Talk:Longevity claims/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Longevity claims. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Logjam break

Have been crunching the numbers, and there may be a happy medium between satisfying RNPOV policy and not overwhelming this article with 200-year-olds. There is another objective way to split the data, namely, whether the data comes before or after Guinness's first supercentenarian report, fall 1955. This is an objective event that did change the game and can be used as an era marker (and if the report date is unavailable we can use Betsy Baker's death date of 24 October 1955 as a placeholder). This also yields a breakdown not too much different from the present. Here's my proposal:

Remove the arbitrary cutoff age from this "claims" article but restrict the scope so that very few parties over 131 qualify, and so that they can be made to leave if proper reliable-source debunking occurs. Particularly, limit the scope to two subsets, fully completed claims, and incomplete claims after fall 1955. It appears the only adds necessary then are (1) the complete birthdate/deathdate claims of Halime Olcay, Moloko Temo, and Old Henry Francisco (135, 134, 134); and (2) the recent incomplete claims of Turinah Sehat and Sarhat Rashidova (157, 131). Everybody else is either incomplete or dead/updated before 1955. I think it's an eminently reasonable compromise to limit the influx to four folks claiming low 130s plus Turinah as the exemplar outlier.
While only adding these 5 names, this also permits a number of folks to depart this article and go to the "traditions" article, reducing the caseload here. All the withdrawn claims under 110 can go to traditions automatically (those over 110 still qualify to be listed here), because they're demonstrated to be controverted by reliable sources, and thus not claims of 110 at all, but traditional. These recent withdrawals would then join, in that article, any historic figures who were once thought to be supercentenarian and who we now have decent historic dates for (editing not started yet on this list, but Galen is one case I'm looking at). (Also, Muslimov, Pereira, and Emperor Jimmu, if there are proper reliable sources saying so, would go in the controverted category as well so need not migrate over here even though Jimmu has complete dates.) About 10 incomplete cases in this article last updated before 1955 would also become "traditional" by definition, i.e., before the verification era.
In the future, nobody over 131 would be added to this article unless they either (1) had complete birthdate and deathdate listed in a reliable source or (2) had a report in a reliable source after 1955 without contradictory primary sources.
As I said earlier, the sort age would be the age-at-last-update rather than the age-if-living, so that limbo cases do not keep growing ever more unreasonable. Although some age-if-living numbers will be larger, there will be only the 5 lines that have sortkeys over 131.

I think this can solve the problem that underlies the other regular editors' concerns without invoking the m-word. Please see if we can all get close enough to reach each other on this, thanks. JJB 11:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Truth is not established by volume of editing. I find it unconscionable that you have almost single-handedly undid work that reflects the mainstream scientific point of view.

Yes, there needs to be a discussion, but a see a return to the original status quo as a prerequisite.Ryoung122 18:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest: Guinness, in 1955, adopted the scientific position which already existed, and dates to at least the 1870s, with William Thoms...who also coined the term "folklore."

Your attacks on this article are akin to religious fundamentalists violating articles on Darwinism and evolution. Go peddle your wares elsewhere. There's a place for you: it's called CHURCH.Ryoung122 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What do we Agree on?

It seems that ryoung and company have been in a heated dispute with John Bulten, and have not seemed to be able to get along. Before we go on and completely redesign the article, I think that we need to discuss what we DO agree on so that we can then sort out our disagreements. In order to do so, we need to have a good understanding of what each side has in common, what they don't, and why they hold their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berries and cream 33 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

B&C, join the fun at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths. JJB 02:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Age 113 minimum

Greetings,

To make it clear, there is a good reason to start the minimum age for this article at 113. First off, the number of claims to 110-112 are too numerous. Even for the deceased, we picked 115+ due to this.

However, there are two other good reasons:

2. Claimed ages reach "outlier" status (or 3 standard deviations from the expected) at age 113.

3. Most verified cases are verified within 3 years of turning 110. Right now, the GRG has cases in the 112 age range that are going to be verified but are not yet finished. That is not the case for 113+, and very very rarely is.Ryoung122 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Source please? JJB 18:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There definitely was a mention, albeit probably a very small one, somewhere on the GRG site, I think. Brendan (talk, contribs) 10:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits and Nick's reversion

There are two important things to do in this article. 1. We must immediately get rid of all potential BLP violations. That means not implying in any way that an elderly person has made false claims about his/her age unless we have a very good source saying that the person him/herself made the claim and that it was false. It's quite different from saying that a newspaper was in error. 2. Is the article an ordinary prose article, or is it a list? If a list, it should be entitled List of longevity claims. If it isn't, all the embedded lists have to come out. I put them in a separate list article - it's scope overlaps with that of other lists, but that can be sorted. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

This article should be separated into Living and Past claims. This might help reduce the potential BLP violations as described above. The article is in any case too large already and such a separation is the logical step to solve this. Claims with no recent (currently 2 years) evidence of the person being alive can be moved to the Past list once they reach 123 years, which I believe is the cut-off at which wiki permits the classification to be changed from "Possibly living" to "Date of Death unknown". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi

If he can't be on the verified supercentenarians pages, can he at least be on this page? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS

In relation to this edit[1], you can't use third-party blogs as sources about living people. Please consult WP:BLPSPS for what's allowed and what's not allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Using blogs as sources is not permitted. It may even be a violation of the Longevity ArbCom decision, for parties to that decision, like me or Nick. David in DC (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm,check this out WP:BATTLEGROUND? David in DC (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Longevity claims

Nick, I can see why you reverted my edit in good faith; providing an example of another name of a claimant that had been previously removed due to possible evidence they were not the age claimed. Though, you forgot the purpose of THIS article: "longevity claims". Regardless of whether we are able to debunk completely or figure that it's more likely that the claimant is younger than claimed, the claim by ITSELF stands. The first sentence of this article says it all, "Longevity claims are individual claims to extreme human longevity (generally age 110 or older, or supercentenarianism)."

