Jump to content

Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Anonymous supercentenarian from Japan

Hello everyone,

why is the anonymous supercentenarian from Japan mentionend in the table, also in the table of 100 oldest persons ever and Supercentenarians from Japan? On the source which is mentioned in this case there is no anonymous supercentenarian... Please check and remove, thanks. --31.18.248.6 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No one able for an answer? GRG has NOT verified an anonymous case from Japan... --31.18.248.6 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes they have: "4 N.A. Japan Japan (Tokyo) 3/15/1900 115 yr, 111 days F EA MHLW, Japan/Anri Kusaku 7/1/2015 4/1/2015 Y". For some reason the GRG has used "N.A." as the identifier rather than "Anonymous". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This is absolutely nonsense, and should be removed this entry as soon as possible. Very far from grg standards, not speaking about the fact that other organization would be totally unable to verify/confirm the age of this person. 82.144.178.122 (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above IP editors. "Verified" and "Anonymous" are mutually exclusive conditions. Either the anonymous "verified" entry should be moved to the list of unverified claims, or (my preference) claimed anonymous entries should be removed entirely. Unless there's a clear objection I will likely do the latter soon. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no justification under any Wikipedia policy or guideline for such an action. Removing a person, identified or anonymous, from this properly referenced list would violate WP:BLP. Any user doing so can expect an appropriate warning. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The BLP policy says that Wikipedia's editors should remove unverifiable information about living persons. It certainly does not say that Wikipedia must retain it. This has no basis in policy. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't down to you to say what is verified and what is not. That would be original research. It is possible for someone to be verified while choosing to remain anonymous. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
"It is possible for someone to be verified while choosing to remain anonymous." that could be also original research. Would you say this also if she would be the oldest living people in the future? There is a not so small chance for this. 91.83.2.176 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't down to me alone, no. It's down to a consensus of editors, which at the moment seems to be leaning against anonymous entries. I want discussion, rather than edit-warring threats as seen above, which is why I haven't made this change yet. However, it is not true that an anonymous claim in one source "could be verified" - there's no way for others to verify it, because the claim is anonymous. Moreover, the larger reason to remove these isn't (only) that they are unverified, but that they are completely useless, conveying no information to the reader. There's no reason to obfuscate the verifiable claims with such listings. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
GRG has verified the anonymous person as having attained her claimed age. I'm not aware of any other GRG-verified claim which has been second-guessed by editors, so the concern that "there's no way for others to verify it" seems moot to me. Since when do editors here second-guess claims verified by GRG? Has someone here ran out to "verify" whether Susannah Mushatt Jones is in fact 116? Even in past circumstances where there was a question over a verified claim, like Izumi's discredited claim, the person remained on the list because GRG kept the name on the list, and was removed once GRG removed him. To do otherwise is OR, even as in that case when the claimant should have been removed earlier. So, omitting the anonymous claimant would seem to be an arbitrary act given the fact of the verification. If someone could cite a policy which would preclude inclusion of this person, let's see it. Canada Jack (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The question is whether secondary sources could verify the claim; they cannot, if it is anonymous. That's the policy issue - coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, a requirement for inclusion. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes secondary sources can verify an anonymous case. One would only need to search by date of birth and location. Of course it would be more difficult in this case without a good knowledge of Japanese, just as it is difficult to find secondary sources for named Japanese cases. But difficult is not the same as impossible. And in fact it is not required, as per WP:LIST: "If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided". Note that only a single citation is required, which has been met.DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Ironic that all the complaints about anonymous cases come from anonymous IP addresses (some of whom have made few other edits). Anonymous cases CAN be verified by the GRG if private contact is made between the family and researchers, but the individual may request not to be publicly named. For example, the anonymous Japanese woman (b. 15 March 1900). See here. We've also seen instances of people coming out of anonymity (such as "MACC" and "MCLL", who were Spanish supercentenarians whose names recently became publicly known). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous and Hikari Takaoka

Hi, what is the name of this Anonymous's woman, and Hikari Takaoka, born September, 6 1903, she is died, she is not died, why is not in this list ? --86.204.216.118 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unverified claims

As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here, I have been removing the "pending verification" mention and designation from this article along with a rewrite to stop treating Wikipedia as an extension of the GRG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky, I am afriad, that you misinterpret the title of the topic, you created. The title is "Removal of unverified claims". Well, all the supercentenarians, that appear in the GRG table EE, have been validated as pending. That means, that their documentation has been reviewed. Firstly by a person responsible for validation and secondly by the GRG headship. The Gerontology Research Group is considered by world's press and scientific circles as recognized authority in respect of extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study. On the other hand, if we are going to remove "pending" cases because they are "technically" unverified, then why list "any" unverified cases? Because of the fact, that the Gerontology Research Group, considered as whole (and not just parts of it) is the recognized authority on supercentenarians, all its tables and its content is considered as reliable with no exceptions. Waenceslaus (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not what policy says here. Ignoring the RSN and other discussions isn't productive. You made your comments at the RSN, they were not supported. Every time this is brought up, the same arguments ensue and yet the same people refuse to engage in any discussion in line with how the rest of Wikipedia works. I'm seriously questioning the GRG's credibility here given its history of sockpuppetry, banning and general antics here. Their behavior is not what I expect with a truly proper and credible organization. It's more akin to a group of self-appointed experts who demand their views are right and refuse to provide any support beyond "trust us, we're the experts". There are zero objections over the GRG, just over the inclusion of content that the GRG has not verified. And the GRG is not the be all and end all of verified sourcing, if other reliable sources state something, policy is we include it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You lose. Admins protected our version. You need to quit now before you find yourself banned for your disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Limit number of entries to 50

Today the number of entries in the list was limited to 50. Is there any reason for this? Shouldn't it contain all verified living supercentenarians for which confirmation is available? I can't see the reason behind this choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.60.224 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

admin @MusikAnimal: reverted it and protected the page. We need to include everyone over age 110. We have a few hundred people there.

