Jump to content

Talk:Oldest people/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Another verification needed?

Here they say that a Berber old lady, Fatma Mansouri, is 140 years old and her birth is reportedly recorded in the French official registers in colonial times. I think this ought to be verified. --151.46.52.97 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Verification has nothing to do with wikipedia, and rubbish claims like this belong in List of people reported to have lived beyond 130. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bolivian Man

There are claims that Bolivian man Carmelo Flores Laura could be 123 years old. See http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/baptism-records-show-bolivian-herder-carmelo-flores-laura-is-123-years-old-making-him-the-oldest-person-ever/story-fneuz9ev-1226697488092 14.2.54.83 (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

See Carmelo Flores Laura, which includes rebuttal of his claimed age (he's probably no older than 107). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Pop Maftei 148 years old

Pop Mafter lived to be 148 years old and his death certificate has been published in many national newspapers, this is a partial picture: http://jurnalul.ro/thumbs/big/2013/02/04/record-national-longevitate-148-ani-18443472.jpg and this is a full picture: http://jurnalul.ro/pictures/2013/02/04/18443456.jpg while this is the article http://jurnalul.ro/special-jurnalul/reportaje/record-national-longevitate-148-ani-635756.html# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.130.101 (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish claims like this belong in List of people reported to have lived beyond 130. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding pending cases (again)

As per this previous discussion, pending cases should not be included in these lists. They violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR (the GRG lists do not include pending cases). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oldest man on earth is in India(180 Years)

http://noticiasvaishnavasemportugues.blogspot.in/2013/05/hanuman-das-baba-cerca-de-180-anos.html

Hanuman das baba is the oldest man on earth , he is 180 years old and still alive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.21.234 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is for verified people only. Vaguely realistic claims can be found at Longevity claims. More outlandish claims such as this one belong in List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 or Longevity myths, although a blog is not considered a reliable source so a better citation would be required before this could be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013

One of the oldest living people right now is captain Józef Kowalski. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Józef_Kowalski He is currently 113 years old, and hopefully will get even older! Please put him on the lists in proper places. Thanks. Yairomi (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

He is not verified and almost certainly never will be, therefore he cannot be included in this article which is for verified oldest people only. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing articles on two people

  • Mary Rhodes - she is the only person over the age of 114 who has no article.
  • Naomi Conner - She is the only person of the 1800s still living who has no article.

Can somebody please create these two articles? Thank you. --I love old people (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Naomi Conner — JJJ (say hello) 15:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What about Carmelo Flores Laura?

Carmelo Flores Laura has stories from famous sources, like CNN and ABC, saying that Carmelo Flores Laura is 123 years old. (yay 1,2,3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.146.188 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is for verified people only. Flores is not verified and never will be, if you read his talk page you will see he is probably only 107. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Only one man has been verified to have lived to 116 years old. For a man to be allegedly 123 that is seven years past the oldest known modern lifespan. If it was claimed he was 116 that would be possible, 123 not possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't say that a man living to 123 is impossible. The only fact that matters is that this man isn't verified. — JJJ (say hello) 14:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And he never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Maudie Wilson

Maudie Wilson F 23 March 1903 24 October 2013 110 years, 215 days New Zealand it is more than Ethel Booth New Zealand F 25 December 1890 18 February 2001 110 years, 55 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.30.52 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is for verified cases only, not pending cases. If/when Wilson is verified she can replace Booth in the list. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rosa Rein, Józef Piotrowski Jałówka

Rosa Rein can not be considered to be the oldest person born in areas that are currently within Polish borders as Joseph Piotrowski Jałówka born in the village, which is now in the Polish borders lived 118 years and one day or many years longer than while living in Silesia Rosa Rein . Józef Piotrowski[140] M September 1887 fl. 8 September 2005 118 years, 1 day Poland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.30.52 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is for VERIFIED SC's only. Jozef Piotrowski can be found over in Longevity Claims as his age hasn't been verified by the GRG and given that he's claiming 118, it never will be. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, we cannot state that he will never be verified, as we do not know. He isn't verified as of now, and that is why he isn't listed. Also, he does have his own article: Józef Piotrowski (organist) — JJJ (say hello) 14:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Luo Meizhen

I understand this page is for "verified" oldest people, but there are claims that Luo Meizhen lived to 127. If it can't be "verified" why not add an "unverified" section to this article?Terrorist96 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Unverified claims can be found at Longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

89.0.145.107 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added or removed.
Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

What about the man from morocco he has 122 years already and is still in alive and was born in 1892 [1] 89.0.145.107 (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This story appears in "Agadir24" which appears to be an on-line news sheet in Arabic. I have no idea whether it is a reliable source or whether the age has been verified by anybody. Running the article through Google translate gives his name as "Mahgoub Expressway" which seems unlikely.
There are many claims for oldest people, and we need the age to be verified, before we can add it to this list - do you have any other references? - Arjayay (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
If there is no verification, the name could possibly be added to Longevity claims, if we had an actual birth date and knew when the latest report actually was. Arjayay (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Claims without a specific date of birth are listed at Incomplete longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Good grief, how many parallel articles have we got? ;-) - I'd still like a proper translation and to know more about whether "Agadir24" is a WP:RS - Arjayay (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
For now I've closed this edit request and left a note at Talk:Incomplete longevity claims. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

120 yr. old twins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_survivors_of_historical_events States that twins born in 1906 are still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.196.59.214 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Where to begin??? 1. They are not twins one was 112 and the other 108. 2. The above article cites another wiki article as a reference. This is not allowed. 3. The other article, 1906 San Francisco Earthquake#Centennial commemorations, is so poorly written it cannot be considered reliable let alone accurate and it is clearly out-of-date. 4. Ruth Newman is already on the GRG pending list and is listed at List of living supercentenarians#Pending cases. Even if she were verified Ruth Newman is not old enough to be included in any section of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014