Not only that, for living claimants, it says, "These notable supercentenarian claims with full birth and update dates were updated within the past 2 years, and have no publicly available early-life records to support them." That is exactly the case with Mrs. Rebecca Lanier. She is a living claimant that was still living within the last month, and she has no publicly available early-life records to support her claim (yet).

Plus, you may not realize it, but "debunking claims based on census research & other data, and then removing people from this article" is precisely original research, unless you are able to provide a reliable source that states the claim has been proven to be false. I'll let you respond first, but I feel that Mrs. Rebecca Lanier's claim needs to be added back to the living claimants list. After I re-add her claim in good time, please do not revert again now that I have explained my reasoning here. Regards, CalvinTy 15:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Calvin, please consult BLP policy. Removing someone from an article is the default option and can never be original research. The whole concept of "claims" may be appropriate for Guinness-style investigation but isn't good for this encyclopedia. Without a very good source it is wrong to say that a person made a false claim. 9 times out of 10 it is not the elderly person making the claim anyway, but relatives and local newspapers. It is against BLP policy to say that someone has lied unless there is a cast iron source for it. By the way, have you seen the article I created List of people reported to have lived beyond 130. If there are no objections, that will become the main repository for those reports. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Itsmejudith. I think I may be confused myself, bear with me... but it looks like we appear to be agreeing? I am telling Nick he shouldn't remove Mrs. Rebecca Lanier from this list because there is no source that says she has made a false claim (or family members/reporters -- although, in this case, she celebrated her 119th alleged birthday fully knowing that she is essentially agreeing that she is 119)? At least Nick's explanation was that he removed her name because there was SOME evidence that she is not the age claimed, but his action was not based on any reliable sources that I know of.

Or do you mean that the words "living claimants" is the problem instead -- nobody should be considered a living claimant per the WP:BLP policy, when I think about it, as a matter of fact, you are absolutely correct. As David in DC mentioned today, the word "claim" implies a sense of falseness (he specifically used the word, 'pejorative').

Oh yes, I apologize for not being around much lately, but yes, I saw that article you created shortly afterwards. It was a really good start, and it really was a good way to "merge" the historical/biblical claims into this new article. Of course, understandably, due to length, you had to limit only to reports of ages 130+ or above, not below. Great progress there. Cheers, CalvinTy 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think claims with evidence against them would have been moved to the disputed claims page, but it seems to be deleted now. The people that were on that list had enough evidence to be 'disproven' or 'partially disproven', as well as having no evidence to support the age claim. An example would be someone saying they're 120, while holding an ID card that says they're 80. So, I have to say that I support the disputed age claims page as it separated those longevity claims from the ones without evidence or testimony against their age claim. It reduces the size of this page by separating those potentially false claims. I hope my facts are right about this. Gabe A (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Claim" is perjorative

It suggests doubts about veracity. As to living people, "claims" must be avoided, per WP:BLP. It's why I rewrote the lede so carefully a month or two ago, to describe the claim rather than the claimant. Nick objects to my carrying that over to the top table - the one about living people. I invite Nick to respond here. Then, I suggest we STFU and let others opine. But where BLP is concerned, the page ought not be changed on this score without powerful persuasion to the contrary. David in DC (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for guidance on the ~~RSN, here~~David in DC (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

on the NPOV Noticeboard here. David in DC (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I replied briefly at NPOV/N, referring readers to WP:CLAIM, saying the word "claim" is best avoided because it does carry a slight connotation of doubt or incredulity. I can't say that I cordially approve of David's

"Birth date (not fully verified)" or his
"Age as of {{date||dmy}}<ref>Age if birthdate is correct</ref>"

either though; those seem to me to err in the other direction, of giving improper credence to the birthdates and ages, that is. A description that doesn't cast doubt or lend credence is needed: Why would there be any objection to the completely non-judgmental description "asserted", as in "Asserted birth date" or "Asserted age as of..." ? – OhioStandard (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PS - I saw just now, from your follow-up at NPOV/N, that it's not always the subject who's making the assertion, and your mention of concern at the possibility that the language used could give the mistaken impression to the contrary and, especially, that it would be improper to cast doubt on the assertion, unfair to the subject, if he or she wasn't the one who made it. I'd suggest that a simple (foot)note (not a ref) could deal with that eventuality, ie a note following the word "Asserted" or the phrase that contains it, to explain, at the bottom of the page, that it's not always the subject who's responsible for the assertion. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Assert" is lumped with "claim" at WP:CLAIM:

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

I've tried a different approach that avoids "claim", "assert", and Nick's aesthetic objection. Please review and discuss here. David in DC (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that, re "assert" at wp:claim. However, your current presentation, David, in this edit doesn't seem satisfactory to me, either. Saying just "birth date" at the column heading, for example, even with the footnote you supplied in that edit, doesn't seem neutral to me, either. These birthdates can't be presented or described as facts; there does need to be some brief way, appropriate for a column heading, to say that they're not to be taken as facts, but rather as statements of facts made by someone other than Wikipedia.