Entirely arbitrary I admit. The page again is the list of oldest living people not a list of all living supercentarians (or all people over 110 (or 111) years old). There needs to be some limiting factor here. If we took all the names from this version (again those who are either verified from the GRG or listed based on other (presumably reliable) sources) I think that would be more than 100 names but I don't see much gained by that. The remaining names are just from the bottom of the unverified list so it would be easy to incorporate back in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Any limit is arbitrary, so why not stick with a minimum age of 110? Ollie231213 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Other than a limit of sanity to this page, fine with me. As I said, it's arbitrary. If we can't agree, we'll host an RFC and discuss it more. But we are going to get a lot more cranks as we go lower and lower down the list. I know you're going to ignore me on this but this does include the non-GRG verified but other reliable sources exist names too. The current verified list only goes to someone at 111 and 150 days or so so the other cases will dominate below that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so concerned about unverified claims being listed AS LONG AS IT'S CLEAR THEY ARE UNVERIFIED. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
They aren't unverified (that's a meaningless term on Wikipedia). They are just not "verified" by the GRG and as such, there is no tag saying that the GRG has verified them. Other reliable sources, though, that's another matter. The GRG has their list of verified claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Other" Super Centenarians ?

I believe the listing for "other" should be removed. If someone out of the blue claims in a newspaper to be 110 years old does not make it real. At least the "pending list" in most cases has a newspaper report and has at least one document verified by the GRG. Also dump the anonymous listing for alleged #4 oldest person and alleged #20 oldest person. If the GRG believes that the source used as N.A. for verification is good enough for Wikipedia they are completely wrong . Hiding the identity and hiding the source of verification so nobody can check the GRG data makes it unverifiable and in violation of Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.149.134 (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that premise. I asked for another admin to review and remove the entire unverified listings for now. We should probably go start with the GRG's verified listings and then go backwards to include other ones. As to the anonymous listings, if we consider the GRG's verified listings as a reliable source, I don't think we should delve into their basis and as odd as those are, they should probably stay. One of the reasons why I'm starting to question the GRG more and more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, Ricky, I'm starting to question your ability to think rationally more and more. Do you even understand what or how the GRG works? Take the example of the Anonymous Japanese lady born 15 March 1900. She lives in Japan, where the government has a central register and reports on the oldest people in each prefecture annually. However, some people (such as the lady in question) may not want their name to be revealed to the public for privacy reasons, so choose to stay anonymous. That doesn't mean that her age can't be verified. Even if someone chooses to remain anonymous to the wider public, private contact with the family to locate documents can still be made. Got it? Now, let's stop with the speculation and deal with the FACTS: The GRG is a reliable source. Table E is considered a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's therefore not down to you to question the reliability of verified information by a scientific organisation who are considered a reliable source. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't support removing the anonymous listings so I'm not sure what you're attacking me on. But if the GRG wants to play games and say that they know who the 4th oldest person in the world is but won't tell anyone the name (that's not particularly scientific to me), fine, I don't care, I'll defer to the fact that they are a reliable source and thus the verification of the claim. GRG is an expert on well it's not on aging per se but it's an expert on verifying claims of longevity but that doesn't make the GRG some world's leading expert on possible forgeries within the Japanese central register or other issues. Either way, the user has the right to an opinion that "Anonymous" is a weird designation (as is "N.A."). Perhaps "Undisclosed" is better? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Title

Is the current title grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "List of the oldest living people" at the very least? What about "List of the world's oldest living people" (it sounds better to me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Listing "all" oldest people

The list as it stands has no lower or maximum number limit. Obviously there should be either a minimum age or a number, i.e. Top xxx, the most obvious being a top 100. That should be relatively easy to fill out as, if there is no distinction between the GRG and any other source, then those from longevity claims should be included, and, if necessary, any living cases from List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 as well. And, sticking strictly with Wiki policy (AFAIK) any such cases should remain on the list until there is a report that the person has died, which means there are quite a few cases removed from these articles because they exceeded the upper limit which could also be included as it could be assumed they are still living. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'd want to include both Longevity claims and Unverified longevity claims. That would be the way to go create an actual FL-class article in my view. So are you proposing a merger now? Otherwise, the discussion above is basically "everyone over 110 no matter the size." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a clear distinction between supercentenarians who have proof of their ages and claimants without any proof whatsoever. 930310 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's called Table EE versus Table E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove unverified listings

I'd like to request the removal of the entire "Unverified living supercentenarians" section (and its subsection) from this version. This would be in line with this discussion noting that the RSN discussion agrees that the GRG "pending" and unverified listings aren't reliable sources and shouldn't be included. We can discuss whether to include anything from below after that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done, please wait until the discussion at ANI is concluded. Nakon 22:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mixing of verified and unverified cases