In the section of "oldest living people", please see the following video. It is claimed that the guy is 118 years old and living. http://in.lifestyle.yahoo.com/video/worlds-oldest-man-credits-simple-132100096.html 14.139.227.196 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 05:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2014

Oldest Person Living: http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/130-year-old-woman-is-sa-s-oldest-person-1.1584992#.UyHR8VGSzkY Johanna Ramatse aged 130 years; South Africa Jamessa2550 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is for VALIDATED persons only. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
See discussions above for other articles requiring lesser standards of proof - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Calment and van Gogh

Was it that she met van Gogh that led to media attention, or that she turned 110? It's a bit ambiguous as it is, there in the introduction to the article. Uranographer (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This article in leading section gives credence to a particular source. If the title were "Oldest people according to GCG" it would be OK, but such POV approach is not supposed to be for article of GENERAL title. It neglects old people from China, or claims of oldest people. It is simply a list of people condoned by some POV Organization. That is terrible.Wangleetodd (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand your complaints. However, China's recordkeeping of those in the rural western region is not particularly up to par. What do you suggest we do? Find a better organization, if you will. --WikiWinters (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Charts all messed up

Tried to fix the individual sections to remove the unnecessary "pending" people but having issues with the edits. Seem to keep missing 1 or changing too much by accident. Sorry Not meaning to make it appear like I'm vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonds775 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is easier to revert the changes back to the last good version. This has now been done, apart from a couple of insignificant spaces. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope you guys get this straightened out. Haven't had an edit war of this ferocity filling up my watchlist in years. I must say I don't see the point of "pending" people being listed, numbered or no. They can be properly added when they are properly verified. Is this being arbitrated somewhere? I would be happy to chime in as I have been watching this page for some time. FourTildes (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014

Through the second half of the 2013 year the oldest male in the world was Józef Kowalski, born on February 2nd, 1900, who has died on December 7th, 2013. His name is omitted from the list. 83.31.250.251 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Jozef Kowalski's age has not been verified by the GRG. He will not be mentioned on this page until his age has been verified. CommanderLinx (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is there this page and List of the verified oldest people?

Is this one the equivalent of Rumored oldest people? --— Rhododendrites talk |  03:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

say the oldest people that registered and we know

because of lack of the asian people unless japanese for example from iran and india and specially china this list completely is wrong list and for laugh (excuse me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandr19 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Question on updating

Why is it that when I log in I see everything updated to the current date, but without logging in everything is a week old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonds775 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundant tables

The Oldest people ever and the Ten verified oldest women ever tables are now redundant, Therefore I think the Ten verified oldest women ever table in this article should probably be removed. Rpvt (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Leandra Becerra Lumbrera s

The Mexican woman thought to be the oldest person in the world reportedly turned 127 on Sunday, according to the Metro.

Lumbreras says she was born on Aug. 31, 1887.

Her family said her secrets to longevity are eating chocolate, sleeping a lot and not getting married.

"She was always a woman who fought. She was still sewing and weaving until about two years ago,’ granddaughter Miriam Alvear, 43, told El Horizonte, according to a translation by Metro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.156.113 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just another claim to world's oldest person status. Not verified and never will be. Listed in Longevity claims where she belongs (along with hundreds of others). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I always find it amusing when many of those who stand by these claims and lash out at the "refusal" of Guinness and others to recognize their claimant as the "real" oldest person, turn into instant skeptics when it is pointed out that there are often many other "older" claimants out there. Which is why, as Guinness started to point out in the 1950s, no other subject is as clouded by vanity, deception, fraud and out-right nonsense as is the subject of human longevity. Canada Jack (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Emma Morano

Please note that Emma Morano's name should not be reported as "Morano-Martinuzzi" because it is not a double-barrelled name. She was just Emma Morano and was known as such until she married mr Martinuzzi. Following Italy's naming customs, they added the husband's surname after her surname (naming custom: Name Originalsurname Husbandssurname). But it's not a double-barrelled name case. That's why she is reported in Italian media as "Emma Morano Martinuzzi" or just "Emma Morano". Alternatives in Italy are "Emma Morano coniugata Martinuzzi" (coniugata means "married to"), "Emma Morano in Martinuzzi", and may sometimes be mentioned as "Emma Martinuzzi". No hypen in any case. Please consider removing the hyphen, because it is a mistake (no one in Italy would write Morano-Martinuzzi). Thank you, A. from Italy --87.20.34.84 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the article goes by what the source says. In this case, the source has the hyphen in her last name. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oldest verified person ever

Jeanne Calment says that she became such on 11 May 1990 (when she was aged 115y, 2m, 21d) and has held the title ever since. The succession box gives her predecessor as Augusta Holtz who died on 21 October 1986 aged 115y, 2m, 19d.

AH's page says that she became such on 13 May 1985 (when she was aged 113y, 9m, 11d) and held the title until 11 May 1990. However, Mathew Beard says that he had died on 16 February 1985 aged 114y, 7m, 7d, and cites [2].

I therefore suggest that AH's page should say that she became such on 11 March 1986 when aged 114y, 7m, 8d, and that her predecessor was MB.

MB's page would then say that he became such on 19 April 1984 when he was aged 113y, 9m, 10d and held the title until 10 March 1986. And that his predecessor was Fannie Thomas.

Comments?

Alekksandr (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Siebenbürgen

A source notes that Elizabeth Stefan was born in 'Siebenbürgen', Austria-Hungary. Siebenbürgen is actually not a city or town but the German name of Transylvania or Erdély in Hungarian. Although it was called Siebenbürgen in the times of the Monarchy by German speakers, particularly the Sass people in Transylvania, it was never an official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.121.50 (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2014

126 year old http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/10968734/Brazilian-who-turned-126-years-old-last-week-could-be-oldest-living-person.html


DaElbing (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

He's on the Longevity claims page - behind two others who claim to be older. Canada Jack (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: -The source doesn't confirm but speculate that the person could be the oldest living person and 126 years old. And, therefore, he is mentioned in the relevant article, Longevity claims. When it is confirmed that he is of 126 years, we'll add him in present article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Augusta Holtz

I don't think Augusta Holtz should be listed here. According to this source when she died, she did not have a birth certificate and specifically was not included in the Guinness Book of World Records at that time. I can't find evidence she was later included. If she is only considered "verified" because the GRG says that they verified it, that is giving undue weight to a single point of view. If the GRG has lower standards for verification, then we need to list the differing points of views and make it clear that groups with higher standards do not include her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oldest verified people by nation section?