I didn't like "claim", because it seems to me to suggest falsity, but (for me) "asserted" doesn't do so, in this instance. On the contrary, it seems to me to be the most neutral way we can indicate that someone other than Wikipedia provides the indicated date as being the person's actal DOB. The alternatives are pretty limited if you don't like "asserted". You could also go with "stated", or possibly (and awkwardly) "declared". We don't want to indicate "doubt or skepticism", as I said at NPOV/N, but we also need to make it immediately clear that Wikipedia isn't presenting the listed dates as actual DOBs. Difficult to do in a few words; I still think "asserted" provides the best alternative; it does not, to me, indicate incredulity or any value judgment as to veracity or falsity. "Stated" would be almost as good, except it carries more of an implication that it's the subject himself doing the "stating", which I understand is to be avoided, if possible, for the purpose of this article.

Btw, David, the use you've made of footnotes in this edit is not what I proposed; you didn't exactly say that it was at NPOV/N, but I just wanted to make that clear. Finally, you took this to NPOV/N for neutral, uninvolved opinions. I care about accuracy, but I have no inherent interest in this article, no horse in this race, so to speak. And with all due respect, David, I have to observe that it seems to me that you're trying a little too hard to lend credence to the DOBs presented. If I had to choose between your current proposal and going back to "Claimed DOB" I would have to go with "claimed". But I've already indicated I don't like that, either. It's natural to dig one's heels in, in a case like this, and to contend for one's preferred presentation. But the issue here is subtle-enough that cooperation is what's needed; neither the versions you've presented, David, or Nick's "claimed" really serves our readers particularly well, imo.

Again, the crux of the problem seems to me to be this: "How do we indicate that the DOBs listed are not being presented as facts by Wikipedia, without giving the appearance of making any value judgment as to their credibility, without, in other words, giving the appearance of calling anyone a liar?" That's a difficult task to encompass in a short phrase, suitable for a heading, and some flexibility is called for. I still think "asserted" accomplishes that difficult balance most effectively, with "stated" a close second, but I have no interest in becoming involved in the development of this article, beyond providing that opinion. You guys will have to work it out together, via some compromise that probably neither of you will be entirely happy with. That is, as you no doubt know, the reality of contributing here. Please work hard to keep that discussion/negotiation as mutually respectful as possible; this is, as I said, a subtle matter: Opinions can fall on either side, in perfectly good faith. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OhioStandard that "asserted" used in a list is the most appropriate use of stating a living person's potential age. I also saw WP:CLAIM for the first time, and was disappointed to see that 'assert' was lumped with 'claim', but not to be too much of a nitpicker, the association was for the verb usage of "claimed/asserted", not the noun usage of "claim". It is quite different to say this sentence: "This is a list of claims of extreme age." as opposed to saying, "This living person claims to be 119 years old.". The latter is more suggestive of a potential bias in "doubting the age of 119". As a matter of fact, I think the word "asserted" is more of a neutral tone than the definitions of that word seem to suggest. I just don't know why it "feels like a neutral tone". I wonder whether the WP:CLAIM guideline may need to be re-written if there's a consensus on the agreement of the word "asserted" being neutral. Regards, CalvinTy 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM may need changing. But regardless, I think "reported" is better than either. It meets OS's point that we need to let the reader know, up front, that wikipedia is not stating the age as a fact. It leaves room for all of the various entities upon whose reports these birthdays are based, and there's no need to parse the various connotations of "claim" (as noun or verb), "assert" or "assertion". Then we can move on to the footnotes, which should say more than just "Report on the clamed ___ birthday of ___", but that should, rather, identify the reporter. That's what a reference does, it identifies the source of the report. The "Report on the claimed ..." format for a reference is fairly useless in helping the reader know the reliability of the source. Indeed, my view of that format mirrors Harry Chapin's view of the merits of the musical ouvre of Donnie and Marie Osmond. Brendanolgy and I have been discussing this very issue on my talk page. David in DC (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Li Ching-Yuen

Why is he not on this page, it is a longevity claim and it is even supported by official chinese government documents! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Eoedokija Vysjymirska & Channa Barysevitsj

I found this case on the Dutch wikipedia. There have been some type-os within this category of other longevity claimants (Pasitsjat Dzjoekalajeva is suppose to be Pasikhat Dzhukalayeva). There are no soureces containing this Ukranian person even in Russian: Эудокия Вышымирска, which is next to the name in parentheses). This person (if real) claims birth in 1890. See section on Dutch wiki here [2]. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Евдокия (Явдоха) Вышимирская might be died in 2004 because nobody celebrated her 115th birthday. Besides Hryhoriy Nestor (born in 1891) was the oldest Ukrainian person before his death in 2007. --Vesailok (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention Channa Barysevitsj as well. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Turinah+Katemi

There is two peoples with age over 130 уеar - Turinah [3] and Katemi[4]. I think we can add this information if there is not disproof of this data --Рулин (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous 120

The 110 Club>Yemeni man 120. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Teresa Hsu Chih

What about Teresa Hsu Chih? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

YouTube as a source.

