Talk:Oldest people/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Corrections:

Romania used the old calendar until February 1919, and Ciocan was born on 15 May 1913 according to the old style, which is 28 May 1913 according to the new calendar (source). Apparently 28 May was previously mistakenly believed to be old-style BC, however later GRG received further evidence from his family and they corrected the date of birth to keep 28 May by the Gregorian calendar, not 10 June as previously thought. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, so it should list the active date of birth according to what is the current version on GRG. Furthermore, it is not the first GRG correction, GRG has made other significant corrections to previously erroneous data, such as the dates for MARY CURLEY (1880–1994), FANNIE THOMAS (1867–1981), MARY BIDWELL (1881–1996), MYRTLE DORSEY (1885–2000), CHARLIE PHILLIPS (1869–1980), ROBERT FREEMAN (1879–1990) and others. Considering that GRG has existed since 1990, it is quite normal that they have errors, but it is very important that they have corrected those mistakes. LongeviQuest is not officially recognized by science or GWR, but still, for Wikipedia, LQ validations can be used for now because they are considered reliable and in line with modern validation standards... However, it takes time to be officially recognized by GRG and GWR, and they will probably never be recognized because they refused to be a GRG collaborator, they want to work independently, their choice and that is not a reason to attack GRG. They have various forums where they write negative comments about GRG so rudely that it is unacceptable and extremely rude. However, some of those people are not LQ members, but that Forum (The 110 Club) is controlled by LQ and they should prevent all negative comments posted by users on GRG's account. Some of the members of that forum are active here under similar usernames, and due to ignorance and being misinformed on the forums, they are trying in various ways to declare GRG as an unreliable source here on Wikipedia, which is unacceptable because GRG exists long before they some of them were born... So, LQ can be used as a source here only in cases that are their validations, without the case being confirmed by GRG, and for cases that were confirmed long ago by GRG, it is enough to cite GRG, possibly newspaper reports, and even LQ, but do not forget to cite primary source, ie GRG... Once again, it is unnecessary to comment further, it is enough to base it on what is a publicly available source...08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Дејан2021 (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This comment is Blatant POV pushing this user happeneds to be the Balkan correspondent for the grg so blindly accepting the very convenient eveidcne on the grg would work in his favor OR is not allowed Wwew345t (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Grg has also validated several cases with a convenient retroactive date that precedes the lq validation date (aka before the grg did) grg isn't reliable anymore and this users comments should be taken with a grain of salt as he IS a member of the grg Wwew345t (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, It's not for you to decide on that, no one has written anywhere that GRG is not a reliable source. You can't push lies here, I will inform the founder of Wikipedia about your case if you don't stop removing GRG links from Articles. Дејан2021 (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Your lying Wwew345t (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that confirms that he was born on 28 May according to the old calendar, there is an archived copy that is not a reliable source because it is outdated, and corrections were made after it was archived. Archived sources are used when the original source is unavailable, here it is available and that's enough. Furthermore, this is Wikipedia, discussions related to improving articles should be discussed here, as stated in the Wiki rules. This is not the place to discuss about GRG...Дејан2021 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ Looping you in because we have a major issue here. The GRG correspondent who validated Ilie Ciocan's case is insisting that his birthdate is thirteen days earlier than what was initially established (and had remained for six months). He claims that the GRG received "further evidence from his family" (six months after being validated? Really?) that somehow suggests his birthday is 15 May 1913 according to the Julian calendar. This is despite the fact that reports about him from Romanian news outlets, such as this one, this one, and this one, all indicate a claimed birthdate of 28 May. Converting from the Julian to Gregorian calendar, that date would be 10 June 1913, which is indeed what the GRG had initially validated. LongeviQuest also confirms that May 28 is his DOB according to the old calendar, while June 10 is according to the new one.