I have several concerns regarding this section as it has many mistakes and is wrongly concepted:

- Firstly and foremost this section should be renamed "oldest verified people by country of birth" rather than "oldest verified people by nation" because the latter can be misleading and confusing. What counts when ranking supercentenarians by country is the place where they turned 110 and not the country where they were born. An example: in the case of medalists in sporting events, we show the flag of the country they represent and not the country where they were born (when the two differ). That's because the event we are interested in is the medal they have won and not their biography, so we show the country they represented when they won that medal. The same goes about supercentenarians.

- Secondly, even if we continued to list them by country of birth, what standard is being used? Since they are ranked by modern international borders, sometimes representing a different political entity from the one that existed when the subjects were born, they should be placed correctly in the modern-day country where their birth city/locality is found. Using this correct, unbiased standard, mistakes that should be corrected are:

1- Augusta Holtz - She was born in Baborów, Poland, not Germany

2- Instead, the oldest verified person born in modern-day Germany is Charlotte Benkner

3- Elizabeth Stefan was not born in Hungary, but modern-day Romania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2015

182.69.188.52 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC) add 1 more day

 Not done the dates all look correct to me, and are designed to automatically update without human intervention. - Arjayay (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2015

please add 1 more day by age 122.162.168.188 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 14:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The ages update automatically, so we don't need to add 1 day to the age. They update at 0000 UTC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

182.69.2.101 (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC) add 1 more day

 Not done The page automatically updates at 0000 UTC every day. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015

add 1 more day 182.69.2.101 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as mentioned in several previous edit requests, the dates update automatically. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Time Zones

Hello,

Time zones, in my view, should not be taken account when determining the date on which someone became the World's oldest person/man. For example, Jiroemon Kimura died on 12 June 2013 at 2:08am Japanese time, but it was still 11 June 2013 in American where Salustiano Sanchez - the next World's oldest man - lived, so he was listed as becoming the W.O.M. on "11 June 2013". But let me make a couple of points:

  • 1. The GRG only lists the DAY of birth & death of each case, because in most cases, an exact time of birth and death are not recorded.
  • 2. There may have been other cases in the past where a difference in time zones has meant that the former and new W.O.P. or W.O.M. were in different time zones at the time of the older person's death, but we just don't know about it.
  • 3. If you're going to start considering time zones, then you also need to consider the reader's time zone. Yes, it may have been 11 June in America when Sanchez took the title, but if you lived in Japan then it was actually 12 June. It wasn't 11 June everywhere.
  • 4. More than anything, it just seems ridiculous to have someone as becoming the W.O.M. a day before the previous person died.

Therefore, I think that in this scenario we should consider days as discrete values, and not concern ourselves with time zones. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the GRG. Wiki articles include information that helps to clarify things for the average reader. Changing the date when someone died does not clarify anything. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the GRG as a source. But ok, let's see what GWR had to say here:
"GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS ™, the global authority on record breaking achievements, announces 112-year-old Salustiano Sanchez Blazquez from Grand Island, New York, as the new world’s Oldest living man. The record is announced on the heels of the recent passing of Japanese 116-year-old Jiroemon Kimura, who was recognized as the Oldest man ever and died on June 12th, 2013."
There is no mention of time zones, and the GRG does not consider time zones either. Futhermore, I see no other source which mentions the time zone issue either, so I'm surprised you haven't shouted original research. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Take this to RFC. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

182.69.181.23 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC) gertrude weaver was the oldest person from april 1st 2015 - april 6th 2015. so please make 31st march to 1st april.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

The section "Timeline of verified oldest living persons since 1955" doesn't seem to be necessary at all since it is based on the same information as the "Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955" table. Rpvt (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how either of the 2 charts add anything particularly useful to the article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Data visualizations are valuable tools for highlighting information buried in tables and lists. The intent is to draw interest in the list and to encourage the reader to follow more wikilinks. If not for the chart, I would never have read the fascinating biography of Jeanne Calment Nyth63 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Josefa Salas Mateo

She was born and died in Andalucía not Asturias http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Supercentenarios_espa%C3%B1oles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.131.208 (talk) 15.09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memworking (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

122.162.115.209 (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)please add 2 more days