Except in very limited cases, YouTube is not a reliable source.

WP:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable_sources? says

*YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation.

That's why I've made these edits. Please explain why these particular youtube videos are exceptions, based on policy. Please do not re-insert without achieving consensus in this thread. David in DC (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ayaz Huseynov

No sources about him. Delete, please. --Vesailok (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

He is just an author of some films about supercentarians from Azerbaijan --Vesailok (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

4 brothers 120+

4 120-year-old brothers, 1 died at 110. See 'Answers to Parsha Questions' on the last page. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Time to split this article?

This article is now 170kb, the maximmum recommended size is 100kb, clearly this article is far too large. It looks like the best split would be to remove the Incomplete longevity claims to a new article. When I get time I'll do a test split and see how it looks. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There being no objection, I have now moved the incomplete claims to their own article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Tuti Yusupova

Ms. Yusupova is still living. This article is for people who are claimed to be over the age of 110. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant because that is what this article is for - Longevity claims. It should not be reverted again. Ms. Yusupova is mentioned in many news articles. StickyWikis | talk — 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is for person whose claim does not exceed 131 years. As Yusupova's claim is now greater than this she no longer meets the criteria for inclusion. Claims that exceed 131 years are included in the Longevity myths article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's absolutely false. There has never been such a criteria for this article to limit the ages to 131 or less. That is a completely arbitrary number which has no reasonable basis. StickyWikis | talk — 06:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong! This article had such a criteria until October 2010 when a subsequently banned editor removed it during a myriad of changes many of which were not reverted. This discussion preceded that removal. As shown by subsequent removal of any living claim to 131 or more, regular editors of this article have been following the earlier criteria despite its removal from the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ms. Yusupova has never been mentioned after the article [5] dated September 29th, 2010. --Vesailok (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Limbo Age

I suggest that the auto-update feature be taken off of the "limbo" cases, and just report their last confirmed alive age. That's the point of limbo...we know they made it to age X, we don't know after that.69.15.219.71 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Vesailok (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Late-Life Mortality Deceleration Called Into Question by New Research

New research indicates that late-life mortality doesn't plateau; previous research was erroneous due to not factoring out false/exaggerated age claims.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577257292958403150.html

Also, GRG data indicates that supercentenarian mortality peaks at about 70-71% at ages 114 and 115.

https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=FDA16D787DE2B472&resid=FDA16D787DE2B472!890

This article should be updated to reflect the more-recent research, not "findings" from 1939.

69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sylvester Magee

What about Sylvester Magee?? Quis separabit? 16:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

ADDED. Quis separabit? 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ángel Alberto Rengifo Cerquera-novo de mais para a lista passado

Ángel Alberto Rengifo Cerquera encontra-se na lista «passado» em 32 º lugar,com 114 anos de vida provavel,nao e novo de mais para esta lista?tentei tirar mas penso que nao consegui. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel castelhano (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Entire Section POV

Scientific status

Prior to the nineteenth century, there was insufficient evidence either to demonstrate or to refute centenarian longevity.[1] Even today, no fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent.[2] In [1] Studies in the biodemography of human longevity indicate a late-life mortality deceleration law: that death rates level off at advanced ages to a late-life mortality plateau. That is, there is no fixed upper limit to human longevity, or fixed maximal human lifespan.[3] This law was first quantified in 1939, when researchers found that the one-year probability of death at advanced age asymptotically approaches a limit of 44% for women and 54% for men.[4]

Problems:

1. No encyclopedia article should say "even today".

2. This section should reflect more recent research...no updates since 1939 is not appropriate.

3. This section does not understand the proper context. There has been a camp, led by mathematicians and actuaries, that favor a "fixed" upper limit. Much of the response to that is arguing for flexible data analysis...but still, even with mortality exceeding 50% annually, that doesn't sound too positive when it comes to "living forever". And even more, recent research from 2001 on supercentenarians suggests that human mortality peaks above 70%. That's not to say that there is a "fixed upper limit", but the chances of surviving beyond a certain age range (120-125) is unlikely to happen, given present rates of worldwide mortality and the population of the Earth.69.15.219.71 (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Identity grabbing"

Instances of alleged extreme longevity are often a younger person assuming the identity of someone older, as in a young adult taking the entity of a grandfather to avoid conscription as was commonly alleged for extreme ages in the old Soviet Union. Such was often used for propaganda value, asserting the accomplishments of the Soviet political and economic order and ignored that such people were already old at the inception of the Soviet Union.

Another is of a series of monastic leaders with a promising younger monk assuming the identity of a recently-deceased 'master'. The Guinness Book once debunked a claim that some Chinese religious master who died at age 250+ in the 1930s yet having been born even earlier (there might be a gap).Pbrower2a (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fu Suqing Shuangliu

Isn't she certified? --Paolotacchi (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixes

I audited the Longevity claims § Past section, fixing the following issues:

Replaced hard-coded values in age column with template for Józef Buszyło and Clementina Rodríguez Quiros.
Replaced dates in age template with those from birth and death/last report columns (because they were different) for Odília Alves dos Santos, Amanda Aguilar, Willie Henry Holmes, Baji Safarova, Sadie Mae Caver, David Peterson, Magomed Labazanov, and Rose Peters.
Re-sorted the table based on age (mostly affecting the names above).
The names shown in bold above, I confirmed the two dates against the source.
The reference named shc (at mediafire.com) is dead, so an alternate source needs to be found. I suspect that table might have come from GRG anyway.

