RfC, if any? In any case, we have to address the issue that GRG and GWR no longer provide any data for men under 112. That alone is enough justification to use different criteria for men as for women. I am totally open to debating what these criteria should be and which sources we should accept. — JFG talk 19:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a lengthy discussion between myself, DerbyCountyinNZ, CanadienPaul and others. Check through all the longevity pages. It was determined no "unverified" enrties on either list per the multiple problems DerbyCountyinNZ has already pointed out to you regarding longevity myths- Shivakumara Swami is a prime example- his age is not universally excepted. And it was also determined that mens and womens lists would not be subject to alternate criteria for inclusion. There is no alternate resource for age verification then what has been presented to you. I belive the discussion is under "Oldest living people."I am going to revert your non-complying edits.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the mass removal of sourced data as vandalism. If it happens again we can start discussing sanctions. This goes back years - GRG people insist that only people the "verify" belong on these lists making the lists and Wikipedia a GRG hosting service. In this one topic area we are told to throw out all the normal WP:RS rules and rely 100% on the GRG tables, whichthemselves have no stated sources. Various editors ended up topic banned for pushing this GRG only narrative. TFBC1 is well aware of the discussions and history. The deal remains that we follow Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and that GRG is one RS we can use. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

...but so is... Georgia guy (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG, DerbyCountyinNZ, Legacypac Even when I am very definitely correct, I am made out to be a villain. I receive no backup from other editors who have implemented the policies I am defending. So, you all get your wish, I'm leaving the topic of longevity after 12 1/2 years. I will no longer be updating all tables on a daily basis I have done for the past 4,575 days. I'm tired and I'm done.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: Nobody called you a villain, and I would be sad to see you go. WP:Consensus can change, and we need all competent voices to express themselves, so that we can converge on the best path for the benefit of our readers. — JFG talk 19:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG, please add missing footnotes for Gustav Gerneth's place of birth found on Oldest People page and Shivakumara Swami's found on his bio page and Zhou Youguang's found on his bio page, then re-letter all footnotes accordingly. Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Conrad Johnson, born Kymbo, Vastergotland, Sweden, died Rockford, Illinois, U.S.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done, except for Zhou Youguang, who was born and died in China; political regimes changed, but the city he came from did not swing between rival powers as was the case with Stettin or Magadi. — JFG talk 01:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG (And apolgies to TFBCT1, this discussion started as I left for work and I cannot (or should not) edit Wiki at work) You should not have made the changes to t he criteria for this article without gaining consensus. One of the reasons the Wikipedia:WikiProject Longevity was started was to ensure that there would be appropriate consensus for each article under its scope. The current consensus for this article, as TFBCT1 has mentioned, and also in part stated at the top of the article, is that every entry has had their age validated by modern standards by an independent organisation specialising in longevity research. By making ad hoc changes and introducing exceptions you have ignored and implicitly changed one of the key criteria for the article and opened it up to a serious potential problem: there is currently no criteria for the article which defines an upper limit, this being unnecessary while the criteria was only for validated people. By making exceptions for a few any editor is now free to add any man, living or dead, who meets the same criteria. The appropriate course of action should be to revert your changes, seek consensus for the changes you wish to make and THEN make the changes. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If only GRG verified people are to be included, ignoring all other RS (something I disagree with) and GRG does not bother with verifying anyone under age 112, than we need to trim out everyone who has not reached 112. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The reasons for this have been explained multiple times elsewhere. Whatever the criteria used should be based on consensus, and the changes made by JFG are not in line with the current consensus. If people want to change that then it should be agreed by consensus FIRST. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ: Could you point me to the RfC that materialized the consensus, if any? I did not find it when perusing the archives. — JFG talk 22:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There was no RFC, it was not needed. When I have time I will have a look for the relevant discussions, some of which will probably be elsewhere including Talk:Oldest people, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. In any case, the first sentence at the top of the article defines the inclousion criteria and your additions do not meet that criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand your point. The problem is that the first sentence talks about "modern validation standards" but does not define what these standards are, nor does it specify who adjudicates verified cases (apparently only the GRG). Note as well that "verification" has a totally different meaning in Wikipedia, namely that any statement can be WP:Verified by readers simply by checking the cited sources. Unfortunately, the introduction to this article arbitrarily makes Wikipedia fully dependent on the GRG, and the GRG has stopped validating people under 112. We as encyclopedists need to address this issue, which is obscuring the topic for our readers. My additions to the list of men are admittedly a stopgap until a better approach is developed by the community. A new RfC is in order. — JFG talk 23:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
In which case you should revert your changes until the RFC has reached a consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I won't revert that, because I haven't seen the discussion(s) that established the consensus you are talking about, and because I put readers over process. Instead of fighting this, let's work on fair and transparent inclusion criteria. — JFG talk 10:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm certainly no expert in this field, but I believe this discussion is dependent on the interpretation of what is a "reliable source", where do they source their information and the verifiability of that information. An example might be the "reliable source" that allows Maria Vikentyevna Kononovich to be listed in the 100 oldest living people. That page shows an old lady, but one that in my opinion is, judging by other photos of supercentenarians, an obviously non 110+ woman. I know this could be a subjective perception of the photos, but it should reopen the discussion into which sites/sources can be described as reliable. MattSucci (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Among supercentenarians, some look good, some look bad, and this babushka certainly is in the good-looking group. That subjective impression says nothing about the validity of her age. Sadly, nobody from the GRG or GWR has stepped into Eastern Europe, which explains why nobody from Russia or other former Soviet states is listed as verified. As encyclopedists, we need to work with the material that is available. Today I found a more recent, independent report about this woman, so it refreshes last year's source. If/when more people from this part of the world are "discovered", we'll report on them, with the usual caveats about likelihood and verification. — JFG talk 22:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Verified by modern standards" seems to mean GRG verified, yet they have had to unverify some cases. Now the "gold standard verified" with more sources than any other case, world record holder is looking like a fraud. So what are the standards exactly? Maybe we should fall back on normal Reliable Sources, and add a healthy dose of skepicism wording to everything. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree that this verification is solely based on GRG standard is not right. (unless they are sponsors of wiki, j/k). I added Zhou youguang cases a while back but was removed. (now, someone else added it back). I even emailed GRG and they gave the same reason because they can't verify with their standard while there are significant evidence that Zhou does live that long. Statistically, with Chinese 1.3 Billion people (largest % of total earth population), it is almost impossible that no Chinese is in the list before Zhou. The same thing should apply to Indian. If there are proper documents available and can be accepted by major press or government, those should be listed as verified or at least list as not verified by GRG but verified by other reliable resources with good reputation until strong evidence challenge it. Not every developing country has super high standard birth certification notarized 100 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Separation of genders

Was this discussed? I for one don't care for it. Bkatcher (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes: see above #Merge lists of men and women, from which discussion the #Updated proposal was implemented. — JFG talk 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-verified men on male list

While I accept the imclusion of living but non-GRG verified people on these lists, we should not be including the claims of those deceased people whose claims are not "validated by modern standards." It makes a complete mockery of the lists to have those unranked deceased men here, even if GRG doesn't consider claims of people under 112. (And, by the way, is this "policy" of GRG in fact a real policy?)