If anything, an unsubstantiated and circular claim from the very correspondent who validated the case smells like WP:OR and WP:COI to me... Softmist (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Softmist, You are not right, I did not investigate his case, his family submitted it to GRG. Also, LongeviQuest has not validated his age, newspaper reports state that he was born on 28 May 1913, they never claimed that it was according to the old calendar and should be moved to 10 June. Previously, it was believed to be 28 May according to the old calendar, a few months later, this was corrected after GRG received additional evidence. It's not about original research, I'm talking about what is written on the GRG site, and it says exactly what I mentioned. A publicly available primary source, that's enough.Дејан2021 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"I did not investigate his case." Sure, it's just a complete coincidence that your name (Дејан/Dejan) matches the first person credited with Ciocan's validation. Don't take me for a fool. Softmist (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not true, I did not find his documents. Also, Wikipedia is a guarantor of user privacy, but one is obliged to reveal their identity. Who are you in real life, I never asked. I don't know who is Wwew345t and what his real name is...Дејан2021 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You claim his family gave the documents yo you directly and I have already proved that you have been caught sending fake documentation and fired for it before Wwew345t (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No, you are twisting my words again, his family sent the documents to GRG, not to me.Дејан2021 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) very clearly stated that you did the work on the case Wwew345t (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who worked on the case, there are several people there, not just one person with a name similar to me, I'm not obligated to reveal my name. On the link you can see what it says and that he was born on 15 May according to the old calendar, that's enough, there's no need for us to deal with it here, it's a publicly available source and it's in accordance with Wiki rules. You can undo my edits 100 times, I'll undo them 200 times, it's best to stop citing incorrect information, citing an unreliable outdated source that was updated by experts after it was archived. I don't know what to tell you, you have become an impossible person, wait for the admin to decide, not you, it is necessary for one of the admins to say what is true and what is in accordance with the Wiki rules, which is that it is based on public available source, it is not necessary to speculate when the source was published, when it was corrected and so on...Дејан2021 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m just wondering why you removed Ilie Ciocan when he is validated by the GRG. He is very obviously not a fake case so should be reinstated. Lanky Lev (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see what was agreed upon directly below your message. Softmist (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As requested. Wikipedia uses the most reliable source. If there are multiple sources of similar reliability that do not agree then the person should be removed until the conflict over dates is resolved. If someone has information that a given date is wrong and there is no reliable source for that information then that should be ignored. As for this current argument there are multiple violations of Wiki policy, including WP:OUTING and WP:3RR, which are sufficient to have a user blocked or topic banned. At the very least this page is heading for full protection. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As a means of resolving this matter, since there is at least the LongeviQuest source I linked above (which I would classify as "similar reliability" to the GRG) disputing the GRG birthdate, can we agree to remove Ilie Ciocan entirely, at least until LQ validates his claim? I think that's the safest option for now. If his claim is validated by LQ with the same birthdate the GRG is using, great, we'll add him back with that date. If there's a discrepancy again, we can discuss what to do from there. Softmist (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Softmist, Your suggestion to delete it completely is an even better option than to keep it with the incorrect date (June 10). Don't forget that his age is not validated by LQ, but on their profile it is listed as Unvalidated with the date 10 June 1913 N.S. (28 May 1913 O.S.) which is wrong, but I don't blame them for that mistake because the same information was used by GRG before the corrections . Their fan from The 110 Club by the name of Wwew345t (same name on Wikipedia) claims that GRG is an unreliable source because he corrected his date of birth, and as evidence he provided you with an archived GRG link that was archived before the corrections, in return about the reliability of LQ, I found exactly the same evidence that confirms that GRG corrections LQ corrections are a normal thing, because LQ also subsequently corrected its errors, as in the case of a supercentenarian named Elvira Maurno Valladao, LQ previously confirmed her date of birth as 23 December 1911, several months later, and a few weeks after the GRG validation of that case, they corrected her date of birth to 31 December 1911, about that there is the same evidence, archived links before corrections and after. Also, LQ as a for-profit non-scientific organization aims to replace GRG, they have publicly admitted this on their forum. Why didn't Wwew345t consider discussing the reliability of LQ, how come he didn't because he was sent here to humiliate GRG and try to make baseless accusations that GRG is an unreliable source, even though there is no reliable evidence for this, here is the following evidence of LQ corrections , corrections are a normal occurrence.
1): Archived link, before LQ corrections: https://web.archive.org/web/20231231082259/https://longeviquest.com/supercentenarians/elvira-maurno-valladao/
2) Original source, after LQ corrections: https://longeviquest.com/supercentenarians/elvira-maurno-valladao/
@DerbyCountyinNZ, please think about it and look at the previously mentioned sentences and links that indicate the reliability of LQ, I am not denying the GRG corrections, the same evidence of GRG corrections exists, just the same about LQ corrections. I think you have to make a final decision whether to keep Ilie Ciocan according to GRG or delete him completely, so there are only two options, delete or keep May 28 according to the new calendar, and June 10 is out of the question, because there is evidence of GRG corrections of that case, if you need it, I can provide the archived links, as I clarified with the LQ corrections...Дејан2021 (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ, And what will you decide, will Wikipedia be a free encyclopedia based on publicly available sources or will it be under the dictatorship of LQ fans? I don't know who to contact in this matter, maybe it's stupid to contact the Wikipedia founder if the administration is not able to make an adequate decision. Instead of solving this issue, you wrote in the description of the change "Do NOT delete other users talk page comments without an extremely good reason, otherwise you will likely receive a longer block". Reason enough to delete the above and below threads is that what he says there is so childish, he talks about creating a group on Wikipedia to update the articles related to the oldest people, and what does that mean, it means completely deleting GRG and GWR from the articles, as can be seen in the contributions of the "user" Wwew345t. So, I insist on following the Wiki rules, and deleting that case is against the Wiki rules...Дејан2021 (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Added him again according to Wiki rules, nowhere does it say that cases needs to be validated by LQ, when it has already been validated by GRG (and or GWR). We don't need an LQ dictatorship here. LQ fans should be grateful that Wikipedia recognizes them as a primary source at all, as they are not recognized by GRG and GWR. But it doesn't matter and that's fine because it's not written anywhere in the Wiki rules, just like it's not written anywhere that the case needs to be LQ validated to be listed. It is enough that it was confirmed by at least one of the three verification bodies, and whether it is LQ, GRG or GWR is completely irrelevant, the case is validated and that is enough...Дејан2021 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The longest living person was Methuselah and he lived nine hundred and sixty nine years.