I would create a template to put the two dates in the 3 columns to prevent them from being inconsistent with each other, but I'm not sure the page can handle being any slower than it already is, so I'll suggest an edit notice to warn people to keep them consistent. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Past table and "fl."

In the Longevity claims § Past section, the table has a column that is either the date of death or the date last reported alive. Some of these values have an "fl." (flourished) in front of them, meaning they were alive as of that date. Does that mean the ones without the "fl." are definitely dates of death, or just that the "fl." are definitely dates last reported alive? This should be made clear in the description of the table if someone knows how the list was generated/maintained. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The fluorit should be included for those that have no known date of death. I added it to any that I moved from the Present section but not to any that were added/moved beforehand. Note that the editor who added most of the entries in 2011/12 (including the Incomplete longevity claims, which I moved to its own article]]) no longer seems interested in editing this article, or wiki in general. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I added a note to the table explaining it. Maybe someday someone will do some digging and confirm the ambiguous ones. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Saro Dursun

Saro Dursun's birth date, and existence, is confirmed by the two sources to Ratsit.se and Birthday.se which contain data from the official population register in Sweden. http://www.ratsit.se/Content/AboutRatsit.aspx and http://www.birthday.se/sa-sager-lagen confirm that the data from these websites come from the official population register in Sweden. When/if she dies, it will only take a couple of weeks before she is removed from these websites (as well as other population register sites). Her residence is officially known in the official population register in Sweden, so it's easy to confirm whether she's still alive or not. If you search for Bengt Hallberg (born 13 September 1932, died 2 July 2013) and Camilla Odhnoff (born 6 June 1928, died 16 July 2013) on Ratsit.se and Birthday.se, you will not find either of these two people. As long as Saro Dursun appears on official Swedish population register websites, she should be assumed alive. I've added other sources too, so if the first two aren't enough, then pick a "Latest report" date based on the other sources. Also, the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saro Dursun (redirect to List of living supercentenarians#Unverified living supercentenarians) confirms that her birth date and existence claims are verifiable, solid and recent enough for inclusion. Hey mid (contribs) 07:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not wikis job to "assume she is alive". That she was alive at some point when then the register was updated does not give a date when she was known to definitely still be alive. The criteria for this article is that there must be a report that she was alive within the last 2 years. None of the citations given provide that information, the date that they were retrieved is not nearly good enough. Unless there is a report that she was alive in the last 2 years (that's 2 birthdays that could reasonably be expected to be reported in the media) she should not be included. As an aside, the 110 club, which accept most claims, dismisses this as unlikely, try google for "saro dursun alive 112" (the site violates the wiki spam filter). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The population registers in Sweden are frequently updated, and they contain data from the Swedish Tax Agency. For example, as soon as someone has had its 16th birthday, that person is immediately added into the database on these websites. For what it's worth, it's just a claim (like all other entries in the list). If anything, could Saro Dursun possibly be included in the "Past" list (given the sources from 2009)? Hey mid (contribs) 08:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Historical personalities

Are personalities whose historical existence is not in doubt but who lived in the remote past appropriate for this list, or are they to be listed in Longevity myths? Especially when they are venerated religious personalities? The inclusion of Zhang Daoling and Hsu Yun makes it appear that neither factor makes them necessarily inappropriate for this list.

I'm asking because I have (curiously only after repeated visits to that article) eventually noticed the lifespan given in Fotudeng and was surprised and immediately highly sceptical, especially considering the significantly lower life expectancies in antiquity. The talk page discussion has made me aware of a further case, Śīlabhadra. What to do about cases like these? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I would think Longevity myths would be more appropriate, and as there is neither a date of birth or of death, if he belonged anywhere else it would probably be in Incomplete longevity claims rather than here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point, thank you; I missed that. Anthony the Great is a similar case. The German article even has a footnote pointing out that – besides the fact that the lifespan derives from a strongly idealising hagiography – the rural population in the 3rd century cared very little about birthdays (as opposed to death days) and so people would not usually know their precise age. The credibility of the life data is therefore minimal. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

There is an 'notable persons who reached a significant age' on WP - can it be linked to from here. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for this page.

Due to persistent vandalism I will reiterate the criteria for this page:

Under 130.
For living person a report less than 2 years old that they are alive.
A WP:RS reliable source. This excludes, amongst others, blogs and the IMDB.