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Requests to extend protection can be done there as wlel Cannolis (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Time Zones RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is not to include time zone information. AlbinoFerret 21:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In the "Chronological list of oldest people" sections, should the time zones in which the people live be taken in to account? Ollie231213 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Ollie231213 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Time zones, in my view, should not be taken account when determining the date on which someone became the World's oldest person/man. For example, Jiroemon Kimura died on 12 June 2013 at 2:08am Japanese time, but it was still 11 June 2013 in American where Salustiano Sanchez - the next World's oldest man - lived, so he was listed as becoming the W.O.M. on "11 June 2013". But let me make a couple of points:
1. The GRG only lists the DAY of birth & death of each case, because in most cases, an exact time of birth and death are not recorded.
2. There may have been other cases in the past where a difference in time zones has meant that the former and new W.O.P. or W.O.M. were in different time zones at the time of the older person's death, but we just don't know about it.
3. If you're going to start considering time zones, then you also need to consider the reader's time zone. Yes, it may have been 11 June in America when Sanchez took the title, but if you lived in Japan then it was actually 12 June. It wasn't 11 June everywhere.
4. GWR said here: "GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS ™, the global authority on record breaking achievements, announces 112-year-old Salustiano Sanchez Blazquez from Grand Island, New York, as the new world’s Oldest living man. The record is announced on the heels of the recent passing of Japanese 116-year-old Jiroemon Kimura, who was recognized as the Oldest man ever and died on June 12th, 2013." ---> There is no mention of time zones, and the GRG does not consider time zones either. Furthermore, I see no other source which mentions the time zone issue either, so this seems to be a form of original research.
5. More than anything, it just seems ridiculous to have someone as becoming the W.O.M. a day before the previous person died.
Therefore, I think that in this scenario we should consider days as discrete values, and not concern ourselves with time zones. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. Fact Jiroemon Kimura died at 2.08 am 12 June 2013 local time, as stated in his article.
  2. Fact At the time of Kimura's death the date was 11 June 2013 local time for Salustiano Sanchez and also UTC. 11 June is noted in Salustiano's article as the date he became the oldest person in both the infobox and succession box.
  3. Fact Wikipedia is not the GRG and is under no obligation to include/exclude any information just because the GRG does so.
  4. To imply that Salustiano became the oldest man on 12 June by omitting the known difference in time zones is incorrect and misleading. There is nothing ridiculous about this, the additional note clarifies this for the user.
  5. Whether or not the difference in time zones might affect any other such succession of world's oldest man/woman/person is irrelevant, in this case it is known.
DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
So you're quite happy to violate WP:SYNTH when it suits you, then? And like I've said before, although Wikipedia is not the GRG, it uses it as a souce, like it does with Guinness World Records. Neither mention the time zone issue, so why should Wikipedia? And you haven't addressed my third point: It wasn't 11 June everywhere in the world at the time. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - (1)The time zone of the reader of the article should not (and really can't) be taken into account. Also, It's effectively never the same day everywhere in the world. (2) The sources for this information almost all use local dates, and times if included, so so should we. If a specific item seems confusing, one of those little notes such as are already in the article can be added to explain the perceived discrepancy. (3) If for some reason the times need to be expressed in hours, rather than days (e.g., to put the list in order or if a person died after a very short time), and providing the local time information is available from reliable sources, WP:Original research states that "Routine calculations do not count as original research" and that calculating a person's age is an example of routine calculations.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well ok, maybe it's not original research. But I've had discussions on other articles in this project where people have argued that it's a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to use someone's nationality to conclude which continent they're from. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not include time zones. Wikipedia proceeds, in constructing articles, under the rule of notability. Wikipedia is not a place where disputes are settled, nor a depository of records, nor a statistical lab for the most precise calculations possible. The question of "longest living persons" is reported around the world (and this is trivially proved) by stating years, months & days lived. Alternatively, in what amounts to exactly the same thing, the media reports date, month & year of birth. This is what is literally notable and, therefore, this is what Wikipedia articles should be reporting, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If you feel it is important to resolve possible confusion with local times, perhaps you can add a (GMT DATE/time) note behind to potentially conficting/confusing dates. Referencing a stadard like this should be readily understandable to readers as that should be a familiar concept to anyone thinking globally. This will also avoid the need to convert times between every potential pair of time zones. Nyth63 12:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not Include Time Zones- It is just not relevant AND it won't accomplish anything. If you want to include time zones then you should take into account how many leap years occurred in their life time because they are in reality that many days older than the calendar says. If they died two year before the next leap year do your subtract an additional half day from their life span. It is just silly. Besides how many of the oldest people on earth die within minutes of each other? With all due respect, what would listing the time zone prove given all of the other variables? I think it is just a waste of time to discuss it. My opinion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the comments above seem to have missed the point. It was never the intention that time zones be included in this article. The contention here is that the removal of a note which clarifies that in one identified instance the difference in time zone means that the date on which a person died was not the same as the date at which their successor became the oldest person. To disregard this is to introduce factually incorrect information into the article. To omit the note explaining this will lead to confusion for the casual reader (and no doubt endless attempts to "fix" the discrepancy. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no issues with adding an explanitary note, but I believe referencing the GMT date/time would make the most sense. Nyth63 14:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how it will confuse people to say that "predecessor died on day X, therefore, successor took the title on day X". Given that the GRG and GWR just list the days on which people died, it shouldn't confuse people. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For such a non-issue, this is getting rather silly and complex. How about we simply note that when an incumbent dies, the next person to have the oldest person crown is considered to have inherited it according to the time zone of the deceased. That way we need not fuss over this time zone non-issue. Are we otherwise going to root back and find out when all the previous record-holders died and determine what the day was in another time zone for the new record holders? Canada Jack (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it simple. An RFC for this? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not include. Seems you would not have nearly complete data to resolve this issue. The reporting will generally be in local time, and we must follow sources, so no sense in trying to do borderline WP:OR to include time zone information. That said, when local reporting would otherwise seemingly lead to reader confusion, a footnote explaining the date disparity is appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2015

182.69.7.119 (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No request Cannolis (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential Vandalism

User Inception2010 added "Anonymous" to the list of oldest living people. I removed it the other day and he/she reverted it back. It looks like this person has made questionable edits elsewhere. If other editors could help me keep an eye edits by that editor here I'd appreciate it. Mantisia (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with this edit. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I found the source of the problem. The current GRG table is saying a "N.A." entry that we are calling Anonymous here. However the link to the GRG table at the time "Anonymous" was added went to an outdated table from November 2014 which did not have this person on it. The fact that an entry said "Anonymous" and the absence of this mystery person on the referenced link led me to believe it was an intentionally misleading addition. Mantisia (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Christian Bible document a guy living over 500 years..