What are we to do now? Go back and find old claimants who might appear on this list if we need not worry about modern-standard verification for under-112s? Or do we only do so for the supposed cut-off date from when GRG stopped validating these claims? Bottom line is we can't have a different criteria for men who lived long enough to make this list but not to 112 when their age might be considered for verification. What happens when one guy who lives to 112 and 1 day doesn't make it, but would have if he had died two days earlier? It seems completely arbritary. Canada Jack (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

And I notice there is a claimant here who died on his 112th birthday earlier this month whose claim has not been verified. Why is he here? What ad hoc rule has been applied to include him? Canada Jack (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The situation is indeed delicate. We can only include whatever information is available from reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition. It appears that the GRG has thoroughly researched and documented all supercentenarian claims for people who died before 2015, so we have no problem there. Since then, several people have noticed that GRG only checks claims of people aged 112 and above, although I could not find any published GRG policy stating that fact; it just so happens that their more recent lists do exhibit this arbitrary cut-off age. This is not an issue for the 100 oldest women, because they are all over 114 years old, but this has created an information vacuum for the 100 oldest men. Editors have been adding some men who died since 2015 under 112, or barely over 112 but not yet validated by GRG. Some cases from India and China will probably never be validated by the GRG, which does not seem to perform any serious research in those countries. Bottom line, Wikipedia is not GRG-pedia, and where information is missing from GRG for their own reasons, we turn to other credible sources. — JFG talk 22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with JGF. We could also raise the cut off age to 112 which would help get rid of some of the harder to validate cases. If someone is not in the top 50 who really cares? Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a good idea per WP:NPOV, the number of men and women should be equal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Why? Woman generally live longer and therefore dominate the oldest list. We could also trim the woman's list if you wamt "equality". If no organization is bothering to verify men under 112 why are we bothered trying to list them? Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Right. Keep both lists at 100 per recent consensus. We just need to find more sources. — JFG talk 00:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
We can't have different criteria for men than for women. While it is fine for us to show living people if they have been reported by a reliable source, the same is not true for the deceased. So to add other claimants - even if unranked - means we are not accepting the "modern standards" criteria anymore. GRG uses that standard, and is one of the very few who do, but to dismiss that standard would mean we accept ANY claim that hasn't been specifically debunked. Even if a claim is pre-2015 (which as is admitted above, is only a reflection of GRG's presumed start of their 112-plus policy, we've not seen this "policy" confirmed), why not dig up all the rest of the non-confirmed cases from the past? Am I the only one who sees the mess this will create - is creating? Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
As I have pointed out so often to no avail (to the point where it is really starting to get boring), there has been no consensus to make this change (to interspersing unvalidated and validated entries). \There are clearly those who wish to have no distinction at all between (e.g. GRG) validation/verification and any WP:RS, and others who are merely intent on removing any and every GRG influence from the subject throughout Wiki, and still others whose only interest is in pedantically following a selection of policies and guidelines. And as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, if that (all RS are equal) is the eventual consensus then it should be applied throughout the topic: in other words a merge is required between this article, Longevity claims and possibly even Longevity myths. Assessing individual entries for reliability would not only take an extremely long time but would also result in as bad a bias as putting the GRG above all other RS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
And, again, why is George Feldman, who died recently on his 112th birthday but whose claim has not been verified by GRG, on this list? Since when do we include claimants who might eventually be verified? Canada Jack (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The basic problem is this animus towards GRG. But this animus ignores the fundamental empirical problem with claims of the extremely aged - ages are routinely inaccurate and often inflated, as decades of research on the subject has demonstrated. Hell, even the claimant for the oldest verified person now has some doubt in her case. So, to simply allow ANY RS ignores the issues that entails - most media organizations have ZERO expertise in assessing these claims, even in realizing it's not a matter of simply seeing a birth certificate, which is why a great many of these media sources defer to the expertise of Guinness - or GRG - in reporting a superlative like "world's oldest person."
But recognizing that there is a role for RS here, the consensus seems to have emerged that we report the living claimants who are younger than the person recognized as the oldest by Guinness, etc., but that until those claims have been verified by the experts in the field, once deceased, they should not appear on the lists. If the GRG no longer assesses claims under 112, it's no solution to plonk down any unverified deceased person (man) who might otherwise be on this list if verified. As these claims, almost by definition, are not verified to modern standards.
Logically, therefore, George Feldman, who died at age 112 but has not had his claim verified to these standards, should be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Biographies.

Can anyone now add a biography of dead/living people to this "list"? MattSucci (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the biographies section. Those belong in the person's article, not here. Bkatcher (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The biography of Aarne Arvonen was merged here recently following AfD of his own article, where there was consensus to merge. I have restored it. It's probably fine to add mini-bios of other people if they have gathered some notability beyond just making the list of oldest people. Some of these people have mini-bios on their national lists, e.g. List of Japanese supercentenarians, List of American supercentenarians or List of Italian supercentenarians. Arvonen did not fit in any of those, because he is "too young" for the List of European supercentenarians. That is the case for many men, because national lists with mixed-gender are heavily dominated by women, who live on average a few years longer. — JFG talk 09:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
He's one of a hundred people on a list, I don't see how he warrants three paragraphs when no one else does. Bkatcher (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
That is because 1) editors at the AfD about his article reached consensus that he had some notability other than his age, but not enough to keep a full article, hence the merge; 2) other people higher on the list who had some notability either have their own article or have a mini-bio in their national list. I would welcome the inclusion of other mini-bios here, especially about men who were "too young" to be on a national list. — JFG talk 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
An AfD on one page doesn't mean a green light to include info on another page. This biography looks very out of place and any casual reader wouod ask the question, "What's so special about this guy that he gets a bio?" Canada Jack (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the List of Finnish supercentenarians was restored, so I moved Arvonen's mini-bio there. All is well that ends well. — JFG talk 22:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
That reminds me to AfD the Finnish list Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Masazo Nonaka

I can't edit myself... https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/01/20/national/masazo-nonaka-worlds-oldest-living-man-dies-113-hokkaido/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcl0nel (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The list has been updated already, he is no longer listed as alive. Jacenty359 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding age "as of"

Hello. I removed both instances of the—incorrectly used—disclaimer template regarding a claimant's age. The fact that a living person continues to age is implied and shouldn't be too difficult to understand. Green color-coded cells serve their purpose in indicating a claimant is still alive and thus continues to grow older day-by-day (surprise). It should also speak for itself that the ages shown for living claimants are their current ages (unless noted otherwise—in which case they're dead).

It appears this unnecessary and completely superfluous information was first added without pior discussion and consensus in August 2015. Since then, its inclusion has been contested at least twice with arguments same as my own. Before you object, try to imagine whether anyone has ever truly benefited from this arbitrary reminder that living people continue to age whereas deceased people do not. If you yourself had difficulty wrapping your head around this equation until this kind-of-but-not-really disclaimer cleared it all up, then I'm sorry, but I have some bad news.

Mostly importantly, to claim this reminder is necessary because of timezone differences is of no importance and essentially a non-argument, since ages aren't calculated from a living person's timezone and thus always slightly incorrect.

