Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Renata Bianchi 1906-

http://www.supercentenariditalia.it/renata-bianchi https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/cesena/cronaca/renata-compleanno-anni-1.3466072https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/cesena/cronaca/renata-compleanno-anni-1.3466072 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.170.120 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Stopping Disruptive Removal of Maria Emilia Quesada

In the past about ten days since March 5th, Maria Emilia Quesada has been removed at least 6 times. There is no valid reason for her removal as this is not a "Verified" or "Validated" page, meaning it's not required she be validated by the GRG. There are reliable sources backing up Maria Emilia Quesada. DerbyCountyInNZ stated that it's not appropriate to use only GRG for sourcing on this page. So, the continued removal of Maria Emilia Quesada from this page is disruptive. I'm not super familiar with all the measures that can be used to protect against such disruptive editing--I haven't used Wikipedia enough to know the ins and outs. However, I suspect that some people have been using multiple accounts to remove Maria (since some of the IP Addresses are at least somewhat similar to each other), but I don't really have a way of proving that for certain. If people continue to remove Maria over and over again when it has already been clarified that she meets the criteria for this page, is there anything else that can be done beyond to protect against that? Maybe it could be required that people have a verified Wikipedia account in order to make edits? It seems like a lot of the removals have been occurring from IP Addresses instead of verified wikipedia accounts. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly I doubt the IPs will read this, unless they're previously warned/blocked longevity-fans. Secondly, the protections for this page will get longer and longer until either Tajima or Quesada dies. Thirdly the protections will be applied more speedily each time the disruption occurs; for instance if I log on in about 24 hours and there have been 2 more removals of Quesada I will be immediately requesting a 2 week semi-protection. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. I guess that's probably true that the IPs won't see this, unless they're previous warned/blocked longevity-fans using different IP addresses. Thanks. JasonPhelps (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

One issue to point out is that whilst Quesada is one this list, she is not on the 'Oldest People' list. Surely for consistency, she should be on both, or none. Mike Hocks Hucker (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If she is on Oldest Living People, she should also be on the Oldest People list, as well as the List of the Oldest Verified People and the List of the Oldest Verified Women. If she doesn't qualify for some reason to be on those lists, she shouldn't be on the Oldest Living People list. She could be on Longevity Claims--although under current standards, she wouldn't qualify; the standard for inclusion there currently is people older than the oldest verified living person-130. I would support changing that to 117-130, though. Maybe 116-130 or 115-130.Ryan Reeder (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if this is such an issue for people with the confusion why this page has it that the supercentenarians don't have to be validated by modern standards, it would be good to create an extra column on the righthand side of the table for this page that denotes whether each person is validated by GRG, pending with GRG, or not validated by GRG. Perhaps this would lessen some of the confusion, contention, and disagreements on this page about including people like Maria Emilia Quesada, and others not validated by GRG. If people were able to visually see that the person is able to be on this list due to the consensus for this page but at the same time that they're not validated by GRG, maybe that would lessen the confusion and disagreement. Just an idea. As for Oldest People List if you read the description in the first part, it is for people validated by GRG only, whereas this page is for anyone reliably sourced. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

2 things: 1. Promoting the GRG on Wiki is viewed with considerable disfavor among many non-longevity Wiki editors. 2. Oldest people is NOT "for people validated by GRG only" it is for " people whose ages have been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research". The fact that we are stuck with the GRG being the only such body which publishes this information is most unfortunate and we can only hope that a serious alternative eventuates. Again I would reiterate that continually pushing the GRG as the ONLY source of such information will only result in another backlash its use on Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay thank you for the clarification. I will try to be more careful how I word the usage of GRG on longevity pages/talk pages in the future. JasonPhelps (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: As I've mentioned in another section, there is currently no consensus for the inclusion of Quesada in this list. Hopefully the RFC will resolve this. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Crossposting

There is a discussion at Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Difference_between_2_articles which could use input from interested editors of this page, as it concerns information found on this page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous of Kyoto born 7 Feb 1906

She's in limbo according to the Gerontology Wiki. Timothy McGuire (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Gerontology Wiki is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. If I find a reliable source confirming she has died then I can remove her. Timothy McGuire (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete Ida Troupe

Is it good to delete Ida Troupe? She does NOT belong on this chart. Please Listen To Me. No More Ida Troupe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:EC19:C540:6B1C:9B80:B6DD (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Anne Brasz-Later (July 16, 1906)

To whom it may concern,

I notice my grandmother has been removed from this list.