None of the recent edits added and reverted by the user using multiple IPs and logins to avoid blocking meet these criteria. Appropriate administrator intervention has been requested. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Lower limit for this article

There are now more than 100 people verified to have reached the age of 114. This indicates that 113 is no longer notable as a claim. Given the large number of claims over 115 it would seem that 114 is no longer notable either. This, along with the fact that the inclusion of such claims (i.e. 113 and 114) is largely incomplete makes this article far less encyclopedic than it should be. Unless there are convincing arguments to the contrary I propose that claims of less than 115 years be removed. I'm sure there are editors who would be willing to create a user page for such claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

130+ cases

Why we not add here and 130+ cases (deceased cases)---User:STM201 (Talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You can find these cases on the 130+ list. --Nixus Minimax (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Gertrude Weaver has died

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/06/397923715/gertrude-weaver-worlds-oldest-woman-dies-at-116

Because some idiot protected this page, I cannot make the edit, and Wikipedia is giving out wrong information.76.24.29.148 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

David Trumble

I've done a little research on him after reading in his one book that he fought at Vimy Ridge (which I can't substantiate) and his claim to have been born in 1867 appears to be false. There is a David Trumble in the 1901 and 1911 Canada census that seems to be a match -- but he was born in 1882.

http://automatedgenealogy.com/uidlinks/Links.jsp?uid=700390689

Kscheffler (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeralean Talley has died as well

Well, now that Jeralean Talley has died as well. And this page cannot be edited. Seriously, who is the idiot that locked a page like this?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woman-deemed-worlds-oldest-person-dies-at-116-in-michigan/ar-AAbNd2d?ocid=ansnewsap11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYTiHK (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Longevity claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Few more claims...

I think we can find a few more claims from this list: Listing of Incomplete, Exaggerated, or Fraudulent Cases (as of Sunday, May 18, 2014) Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Longevity claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718132411/http://www.xjjjb.com/html/news/2008/7/24110.html to http://www.xjjjb.com/html/news/2008/7/24110.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Exaggerated Cases

Greetings,

On the longevity discussion board The 110 Club, researchers uncovered baptismal records for Cruz Hernandez and Leandra Becerra Lumbrerars. They were indeed supercentenarians...but not the ages claimed. Hernandez was born in 1893 (aged 113 at death) and Lumbrerras in 1904 (aged 111 at death), so can we make footnotes that these two are exaggerated cases - they were over 110, yes, but not the extreme ages claimed.--Sailor Haumea (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That nice but the discussion board doesn't qualify as a reliable source. If you can provide reliable sources that indicate that they believe the evidence is false, that would be sufficient. And no, we don't engage in a review of primary data like the baptisal records you mentioned. Again, I think it's important to remember that Wikipedia cares less about finding out the "truth" than about just reporting what is said by reliable sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If the baptismal record explicitly states their birthdate and it's 15 years after what they claimed, shouldn't that be sufficient? --Sailor Haumea (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Because no one here knows that is the accurate baptismal record. We don't know if that's a legitimate record, or a record that was corrected, or someone else entirely. That's why the point here isn't to engage in a debate about whether the original basic sources are true. We rely instead on reliable secondary sources that state whether or not the fact is true. The focus here is create an encyclopedia which refers to what reliable sources confirm is true. So something like the GRG saying that the claim is false is appropriate because the GRG is considered a reliable source on the matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What if we know it's the original baptismal record? (i.e. from FamilySearch, scanned copies of original records). The parents match the claimants' in both cases. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Where are the parents listed here? What the source on the parents? Is FamilySearch a reliable source? How do we know the records there are accurate. You're just creating a sinkhole of more and more things to verify, none of which anyone here cares about and all of which depend on whether or not the users here actually know what they are doing. We don't go by anonymous individuals on the internet who say whether "X or Y is true or false". Find a reliable, independent third party source on the matter or move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Celina is dead

--Chvsanchez (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Longevity claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this also about animals?

As of right now the lead says "longevity claims are unsubstantiated cases of asserted human longevity" - but isn't it also about the longest living animals?

--Fixuture (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Mbah Gotho

Can we add Mbah Gotho to the list of unverified claims?

"Mbah Gotho has official identification showing his birth date to be December 1870" but has yet to be verified by an independent third party.

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

173.2.162.200 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

By consensus the upper limit for this page has been set at 130 years. Anything above that is considered unrealistic and belongs in Longevity myths. 21:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything that could be done to clarify this? Clearly I and another editor recently tried to make this happen, as it's difficult to justify someone still alive and widely reported (though with only modest and unverified evidence) as a "Myth" instead of a "Claim." Jz4p (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to clarify. If you mean "Clarify the inclusion criteria for this article" the top of the article clearly states that the the upper limit here is 130 years. If you mean "Clarify whether this claim is legitimate" that has nothing to do with Wiki editors. For what it's worth, his identity card was issued in 2014 which makes it virtually worthless for establishing his age. It is mentioned he has great-great-grandchildren. If he was 140+ it would be reasonable to expect at least great-great-great-grandchildren (Agusta Bunge died at 109 and had great-great-great-great-grandchildren). There are no other markers in the reports which might help in justifying his age claim (e.g. when he married, the ages of his children or grandchildren, what happened to his family during Japanese occupation or what he remembers about Indonesian independence). In short, actual verification by an independent body, such as Guinness, won't happen. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason why 130 is set as the realism limit? That seems like WP:OR to me. Since this article is for unverified claims, it seems reasonable to include him, especially since his claim has received independent coverage (here [6]) and the Indonesian government is standing by their number, however bizzare it appears. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