Take care. Jay D. Easy (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Rvt. above unauthorized change for reasons of consistency. There are multiple other similar tables which use the identical template. From my understanding the purpose of this template has never been to clarify who's living and who's deceased, but to clarify what today's date is.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: you're amazing. So if the template's purpose is to clarify today's date... that begs the question why on earth today's date needs to be shown in this particular article in the first place. Wouldn't calendar date or time be better suited articles? Or is this a trend I've been missing out on? I visit a large amount of articles on different subjects on a daily basis, but I haven't come across one yet that displays today's date. (Apart from the aforementioned pages.)
It's fair to assume most people have access to a calendar one way or another. (I heard a rumor that most phones and computers these days display the current date as well—I'll have to look into that.) I can also imagine there's a small percentage of people not aware of today's date. I'm inclined to assume that List of the verified oldest people on the English-language Wikipedia isn't their go-to source for date-checking. I'd wager money and say that in the entire short history of the disclaimer's inclusion on this page, no one's used it to check up on today's date. (Unless that person is you—in that case seek help.)
Your argument holds no water. One can be entirely consistent and still be entirely wrong, since consistency is indifferent to truth, and the truth is that this misguided attempt of yours at maintaining a bad status quo is part of a larger problem. Not only is it completely misguided, it's also insulting to readers' intelligence. The fact that you argue for the sake of consistency and state that—as far as you know—the template's only function is to display today's date tells me you're grasping at straws and that you yourself cannot even come up with a valid reason for its continued inclusion.
I have taken note of the fact that you are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) contributors to this page. I mean it when I say that your diligence deserves praise. Yet I also feel like I should warn you not to let any type of emotional attachment cloud your ability to see reason. Jay D. Easy (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is no justification for inclusion of this, even the implicit guidelines used throughout Wikipedia to pander to those of below average intelligence are no justification for stating the blatantly obvious. Without looking at who made the edit in the first place and those that argued for its retention I would assume they are a) editor(s) blocked or topic banned from longevity b) editor(S) who hasn't contributed to this page, or even Wikipedia, for years c) editors who only pop up in longevity-related discussions or d) TFBCT1 who has used "consistency" as an argument before as if that trumps WP:CONSENSUS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not a big deal. I'm fine with stating either "as of today" or keeping the full date. @Jay D. Easy: Your point would be more persuasive without the personal attacks against TFBCT1. Please be respectful and cut the sarcasm. — JFG talk 09:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not highly concerned about this issue. I reverted the edit because at that time there was no consensus to remove it, it had been used for three and a half years without contention and appeared to be part of a template. The notation also is the only clear indicator as to "what today's date is" in reference to age. However, if there is a consensus to remove the notation, so be it, but don't just remove it from one table. Remove it from all the longevity tables using this notation for matters of consistency. It's haphazard to make the determination to do it for one, but not the others.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
As there is consensus here that this should not be used, and for the sake of consistency, it should be removed from all similar longevity-related lists. I'm happy to do them as I find them but won't be actively scouring articles for them. I see that Jay D. Easy has started already. Thumbs up icon DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, figured I'd let this simmer for a bit before hitting all articles in one swoop. Jay D. Easy (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This is fine, thanks. — JFG talk 10:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge lists of men and women

There is strong overlap between this list and List of the verified oldest women (94 out of 100), given that only 6 men are on the list of 100 oldest people. Therefore I would suggest merging both lists by gender into this one, with a dedicated section for men, to be lifted from List of the verified oldest men. In the main list of oldest people, we could list the ranking by gender in a separate column, and prolong the global list to match the top 100 females (that would take it to 106 entries). — JFG talk 06:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of extending any list beyond 100 entries. If anything, they should be pared back, since very few entries are notable beyond their age and it doesn't take very many entries to inform readers. Wikipedia is not a directory of old people and allowing so many entries means living people all too frequently come onto the list, which in turn leads to some unscrupulous people treating longevity as a contest, which contributes to the fancruft problem that has plagued this whole project for over a decade. Wikipedia is also currently acting as a free WP:WEBHOST for the GRG's data, which should be reduced as much as possible. All that said, I would support a three way list merge that created two lists in one article. A 50 person list of the worlds oldest people (including both genders - presently 47w;3m) and a 25 person list of the oldest men. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I strongly support a merge and have supported it for years. A list of a 100 most "anything" humans is fraught with unavoidable errors and very mislieadinfg to our readers. The absence of any Chinese , Indians, Arabs and Africans etc is a huge clue we don't really have the top 100 oldest. Even if we note poor research or records means we exclude large parts of the world population, we are surely missing many people in first world countries who are older then some of the 100 listed because no one gets excited enough to start writing in RS about people who are years away from breaking a record and statistically highly unlikely to break a record. We also have the problem that everyone who lived before some date not too long ago is completely missing because no one bothered to or could realistically track and centralize data on really old people. GRG really only covers a limited part of the world population and we have almost no way to verifiy their work except for RS that mention the top few names. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your statement, Legacypac. Do you support making other changes, such as reducing the size of the merged lists? The chance for fewer errors is another benefit of shorter, more focused lists. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: We should definitely place some caveats in the prose to explain the inherent bias in statistics, due to varying degrees of research applied in different countries, especially the bias towards countries which happened to keep accurate birth records more than 100 years ago and managed to preserve them to this day. This naturally excludes a lot of the world's probable supercentenarians, who will never be "verified according to modern standards". We should also define what these "modern standards" are, with reference to sources describing them. — JFG talk 11:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Newshunter12: I have no problem keeping 100 entries on the global list; we should rather pare down the lists by country to 50 individuals. Taking into account prior remarks, and the reality of statistics, I would keep only a non-gendered list of the oldest 100 people and a list of the oldest 50 men. That would place the cutoff age at roughly 114 years and 100 days for all people, and roughly 111 years and 200 days for men only. I feel that keeping only 25 people would not do justice to the topic, and would only encourage interested readers to expand the lists again. — JFG talk 11:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been a contentious area so I suggest we deal with the merge of three pages to one, removing the oldest woman list as redundant and listing the men below the combined list. We can head the combined list with some prose saying nearly all the oldest people are female so presenting a seperate list would be redundent.

Seperately, we propose to trim the country/region lists to 50 names. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This is NOT a new idea. It has been suggested before and shot down before because in essence a merge of the lists eliminates the mens list. I will also not support a reduction in the number of entries at "100" which this list has had for over 15 years.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. The entries on this list should remain at 100, not be reduced. The country lists should also stay at 100, being consistent with this list and the oldest living people list. RightGot (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Since you, JFG and Legacypac, both support at least initially keeping the worlds oldest lists to 100, that is what I support as well. We can deal with the number of entries on the various lists separately at another time. Just getting these three lists merged into one article while dropping the woman list as redundant with language to that effect on the combined list would be an important step forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Newshunter12. Let's do that, and once everything is organized it'll be easier to determine whether it's optimal to find a different number. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I am against any merge per the concern above that it would essentially get rid of most if not all of the men. Why would we go down to 50 when 100 has worked? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87 please reread the proposal. We would be keeping the list of men, but merging the pages. So there would be a list of 100 oldest people (about 94 woman and 6 men) and then the 100 oldest men list. The only names being dropped would be the 94-100 oldest listed woman and we know that there is no way they are really the 94-100th oldest woman due to large areas of the world without data collection. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I am against any merge. Delete the 100 oldest people list and just keep the lists for 100 oldest women and 100 oldest men. Crveni5 (talk)

I agree. This list is a duplicate of the information shown in the other two lists. Delete this list and there will be no need to merge any articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.128.90 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Updated proposal

From the comments above, there is no consensus to trim down any of the lists, but there is significant support for avoiding duplication among the current three lists proposed for merger. Therefore I would suggest the following course of action:

  • Keep only this page (List of the verified oldest people), divided into two sections: one for the 100 oldest women, another for the 100 oldest men.
  • Get rid of the mixed-gender list, which is 94% duplication of information in the women list.
  • Redirect the pages about men and women to the appropriate sections on this list.

Participants @Crveni5, Knowledgekid87, Legacypac, Newshunter12, RightGot, TFBCT1, and The Blade of the Northern Lights: please state your support or opposition to this plan. — JFG talk 08:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Merged — JFG talk 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Post merge discussion