I've just looked at the most recent version of this article and noticed that unverified claimants are mixed in (and ranked) with the list of verified claimants. Sorry, but this needs to change. I don't care if the entries are sourced to a news report if their ages haven't been independently verified. The masterminds at work here have ingeniously decided that the GRG's pending table isn't reliable because "fact checking isn't complete". Oh, but Bob Smith who works for the Daily Post writes an article about some old woman who lives the mountains HAS done all the fact checking has he? No, of course not. We cannot allow cases verified by a scientific organisation to be put on level terms with claimants who have no original proof of birth. It's unscientific and misleading to the general public. Ollie231213 (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I truly agree with you! The old version of this page was good till they ruined it! Why they had to change it? And what's wrong with pending cases too? I think we should keep the old version of this page no matter what others say! Let's vote. Who's with me? 62.72.228.251 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Local consensus amongst GRG supporters doesn't trump Wikipedia consensus. Table EE is not considered reliable because its entries haven't been fact-checked so it's basically just a user-created list like IMDB, which isn't a reliable source either. Newspapers are considered in general more reliable than lists like this - although of course there are exceptions. Also, the "pending" designation is for the GRG only, not readers. It would have been better if GRG supporters were working with other editors to figure out ways to bring these articles into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines instead of edit-warring to keep their preferred versions, as the edit-warring is disruptive. Ca2james (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to get on the GRG bandwagon. They are extremely slow to "validate" cases, and having 3 separate lists is stupid. However, there is a DIFFERENCE between a proven age, vs. somebody claiming to be old, which often turns out not to be the case. The Guinness Book for example, looks for proof, and that is widely accepted as the world record holder. Whoever altered this page to the current slop of useless, inaccurate information, in my opinion, should be banned from Wikipedia edits. Flippantly changing content to FROM something that was credible, to nonsense, is no different from vandalism, even if the person doing the editing did so out of ignorance. If you don't know what you are doing, then you have no business making an edit. Wikipedia should not tolerate unqualified persons who decide to make themselves authorities on a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.201.223 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Local consensus amongst GRG supporters doesn't trump Wikipedia consensus." True. But Wikipedia consensus is that the GRG are considered reliable despite your not-too-subtle reference to the anonymous case for which there was a failure to get a consensus to remove. Consensus, IOW, does not favour your position on this issue.
So, as with the anonymous case above, please a) cite the wikipedia policies which you assert our current chief reliance on GRG violate and b) gain consensus for the sort of changes you are contemplating. Canada Jack (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Canada Jack, please see this recently-closed RSN discussion, where the community decided that Table EE was not a reliable source for birth/death dates. Therefore, anything sourced to Table EE that cannot be supported by a reliable source must be removed per WP:RS and WP:V. Please also see MOS:COLOUR, which says that colour should not be used as a way of conveying information. Ca2james (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is this the first time I heard about this and, more to the point, why was there no notification of this on THIS page so editors who have dealt with the issue for years might have a say? A quick glance reveals many aspects of this were NOT presented simply because editors who could have chimed in were excluded from the process. The RS/V issues have not been adequately addressed by what sure looks like a bad-faith attempt by certain editors to circumvent process here at Wikipedia.Canada Jack (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead and bring it up at RSN for another round of debates if you'd like but this was not a discussion about this page, it was a discussion about a source used on this page, a discussion that was noticed and brought up at the talk page for the project (which is only one of a group of projects that deal with this stuff). I doubt there's nothing new you can add. No one was excluded, it's a free project that anyone could have commented, no one cared to chime in other than repeat the "GRG is the world's expert" line and that convinces no one. The problem is that the GRG's website itself tells us nothing and the anonymous editors here who may or may not work with the GRG aren't going to convince anyone about its methods. The reaction here is the same typical routine that we've had for almost a decade: a refusal to discuss any issue and when discussion go on, a new round of editors who are completely and utterly baffled that a discussion was had and want to re-start it all while keeping the content in their format while they drag this on and on again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Please note that I discussed bringing the issue to RSN on the WOP Talk page. The discussion was open on RSN for nearly a month and several WOP members commented there. It is clearly the position of WOP members that the GRG and all of its tables are reliable sources on Wikipedia because the GRG is the expert, so I was seeking input from uninvolved community members at RSN. Ca2james (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, you losers lost. The admin reverted and protected our version. No one cares what "Wikipedia" thinks, it's just wrong. The GRG is the only reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.167 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Break

Let me explain in detail. The RSN discussion stated that the verified claims by the GRG are considered reliable sources. The pending and unverified cases are not on the other hand and thus on their own should not be included. At the same time, other reliable sources can be considered when deciding what should be listed here. As such, I presumed that when the editors who were adding names to this list and checking those names and that detail were only including names based on verified sources (and not, as I have suspected, just adding Methuselah-level nonsense). If in fact the GRG was including complete nonsense into their unverified and pending listings, then that supports ignoring their pending and unverified listings. As of now, we have a mix of GRG verified listings and other listings that are based on other sources (the alternative was to just take the verified listings from this version and then delete the rest and argue them back in). I'd prefer to let everything be listed for now and then remove the nonsensical ones. If those sources are not reliable sources, then we should start subheadings naming each one by one and then we can remove them quickly (this is stuff that the WOP project pages are ideally for so as to be consistent across the entire project). The point is that the GRG's verified listing aren't the sole determination of what is included here, people seem to agree that more than the verified listings should be included. The RSN discussion agreed that pending listing shouldn't be included so we need a determination of what else can be included. As to the 50 limit, there's another section for that and I will discuss it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You're making absolutely no sense at all. Let's be clear on this:
  • Newspapers typically just report longevity claims. They don't attempt to rigorously check whether the claim is true by seeing if documentation such as birth certificates exist, and don't have a set of criteria for determining whether a claim is "verified" or not. They just report the claim.
  • The Gerontology Research Group is an organisation that attempts to create a database of the oldest living people in the world and the oldest people of all time, for various reason - not only just for the interest of record-keeping, but for reasons of scientific interest (such as annual mortality rates at 110+ and the changes in numbers of supercentenarians over time). But of course, such a database is only of any value if the ages of people included are proven to be true, otherwise it would be full of inaccurate data.
  • According to your idea, we should consider both of these sources (newspaper reports and the GRG) as equally valid. But clearly that isn't the case, because there's a different level of "fact-checking" for both. How can you argue that the GRG's Table EE is not a reliable source but Table E is on the basis of a different level of fact-checking, but not the same for the GRG and newspaper reports?
  • Any given newspaper source might be reliable in general (according to Wikipedia's pretty low standards, let's be honest) but in this situation, we're talking specifically about whether or not we can trust a newspaper to tell us if a longevity claim is genuine. And we can't.
  • Take the example of Carmelo Flores Laura. Here are just some newspapers who reported on him: [1] [2] [3] Let's look at some quotes here:
-"Carmelo Flores Laura looks set to be named the oldest living person ever recorded."
-"World's oldest man Carmelo Flores Laura..."
-"A man aged 123, said to be the oldest person ever recorded..."
-"123-year old Carmelo Flores Laura..."
-"Mr Laura was born on July 16, 1890."
-"His birth date is confirmed on his baptism certificate, considered an authentic record by Bolivia’s civil registry."
-"The story has all the elements that make it irresistible to the public ... and journalists. To be fair, the story contains qualifiers like "If Bolivia's public records are correct," but the claim was relatively easily debunked within a few days."
-"Though Flores has a birth certificate and a national identity card bearing his birth date, neither are original. Bolivia didn't keep records of live births in 1890."
-"Gerontologist Stephen Coles (who actually looks into these claims for the Guinness Book of World Records) says the lion's share of supercentenarians are women. He notes that just two of the 57 people verified to having lived past 110 are male, with the oldest man on record having lived to 116."
-"The Gerontology Research Group that Coles heads up tracked down what it says is Flores' baptismal certificate—which establishes his age as an impressive but not record-setting 107."
-"UCLA's Dr Stephen Coles, director of the Gerontology Research Group, which investigates these kinds of claims for the Guinness Book of World Records, says he was skeptical from the start, especially because there was no documentary proof dating to the year Laura was supposedly born."
  • Oh, what a surprise, journalists don't check facts and a scientific organisation does.
  • It's therefore very important - for reasons of WP:Verifiability, encyclopedic value, and general education - that verified and unverified claims are not mixed. Newspapers are not reliable enough on their own. At the very least, if unverified claims are included, it needs to be clear as such. Now it doesn't have to be the GRG who are the verifying body, but they need to be established as reliable. Ollie231213 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, you're here to argue the same thing ad nauseum. I get it, even though everywhere else on Wikipedia, newspapers are considered a reliable source, when it comes to the birth and death dates (not general dates, just the dates for old people) we should ignore all that. There's already a discussion at RSN on the matter. I don't care to rehash it with you for the millionth time. The problem is we have no evidence of what the GRG did other than anonymous statements that they've done this and that newspapers don't do it. Fine, argue which names you want removed, discuss them here, bring it up to the RSN noticeboard and go from there. The blanket "GRG is the expert, everyone else is trash" routine has been said and done enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This is NOT about the GRG... it's about age verification. It's about applying standards of factual accuracy to Wikipedia articles. Ollie231213 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Age verification which coincidentally you believe should only be based on the GRG (except again when articles support the GRG's verification or when there's a desire to create a new supercentarian article or a host of other reasons). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yasutaro Koide