I believe a guy named Noah lived for over 500 years, according to the Christian Bible. should this be added to the list? or is the bible not considered reliable? Divinity76 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of the source is not the issue; verifiability is. Modern research requires documentation establishing birth with, ideally, corroborating documentation. Verified claims 110+ for people born before 1850 or so are few and far between owing to lack of documentation. There are pages for these unverifiable claims. For more on Biblical claims and other similar claims, see Longevity_myths. Canada Jack (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2015

182.69.52.160 (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC) add Wash Wesley as an oldest living man

 Not done - you have not provided a reference, but having done a search, his claim is pending as shown here and has not been verified - Arjayay (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2015

182.69.52.160 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC) please add Wash Wesley to the verified living men

 Not done - there is no point repeating your request - the answer is still as above - Arjayay (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

122.176.3.230 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

203.109.75.104 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC) I want to edit this because there is a indian person who lived 120 years

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Time zones

The previous RFC related to the inclusion of time zones but was worded in such a way to imply that the question was whether time zones should be included for every case, which in fact was never the issue. Several of those that opposed the inclusion of time zones generally noted that an exception should be made where it made a difference in the transition of one oldest person to another. As this occurred in only a few known cases including a note reflecting this is entirely within Wikipedia guidelines and purpose. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct GRG list?

Can anyone verify that the link to what is supposedly the current GRG list of oldest living people is actually correct? Until recently it linked to the list actually on grg.org. In the past month it has been switched to a link on http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org It appears this is a separate group from GRG, or at least I'm not seeing anything saying they are one and the same. On the actual GRG website they still link to the November 2014 list. In fact on the SRF website, if you go to the home page and click the link to the list it takes you to that same Nov. 2014 list on the GRG website, not the list we are linking to. Since GRG is being considered the gold standard for supercentarian verification, shouldn't we be certain the list we use really is their list?

This ties back into my discussion above where I mistakenly thought vandalism was going. If we are going to list someone as "Anonymous" on the list of oldest living people, we should be certain this is correct.

Mantisia (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is their new link. I have to say that their website and publication of updates is generally very poor. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
that's just ignorant. They are the world's leader in verifying supercentarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.75 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding of Dharampal singh Gudha to the list

Hello guys One man Dharampal singh Gudha is around 118 year old runner and infact he is record holder at this age .I was thinking to add him or elese somebody add him in the list after consensus ? Honi02 talk 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

"live longer then men" should be changed to "live longer than men"

99.241.102.71 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@99.241.102.71:  Done NottNott talk|contrib 17:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that the phrasing be changed to "women live longer than men, on average".--184.58.31.41 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I agree, it also corresponds better with the section it links to. Gap9551 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah a fraud actual age 97

Lucy Hannah is a complete fraud and the GRG knows it. They refuse to remove her even though there is overwhelming evidence she was an impostor who took another persons identity to claim government benefits early. Age 117 no way. Age 97 is the correct age at death. Come on GRG own up to this and remove her. It is insulting to have a fraud in the top 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.49.5 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of deletion

Can someone explain why the List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 is nominated for deletion? The years of the other lists not? What is the sense of such a behaviour? Is someone paid here for nomination for deletion of supercentenarians articles? Just discuss, please.--37.4.93.114 (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you started editing today, only in this topic area, and already found your way to the Project and AfD pages with strong opinions, would you mind telling us which editor you are normally? Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia does not require someone to have an account to edit. Secondly, editing as an IP is fine for someone to do so long as they aren't doing so to dodge a ban or for the sake of sockpuppetry. If you suspect either of those, I suggest having a check user ran. More likely than not, it is someone who has an account and just doesn't realize they are editing while logged out. And as long as they aren't making detrimental edits or building a faux consensus on a vote or something, that's perfectly fine. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Page Merge RFC

It had been noted that there was some redundancy and maintenance inconsistencies between several longevity related lists including the list this talk page belongs to as well as List of the verified oldest people and others. There is some disagreement with the merger of several of these lists and a suggestion that the discussion be broadened has been proposed. In addition to the thumbs up/thumbs down options on the merger, there may be alternative ways to resolve this discussion that have not yet been considered. aremisasling (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There is already a straw poll for this merger above. We don't need duplication. I'd suggest this be closed until the other is settled or close that one and open it up to a bigger discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Several people in that straw poll indicated interest in an RfC in part because there have been suggestions that the parties involved can't, by themselves, come to a reasonable consensus. My apologies for not being aware of Wikipedia procedure in terms of RfC's, straw polls, and the like as I am an occasional editor and not frequently more deeply involved in Wikipedia mechanics. What is needed is outside input into this whole matter in a forum directly related to the discussion and not tangential to it, regardless of the format. There have been numerous here-and-there arbitrations, bans, and ANI's associated with this, but I've seen little commentary directly in the discussion from anyone else regarding this subject outside of the long-time editors of the Longevity articles and a small handful of recent editors to the topic. If there is a better way to get some outside input involved in this discussion I fully support that. But given several statements regarding the insufficient nature of the above straw poll, closing this out with no alternative in its place in favor of reverting to said poll would be essentially sweeping it under the rug. aremisasling (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite new to this topic as well, only interested in seeing the articles restructured to be verifiable and usable. While the attempt is appreciated, the RfC as structured is not focused on a specific proposal so I can't see any clear outcome emerging from it. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to add the RFC template that's at top of this page to get it to be a formal RFC. Otherwise it's considered informal and only based on people who see this page and are notified here. See WP:RFC. It'll then populate to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies and the like for a broader perspective. If Aremisasling doesn't mind, I'd suggest moving this to the above section since it's already being done there and closing this. Aremisasling, I cann't see why you would object, especially given the way the results of that are going already. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I certainly have no objections. aremisasling (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
When you will have finished your "restructuring" there will nothing usable be left.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please stop building pages that fail Wp:LISTN Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

As a result of persistently disruptive behavior by User:Legacypac I have initiated a ANI discussion. Posting here and other relevant talk pages in the hopes of getting a balanced response. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

amazingly the editor filing the aaa I continues to make counter changes without the discussion being assessed. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
And no surprise at all that you are continuing to throw out petty, unfounded accusations such as this every time you get reverted. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
do you dispute that the tables are entirely from one source? Do you dispute that GRG connected editors are major contributors to this article? If so, show where these tags are incorrect. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Obviously. There are currently 7 sources not 1. And exactly who do you think is connected to the GRG, and how? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
RS confirming Mrs Smith was 111 when she died are very secondary to the presentation of entire lists copied from a single source. There is only one source for the list. Editors that exclusively edit with a GRG is the only authority (especially if that is their only area) are evidently COI. Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
What rubbish! yet more evidence that your contribution in this area is biased and unnecessary. You've claimed that there is a single source which is incorrect: 7 is not 1, whether they are secondary sources or not is irrelevant. You can claim the article is "largely" from a single source, but not "entirely". And just because an editor updates this article does not make it COI, such an update requires no involvement with the GRG whatsoever. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you dispute that these lists by definition must mirror the current GRG lists? Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion I agree that there should be a source used other than GRG for the lists. I have tagged two of the tables as needing additional sources that are not as primary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

why has this been inserted?