Yes, it's done today. And now I have no way to indicate that Maria Giuseppa Robucci's lifespan is equal to Christian Mortensen's for November 27, 2018. Poor implementation.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Use your mouse to scroll down to the men's section then back to the women's and you will see that for one day they share the same age, and surely it's no big deal, as the positives, IMHO, greatly outweigh the negatives,MattSucci (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What gives the user the inclination to even do what you are suggesting? That information should be made readily available to the user and easily identifiable as it has been in the past, not something they need to search for. As for the inherent positives or negatives to this merge, the United States is only one of 25 countries to change to this format, that should tell you something.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Age is not a contest, TFBCT1. What you are complaining about is not an encyclopedically important point, but a fancruft wish. You also didn't show up to support or oppose the new format at voting time after being notified, so I don't really see a basis for you to complain about the change either. You didn't care about supporting the previous status-quo when it actually mattered. I would also point out that your bitterness and negativity towards any changes to the longevity project on Wikipedia brings down the morale of other editors, and might recommend that you choose to leave the topic area if you truly find it so distasteful. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Newshunter12The list is called the top 100 verified people(which it no longer is) and is associated with corresponding ranks which are updated on a daily basis by all 25 countries who maintain this wiki page. It is not a contest; it is pure encyclopedic, factual information as viewed by all 25 countries. I'm sorry you don't see it that way. And, yes, the U.S. page is now lacking. Not that I have to explain myself to you, but I did not participate in this proposal, because like others it is highly canvassed by like-minded editors and to participate would be comparable to "beating a dead horse." I would suggest you keep your personal opinions to yourself. You are often childlike and reactive and your rants serve no purpose. And surely you kid that I leave this topic that I've been contributing to for 13 years with the utter lack of general knowledge regarding longevity and gerontology of this current group of editors?TFBCT1 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The list is called List of the verified oldest people not the top 100 verified people amd as a regular editor of the page I'm surprised you don't know the name of the page. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@TFBCT1: While most people appreciate your diligent updates to various lists, you should beware of a tendency to WP:OWN those pages. Adopting an antagonistic tone doesn't help; please refrain from calling your fellow editors "childlike" or other condescending epithets. — JFG talk 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
JFG. May I remind you that you have no ability to determine what my tone is. May I also remind you to "mind your own business" and be concerned only with your own personal accountability when addressing other users. And for the record, I have never described any user as childish, only their provoking behavior as childlike. Also, I'm far from alone thinking this merge was purposeless and lacking.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been the only one perceiving your writings as antagonistic. But carry on. — JFG talk 01:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why was done this awful merge?? The good useful article which provided me gerontological information is now reduced to senseless page. Very very pity...Levgr (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No information was lost in the merge, and prior lists of men and women are redirected to both sections here. — JFG talk 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Is that a vote to delete the entire senseless page? Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a vote to restore the prior list.Levgr (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG, DerbyCountyinNZ, Legacypac Even when I am very definitely correct, I am made out to be a villain. I receive no backup from other editors who have implemented the policies I am defending. So, you all get your wish, I'm leaving the topic of longevity after 12 1/2 years. I will no longer be updating all tables on a daily basis I have done for the past 4,575 days. I'm tired and I'm done.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not have three lists: oldest people, oldest women, oldest men. There are valid reasons to want each of the three. I have been following this list for over 10 years and I'm disappointed that now I can't simply look at the list and see the real ranking of the oldest people. Have all three lists and everybody is happy. Makes sense to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackinnyc (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 December 2018(UTC)

+1.Levgr (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's now impossible to, at a glance, work out where the men fit in the overall list (for the very few old enough to be among the 100 oldest people). If this change is written in stone, a column added to indicate where each person would place in a "merged" list would have value. That way we'd know the 100th oldest man (at the moment, Lloyd Myers) is ranked 1018 overall ... (which is a strong argument for going back to a merged list, but I digress ... ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHLister (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should try to implement this idea. Benica11 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Would it not be possible to add a column in both tables giving the person's ranking in the overall gender-merged list? It would only be populated for those who are in the top 100 overall, but that would still solve the problem, no? I don't know how hard that would be to maintain, because I don't know what back-end tools exist here to keep tables consistent, but if it is practical then it seems like a simple solution. Also, can the utterly broken rankings of the men's table be fixed?

162.250.208.94 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Isn't it a bit premature to characterize Jeanne Clament's status as oldest verified person as disputed? One study that presents mostly just inconsistencies in an undeniably old person's statements that has been out for a month and hasn't had the chance to be further considered by the gerontological field is hardly evidence. Certainly worth being considered by the experts and will hopefully be explored but not really to the point of reclassifying a previously verified claim as contested. Should other experts in the field concur that the study has merit and deserves further investigation sure, especially since motivated identity theft is a lot more likely than such a statistical anomaly, but until then its jumping the gun. For now its a conspiracy theory with plausibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.203.103 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This case shows the serious flaws of "verification" and the new information sure seems more credible than the verifications. It is fair to note the question exists. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's why the hypothesis is only a footnote at this stage. — JFG talk 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This nonsensical article by two Russians, one of whom isn't even qualified in studying supercenteniarns, has itself been widely disputed and frankly debunked. The Russians have a lot of room to talk about fraud when their country, under the old USSR, peddled fabrications of very old people in Azerbaijan in order to prove a propagandistic point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.30.118 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The entry shouldn't have a footnote at all as it is supported by one source with no third party backing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The research behind this is better/more credible than the "verification" of the claim. There are several additional sources that support that the extreme age is a fraud. One is a book on insurance. Another source is an analysis of the Russian researchers work. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
"More credible"? No it isn't. It is one study by an organisation with an extremely limited history of international research, whose aim seems to have been to look for a means to discredit the Calment case (rather than a more scientifically appropriate, open-ended, re-investigation of the case) which has come up with a speculative hypothesis based on circumstantial evidence only. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
What "additional sources"? Name them by name. There aren't any with any credibility whatsoever. There have never have been until this nonsensical article by the two Russians came out recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.30.118 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Please sign your posts. Use 4 ~`s if you're not signed in. Also use multiple colons to indent when commenting on the same thread. Peer reviewed work is by definition not "nonsensical". But I also doubt that Legacypac is qualified to comment authoritatively on this subject. We shouldn't change the article, imho, until a sufficient time is given to respond to/defend the original conclusion. "Disputes" should be understood to be noteworthy only if a "substantial" fraction of the expert community agrees they have merit. It's too early to make that determination about Jeanne's age, imho.72.16.99.93 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Will there ever be a point when Calment's claim will not longer be "disputed" as defined for the purpose of this list? If so, what criteria will we use to know when it has been settled? I'm currently unclear myself which side to take, but we all know there will be doubters and conspiracy theorists no matter how much evidence there is for her age or how debunked the identity theft theory is (if it is disproved). The Vital One (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The short answer is it depends on the mainstream and the spectrum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The peer-reviewed paper detailing the evidence that Jeanne Calment may not have reached 122 is now out. The citation is Rejuvenation Research 22(1):3-12. I'm the journal's editor; the paper is in the process of being made open access but in the meantime anyone is welcome to contact me at aubrey@sens.org for a copy. 162.250.208.94 (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

James C. Vickers

An article was recently created for James C. Vickers, a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. It doesn't have any sources, however, it shows he was 122 when he died. Is there any way to verify that? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You said it: find sources. Meanwhile the article has been deleted. — JFG talk 10:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nabi Tajima

BHB95 has changed the colour status of Nabi Tajima to show her as 'Disputed' in this recent edit. There is no note on the table showing why her status is disputed and the edit note is not terribly informative (at least to me). I don't have a problem with the status of anyone on the table being disputed but I'd suggest it needs to be done a bit more rigorously than this. Oska (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted it. It is at best ignorant, at worst disruptive. Quoting an outdated table cannot be considered reliable. There needs to be a reliable source which disputes her age. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion in List of the oldest living people but not here

Perhaps there's some hidden criterion, but it's confusing that there are people on List of the oldest living people who would appear old enough to make this list, but who are not listed here. Specifically, Jeanne Bot is #7 on List of the oldest living people, and appears on this list as well (as of today), but there are two others older than her (Kononovich and Kidd) who are apparently still alive, but who are not here. Perhaps they are not "alive enough" (e.g. they haven't been verified again since reaching the top 100)? I'm not necessarily suggesting that they be added here, but it would be helpful to have some text in the header explaining how a person can be verified within the last year and old enough to make this list, but still not appear here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.73.7 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The case of Marina Kononovich has not been verified by longevity professionals, and this particular article is the "list of the verified oldest people". Maggie Kidd's age is in dispute, as she may have been born in 1904 or 1905 depending on documents found.[7][8] It's true that there is confusion around the meaning of "verified", which is not WP:Verifiability but rather verification of plausibility by longevity experts. — JFG talk 09:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