He is not dead, i don't uderstaind ! --109.221.248.154 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's vandalism. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

He is living

Pending cases living supercentenarians

Table EE is reliable source, will into validated. There is need to Pending cases living supercentenarians in List of oldest living people.

It is NOT a reliable source, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 194#Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables. Reverting edits to include this material back in will be considered vandalism. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a need to Pending cases living supercentenarians in List of oldest living people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.193.195.138 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Say no to anonymous or N.A listings.

This is a list of oldest living people. Remove any listing that says anonymous or NA. For the listing of an oldest living person a real persons name must be listed. Whats next? Are we going to accept listings for people using fake names like Santa Claus or the Easter bunny if the GRG says so? The GRG group is not God and just because they say an unidentified person is real we should not take it on faith. The person alleged in the top 10 if she really exists is GRG anonymous and she cant be verified by anyone else. Unverifiable sources are directly against Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous just means their name hasn't been released to the public, and doesn't necessarily mean it's not known by GRG researchers. There's absolutely no reason to believe that these are "fake people". It is NOT for you to speculate in such a way. If the people are listed in the GRG tables, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the content in the article IS verifiable. If you want to verify that the GRG tables are correct, then you need to contact them yourself. Now stop with this absolute rubbish. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What is rubbish is a no name oldest living person. Your statement is rubbish because the GRG will not list a real persons name for the alleged oldest person #4. A complete violation of Wikipedia rules having an unverifiable no name as truth. I tried to contact the GRG and they refused to give the name of the alleged #4 oldest person. If they did I would verify her and post her real name on this site. We would have no Anonymous or N.A fake name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Big talk, coming from someone who just vandalized the article (this IP user changed 'anonymous' to 'Hitler'). Czolgolz (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't respond further to your comment because you are using an anonymous IP. I have no way of verifying that you are a real person so you might be fake. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because Robert Young and his drones from the GRG says its true Wikipedia is about verification. GRG hidden data under anonymous cannot be verified independently and should be banned. The alleged no #4 oldest person hidden under the term anonymous is a joke. If it is allowed then anything that is not verified should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above statement. The GRG is not the FBI and Robert Young is not J. Edgar Hoover. The GRG cannot claim National Interest to refuse to list the name of the alleged 4th oldest person. The site sourced for anonymous says N.A or Not Applicable. When did Wikipedia ever accept Not Applicable as a source? I agree the anonymous listing should be removed right away. Not applicable is not a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.146.69 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not applicable" isn't the source, is it? Now who's hiding behind these new anonymous (sockpuppet) IP's? Kevin? Jerry? Bill? Do tell us, it's not in the national interest for you not to. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
How about this: The opinion of sockpuppets of blocked users from Indiana and meatpuppets from New Jersey should be removed right away? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be removed. Anonymous is not a persons name. N.A. is not a valid reference source.

"N.A. is not a valid reference source."  ???? The fact that this precise weird argument has been repeated by multiple anonymous IPs (how in God's name is "N.A." a "reference source"?), suggests either sockpuppets or a single person and some of his/her buddies are behind this protest.
To be taken seriously, let's have a) some actual real identifiable editors arguing this and b) reference to specific wikipedia policies which these anonymous claims violate. Canada Jack (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the information provided by GRG should be accepted as any other original research which protects the privacy of individuals. No one would argue that research papers citing statistical results based on real patients should be verified by giving patient names to some Wikipedia vigilante. GRG is a conglomeration of medical practitioners, researchers and other people with the highest integrity. A subset of these people painstakingly verify and maintain the list of super centenarians. Those who are genuinely interested in super centenarian research should join the GRG and contribute something original. Then they would also be in a position to participate in the verification of claims. Manfred Bartz (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There are six states (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina) in the U.S. which allow winners of the lottery to remain anonymous. Even though their names are not shown on any winnings postings, these people still have been verified as having won the lottery. --I love old people (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Introduction wording