Genesis 5:27

And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died. 2404:4408:9315:4900:D1F4:7393:B66D:E4D5 (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This is rather unverifiable, don't ya think? Peaceray (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems silly to me to exclude someone from the list that obviously belongs there while there is a discrepancy of reliable sources. Cannot we put this into the list under the more recent date verified by LO & make a explanatory footnote for the GRG verification until we can finish hashing this out? Peaceray (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Peaceray, That's right, GRG confirmed his age, not LQ, he is listed as Unvalidated on LQ, they think it's May 28 according to the old calendar (although they don't have any documents), GRG thought the same before they got additional evidence. So if ever LQ validates it with that date (which probably won't ever happen) then we can use 10 June, and since it's listed there as Unvalidated, that's just a guess. Therefore, without any problems it should be listed with the date of birth that is alleged on the GRG. Remember this, if he ever becomes a candidate for the title of the oldest in the world, you will be sure whether Guinness World Records will take into account May 28 or June 10, absolutely May 28, because that is the date of birth according to the new calendar, while May 15 according to the old calendar and for that there is evidence, evidence have only his family and GRG.Дејан2021 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

with this user banned I'm sure we can get to the bottom of this (I still thing the grg source is unreliable because the person who "found" this very convenient evidence has been fired or removed from two longevity research group for using fake documents to verify Balkan claims) I think a serious chat about Whether the grg is actually reliable is warranted because they have been doing some shady stuff recently (no I'm not part of lq or a "fan" just someone who wants the data to be accurate Wwew345t (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

<content removed>

Camelia249 (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid it’s not possible to do so. But don’t worry: this discussion will eventually be archived. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, archiving is done based on how long it’s been since a comment has been made. So if you’re okay with this, then you should just stop replying (and so should everybody else, if there’s nothing left to discuss), and it will be gone soon. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

<content removed> Camelia249 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2024

THE OLDEST PERSON ALIVE IS SWAMI SIVANANDA FROM INDIA. HIS DATE OF BIRTH IS 08/08/1896 Hemendra76 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Bible's Noah allegedly lived ~950 years

If The Holy Bible is considered a reliable source, Noah surpassed Jeanne Calment's record by 828 years.