130 is the agreed upper limit by consensus. This is based on the fact that the independently verified maximum (Jeanne Calment) is 122 years. Higher claims are not realistic and belong in Longevity Myths. Removing the upper limit would mean that this article and Longevity Myths would be combined, making it totally valueless as a meaningful encyclopedic article. Changing the limit requires consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

But is there a reliable source saying that claims higher than 130 are not realistic? Or is this something for which a reliable source wouldn't be needed? If so why? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. The limit has been agreed by consensus which is sufficient. It would need consensus to change that limit, but, as this page is far from complete and the majority of longevity fans who started and maintained it are no longer active on Wikipedia it would seem rather pointless. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This still feels suspect to me. 130 is fundamentally arbitrary. The question of what the maximum age a person could live to with modern medicine has almost certainly been addressed by scientific literature, so a better number could probably be found. Sadly I don't have time right now to look for it, but my personal preference would be that "myths" only list claims for which there is no formal documentation, while claims made by actual people that have at least some support, but not enough to be officially recognized would go here. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is currently 97k and would be far larger if the lower limit had not been raised form 113 to 115 and if the longevity fans who were adding most of the entries were still actively doing so. The likelihood is that this article would balloon to over 300k if the upper limit were raised to even 200 years let alone removed. And it would still be incomplete. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed people

Dozens of people are removed forno updated on 2 years. I propose to add all removed people to the second list.--2001:DA8:201:3512:45D1:693A:B09E:C85E (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and add them, BUT you should know that there are probably hundreds of such people and this article is already at the recommended maximum article size of 100kb and if it continues to grow it will either have to be split or its contents restricted in some way. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Longevity claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to improve the encyclopedic value of this article

At present this article lists living cases (with evidence of being alive within the last 2 years) and deceased cases between the ages of 115 and 130. The current article size is now over the recommended maximum of 100kb and the list is so far from being complete as to constitute little more than longevity fanfluff. What is the point of retaining/adding people whose age is extremely unlikely to be verified and who therefore have such a tenuous claim to notability?

My proposal is that this article be limited to living cases which are older than the current "verified" oldest living person (i.e. as per Guinness World Records), and that deceased cases be limited to those older than the oldest "verified" person ever (i.e. at present this is Jeanne Calment). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Old Tom Parr

Could claims surrounding Old Tom Parr go in this article? Or do readers think that as there is already an article in Wikipedia on Tom Parr, that will suffice for this subject?Vorbee (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

He does not meet the requirements for this article (must be under 130). Belongs in Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Longevity claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sudhakar Chaturvedi died?

Which source says that Sudhakar Chaturvedi has died in 27 September 2017? 85.134.113.52 (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Jaramillo

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/born-in-1896-and-still-going-meet-the-worlds-oldest-man-probably Xx236 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that report too - but you needed to include it in your edit. I have now done so.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'm not good in quoting :-( .Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Oldest living person

The article says that Nabi Tajima is the oldest living person. She has recently died so this needs to be updated. I didn't want to update it because I don't know whose age is verified and whose is not, but List of oldest living people lists Chiyo Miyako at the top. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Xuyun

Wikipedia has an article on Xuyun (born Xiao Guyan), a Chinese Buddhist teacher, whose page states that he lived to 119 years and 38 days. I’m posting this in both Oldest People and Longevity Claims because the age is not disputed in the article, but was called into question in the discussion page. Paul F Villerius (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The current criteria for this article are that only living persons older than the oldest person as recognized by Guinness World Records or deceased persons older than the oldest person ever according to Guinness (i.e. Jeanne Calment]], be included. In both cases the upper limit is 130 years. As Xuyun does not meet the criteria he cannot be included here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Koko Istambulova

Just ran across an article published by the Daily Mail claiming a Russian woman, Koku Istambulova was born 1 June 1889, making her nearly 129 years old. Despite the probable legitimacy of the news source, the claim seems highly dubious. Besides the advanced age, the claim that she is a miserable woman who "has not had a single happy day in her entire life" seems rare in claims of extreme age, and, in my opinion, the accompanying pictures appear to show a woman between about 85-90, not nearly the claimed 129. So rather than adding it directly to the top of the list, I'll post it on the talk page and let someone else decide if they think she ought to be included just because the claim was made in a more-or-less respectable news source. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5735065/Worlds-oldest-woman-aged-129-says-shes-miserable-day-life.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline Ryan Reeder (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not “more or less respectable” as a source and should not be used. See WP:DAILYMAIL.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A video^[7] confirms this. Glen Horo (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Reports with complete date of birth

I can't see how we can reasonably let these claims to be hosted on this article given the severe lack of credibility in these sources. Is there any reason to keep these? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This article exists precisely because these people lack credibility. However, they are supported by WP:RS so "reasonably" doesn't come into it. The section and opening paragraph are a reflection of the GRG-fanclub days and should probably be reworded. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying the claims are not credible, I'm saying the sources themselves are not credible. Essentially, they're not credible enough to report these non-credible claims. The sources in English are all tabloids like Daily Mail and spurious religious publications, not reliable news sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Any claim with a citation which has been specifically noted (there's a list somewhere) as not being an RS can be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That is my thought as well, but it's essentially all of them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Johanna Mazibuko of South Africa?