I really object to this change in the wording. By stating that only 50 are "reliable sourced" (without a citation) which is based entirely on the GRG table, you are in fact increasing the emphasis on the GRG, not reducing it. The point was that one source (the GRG) reliable sources 50 people which is their right and which is what is correct. Either the page should reflect the number of people in the table or it should reflect what sources say (and we have Young himself saying 600 exist). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The current criteria for inclusion is that any entry is "reliably sourced". There are currently 51 such entries, including 1 that is not by the GRG. There is nothing to prevent other entries being included as long as they are reliably sourced. The paragraph summarises the list, there is no need to include citations for the total, especially when, as long as there are sources other than the GRG, there is no citation which would reflect the total in the list. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be reliably sourced so there's no need to say that in the lede here. Ca2james (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Supercentenarians died

This table array September 1 2015, but hé gavé à supercentenarians died ? --86.204.84.119 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion

So I'm a little late to the discussion, but I've just noticed that the WOP issue has flared up again. It might surprise a lot of people to learn that I actually preferred the old version of this page better because I feel that it was more representative of a NPOV... it listed all (reasonable) claims of being 110 regardless of country of origin but made clear distinctions between those that can be verified. I never minded the pending cases either, because they differentiated those "unverified" cases that are more likely to become verified from those that are just claims. I feel this page is now more of a copy of the GRG with all of its biases and limitations (I don't necessarily mean that as being negative or malicious - if they don't have correspondents in a certain language or the state of records in a particular nation is poor, then that's not necessarily their fault). Having said that, I'm not advocating changing it back (consensus has been reached on that matter), but for clarifying the introduction so that there is a clear criteria for introduction. Right now, the way it reads suggests a) that the GRG is the only organization that is qualified to verify a supercentenarian, which it is not (a while back, for example, Guinness World Records verified the age of Harry Patch before he turned 110 for other reasons, and I don't think that anyone had a problem with that source's reliability in these matters) and b) that everyone who is genuinely 110 or older is included (one possible interpretation of "Only supercentenarians, those who have attained the age of at least 110 years, are listed"), which is a claim that the GRG does not make.

Since changes on this page can be contentious, I thought I'd propose some new wording that makes things clearer... this is just an idea, so I'm completely open to suggestions and modifications, but I think that we should have some clarity regarding this issue: "The following is a list of the oldest known living people. Only supercentenarians, those who have attained the age of at least 110 years, who have been verified by an international body that engages in scientific verification of records (such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records), are listed." I could take or leave the final sentence about Jones; I can see how it is relevant to the list, of course, but I also don't think it adds much.

Ultimately, a much more detailed (but not based wholly on the GRG's definitions) description of longevity research and why this list doesn't include every news report about 110 year-old people would be beneficial, but for now a clear statement that establishes the foundations of how this list is constructed is necessary to avoid long debates about inclusion. What are people's thoughts? I think that this is one area were people on both "sides" of the aisle can come together to start building this into something mutually agreeable. Canadian Paul 17:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Canadian Paul - firstly, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one concerned about WP:NPOV issues here, nor am I the only one who feels it important to distinguish between validated and unvalidated claims. The irony is that those who were complaining about Wikipedia being a "copy of the GRG tables" have actually turned Wikipedia in to even more of a copy by removing unvalidated claims and only including verified cases sourced to the GRG's Table E (which is not necessarily a bad thing, though).
My bigger concern, as I have expressed here, is that some people want to treat news reports as if they are equally reliable as the GRG, GWR, etc. But it's quite clear from looking at examples such as Bernando LaPallo that newspapers only report the claim, but typically don't attempt to verify it. Therefore I believe it's very important that a distinction is made between validated and unvalidated cases in the best interest of the article's educational and encyclopaedic value.
My suggestion for this article is as follows:
1. Make two lists: one with people validated by any international verifying organization, and one with unvalidated people (but reported in other reliable sources).
2. Exclude any claim to 110+ whereby a reliable source suggests the age claimed is less than 110 (such as Bernando LaPallo).
3. Have an upper-limit cutoff of "114 years, 364 days", with claims to 115+ going to Longevity Claims.
Thoughts? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Canadian Paul and Ollie23121, the issue of validated vs unvalidated entries is being discussed on the WT:WOP project page here and I've put forth another proposal here. To avoid repetition and ensure everyone can be involved in this discussion, please can we keep that aspect of the discussion centralized at WT:WOP? Also, decisions on points 2 and 3 would be implemented at other articles (like List of Japanese supercentenarians), so could we please hold that discussion at WT:WOP as well? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well since this discussion got hijacked immediately, I'll assume that no one is opposed to the changes I proposed for the introduction, so I've gone ahead and made them. Ca2james, I never wanted to discuss the issue of validated vs. unvalidated entries (as I stated explicitly in my comment), I only used it to frame my explanation of why I believe changes to the introduction are imported. Canadian Paul 18:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you the verified/nob-verified issue is being discussed extensively so mentioning it is almost guaranteed to hijack the conversation. My apologies for not discussing your proposed introduction before now. I agree that the previous one had the issues you identified and I like the changes you made. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Canadian Paul, the intro has been further changed from the version you propose above because table entries are not limited to only those verified by the GRG or similar agency. Therefore, I reverted your replacement of the intro you wrote (along with the IPs removal of the entry not verified by the GRG). Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
... so you see a disagreement among users acting reasonable and your solution is to revert the user and protect the page so that only administrators can edit it (yes, I know that doesn't affect me, but it does prevent anyone else who disagrees from editing the page)? Clearly given the volatile nature of this subject, one would think that the best option for any disagreement would be a discussion, as I have attempted here by starting this section, as a sign of good faith. I've been down this road before, many years ago, where longevity walled gardenders push otherwise good editors into acting just as inappropriately as they do (I am certainly not innocent of this), so perhaps a good move forward would be to get some third opinions/uninvolved editors to take a look at the current situation, give us all a breather, and see where agreements can be made. Canadian Paul 04:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Technically, protection was made here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