What is the RS that discusses this list in depth - "8 Super old people that died before 1955"? [3] Is dropping this list here not against the deletion discussion made here [4]? If a list is deleted in one article that does not give license to insert it in another a few minutes later. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Early oldest people list has existed since 2006 (10 years ago and before List of supercentenarians who died before 1980 is created)[5]. It has nothing to do with [6]. again, I don't understand why user:Legacypac insistently to be erased so much longevity article. You're why hated so much longevity article? I do not understand the meaning of your action.--Inception2010 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is for oldest people: i.e oldest people ever, oldest people living, oldest people chronologically, oldest people by country. There is no basis for including some old people from some random point in time who were not the "oldest" anything. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Full Protection

Seriously? Edit warring on a page subject to discretionary sanctions? While there is an AE report open that will draw admins to review the editing history? Please get a grip. Can I have undertaking to use Jaw jaw instead of edit war from now on from the participants of the revert war or do I have to start liberally doling out 1RR restrictions? Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Paging Calton; TFBCT1; BjörnBergman; Legacypac; DerbyCountyinNZ & Inception2010. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed-talk please. I've stated my case and asked questions above. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 January 2016

Yasutaro Koide has died. The lede, and list of oldest living men section, need to be updated to reflect this.

The GRG, the usual source used in these matters, has not verified any living male supercentenarians; it is thus unclear who Wikipedia should display as being the current world's oldest living man. It appears that Wikipedia recognizes Zhou Youguang's age as having been verified by reliable sources; if this is the case, then he should be listed as the world's oldest living man. If not, then Wikipedia should say that the present oldest living man is unknown. Chessrat (talk,contributions) 12:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed mention of him from the lead, and hidden a table lower down. When there is consensus of who is the replacement, please reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Koide should be removed from the lowest section as well, where he is still being listed as the world's oldest living man. DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the durations and removed the green background from Oldest people#Chronological list of the oldest living men since 1973 if that's what you are referring to — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was it, but then there is a star next to his age that should be removed and his date of death should be published in the section. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The situation with Zhou Youguang is basically this: he's been famous since 1958, so there are reliable (by Wikipedia's standards) sources pretty much since back then saying he was born in January 1906. Gerontology research specialists have stricter standards, and (in particular) want sources from 1925 or earlier, which they don't have (yet - there's recently been an attempt to get some, so it's possible that he'll get verified). Nobody really disputes he's 110 years old, but it's not been proven well enough for official gerontology standards (because China just didn't keep much of that kind of records back then - there are, in fact, no known verified supercentenarians from China, living or deceased, of either gender, even though statistically there should be many). In any case, Zhou Youguang is probably not the world's oldest man; there are over fifteen other men who are probably older. --92.242.58.13 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Youguang is definitely not the world's oldest man. There is at least one person that is older, the person that is now Japan's oldest man Masamitsu Yoshida. DrKilleMoff (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Rankings

TCBT1 took out the rankings on the living men list, which I thought was a great idea, so I took out some more rankings. This has been reverted by an editor who has not discussed this on talk but wants me to get consensus on talk. [7]. If one list does not need rankings, why do the others? We all know these lists are incomplete and the rankings are misleading. I'll wait a bit for the reverter to come explain themselves before stripping the misleading rankings again. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edit. You didn't really explain why you think the rankings should be removed? The fact that one editor removed rankings on one list does not necessarily mean that it's a good idea to remove them throughout the article! You say that the "rankings are misleading"; is this because we have incomplete information? Incomplete information isn't a reason to remove data, and the lede makes it quite clear that the rankings contain reliably-validated persons only. As for rankings on the living men list, that's a different matter. Maybe they should be restored. (And Masamitsu Yoshida doesn't appear to fit the criteria for inclusion given in the lede, so he should probably be removed from this section, but that's another kettle of fish).
If you truly believe that removing the rankings improves this article, I would be interested in your explanation of why you believe this to be the case. Thanks! Chessrat (talk,contributions) 21:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Rankings are not "data" when they are invented by wikipedia editors. The rankings are misleading when everyone agrees that about 2/3rds of the recent data is missing and 100% of the older data is not represented. Ranking people by the longest lived ever is just lying. http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html - "The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact." Therefore the best we can say about these lists are they cover some names (with birth and death dates) of people who lived within the last couple hundred years in a few countries. Interesting information but the only thing definitive about it is the incompleteness of the data.
Contrast this to a list of the tallest buildings or longest bridges, where we can be 100% confident there are no super tall buildings "unverified" in China, and no super long bridges no one noticed in Africa. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
That's actually a good point. It is a bit misleading to state that, for example, Misao Okawa was the fifth-oldest person ever, because we can't possibly know whether that is the case. However, it is accurate to say that Misao Okawa was the fifth-oldest person ever *whose age has been verified by a reliable source*. And that is what this article is saying.
An analogy would be athletics records, like those shown in the 100 metres article. There are innumerable similar articles. You can't possibly know for sure that Linford Christie ran the 22nd-fastest 100 meter sprint ever: the article only includes achievements that have been measured and verified by a reputable authority on the subject. For all we know, hundreds of people could have ran faster than this in history, whether that be a professional sprinter on a practice running track or some terrified guy running away from an elephant five thousand years ago. It doesn't matter, because such records can never be verified.
It's exactly the same situation here. Internationally-recognized authorities on longevity (GWR, GRG...) have named the oldest people ever whose age has been verified. And that is what Wikipedia should show. Chessrat (talk,contributions) 23:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