I recently added Józef Kowalski to the list of oldest men, with appropriate sourcing,[9] and was reverted by BHB95, who stated "his claimed age may be false. He was never recognized as the oldest living man after Jiroemon Kimura's death."[10] I don't think the fact that Guinness or GRG did not recognize him as the world's oldest man should be grounds for removing him; maybe they were just unaware of his existence. Are there any sources that explicitly rebut his purported birth date or life story? — JFG talk 10:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The GRG were certainly aware of him. There was some discussion at Talk:Józef Kowalski (supercentenarian). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to prior discussion. It all hinges on Waclaw Jan Kroczek's resesarch in parish archives, whereby he found 6 brothers and sisters of Józef Kowalski, the latter born in June 1900. As of that discussion in late 2013, birth records for the years 1901 onwards had not yet been found. Józef was nevertheless confirmed as a participant in the 1919–1921 Polish–Soviet War, which fuels speculation that he may have upped his age by a couple years in order to be accepted in the army. Are there any more recent sources (2014–2019) that would lean for or against the Kowalski case? — JFG talk 12:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
For now, I have marked him as disputed, with a footnote. We do need RS sourcing for Kroczek's claims though. — JFG talk 12:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The GRG were clearly aware of Kowalski at the time. Per the guideline: If older than the oldest recognized verified man at the time, you are not given inclusivity, I am removing Józef Kowalski once again. The oldest recognized verified man at the time was Salustiano Sanchez, born 8 June 1901. Józef Kowalski date of birth 2 February 1900. He was older than the oldest recognized verified man.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Which guideline are you referring to? — JFG talk 23:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The guideline is understood. If the GRG/GWR has declared someone as oldest, this cannot be breached by adding someone to the verified list who is than older. This is done to prevent false cases from being added.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. I hope researchers will keep on checking his case, so we can have a definite age. Perhaps he was 111 or 112, instead of 113, so that he would still be on the list of 100 oldest men ever documented. — JFG talk 22:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah

The entry for Lucy Hannah is marked as disputed, and her mini-bio on the U.S. page mentions a potential 1895 birth date, also uncited. Do we have a source for the nature of the dispute? — JFG talk 13:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Boris Pahor, editing problems

Hi, I have some problems with editing. Boris Pahor is still alive, and right now he is the second oldest man in the earth but I have problem with adding him in because of the last date which counts days he lived. Also, his background colour of a row should be green because he is alive as ever

He is not old enough for this list. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello, this is a weird question- i am working with someone who is autistic and he gets really upset when the age of the oldest living person isn’t updated every day. He gets stuck on it all day, making it difficult for him to function. I tried to edit it myself but it is protected. Is it possible to have editing privledges just so i can update the age if no one else has? Thanks! Katiemiterko (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused why we don't just have it automatically count the number of days for living people. Or will locked articles simply not update for anything at all?
As far as I am concerned, it is Georgia guy's fault for edit warring in the first place. This being said, I am very sorry that this has happened. Once the lock ends, I will update to the compromise version that I have created (unless consensus develops otherwise) and that should be it. Rockstonetalk to me! 05:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have been taking care of the updating for the past 13 years pretty religiously. The only times it does’t get done is if it is locked as is presently because of edit warring or content dispute. It likely will not be updated again until after the lock on 1 July 2019.TFBCT1 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This never would have happened if it weren't for Rockstone35's selfishness. He just hates the statement that Jeanne Calment's longevity is disputed, and he wanted it to say that Jeanne Calment's longevity is unambiguously genuine (that is, the recent theory that she actually died in 1934 and that her daughter Yvonne adopted her name and birth year to avoid tax problems is simply fake.) Georgia guy (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Georgia guy: Look, I'm trying very hard to assume good faith. Work with me here to develop a consensus. Just because you think your way is the right way doesn't mean it is. You haven't engaged with me at all and have been incredibly rude. Rockstonetalk to me! 04:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Not first. I have previously been close to taking this user to ARBCOM for violating longevity sanctions. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Has he been unnecessarily rude to you as well? Also, have you brought this to WP:AN/I's attention yet? Rockstonetalk to me! 05:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
No, from memory it was a case of editing longevity pages in a manner which is not acceptable according to ARBCOM. That is a specifically ARBCOM matter, not ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay. If this continues then I think we should bring it to ARBCOM. His behavior is unacceptable (admittedly, my behavior could have been better too. But I'm trying to extend an olive branch and he isn't taking it).Rockstonetalk to me! 06:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
To show my sincerity, I was thinking of this compromise while I was driving to my girlfriend's house, and I hope you will take me up on this offer so we don't have to deal with this constant edit warring. Why not just add a footnote to her name saying that a research paper put her age in dispute; and remove anything else mentioning it? I don't believe sources disputing her age are reliable, but I do acknowledge that the dispute exists. This way we have mention of the dispute without drawing an excessive amount of attention to it. Let me know what you think. Rockstonetalk to me! 04:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a footnote is a better option at this stage. The dispute lacks scientific credibility and should not be given undue weight. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I agree. I think this should satisfy all of us. At least, I really hope Georgia guy agrees that this is appropriate. I would of course be more satisfied with neither footnote nor any mention of the dispute, but I feel like this is a good compromise for all of us. Rockstonetalk to me! 05:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: Doesn't satisfy me. It should be possible to mark any person on this list as 'disputed' if their age has been through a verification process but doubts have been raised over possible faults with that verification or possible fraud. I don't speak only for Calment; we are dealing with a situation of extraordinary claims (very extreme longevity) so the default position should be scepticism and a frank acknowledgement of any concerns raised.
DerbyCountyinNZ's talk about the dispute around Calment "lacking scientific credibility" is scientism, not science. From a statistical viewpoint alone, Calment's purported age being such an extreme outlier gives us cause to give proper notice to coherent hypotheses as to why her age might be an invalid data point. Oska (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
It does lack scientific credibility. However, the compromise should satisfy you too, it will still mark her as being in dispute. Rockstonetalk to me! 14:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: Please stop presuming on other people's behalf, including mine. Your edit does not satisfy me, nor I think, others. You came into this article and made a bold edit. It was reverted. You then continued to revert it back rather than first bringing it to talk. You are just as guilty of edit warring as Georgia Guy. The style of highlighting any individual entry (currently only Calment) in a different colour to clearly show the entry is disputed has been quite long established here and was in itself a compromise (versus removing disputed individuals from the list entirely). You are trying to do away with that and not making a good argument for the change. Oska (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Georgia guy: I created a draft article of my proposed compromise. Please see here. You are welcome to make edits to this draft as you see fit. I hope you will take me up on my offer. Wikipedia only works well if we can build consensus. Otherwise I'll have to bring this to WP:AN/I if we get into an edit war again. There's no need for conflict Rockstonetalk to me! 04:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Georgios Liologlou

I recently made a page about Georgios Liologlou, who as sources claim he was bornt in 1805 and died in 1820, in the age of 115. If its true, hes the top 4th oldest male. Dont think it is that reliable to add to this list though, it is disputed as well, other source says he was bornt in 1819 and died in 1932 in the age of 113 but thats not historically possible as he fought in 1821 for the Greek Independence War. Δημήτρηss (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

