Talk:Oldest people

Lin Shemu

Chinese media reports that a very old lady named Lin Shemu (Chinese: 林蛇母, born on 18 June 1902 in Longhai District, Fujian) has died on Wednesday (New Year's Day) at the age of 122 years and 197 days (123 years according to East Asian age reckoning), 33 days more than Jeanne Calment. They have shown a copy of her National ID Card as her proof of age. Should we list her as the oldest person ever lived?

Source: https://view.inews.qq.com/k/20250102A03XGA00 2001:8003:9100:2C01:613A:3276:5C61:9113 (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No. She can be listed in Longevity claims with the other unverified cases. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is she considered "unverified"? She has a National ID Card, that means her age has been verified by the Chinese government. 1.159.150.219 (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That is a good question. This article published today makes reference to "official documents". In the final paragraph, it notes that Jeanne Calment is the only person "verified to have reached the age of 120" but it is unclear how the "official documents" don't constitute Lin's age being "verified".

I furthermore note: "Lin’s family never applied to Guinness World Records to have her age verified." But that it hasn't been verified by GWR doesn't make it "unverified" surely? — Smjg (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

As per the introduction to this article "names here are restricted to those people whose ages have been validated by an international body dealing in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Then why is Izabel Rosa Pereira listed? Her validation by the GRG is still pending. Spectritus (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: But that's not what it says. OK, so it contains that sequence of words, but by truncating it you have turned it into a lie. This is what it says: "To avoid including false or unconfirmed claims of old age, names here are restricted to those people whose ages have been validated by an international body dealing in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records, and others who have otherwise been reliably sourced." But see the next section. — Smjg (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll try and keep this "brief": 20 years ago longevity pages were dominated by members and followers of the GRG. By 2010 supercentenarians were either verified (by the GRG) or unverified (otherwise reliably sourced). The wider Wikipedia community then started to crack down on the extensive fanfluff that various GRG followers had added to Wikipedia. Eventually most of the followers and members of the GRG were blocked or topic banned from Wikipedia. Eventually longevity pages were tidied up to meet Wiki guidelines, at which point "otherwise reliably sourced" (i.e. pass WP:RS was added to this article. More recently longevity fans have returned, complicated by the fact that the GRG member who was the de facto leader of those who previously edited Wiki, left the GRG and started LongevityQuest. The various fans of those 2 organizations have chosen to largely ignore the "reliably sourced" bit and include only those validated by the GRG or LQ. Neither organization is as reliable as most of their followers seem to think, judging by the recent addition of "validated" cases from as far back as 2011 and the frequent removal of recently "validated" cases. I should point out that one criteria that almost every editor agrees on, is that living cases older than the oldest person as recognized by Guinness, and deceased persons older than the oldest ever verified person, belong in Longevity claims or, if over 130, in Longevity myths. Feel free to gain consensus to change that. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Izabel Rosa Pereira

I noticed that Izabel Rosa Pereira is listed in the oldest living people table but her validation by the Gerontology Research Group is still pending. So, why is she listed? And in what way is Longeviquest more reliable than the GRG? Spectritus (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Spectritus: Does it have to be more reliable than the GRG to be eligible, with an exception being made for GRG itself? I don't get that impression. Really it's down to two things:

• Is LongeviQuest an "international body dealing in longevity research"? It would seem so going by the article here, but of course I'm no expert and I haven't taken the time to verify the claims made here.
• What exactly does "otherwise been reliably sourced" mean? How can we assess the reliability of sources for this?

I see that she was added in this edit. @Avengingbandit: can you shed light? — Smjg (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Izabel Rosa Pereira was added because she has been validated by LongeviQuest (LQ), a longevity research organization with many former GRG members. Over time, LQ has established itself as having higher validation standards than GRG. GRG has seen a decline in credibility, partly due to its current leadership's lack of rigorous validation practices. Because of this, LQ's independent validations are considered highly reliable and do not require GRG endorsement. For more information on LongeviQuest, you can check out their website here. Avengingbandit 02:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

"LQ's independent validations are considered highly reliable", by who? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Avengingbandit Okay. Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)