She is still alive and Living in Utrecht, Netherlands. She was born 16th July 1906 and her name is Anne Brasz-Later.

Can she, please, be added back to the list?

http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Anne_Brasz-Later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.28 (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

She is also mentioned here as the 2nd oldest in the Netherlands:

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Simer/Oudste_Nederlanders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.28 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Gerontology wikia and other Wikipedia are not appropriate sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also mentioned here:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the110club/anna-brasz-later-110-t16577.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.28 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The 110 club is a discussion forum and isn't a reliable source either. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am her grandson and my father (Her Son) is currently in the Netherlands looking after her! How much more do you need? What is the point of having this Wiki entry if you only accept people in the "limelight" - not all people of this age want the publicity? My grandmother went on holidays with family last birthday (111 years old) to escape the media... so elderly like this do not have many "internet public" records floating around.

Anyway - up to you guys - you can have wikipedia full of miss-information or you can have relevant entries - your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.117.58 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only way she can be listed is if an article is published for every birthday she celebrates. Dorglorg (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Anna Medwenitsch

Anna Medwenitsch #91 passed away on April 1st per GRG list of supercentenarians who died in 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If by the GRG list you mean the Gerontology Wiki, this is not a reliable source. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If the GRG (sic) has a list of super-cs who died in 2018, please provide a link. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The GRG listing includes her obituary. What more is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mathilde Lartigue

Since she died "in the night of Friday going into Saturday" can we say that she died on her 113th birthday? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, there is some precedence with this. The exact same thing occurred with Astrid Zachrison of Sweden. She was born 15 May 1895 and died between the night/morning of 14/15 May 2008. Initially she was listed aged 112 years, 365 days, with a death date of 14 May 2008, then changed to aged 113 years with a death date of 15 May 2008. I think partly this was because it was a leap year and 112 years, 365 days seemed strange.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well: indeed so, and that's exactly what I meant, i.e. whom I was thinking about actually, my friend! Extremely sexy (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Our French "GRG" correspondents have meanwhile got her death certificate saying that she died at 3 AM, so she made it anyway: that's great news (although she was born at 11 AM apparently, but that doesn't count at all)! Extremely sexy (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Aguilar Jaramillo Ignacio

This man from Ecuador is apparently born 11 January 1901 and is still alive [1]. Should his case be on this list or in Longevity claims section?188.238.205.188 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Since he is younger than the oldest verified person, he belongs on this list. I'm assuming your source is a reliable source. JasonPhelps (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

He's younger older than the oldest verified living man so he should be excluded. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @CommanderLinx: Don't you mean that he is "older than the oldest verified living man so he should be excluded"? Peaceray (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops. eah that's what I meant. CommanderLinx (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought anyone younger than the oldest verified person (whether man or woman) was included on this list. Is there another requirement that says for men that they must be younger than the oldest verified man? JasonPhelps (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There is also another man Djafar Behbahanian from Iran who lives in Basel, Switzerland and he claims to born 14 December 1902 and is still alive [2]. His case should be on list too. 109.240.39.103 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Men older than the World's Oldest man should be left off by the same logic that we leave off anyone older than the oldest person. By declaring someone the oldest, one reliable source is contrasting another (i.e. Guinness vs. whoever reported the older person's age), which means we rely on consensus to determine what we should do with these conflicting sources. Consensus has been in the past to exclude (although that could, of course, change) the older claims. Canadian Paul 12:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixing the Chart

Could you please delete the people who are NOT verified by the GRG? These people don't belong on this page, and it needs to match ALL the other oldest people pages. Could you please delete the people who are NOT verified by the GRG? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:2D17:32D1:19E8:C90F (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed some of the first. More cleanup is needed.2A02:2F01:502F:FFFF:0:0:6465:5043 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No. This is Wikipedia, not the GRG. This has been discussed many times before. I urge you to consult those discussions and don't start another one unless you have a new argument. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This pro-GRG whining does not constitute appropriate discussion on any talk page and is counter-productive to the collaborative editing of Longevity articles in Wikipedia. Feel free to take the credit for the current status of the edit protection of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What kind of sources do people need to get added on the list?