He seems notable enough for an article, which is great. And just having him in the longevity claims category is perfect, I'd remove the year of birth category but otherwise things look good. Thanks, always happy for another good addition to this topic! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for the new article. — JFG talk 18:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Her age is not disputed just because two russian men claim that. Is it also disputed that there was a moon landing because some people think the moon landing was faked? Or is it disputed that the earth is a globe? --Lord vom Ork (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reliable source that states the Calment's age is under dispute. There is only an unpublished, unreviewed rambling document claiming inconsistencies.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Is she "verified" or is she disputed? I would have assumed that those two categories are mutually exclusive. If she is disputed, does she belong on this list? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There is only one claim that her age is disputed, and that claim is far less reliable than those that have "verified" her age. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. But, back to my question. She is either "verified" or "disputed", no? And, hence, she either belongs -- or doesn't -- on this page. No? Or perhaps I am missing something? I would have assumed that those two categories are mutually exclusive. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Well according to the info added to her article, her status is disputed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that report any official dispute of her age. The only dispute comes from an unpublishable piece of self-published garbage on researchgate.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am in agreement with you, but the consensus stands at Jeanne Calment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Which is more credible? Someone lived 3 years longer than anyone else (highly improbable!) or someone committed identity fraud (quite common) to cheat on high taxes (also quite common)? The "verification" people just checked cenusus records and listened to the lady. There is nothing scientofically proven about her alleged old age.[1]Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
"The "verification" people just checked cenusus records and listened to the lady. There is nothing scientofically proven about her alleged old age." Your argumentation is ... (if I would write this, I would be banned on Wikipedia). Well, checking records is literally how a verification does work, are you to ... to get that? She is the best documented supercentenarian case! You have no idea of nothing. Sarah Knauss was also two years older than any other supercentenarian, so her case is not true to? What is "scientofically proven" for you? I guess you can't answer this question, because you have no idea of that. --Lord vom Ork (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I see that there are two sections here about this controversy, possibly because "Calment" was misspelled in the title of one of them. I am too newbie here to do more than correct that spelling. As I just noted in the other section, the peer-reviewed paper detailing the evidence that Jeanne Calment may not have reached 122 is now out, so any low opinion that those here may have about the original preprint is now out of date. The citation is Rejuvenation Research 22(1):3-12. I'm the journal's editor; the paper is in the process of being made open access but in the meantime anyone is welcome to contact me at aubrey@sens.org for a copy. 162.250.208.94 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
You need to get a Wikipedia user name. Then it can be easier for other Wikipedians to communicate with you on your edits. Georgia guy (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The article that "disputes" her age starts with a number of bible quotes! There is nothing in this article except the author's opinions and speculations. I don't really see why anybody (in particular journalists) would take this even seriously. How is this even marked as disputed? If you allow this, you have to consider basically everything on wikipedia as disputed. Drzebster (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nationalpost.com/news/world/historys-oldest-woman-a-fraud-theory-says-122-year-old-jeanne-calment-was-actually-a-99-year-old-imposter
Can anyone explain why gerontologists clearly honestly disagree with this theory?? In other words, they're not simply trying to prove it wrong simply because they're against it being true or because they dislike it. Georgia guy (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
There's an extensive rebuttal by Robert Young (somewhere, I can't find it atm). As I've mentioned above the Russian paper lacks scientific credibility, is written by someone with limited Gerontology expertise and appears to be have been written by someone trying to make a name for themselves. That so many anti-gerontology editors, clickbait press journalists and unthinking media types support the theory does not of itself make the paper's claim credible. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


Seeking Consensus

The result of this RFC is that the statement that Jeanne Calment's age is in dispute be removed from this article. Supporters of the proposition argued that the dispute comes from only one source, which is unpublished and probably unreliable, hence should be regarded as WP:FRINGE. Opposition !voters opined that actually the source is reliable, and that there are other sources which have disputed her age since 2000 - but these sources were not presented, so can't be really considered. They also noted that it's at least as plausible that she assumed her mother's identity, as that she lived to 122. That sort of argument can only be used if backed up by reliable sources though, and the evidence wasn't presented regarding that. Overall, with an 8:5 majority and solid source-based arguments, the consensus is to remove.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: JFG, who opposed this proposal, has moved the note about the Calment issue to a footnote, which seems a good idea to me, and I am hereby also endorsing that solution in this close.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the statement that Jeanne Calment's age is in dispute be removed from this article? Rockstonetalk to me! 18:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: When the article's protection expires, I'm going to revert the changes again unless we can develop consensus. In the absence of consensus, we should assume it isn't in dispute. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

  • Support Removal of statement that Jeanne's age is in dispute, as nom. Her age is not in serious dispute and it seems to me that Georgia guy has been doing nothing but demonstrating an ownership of the article and refusing to develop consensus; so I'm seeking consensus here. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
For the record, User:Headbomb stated: "The paper is unpublished. So doubtful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)", when I asked if the paper that purports her age to be false is reliable. See here. Rockstonetalk to me! 04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb only commented on the link you provided. The paper has now been published. It would really help if you made more of an effort to better inform yourself on the matter of Calment rather than misrepresenting the state of affairs through half-knowledge. Oska (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Lord vom Ork made a good point above under Jeanne Calment back in January should the moon landing be considered disputed because of a few conspiracy theorists ? Should we consider it a possibility that the earth is flat because that's what few morons think ? 71.161.233.35 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, Many reliable sources state Jeanne Calment's age of 122 when she died. Extensive research was conducted years ago when Jeanne's age was confirmed of 122 years and some days. For that much research to have been conducted, if there was an inaccuracy, I think they would have found it out long ago. The source stating Jeanne's age being in question is not reliable, and is likely conspiracy and mentioned above. JasonPhelps (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose The article on Jeanne Calment clearly describes her longevity claim as being in dispute and that article was developed through a process of establishment of consensus and a great deal of discussion on the talk pages. This article, as a summary list, should defer to the authority of that article (where the matter has been discussed and worked on in much greater detail). Furthermore, the practice of highlighting individual entries in a different colour to clearly mark them out as disputed was determined by prior consensus here and was a compromise against removing them from the list entirely (a compromise I personally approve of). Oska (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose All supercententenarians are age anomalies. Jeanne Calment is an anomaly among anomalies which is highly statistically improbable. There is now credible research that points to this with a credible alternative. So whatever the case may be her case is clearly in dispute and has been handled appropriately on this page. I also concur with Oska that prior consensus had been reached Fall 2018 and that bold attempts to change this without new consensus repeatedly was out of line.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I concur with everything said above by Oska and TFBCT1. Calment's case is clearly in dispute in the scientific community, whether the GRG and longevity fans like it or not, and has been for years before the Zak paper was published (as described in the Calment article). It just got almost no attention before the Zak paper came out, so those who have a personal, financial, or professional interest in keeping her "record" on the books are trying to use any shortcomings in the Zak paper to claim the whole thing is a hoax and sweep it under the rug to protect their golden calf. The Washington Post article above is colored by the current wave of Russophobia in America - the mindset is just say Russia, point your finger at something inconvenient, and your problems go away. The factual reality is serious doubt in the scientific community about her age has existed for at least 18 years before the Zak paper was published, as described in Calment's Article. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - The paper, while unpublished in a journal, meets our definition of a reliable source. It should be included for now, but if no further discussion takes place in the academic or longevity community (in RS, of course) over a certain period of time (say, a year), the statement should be removed. There are broader issues regarding who is doing the verification of the entries of this list, which I'll lay out below. schetm (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    • A paper that has been rejected and derided multiple times ("All but one of the eight who had examined Zak’s research said they found it lacking, if not outright deficient. The two French gerontologists involved in Calment’s verification also questioned it.") does not meet the definition of a reliable source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." Reliable published sources have said that Calment's age is in dispute or at least presented it as a significant minority viewpoint. Therefore, per WP:RS, the statement should be included for now. It should be revisited if no further discussion is taken. schetm (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Shigechiyo Izumi's age was first disputed by scientists in the 1980's and his validation wasn't withdrawn until 2011. This topic often moves at a glacial pace and this dispute should not be removed from this article until and unless a body exhumation or blood test on her old blood sample prove that the woman who died in 1997 was Jeanne and the woman who died in 1934 was Yvonne. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
          • We can't just have an asterisk indefinitely. That would be a WP:UNDUE violation. It's not up to you or me to determine the tests needed to validify her claim. If reliable sources become silent on the Russian's claim, then we should follow suit. schetm (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
            • Those tests were meant to be informed examples, not me trying to decide for reliable sources how this should play out. The thing is, there hasn't been silence on this topic. The Zak paper came on the scene in Dec 2018. Skipping ahead, there was an update in May about an old blood sample that could solve this dispute if tested and the pulse of the GRG, the 110 club, has an active mega thread about this dispute. There is no indication this is just going away. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
              • I know. That's why my !vote was to oppose for now. If reliable sources stop discussing the Zak paper, then, as I said, an UNDUE violation would be taking place. As long as reliable sources continue to reference the Zak paper, the footnotes, colored charts, and other info should be included. If they cease doing so, or if the paper is proven false or to be less than a "significant minority viewpoint", we should remove it. I recommend that an editor WP:BOLDLY removes the references to the dispute according to the guidelines I've laid out and if another editor objects, we take it back to the talk page. schetm (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
                • If it were two years instead of one, I wouldn't be opposed to that compromise for now, to give science time and prevent a horseracing mentality from setting in. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Like it or not, the controversy about Jeanne Calment's age is now a key part of her notability. The Zak article recently brought this dispute into the limelight, but her record had been contested at least since 2000 by various researchers. An updated version of Zak's paper was published in Rejuvenation Research,[1] a peer-reviewed journal, so we can not call it fringe either. Most everything we know about Calment's life was her self-reporting to researchers in the 1990s, when everybody who could testify independently was already long dead. The census records were also the result of self-reporting, and they have inconsistencies, as Calment's validators themselves have admitted.[a][2] The identity switch theory is just as plausible as the exceptional longevity theory. — JFG talk 11:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Quotes from Calment's age validation report: The census of 1931 was the first to be typewritten. It comprised numerous typing and copying errors and erasures. Calment Fernand, born in 1868, Householder, Merchant; Calment Maria, born in 18xx (1847 erased), Spouse, Having no trade or profession; […] Of course, after Calment Fernand, we should read: Calment Jeanne, born in 1875, Spouse, Having no trade or profession; […] No mention is made of Yvonne Calment, spouse of Joseph Billot, which might be a recopying error. On the basis of Calment's case, authors proceed to specify "a standard for validation of extreme ages", in which criterion #1 is Declaration of the age reached, at age 100 and not at ages above 110: the person must be known to have celebrated her hundredth birthday X years before the declared age of 100 + X. Regarding this point, Jeanne Calment's case is not exemplary since the first articles mentioning the celebration of her birthday date back to 1985, on the occasion of her 110th birthday celebrated at La Maison du Lac (cf. newspaper articles). Fortunately enough, this lack of publicity (of which the authors know the origin) is compensated by the documents of the population census of 1975. When questioned by the press following the controversy, none of the authors has yet bothered to explain why there was no trace of Calment's 100th birthday in her city.