84.49.158.188 (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

See Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA thomasmazzotta 14:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Who controls the content?

I always thought a Wiki page was for anyone to contribute, but I've noticed with several of these "Oldest People" wikis that DerbyCounty seems to run roughshod over everyone and everything else. Who appointed her in charge? Serious question. She seems to think it's her way or the highway. Wiki is supposed to be open for everyone. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @DerbyCountyinNZ so they see this, she has a right to explain herself. Maurnxiao (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You whiny longevity fans are really pathetic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor, per WP:NPA. Maurnxiao (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't usually bother responding to users who have a new profile for less than a week but seem familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, it makes me think they've got something to hide. I'm also pretty cynical of someone with a user with no previous interest in longevity (it suggests CANVASS) who decides to extend and aggravate an otherwise pointless thread which I was happy to ignore, especially given that it is (another) barely veiled personal attack!! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And yet you responded. This condescending attitude is completely uncalled for and there is no need to throw personal attacks to someone reminding you to remain respectful to someone else. Already I have been criticized on another discussion for not having a thorough enough understanding of what Wikipedia is meant to be. I pinged you because, as I said, you had a right to explain yourself. Considering you responded to the original comment hours after I pinged you, but had not done so in a nearly one month period after the comment was made, I have reason to believe bringing it to your attention was the right thing to do. How would you know if I am interested in longevity records? Maurnxiao (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I was quite happy to WP:IGNORE a thread that fully deserved to be ignored. If you had/have no interest in this topic, WHY did you bother to even comment? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to be interested in baseball to contribute to an article about the sport, or a corresponding talk page. And again, how would you know if I do or do not have an interest in longevity? Maurnxiao (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Your current profile (care to list any previous ones you've used?) has been here 6 days. In that time you've never contributed to a longevity article. So "by chance" you happened to come across this talk page and decided to reactivate a thread which every other regular contributor to this article had chosen to ignore. You then dish out a NPA while choosing to ignore the fact that the thread topic is a PA, and is not the first by this editor, whose contributions to longevity have largely been a waste of (my) time. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For less experienced editors unfamiliar with acronyms, PA & NPA both refer to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Peaceray (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, ad hominem attacks are beneath you, particularly when you seem to be intelligent enough to educate less experienced editors on Wikipedia policies & guidelines & the importance of notability & sourcing as per WP:LONGEVITY. After all, WP:DONTBITE is a behavioral guideline.

As for GermanShepherd1983, if you had bothered to check you would have found an editor registration date of 2016-10-12. OK, so not exactly extended confirmed with 60 edits, but do we need to further the disrespect?Peaceray (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd just like to know who put DerbyCounty in charge of this page? You totally act like a bully when it comes to what stays and what goes? Totally inappropriate on your part. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Georgina Casamayor de Medina

So why isn't GRG getting Georgina Casamayor de Medina validated? She's currently the 10th oldest person in the world. Seems GRG never gets anything done. Sad.

https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Georgina_Ramona_Casamayor_de_Medina GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Johnson Parks disputed

Johnson Parks has been disputed here:

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/hk7fb

Basically, the argument here is that his verification was based on a mistaken identity switch with another African-American man named Johnson Parks who was born a decade earlier than he himself was born. 172.59.128.60 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could say that Zak and Gibbs are unreliable because they also previously disputed Calment. However, Calment's validation was subsequently re-confirmed by gerontology researchers, whereas I don't see anyone to my knowledge willing to defend the Parks validation right now. 172.59.128.60 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)