GRG verification Not Required

when we have good RS we do not need GRG stamp of approval before adding a name. [8] Edits like this demonstrate allegiance to GRG agenda rather then WP guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

To this point, we DO need age-verification from a group specializing in this subject. If you want to change what is a fundamental part of these pages, get consensus to do so. You do not yet have it. A good recent example of why we need this is the recent New York Times-reported claim from the U.S. military (both claimed to be "reliable sources" that Emma Didlake, at 110, was the country's oldest living veteran, born in 1905. Well, guess what? Research by GRG indicates she was probably born in 1904, underlining why we go to sources like GRG for verification, not newspapers or other media outlets which most often simply report a claimed age. The New York Times is an example of a news outlet which ROUTINELY cites a person's age. On the Iran hostage release: "...Mr. Rezaian, a 39-year-old Californian who became the Washington Post’s bureau chief in Tehran in 2012..." Do we conclude, from this report, that the New York Times sent their crack team of genealogists to scour the records to confirm that Mr. Rezaian is indeed 39? Or did they just take that information no doubt supplied at face value?
Why are we even having this silly debate anyway? Canada Jack (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree the debate is beyond silly. Zhou Youguang's life has been extensively documented since he created Pinyin. If he is not 110 (born 1906) then biographical details like "Zhou enrolled in St. John's University, Shanghai, in 1923 (age 17) where he majored in economics and took supplementary coursework in linguistics. He left during the May Thirtieth Movement of 1925 and transferred to Guanghua University, from which he graduated in 1927. (age 21)" are all false. Can we at least try to follow WP:V here? Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

IF he was born in 1906 it could be proven to GRG standards. The GRG requires 3 documents from his first 20 years of life. St John's University was active until 1952. Records might still exist of students who attended at St johns. IF he attended in 1923, 1924, 1925 he would have 3 documents of his freshman, Sophomore, and JR year. Those documents would be in his first 20 years of life 1906-1926. IF found the GRG could prove his claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.147.37 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You've not answered the question, Legacy - who has verified his age? You have cited REPORTS he was born that year, but I see nothing so far that says "we at news agency xx have verified that he is in fact 110 years old..." or what have you. Indeed, from your response, all we've seen is that YOU personally have confirmed his age, which is clearly POV. Canada Jack (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Today I learned that reliable sources aren't good enough, unless they're the right reliable sources. clpo13(talk) 23:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
RS give his birthdate, not me. Further RS give life milestone dates that are consistent with his stated birthdate which is a nice sanity check. The guy is famous already - it's not like he is someone no one ever heard of who showed up with his father's birth certificate and tried to get 15 minutes of fame. No reason to doubt long standing RS for his age. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs to look like this: -==Oldest living men (over 110 years)==-

Main article: List of oldest living people
Rank Name Birth date Age as of 22 November 2024 Place of residence
1 Yasutaro Koide[1] 13 March 1903 121 years, 254 days Japan
2 Zhou Youguang[2] 13 January 1906 118 years, 314 days China

Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference GRG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://www.chinanews.com/cul/2016/01-13/7713494.shtml

Proposed merge with List of oldest living people

The consensus is to oppose the merge. The majority opinion is that the merger will harm readability, remove information, and be confusing as there are differences in scope of the articles. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Oldest people has long had an arbitrary Top 10 list of this article, which itself is a roughly Top 50 list of oldest people. This creates an unnecessary duplication of lists. Since the Top 10 are all women, men have been arbitrarily excluded from the Oldest people page, which presenting the Top 50ish solves.

I have completed a merge of the Top 50ish list into where the Top 10 list was before in Oldest people. No loss of data or info happens with this. Only the spinout article with just the top 50ish list turns into a redirect.

Oldest people is a more natural page title then List of oldest living people. Presenting the oldest ever recorded people near the oldest living also facilitates cross checking the lists as people age or die. Naturally the List of oldest living people will become a section specific redirect. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This obsession with merging everything into one list, or even one article, is counter-productive to readability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As I stated at the related Afd this would seem to be entirely consistent with "readability" and simplified navigation for our readers. The main article is not too big to accommodate this list as one of the centrepieces of Oldest people, and readers can find everything in one main article. Also, if the main article can accommodate a list of "100 verified oldest people" why can't it house the 50 oldest living, too? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
For that matter - if 10 oldest living were a key part of the article, why not 50? If 50 are too many we can cut the list down in either location. No one cares about the 47th tallest or fattest or fastest living person on earth for example. Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you provide the link to that AfD? I wasn't able to find it. aremisasling (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose These are different - and should remain separate. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
So are you proposing to remove all the Oldest living people from the Oldest people article? Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose @Shawn: In the first place I am a reader! When this article is merged it will be much more difficult to follow all the changes. I want