I put some people in and most of them are taken out. Ida Troupe and Tava Colo were the only people who I added that have stayed on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana Cavendish (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an important question. We need some clear rules for the required sources. For example a newspaper claiming that Bilbo Baggins celebrated his 111th birthday with a big party without additional information about his life or age shouldn't be sufficient to include him because it doesn't prove that he was really 111 years old when he celebrated his birthday but GRG claiming that he is really 111 years old should probably be sufficient. 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:AD43:7AE6:457C:D4F8 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Maria Emilia Quesada

Is a passport a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana Cavendish (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Men-Women

There are seven men and ninety-three women in this list. Why not tell the readers this information? Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

136 years old, and counting...

Currently in the top:

"No. Name Sex Birth date Age as of 22 April 2018 Place of residence

• 1 Ahmad Soufi[4] M 28 February 1882 136 years, 53 days Saqqez, Iran
• 2 Chiyo Miyako[3] F 2 May 1901 116 years, 355 days Japan"

With ref. https://sputniknews.com/society/201611301048014350-old-man-found-iran/ Well this is wikipedia, ofcourse not a scientific paper, anybody can edit without a proper degree. 91.82.210.13 (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• • I seriously doubt that anyone is alive who is 136 years old. That is 14 years above the oldest verified ever, so likely made up by the person claiming it JasonPhelps (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Orange and Pink Coloring on this page

Why are there the pink and orange shadings for disputed cases and unvalidated cases on this page? Why have Ida Troupe and Maria Emilia Quesada been added back to this page when they are older than the oldest verified person? I thought we weren't supposed to denote these differences, because this violates a policy DerbyCountyinNZ discussed about it being a bad idea to promote GRG only. Making these shadings on this page is promoting the GRG only idea, because it highlights people that are not validated by GRG, when this page is supposed to include anyone who is reliably sourced, younger than the oldest verified person, and been referenced within the past year. JasonPhelps (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The editor that made those edits is fortunate to be able to edit this article considering it is semi-protected; they must just have enough edit history. Continued edits of this nature are not recommended! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Maria Emilia Quesada, again

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.

---

Should Maria Emilia Quesada be listed as the world's second oldest living person? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