References

  1. ^ Zak, Nikolay (30 January 2019). "Evidence that Jeanne Calment died in 1934, not 1997". Rejuvenation Research. 22: 3–12. doi:10.1089/rej.2018.2167.
  2. ^ Robine, Jean-Marie; Allard, Michel (1999). "Jeanne Calment: Validation of the Duration of Her Life". In Jeune, Bernard; Vaupel, James W. (eds.). Validation of Exceptional Longevity. Odense University Press. ISBN 87-7838-466-4. Retrieved 9 January 2018 – via Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

Discussion

  • Comment I am unhappy with the way Rockstone35 is misrepresenting the principle of achieving consensus to make a significant change in their introductory comments above. The present version of the article, with disputed individuals highlighted in a different colour, was achieved by prior consensus. Rockstone needs to achieve a new consensus to overrule that prior consensus. If they don't get that and go on with their edit warring (by reverting again as they state they are preparing to do once the block has been lifted) then they are working against that prior consensus. Oska (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • You're missing the fact that consensus can change. Can you please link to me the alleged conversation that achieved this consensus regarding coloring Jeanne differently? I see nothing about it. But regardless, just because consensus was achieved, that doesn't mean it will be there forever. Rockstonetalk to me! 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I marked this page as potentially having issues. This, I think, is a fair tag to add until consensus is formed. Can you please link to me the alleged conversation that achieved this consensus regarding coloring Jeanne differently? I see nothing about it. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @Headbomb, @Knowledgekid87 @DerbyCountyinNZ @Canada Jack, @Georgia guy, @Rockstone I would like to add that Robert Young, head of the GRG, has openly stated on the 110 club forum that he's concerned that there would be a body switch if Jeanne Calment's remains were exhumed to verify that she died at age 122 and not age 59. I would encourage all editors to read between the lines on that and think about how confident the "experts" truly are that Calment's record is backed up by more then just a few pieces of paper. Remember, the whole SC validation scheme is built on Calment's case and goes away if her case falls through. As I said in my oppose vote, there are people (not naming anyone in particular) who have a huge financial and professional stake in protecting Calment's record at all costs. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact, for a second, that this is clearly not a 59 year old woman, Wikipedia follows WP:RS, not conspiracy theorists that gain a following on the internet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
No one is claiming that is a 59 year old woman, but if the woman in that photo was a 99-year-old Yvonne as many in the scientific community believe may be the case, then the real Jeanne would have died at age 59. Under an exhumation scenario, both bodies would be exhumed and if one was discovered to be around 59 years old at death, then that would destroy the Calment case. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Then let me clearer: We don't base Wikipedia on unverified speculations and conspiracy theories, no. That's not even WP:OR. That's like... wanting to do WP:OR, and then assuming the outcome, then declaring this as sufficient ground to merit inclusion. That's now how WP:DUE works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
There are a great many verifiable reliable sources over at least nearly the last 20 years disputing the validity of the Calment case. This didn't start with the Zak paper, which only brought more attention to the dispute and helped shed light on potential motives for a switch and actions that line up with a switch scenario. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Likewise there are a great many deal of verifiable sources that clean the Earth is flat. The issue is that they are not reliable, or reflect mainstream viewpoints. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The entries on this list are verified by the GRG. The fact that the GRG has taken no action to strip Calment of her title does lend some credence to the undue weight argument. Perhaps a statement or footnote should be included saying that the GRG has taken no action to strip Calment of her title, or the like. schetm (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@schetm It's Guinness World Records that decides who the worlds oldest person ever is according to Wikipedia, not the GRG. I would also point out that Shigechiyo Izumi's age was first disputed by scientists in the 1980's and his validation wasn't withdrawn until 2011. This topic often moves at a glacial pace. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
No source is perfect. Do you think Guinness World Records has done anything with the new theory on Jeanne Calment?? (This goes for anyone who sees this question, not just Newshunter12.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Newshunter12, regardless of what Wikipedia says, this specific list references "known and validated supercentenarians who died before 2015 (and were) compiled by the Gerontology Research Group." If the GRG isn't referencing the Calment situation with their equivalent of an asterisk, then the undue weight concerns are valid within the scope of those specific parameters of this list. Perhaps we need to reconsider the inclusion of the GRG statement to get in line with WP consensus on the matter. schetm (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's better if we don't fuse the Calment age dispute with the issue of using the GRG to define these pages.
@Georgia guy I'm not sure what, if anything, Guinness is doing on this matter. They defer to the GRG for their data nowadays and have for awhile is all I can tell you. Other scientists are keeping up with this though. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
And are people succeeding with this DNA blood test?? If not, what do they need to do?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The issue with the DNA blood test is access, not science. A lab has a sample from the woman who died in 1997, but it was supposed to be anonymous. Since Jeanne had 16 great-grandparents and Yvonne fewer due to inbreeding, the test can definitively prove who died in 1997 if the lab will allow the sample to be tested. I don't know if it will happen or not, but scientists are pushing for the test to be performed. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
And why aren't people performing the test?? What do they have to do before they can do so?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The test hasn't been performed yet because it wasn't available/performed in the 1990's when Calment was validated and the people who have the sample now are not the people trying to validate or debunk her claim. The sample was supposed to stay anonymous, and scientists are currently trying to persuade the lab to release the sample for testing. That is playing out behind closed doors and only time will tell if or how anything comes of this possibility. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: How does Wikipedia determine the amount of weight a POV should be given? It says, "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Should it be based on the number of sources about Jeanne Calment that mention the dispute of her age versus sources that do not? Should it be based on the number of researchers who think she was 122 when she died versus those who think she was younger than 122? There seem to be problems with both possibilities. What if many researchers might think the dispute is too trivial to comment on? If it is based on the number of sources, those that mention the dispute could be outweighed by sources written before the theory of Yvonne taking her mother's identity was formed. How do we decide if a theory is fringe or not? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2019 (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.