Canadian Paul, I'm not seeing a lot of the assumption of good faith in your interpretation of my actions. I do think that the best way forward is discussion, and I have been discussing changes on this and related pages. Also, the page protection affects me as well as the other editors of the page because I'm not an administrator. At the time I made the request for page protection, the Vera Wagner entry had been added and removed something like six times in the preceding 24 hours or so (along with changes to the lede) and I didn't see that as users acting reasonably. I thought requesting page protection was the best thing to do since I figured that even if I stopped editing the page itself, other editors would continue to add and remove the material. I thought page protection would stop the edit-warring and hopefully force us all to discuss instead of revert back and forth. If I was wrong in requesting page protection, then I was wrong, but to imply that I was deliberately being manipulative and underhanded is uncivil and counterproductive. Ca2james (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I can assume that an action is made in good faith and still point out that it was poorly thought out. I did not "imply that [you were] deliberately being manipulative and underhanded" (as you point out, you're not an administrator and thus it affects you too); if you interpreted any statement of mine that way, I apologize. I did point out that protecting the page "does prevent anyone else who disagrees from editing the page" and that is a fact. Consider the broader implications: there is a situation that is rapidly devolving into a battleground for a whole host of reasons and it is largely due to one party who is more than happy to use "the admins protected this page" as fuel for their own arguments and an excuse to be more obstinate. One of the purposes of discretionary sanctions, at least as I understand them, is to prevent having to protect pages to the admin level since individuals can be blocked after one revert. If a registered user is engaging in an edit war, they can be blocked. If IPs are the problem, regular protection will suffice. Is the convenience of an admin-only page worth the push away from a compromise? I don't think that the page protection mechanism was abused or wrongly implemented, I just think that one must consider the repercussions it might engender in terms of the dialogue we are attempting to create; there's a difference between "can" and "should". Both sides on this issue need to take a step back, stop worrying about what the other side is doing wrong, and start thinking how their own actions might be perceived and what can be done to remedy the situation for the benefit of the project. And if a third opinion or a fresh pair of eyes is required to accomplish that, then I encourage it strongly. If one side is so intransigent that progress cannot be made, they will be banned from the project; the community never fails to do that when it comes to it and thus the important part is not to drag oneself down with them (believe me, I'm quite familiar with this). The longevity-related pages have been incredibly problematic for almost a decade now; if they remain that way for a little while longer in the spirit of taking a patient approach, the world will keep spinning. Canadian Paul 17:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I thought page protection would be the way to go but I now understand that it wasn't the best choice and that my actions could be misinterpreted. It would have been better for me to step back, discuss, and wait to see what happened before making any request and that's what I'll do in the future. Thanks for your patience and the lesson.
I do have one question: if I had wanted to have discretionary sanctions applied, how would I do that? Would I file a request at AE or contact a random administrator or ...? Thank you for your help. Ca2james (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I have never done it, but I believe WP:AE is the way forward, so long as the user has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. Unless I'm missing something. Canadian Paul 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; that's what I thought. To clarify, I don't want to see any editor receive discretionary sanctions if there's a way to avoid it. I'd much rather see us all work together to get all these articles fixed up without having to invoke the sanctions. Ca2james (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(Repinging Ollie231213 as I screwed up the ping. Sorry about that. Ca2james (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC) )

I'm half joking but I say we cut off the "oldest's living people" to 115 years old and have just a top five here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GRG Cases

Hello

There in there any supercentenarians checked by example: last night

If so, could this be added. By cons, I will like you to redo the table "Supercentenarians pending cases" and "Supercentenarians other cases".

Or worse, you can make a new article: List of oldest no verified living people.

I don't not now if oui agree... But, you choose ! --86.204.84.119 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here, but I think you're asking for the page to be returned the way it looked here. However, Table EE was found to be unreliable per this discussion on the WT:WOP talk page. Ca2james (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Pending list with Two verifications.

I believe the GRG pending list with two verified documents should be posted. These people are actually verified awaiting a third final document for total verification. Those people that have more than one document are legitimate. Before total removal the pending list allowed people on it with one or two documents. I agree that one document verification should not be allowed because one document could be a wrong date or a typo error. When you have two documents that are verified this is unlikely. I value opinions on this idea of adding back pending people with two legitimate documents of verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.146.57 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Pending list CLEARLY does not contain verified (i.e. validated) supercentenarians. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

IF two documents are verified by the GRG then the person is verified waiting for final approval. I believe the pending list should be returned for the people who have two documents verified. You are correct that one document could contain information that was incorrect. Two documents gives the information increased credibility that it is accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not anymore you mean. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Pending list

Why was the pending list removed? It was useful.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See above. EEng (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Kiyo Oshiro vanished from the list