Is she still alive or not? The last time I was able to find a confirmation of living status was when she was 119 in 2013 and I do not see any obituaries either, and never did..Timothy McGuire (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Apullanalada Ukku

I'm not sure where to add this claim from Apullanalada Ukku, a Sri Lankan woman who is claimed to have died at 117 and the oldest person in the world after Jiroemon Kimura died. She was first recognized here in 2013, and here after she died in 2014. She also has an article on the Gerontology Wiki here. — Melofors T C 02:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

She does not meet the criteria for inclusion. As she is deceased her claimed age would have to be greater than Jeanne Calment to be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Asiye Sutlu

Asiye Sutlu has not been reported in over two years.

Removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Salma Abdulqadir

Salma Abdulqadir has not been reported in over two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A700:10CA:0:0:0:5190 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Jackson Pollock (longevity claimant)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jackson Pollock (longevity claimant). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#Jackson Pollock (longevity claimant) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Maria Lucimar Pereira

Maria Lucimar Pereira is now over age 130. Could an auto-confirmed Wikipedia user please remove her from this article and add her to the longevity myths article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A700:A7E:C5B1:314F:2CDD:41FA (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Magomed Labazanov

This article from the Daily Mail describes the life and the death of Magomed Labazanov, a Russian Muslim claimed by Dagestan regional officials to have been born in 1890. It mentions that the Guinness Book of World Records did not accept his application due to lack of documentation. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

William Robert Hutchins

I found an almost certainly spurious claim that a William Robert Hutchins was born October 11, 1682 and drowned in New York Harbor on November 7, 1795, aged 113. This seems extremely unlikely. The citation is simply showing as "Ancestry member trees" and asking me to pay to see details. He's not even supposed to be my direct ancestor, merely "father-in-law of 6th great-grandaunt."--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

He does not meet the criteria for inclusion. A deceased person must have a WP:RS reporting that their claimed age is older than Jeanne Calment and under 130. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Mehmet Tatar and Seher Bulut

Both have articles on trwiki: tr:Mehmet Tatar, tr:Seher Bulut, wanted to note if they are suitable for inclusion.--Esmer Günler (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Marcelino Abad (Perù)

Hi dear, some days ago I've read this article about covid-19 vacination on Marcelino Abad. He's 121 years old. Newspaper--Joetaras (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"complete" in lead

At first I thought it might be because my mind was addled after reading some walls of text in the ANI, policy pages, etc., but I was confused by the clause ", or complete," in the article's lead. However, at present that adjective isn't really defined in the article. The only definition I could find was in an archived talk page entry from about a month before the larger clause "modern, or complete, unvalidated supercentenarian claims" was introduced.

Would it be appropriate to wikify "complete" as a link to some page or section in mainspace that defines, or at least clarifies, it? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a relic of the former state of this article which was at one time filled with "incomplete" entries (i.e. reported age in years only with no date of birth or date of death) which were eventually removed. "Complete" means a reported date of birth and either a reported date of death or a dated reliable source indicating that they are/were of an age appropriate for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Swami Shivananda

Swami Shivananda has a passport issued on Oct 20, 2010 where his data of birth is given as 8/8/1896. ^[1] Hindustan Times Aug 18, 2016, may have published the first report about him based on an AFP release. ^[2]. The passport date is said to have been based on a temple record.

He has lived in Kashi since 1979, after living in Vrindavan since 1977.^[3]

Malaiya (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant. He is already on the list and will stay here until he either (i) dies (ii) reaches his supposed 130th birthday (iii) is not reported as being alive within the last 2 years; or (iv) his claimed age is disproved. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove Zhang Daoling

He lived nearly 2,000 years ago. Unless I'm mistaken, the preferred place to put those people is Longevity myths, specifically Longevity myths#China. 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Done, though mainly because there is no justification for the specific dates of birth and death listed as these do not occur in his article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Eşe Gelebek

Eşe Gelebek died: [8] Valentin Ko (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Manuel Garcia Hernandez died on 13 October 2023

Hello, I wanted to inform you about the death of Manuel Garcia Hernandez, I spoke with his daughter a few hours ago and she told me that he had died on 13 October 2023. 2806:101E:A:8B9C:5DF6:5430:61EF:7DF1 (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hearsay is insufficient. Must have a reliable source that is accessible to other editors, confirming that he has died. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02xdJUKEoATThKtitYWsn6iyqSxQn57cdVgxwMA3pMoUCKM44LDR8iwrjHh5eavAXbl&id=61550855982199&mibextid=Nif5oz 2806:101E:A:8B9C:5DF6:5430:61EF:7DF1 (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is. 2806:101E:A:8B9C:5DF6:5430:61EF:7DF1 (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Facebook is a reliable source. Manuel Uribe Gar (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Facebook is generally not considered a reliable source on English Wikipedia because it is user generated content. As per WP:FACEBOOK, there is only one instance in which Facebook can be considered As a reliable source:

Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. Peaceray (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

[1] 123-year-old Indian passenger stuns Abu Dhabi officials, Mariam M. Al Serkal, Gulf news, October 07, 2019

[2] Swami Sivananda ‘oldest man ever’ says no sex, no spice, daily yoga key to age, Hindustan Times, Aug 18, 2016

[3] Yoga guru swami shivanand baba got padmashree award at rashtrapati bhavan, Zoom News, Mar 21, 2022

[1]

[2]

[3]