the oldest living people in a seperate article. And Legacypac, when you don't care about Nr. 47, what the hell are you doing here? Every time I come here I find another action from you trying to delete something and destroying structures that worked for years now. If there is something bad sourced, remember sometimes bad sources are the best to get. But Oldest living people isn't bad sourced, it's completely sourced. And it can be linked from oldest people, so your natural page title argument doesn't count. Please stop changing everything only to change anything.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Who is arguing about sources? The ArbComm case shows that there needs to be a restructure and simplification of Longevity. Join the effort instead of fighting change. Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Please link to the ArbComm case as well. My apologies I'm not used to digging up all of these AfD's and ArbComm cases and I suspect other editors may be in the same boat. It would be helpful to understand what was decided if we could find the discussion. aremisasling (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia is supposed to be a pool of information. Why do people keep on insisting content relating to longevity be removed from Wikipedia? It is a never ending battle to keep these articles intact and consistent with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crveni5 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, all I'm suggesting is that where possible, information be 'pooled' in one place. But again, there seems to be very strong feelings based on past Afds, I suppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support But there's clearly not enough support for this. Suggest putting this into an RFC and following the requirements at WP:RFC and getting broader community output. There is a few obscure topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, oppose. Both articles could use more context and explanation with content from Longevity claims and the like to distinguish between living individuals who aren't listed there for whatever reason and people who died but aren't listed in the overall numbers for whatever reason. That becomes impossible with a merged article unless you just want to have tables and nothing more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I've followed these lists for years, and the recent amalgamation of oldest people ever with oldest people living is confusing and unnecessary. They should remain separate articles. As stated by others above, there seems to be a recurring desire on the part of exclusionists to make sure that useful and interesting information on longevity is removed from Wikipedia. Can you please find something else to work on that adds useful content to Wikipedia? // Internet Esquire (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You realize the Top 10 have been in the Oldest people article all along and you are fighting to keep out the next forty? If the merge is not allowed to stay, the Oldest living people will be removed completely from Oldest people with just a link provided. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no need to have several articles where oldest living people are listed. Listing them in the article Oldest people is enough, that's why I'm trying to blank this article and redirect it to Oldest people, why do other users always revert me? No need to revert me! BjörnBergman 12:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Because you are contravening Wiki guidelines by attempting to implement a redirect during an ongoing discussion. And you are not the only one. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
If you ignore the GRG fanclub and follow policy, we would have the redirect done. I like User:Ricky81682's idea of an RfC to pull in more well rounded editors. Maybe Ricky will draft one. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
There is considerable disagreement at present with the mergers that have been made with respect to wiki policy, not all of which is in agreement with your stance. Broad-brushing the opposing viewpoint as a 'fan club' and suggesting they are merely in the way of a particular vision for a page with respect to wiki policy is unhelpful to the discussion. aremisasling (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm supportive of some sort of change to reduce some of the redundancy, but just jamming the articles together, to several other people's points, negatively impacts the readability of the page. Originally I didn't speak up on it, though I was opposed. But upon seeing the merged version I'm more vocally against it. If we are to make an attempt to solve the problem it needs to be a smarter solution than this. The edit war that is brewing over this certainly needs to be abated. I'm aware Wikipedia is not a democracy and we are charged with being bold, but the vast majority of respondents to this proposal have been vocally opposed. At the very least it merits further discussion before it's completely reworked. aremisasling (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added an RFC (it's my first go round with an RFC so hopefully I've gotten it about right). I've made an effort to be neutral and fair in my language. My apologies if anyone feels that is not the case. Being as there is an ongoing conversation and a definite lack of consensus on the merge, I would suggest that no more mergers or major changes be undertaken until we can get further input and come to some consensus. aremisasling (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to start an RfC. Unfortunately it's too vaguely worded without a clear proposal to get a clear result in my opinion. This topic has many years of history and is under ArbComm sanctions because of editor behavior. It would be inappropriate to broadly stop the rationalization efforts to bring it within Wikipedia policy because mythical consensus is very unlikely. See [9] and [10] for recent examples, and there are quite a few others who have been blocked too.

Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I get your sentiment and your intent, but I feel you're being grossly heavy handed here. And as far as I can tell the closest we have to consensus is overwhelmingly opposed to the actions you're taking and by many more than the ones you and others have proposed for sanctions. This is not one or two POV editors, this is the vast majority of those commenting. And I've read 930310's Arbitration request. It seemed very much like while the conclusion was against him, all but one of the people who commented felt your behavior was out of line. I would take that as a sign you should at least temper your activity a bit and offer more than an hour or two on the RfC before calling it dead and continuing on your merry way. There is no screaming urgency for making every change you see fit immediately over all of the dissenting voices. aremisasling (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of my proposed changes have been implemented including deleting a number of articles here. I'm only looking to present an accessible, easy to follow, accurate presentation of the topic. It was none of those things when I started on this project, even after other editors had been trying to clean it up for years. I've now been subjected to trolls mimicking my account and vandalizing Wikipedia, which suggests my efforts are making some headway on the problems. I'm not calling your RfC dead, I gave my considered opinion on it's structure - an opinion that I'm confident other editors will share based on my experience in other contentious areas. Please take a good look around at the issues here before lecturing me please. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I've taken quite a good look at a number of pages involved in your recent edits. All I'm looking for is some measure of moderation in at the very least the rate at which you are implementing what is fundamentally a complete overhaul of the longevity section, justified or not, keeping in mind there is both active talk page discussion and an RfC involved. I feel as though a vast number of actions have been taken with input requested post-facto and generally disregarded. Those who were engaged with have been frequently subjected to arbitration to the point I'm hesitant to even post here for fear I'll be labelled as some form of violator of one wiki policy or another and topic banned. I want it to be accessible, easy to follow, and accurate as well as you do, but there has to be a middle ground between doing nothing and burning it to its foundations, rebuilding on a singular vision, and requesting formal reprimand of large numbers of dissenters. aremisasling (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

Frank Levingston was added to the oldest living people section but he needs to be added to the known living men section. Learnedmachina (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13(talk) 22:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article titled "Oldest people"? Shouldn't the correct title be "List of oldest people" or something similar? That is how other lists on Wikipedia are entitled. There should be come consistency and uniformity. This is not an article about the oldest people; it is simply a list of the oldest people. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea as it would more accurately describe the contents of the page. Perhaps it has stayed as 'Oldest People' to avoid confusion with 'List of Oldest people living'. However I think the names are clearly distinguished from each other, as well as the content in their respective articles. Oscar248 (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Hopefully this will be discussed further to reach a consensus.

The problem with "List of..." is that this is not a single list. "Lists..." 'might' be better. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ten Oldest Living Men

As a means of synchronisation (there is a section "ten oldest people living") I have renamed the section "known oldest men" to "ten oldest men living". As such, we now have a top ten for all of the subsections on the page. As per RS, I have sourced all of the ten men. Fiskje88 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016

112.196.144.87 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2016

112.196.144.87 (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oldest_people/Archive_16&oldid=1140125738"