Kiyo Oshiro is listed on the linked GRG citation (number 4) as still being alive, but she was removed from the page apparently by an IP editor who cited some source I've never heard of claiming she had died on an unknown date. Should she be re-added to the list on the grounds that she is still listed as living by the GRG source used for literally every other name on the list? As it stands, this article has a list of 49 validated living supercentenarians and cites a source containing 50 living supercentenarians. I don't like the contradiction here.74.129.182.181 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the diff? It would help to see the IP's edit to see what they were talking about. It would be helpful to compare the sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, this edit was the one removing the name. It referred to this page but I don't read Japanese. Anyone here have any other opinions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I just ran the article text through Google Chrome's translate function and got this "100-year-old or older across the country that the 11 days up to most of the 61 568 people the past, was found in a survey of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which was before the Senior Citizen's Day. 60,000 that the beyond people for the first time since the start of the survey in 1963. 2748 people more than last year, an increase of '45 continuous. Women accounted for 87, 3%. According to the announcement of Okinawa children living Welfare Department, 100 years old or older in the prefecture in 963 people (previous year one year), statistics since the start of 1972, we updated the most. The breakdown in one day currently, 125 men, with 838 women, women accounted for more than 80%. The oldest was a = Yorimitsu ToshiMegumi's = Ishigaki in the 113-year-old. The number of people to be the 100-year-old, 387 people in the same date in 2015. Of these, men 61 people, woman has become a 326 people." The article text is enclosed in quotes in my post here, and does not seem to refer to Kiyo Oshiro at all. Granted, the translation is quite messy.74.129.182.181 (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now the indentation got messed up and I have no idea how to fix it.74.129.182.181 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, it fixed itself.74.129.182.181 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That source says that the MHLW announced there are over 60,000 centenarians in Japan currently, and that the oldest person in the Okinawa prefecture is Toshie Yorimitsu (unrelated note: Toshie Yorimitsu is almost 114). It doesn't refer to Kiyo Oshiro at all. That being said, there haven't been any reports about Kiyo Oshiro, who also lives in the Okinawa prefecture, during the buildup to Japan's yearly Respect-for-the-Aged Day (which falls on September 21st this year). This means one of three things: Either she passed away unreported sometime in the past year, she moved/was moved to another prefecture that hasn't reported the news of who their most elderly are, or she still does live in the Okinawa prefecture but was somehow overlooked by the MHLW when they did their yearly survey/study. Shingo Kitamura and two other Japanese supercentenarians on this list are also currently unreported. The GRG still lists them on Table E, so we should probably wait to see if the GRG moves them to "limbo" or not before we remove them from this page. 68.119.50.77 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that source is. It doesn't look like a newspaper but I'm guessing the MHLW is a Japanese government organization, correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The MHLW is the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, which is indeed a Japanese government ministry. It is the one that tracks centenarian and longevity data in Japan, and compiles information from each prefecture's annual longevity reports. That's also why I've been so busy on the List of Japanese supercentenarians lately, as the past two weeks have seen several dozen reports come out. Yiosie 2356 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent example, BTW, of a perfectly good alternative to GRG (unless someone can explain why not). EEng (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the MHLW only tracks data in Japan, not the rest of the world; the collection of data relies on each individual prefecture, which don't collect all information in the same way. While these reports are good alternatives, only a few offer specific birth dates and names; the majority just list the number of centenarians and supercentenarians of each age (number of 105 year olds, 106 year olds, etc.) living in each prefecture. So yes, good alternative but not always complete information within the scope of the articles in this project. Yiosie 2356 06:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell no one source has complete information. That's why multiple sources are needed. EEng (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oldest living man in the world is Costa Rican

The oldest living man is Jose' Uriel Delgado Corrales from Costa Rica. he is 115 years old.

http://www.nacion.com/vivir/educacion-familia/Jose-Uriel-Delgado-Corrales-hombre-longevo-mundo_0_1504249638.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.163.91 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Vera Wagner

The sources attached seem to indicate that she hasn't been officially verified by a body that deals with longevity research. The line "The Office for the Aging and the Baptist Home, where Van Wagner resides, are working closely with the Gerontology Research Group to officially verify her age. Once she has successfully completed the process, Van Wagner will become one of the approximately 80 oldest officially verified supercentenarians in the world", makes it clear that verification of her age is still pending at best, since she isn't listed in GRG's Table E, and since I can't find any sources that say her age has been verified by anyone. Given that, I think her entry should be removed. Yiosie 2356 00:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no requirement that says only "officially verified people" should be listed. The standard is WP:V. The fact that WP:RS has considered her claim is sufficient. The fact that the GRG has not does not per se mean that her claim is not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
How can the source be reliable, when it claims that Vera Wagner is the oldest person living in the state of New York, when Susannah Jones who LIVES IN NEW YORK, is the oldest person in the world, according to not only the GRG but Guinness Book of World Records. Clearly that source is WRONG, so not sure why you are calling it a "reliable" source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.154.150 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. That being said, shouldn't there be some kind of indicator included to differentiate claims from reliable sources from claims that have been officially verified by a body that deals with longevity research (the GRG or Guinness World Records)? I'm thinking an efn note attached to the name, with the line that her official verification is currently being processed as of today, or pending verification as of today. Since the majority of cases listed here are verified by the GRG, this would be an easy way to include claims from reliable sources without pushback from those worried about mixing verified claims from those that are not. Can this be done? Yiosie 2356 07:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There's an RfC on that very question over at WT:WOP. Ca2james (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Seems like her inclusion borders on original research. That said, I don't see why the late Emma Didlake who was verified by the VA as having been at least 110 (note: early census records indicate she was actually a year older than claimed but including that before the GRG looks at the records would be OR) wasn't listed here or why the late Alice Herz-Sommer wasn't included/why she isn't currently listed as verified on the List of supercentenarians who died in 2014 (hadn't her age been previously verified so as to accurately bestow upon her the title of "oldest Holocaust survivor"?) or why pretty much every Japanese claim isn't automatically included (since the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare keeps track of every advanced age claim, though they don't always report when someone dies and will often keep some names and dates confidential for privacy reasons). Those aforementioned cases have been verified as being true by reliable government organizations, have they not? Vera Wagner, on the other hand, just has a couple of newspapers and her nursing home claiming she's definitely 111. This really just seems like a few folks on Wikipedia wanted this list to not be a mirror of the GRG's Table E, but they haven't really put forth any forethought over who else could be considered as a "reliable source." It might be better to revert back to the old setup. But hey, that's just this anon's thoughts. 75.137.18.113 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
One more thing: Whatever is determined here on the supercentenarian pages should also apply to List of living centenarians and its related pages, right? 75.137.18.113 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This table definitely shouldn't be a mirror of Table E, but it will take time to add other reliably-sourced entries. I wasn't aware that these other proposed entries existed, although it looks like they're dead and this is a list of living people. Do you have reliable sources for living people who can be added to this list? Ca2james (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"This table definitely shouldn't be a mirror of Table E" ---> If that were the case, why would that be such a big issue? You do realise it's not against Wikipedia policy to mirror a list from a given source? Such as the FIFA World Rankings or Official World Golf Ranking. Or, if multiple sources are in disagreement, listing them all separately - such as at List of countries by GDP (nominal). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that the GRG isn't the only reliable source for these entries, and so to mirror only its tables is WP:UNDUE? Ca2james (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
But, what this reliable source does is verify ages and rank data... other sources don't. The way this article was laid out before - with separate lists of validated cases (sourced to the GRG) and unvalidated cases (sourced to newspaper reports) solved this problem! -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
and that solution isn't going to work. If uninvolved editors object to a verified column they're not going to go for separate table. Instead of focusing on what you used to do, please focus on how we can move forward. The easiest way to solve this is to remove the rankings, which I already did but TFBCT1 reverted me. I'm still waiting for his comment. Ca2james (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
That is a suggestion for how we move forward, and it's perfectly sensible. This concept worked well in the past and is the best way of giving due weight to sources. The GRG list is effectively the "official list" (you'll notice that in recent years, Guinness World Records books include the GRG's list of top ten oldest verified living people) and such a list has encyclopedic value. A "directory" of cases thrown in to one table is of less value. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It worked terribly in the past. It "worked" in the sense that we had a decade of edit warring to keep it in place with every list containing "pending" and "unverified" claims by the GRG. The GRG "official list" was never the point until someone brought it up to RSN again and got all the pending claims removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Vera Wagner break