Requested move 3 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – Proposal is roundly opposed. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


List of the verified oldest people → List of the known oldest people – The current title is confusing, because the "verified" qualifier does not have the same meaning on Wikipedia (WP:V) and in longevity circles (having enough documentation). It is also a reality that we do not have any adequate sourcing or research about supercentenarians in "non-first-world" countries, so that adding "known" would acknowledge that those lists are highly skewed towards some countries that have maintained appropriate records. The lead section of the article should be adjusted accordingly. Even in affluent countries, many supercentenarians are likely unknown, as their family does not seek publicity. Finally, a lot of the entries in the men's list are not "verified" in the longevity sense, because the "verifying" organizations have stopped documenting cases under 112 years old for a few years. That list is now maintained thanks to press reports, obituaries and the like. — JFG talk 16:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of living supercentenarians.

Could there be the consensus to readd to the lede the amount of living supercentenarians on the lists? I can't recall the exact reason for it being removed. MattSucci (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source tracking that number worldwide? — JFG talk 19:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, and I presume that was the reason for its removal. MattSucci (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

The oldest man to be living is actually, Swami Sivananda Baba from Kolkata (Age 124 years and still alive) Birth : 08/08/1896 Here are a few links : https://sivanandababa.org/ https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/swami-sivananda-oldest-man-ever-says-no-sex-no-spice-daily-yoga-key-to-age/story-TfNv8QsC670tfP7lTIfSWP.html Technicalrestrictor1729 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – no independent verification provided. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Herbert Engel

Should Herbert Engel (1907?-2018) be included in this list? :

https://www.heraldpalladium.com/obituaries/herbert-engel/article_74c54a51-74f9-5bbc-91e5-cb92fd27d08a.html

I previously included him on this list but my edit was removed and I don't know why. Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Long term dilemma with the Men's list

The list is supposed to be the "100 verified oldest men", but there are presently 120 men on the list even if they are not all ranked. This is going to stir a hornets nest, but we need to face the fact that GRG verification of male SC's is functionally extinct. There will be more validations in the future, but on such a minuscule scale that this list simply no longer functions as it did pre-2015. There were two verifications of male SC's in 2018 (one of whom was the already dead WOLM) and none so far in 2019. The last man validated was in May 2018.

These are the main paths before us:

  1. We change nothing and let the list swell indefinitely, with rankings clearly no longer reflecting reality.
  2. We rank all reliably sourced entries and crop the list at 100, as has happened with country articles.
  3. We remove deceased unvalidated entries to prevent the list from swelling, but keep living men listed until validation or death.
  4. We rank entries validated by the GRG and from any reliable source in countries that have had a certain threshold of GRG validations (basically Anglo-nations, Japan, and Western Europe).
  5. We trim the list, which de-facto raises the minimum age threshold and eliminates most present and future unvalidated men, but otherwise keep list criteria the same.

There are pro's and con's to each of these, which editors should be able to understand without me summarizing them further. At this time, I have no opinion on any of these options, I'm only trying to foster a discussion. As scholars, if we care about this page, it is our duty to manage it the best way we can and not leave it to decay. If a consensus seems to appear for options 2-5, an RfC can be put together to cement the proposed change. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 2 is in line with general Wikipedia sourcing policies, and is the best way to preserve an up-to-date list as close as possible to reality. Disputed cases can be handled individually if need be. — JFG talk 17:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Side note: After this is settled, I would also support renaming this article to List of the known oldest people, because the "verified" qualifier does not have the same meaning on Wikipedia (WP:V) and in longevity circles (having enough documentation). It is also a reality that we do not have any adequate sourcing or research about supercentenarians in "non-first-world" countries, so that adding "known" would acknowledge that those lists are highly skewed towards some countries that have maintained appropriate records. — JFG talk 18:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Concur with JFG on all counts, especially the page move; even from a stylistic standpoint, the current title is very clunky. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @JFG @The Blade of the Northern Lights Would you both be ok with adding a caveat that sources/death dates other then from the GRG are only valid for inclusion after 2015+. The GRG had pretty good coverage before then, so to live and die in those years and not be validated was a pretty good indicator that something was probably off/lacking in unverified cases. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    That sounds like a reasonable suggestion, given that several articles cite the GRG's 2015 summary by country, and it seems that's the time when they cut back on validations of "younger" people. I wouldn't be too absolutist about such a rule though, because new sources may well put into question older determinations by the GRG, be they positive or negative about any individual case. We should debate the appropriate wording of this within general guidelines to be published under the WP:LONGEVITY project. — JFG talk 12:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we actually disagree here, JFG. For the vast majority of these people, coverage/investigation dies with them, so nothing will change about their old cases, but if any new reliable source comes along and states X is the reality about Jane Doe's case, of course we should use it. If we are publishing these guidelines under the WP:LONGEVITY project, we should move our discussion there. I will try to come up with a proposal to begin the discussion, unless you or someone else does so first. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's time to write some guidelines in a central place, taking into account the body of consensus that has developed over the last few months. — JFG talk 21:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
That is what WP:LONGEVITY is for. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is there a problem in the Men's list, but not in the Women's list? What's the difference? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: I'm pretty sure it's simply because the women have lived much older- the 99th/100th/101st listings as of today are 114 years and 108 days old- an age that only 6 men have on the men's list. As a result, I expect the women have had much more time to have been verified previously, while many of these men were only in their hundreds a matter of a couple years ago. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Osugi Sogo #99

She entered limbo last month. https://www.city.matsuyama.ehime.jp/shisei/tokei/toukei2.html Timothy McGuire (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Allowing non-GRG reliably sourced people in this list

Lately, the number of people in GRG's list has been slowly declining. I think it might soon be time for a discussion of whether to allow non-GRG reliably sourced people in our table if they are younger than all of those on GRG's list. The List of the oldest living people table has allowed non-GRG reliably sourced people (even if older than at least one of GRG's people) for nearly 2 years. I would like to know if anyone has any opinions on including non-GRG reliably sourced people who are younger than all of those on GRG's list if they reach the age required to be in the top 100. (The answer doesn't make any difference yet, but in about 2 years from now it will if GRG doesn't add any more people to its list.) Georgia guy (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support adding any people who are old enough to be in the top 100, provided that they are documented by a reliable source. The switch from "GRG only" to "any RS" was made on all national supercentenarian pages, per editor consensus and Wikipedia policy supported by several RfCs; it's time to make that switch here as well. I don't see the value in introducing an arbitrary criterion such as "only add people younger than all those listed by GRG", because for a few years GRG has stopped being a comprehensive tracker. It's reliable, but it's not comprehensive. — JFG talk 10:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency between lists

We have an ongoing inconsistency between this list and the List_of_the_oldest_living_people. At the moment, there are two women (Katerina Karnarou and Noeme da Silveira Freitas) who are listed as being old enough to be on the list of the verified oldest people, but who for some reason are not listed. Presumably there is some level of scrutiny that these two don't meet, but it's not stated anywhere that I can see. As women pass the threshold into being on the top 100 ever, it's continually a mystery as to whether they'll make the transition onto this page or not. Seems like if they aren't good enough for this List_of_the_verified_oldest_people, they should at least have an asterisk or something on the List_of_the_oldest_living_people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.73.3 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

They should be added. The definition of "verified" on this page is not the same as the general definition of "verified" on Wikipedia. Our readers need clarity and full information. Footnotes can take care of explaining why we call some people "unverified". — JFG talk 10:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people/Archive_16&oldid=1078434367"