As I see it, one of the issues with the entry on Vera Wagner in this article is the sourcing. I know that there are other issues (namely rankings and verification) but I'm thinking it would be good to deal with each one separately. Would anyone object if I took the sourcing question to WP:RSN to get input from the broader community? Based on the discussions at WT:WOP this will need to be done for many sources so I'm thinking that this one case makes a good starting point. Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If people respected the fact that age validation is recognised concept, then this wouldn't be necessary. I don't see how any editors at the RSN board can determine if these particular sources are reliable without actually attempting to verify her age themselves. The point of the GRG is that they attempt to verify claimant's ages for us. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to do this. If you do take this to RSN, you need to make the distinction between whether or not this source is reliable for saying "this person claims to be 111" and "this person is 111". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Even if age validation was as well-recognised and important as you say it is, that doesn't necessarily mean that other sources wouldn't be reliable. Moreover, since not every editor agrees with you regarding the recognition or importance of age validation, I guess this is going to RSN. Ca2james (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at RSN here. Ca2james (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion at RSN has been archived after discussion petered out. Discussion ended with this comment The last uninvolved suggestion was this:

    Newspapers are reliable, but there are other sources that are more reliable. So... here is my attempt to cut through the debate: If a newspaper has reported that someone is 110 years old, we can take that report as being reliable - unless a more reliable source has looked into the case and actually rejected the claim.
    While I would consider GRG to be a more reliable source, the fact that GRG omits someone from their list does not constitute a "rejection" (they specifically caution that their list is incomplete)... so... to shift the classification of a news source from "we usually consider this reliable" to "however, we do not consider it reliable in this instance" we would need the GRG to say: we looked into this and, nope... the claim is not valid.

This means that the two sources for Vera Wagner are considered reliable in the absence of information from the GRG to the contrary. Ca2james (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I concur, with the proviso that there needs to be some sensitivity to the possibility that the paper is merely reporting the subject's own claim, which in many cases would not be sufficient. EEng (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think run-of-the-mill "person is celebrating their 112th birthday" news articles are different than "person might be the world's oldest!" or "person is 129!" articles. Claiming to be the world's oldest or older than the oldest known person are extraordinary claims and I think that they do need extraordinary evidence (ie news articles aren't enough to support those claims). Each news article will need to be evaluated as a reliable source for the age, and we'll need to consider the newspaper's reputation (the Daily Mail and tabloids wouldn't be reliable sources for even run-of-the-mill age claims since they're not reliable for BLPs) as well as whether the article is just reporting someone's claim or there's more to the article. Ca2james (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
How do we determine and reach a consensus on what constitutes an "extraordinary" age claim though? Simply saying "older than the current oldest person" is rather arbitrary since the age of the oldest person has ranged from 113 to 117 in recent history. I think using a scientific measure (i.e. the age at which "unverified" age claims become significantly unreliable according to scientific journals) would be a better measure than the age of the oldest living person (or oldest person ever). --T Kanagawa T (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I made myself clear. I was referring to two different claim types: a) claims that someone is the world's oldest, and b) claims that someone is older than the oldest known validated person ever, who is Jeanne Calment at 122. Consider a). The world's oldest person is a well-known, well-publicized fact that has been scrutinized and validated by at least two organizations: Guinness and the GRG. Because the world's oldest person is so well-publicized, any article that says that someone else is the world's oldest person is making an extraordinary claim. The issue here isn't the age claimed itself but the position the person claims to occupy. Now consider b). The oldest person known to have lived is very well documented and any claim that someone else is older than 122 is therefore extraordinary. Both cases are clear bright lines that are easy to evaluate.
How do you propose to transform the correlation between older supercentenarian age claims and increasing unreliability into a way of determining what is an extraordinary claim? Ca2james (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the low participation RSN discussion achieved a clear consensus, and that wasn't the last comment from the discussion. --T Kanagawa T (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Right, I was incorrect in saying it was the last comment in the discussion: it was the last uninvolved suggestion in the discussion and everything below that was arguing about it. I've corrected my statement, above.
Perhaps there was a lack of participation because the rest of the community is tired of the endless, repetitive discussions associated with this wikiproject? Either way, uninvolved editors weighed in and that's really all we can hope for. Ca2james (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Argentina oldest verified woman has died

According to the conversations in 110 Club Argentina oldest verified woman Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero has passed away 1 September 2015 at the age of 112 years and 63 days. The information was sent by her grandson via email. But do we have to wait official announcement before this information can be confirmed? 62.72.228.251 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we must wait until a WP:RS (reliable source) announces her death before the information in the table can be changed. Forum postings aren't considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. Thanks for asking. Ca2james (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Then could somebody please re-add Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero to this list, given that the GRG still lists her as alive?74.129.182.181 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
And could someone please remove Ichino Kawasaki from this list? The GRG has her in limbo, and NOT on their list of verified living supercentenarians.74.129.182.181 (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, whoever removed Ichino Kawasaki, but Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero still needs to be re-added.74.129.182.181 (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In which table does the GRG list her? Table EE is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia so if she was listed in that table, we can't add the information to Wikiepdia. Ca2james (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
List who? Also, Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero has been removed from the GRG's list of living supercentenarians, so she should be removed from this list and added to the one of supercentenarians who died in 2015, given that the GRG lists her with a death date of September 1st.74.129.182.181 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_12&oldid=1144324952"