!VOTES

• No Quesada has not been vouched for by the Guiness Books of Records, the GRG, or any internationally respected news source. The fact that such a sensational claim - the second oldest person in the world has just been discovered! - has been totally ignored by the wider international press and only repeated by Granma and TeleSur (Cuban and Venezuelan propaganda outlets) and a dingy collection of obscure websites shows what this claim is worth. Sometimes the silence of RSs is just as meaningful as words. There's a ludicrous interpretation of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT that reigns in this dank corner of wikipedia: if even one cheap tabloid no one's ever heard of, that has no reputation for factchecking, let alone gerontological verification, announces that someone has just celebrated their 114th birthday, then it's a reliable source that must be solemnly respected. It inevitably produces absurdities like this. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) Current sourcing, as footnoted in the article, is not adequate. Only multiple, high-quality secondary sources will suffice. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) Not prudent. needs more sources. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. For what its worth. Meets the requirements for conclusion in this article as per current consensus which is line with standard Wiki policy and guidelines as stated numerous times previously. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) The sources are not adequate, and the likelyhood of this being a false claim is far higher than the opposite. This is proven by countless other such cases in the past.Lowenan (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple reliably sourced articles siting Maria Emilia Quesada. Wikipedia wants to stay away from GRG only, so good idea to use these different sources. One of the sources mentions that she has at least an Identity card verifying her birth, so this source that mentions her age of 117 seems at least pretty believable. Other people are also on this list with similar or lesser levels of validation, so you would need to consider removing other people from this list if you removed Maria Emilia Quesada. Also, why are we asking about listing Maria Emilia Quesada as second oldest living person when Ida Troupe is on the list as second oldest person and Maria Emilia Quesada as third oldest person? JasonPhelps (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Please see my comments / notes under Archive 16#The GRG only POV. Despite the clamor to limit it to the GRG, WP:RS still applies. P.S. The Guiness Books of Records is based on the GRG, so bringing that up is meaningless. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• In contrast, an equally reliable source that Scholastic Book of Records is based on is... Georgia guy (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am unfamiliar with the Scholastic Book of Records. I am not sure what the point is ... Peaceray (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You're saying that GWR depends on the GRG, and that GRG is not the only reliable source. What other perfectly reliable sources are there?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Any source which passes WP:RS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
        • How do you determine which sites pass WP:RS?? Please explain in detail. Georgia guy (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Read the link. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I mean for determining who has verified longevity and who is a rumor. Georgia guy (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
              • Irrelevant. Wikipedia relies on verifiability not truth. It is not up to Wiki editors to place any reliable source(s) above any other reliable source(s). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
                • That doesn't answer my question "What sources besides GRG are totally reliable??" Georgia guy (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
                  • Your question is addressed under my comments under Archive 16#The GRG only POV, starting with "There are two consensuses clearly governing inclusion" ... Peaceray (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• No Not until she is verified by a source that the community has agreed on to recognize. Ida Troupe and any others that do not meet this criteria should also be removed. I think the lower limit on the 'Longevity Claims' article can be decreased to say, 115 years old, and they can be put there. Having a lower limit based on the age of the current oldest person is arbitrary, and Nabi Tajima being the oldest person in nearly 20 years leaves out some candidates that would normally be included. A Wikipedia user should be able to go to different pages about similar subjects and not get conflicting information.Ryan Reeder (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This page and Longevity claims are currently synchronized in terms of criteria, there is no conflict. The reasons this article and the "verified" oldest people page differ have been detailed elsewhere (I don't have time to repeat them here, they are in the relevant talk page archives). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Please see my comments at Archive 16#The GRG only POV, starting with "There are two consensuses clearly governing inclusion" ... Peaceray (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• No - a local newspaper article is not a reliable source for an extreme age claim. A useful analogy to follow would be the List_of_tallest_people article, where people whose claimed height has not been verified by a recognized international body such as Guinness World Records are either displayed differently or not at all, but certainly not on equal footing to those who have been verified scientifically. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are considered reliable sources on wikipedia pages. The local newspaper article mentions an ID card showing her birthdate right on it. So, it seems like the newspaper article may have some validity JasonPhelps (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that ID cards can be issued late in life, so they aren't necessarily reliable sources for confirming the true age of someone. As for newspaper articles, thye're definitely not always reliable. Per WP:SCIRS#Popular press, "The popular press is readily accessible and can contain valuable supplemental information of a social, biographical, current-affairs, or historical nature. However, news articles should be used with caution when describing scientific results, studies, or hypotheses. Science news articles may fail to discuss important issues such as the uncertainty range of a conclusion, how a result has been received by experts in the field, the context of related results and theories, and barriers to widespread adoption or realization of an idea." Given that the field of studying extreme longevity is scientific, we need to bear in mind that the popular press may not always be a reliable source for claims such this one, and why it's important to draw up a longevity-specific reliable source policy. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Chessrat: You are making an unfounded assertion about the List of tallest people article. The John Rogan & Väinö Myllyrinne entries neither have citations in the list, nor are they disputed. If one clicks on through to the respective articles, neither Guinness nor any other "recognized international body" is the source. A Finish source is the citation for Myllyrinne & The Ultimate Book of Top Ten Lists is the source for Rogan. Peaceray (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, sorry. I'll retract that analogy then– on close examination the analogy to tall people isn't very clear because very tall people can have their height measured by a reliable doctor even if a specialist organization like GWR doesn't get involved. In hindsight introducing the tall people analogy was confusing, and I should have instead used the athletics analogy to demonstrate my point. Sorry bout that. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per my comments at Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 16#RFC for content dispute. She meets as objective as a criteria as we have at the moment. If consensus is to change it to GRG-only sources (which is problematic as I suggest in that link), then we can remove her, but otherwise removing her is ultimately an arbitrary decision that strays dangerously into WP:BLP territory, as it essentially asserts that her claim is false (or at least questionable). It is our job to report what is in reliable sources, not to place value judgments on them (outside of the boundaries of Wikipedia policy of course). Canadian Paul 12:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• No per WP:EXCEPTIONAL- assuming the sources covering are generally RS, they aren't for this sort of thing, it seems that if lack of any major mainstream coverage points to keeping it out. Ida Troupe and others should be removed to. Perhaps there can be a seperate list a la List_of_tallest_people#Disputed_and_unverified_claims but there should be a clear separation/marking. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: WP:EXCEPTIONAL is all well & good, except that is not the concensus for this particular article. These two form the consensus:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 6#RFC: Should the world's oldest living people tables identify that their claim has been validated?:

There should be no greater weight given to one reliable source over another. If it's reliable enough for inclusion, then no special designation is needed beyond that. If the source is not reliable enough to count as verified, then its information should not be included in the article.

• Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 14#RfC: How should we word the lede?:

Both clear consensus and policy support for relying on Wikipedia:Reliable sources for this article, as we do in all our other articles.

While I appreciate the desire for stringency that leads some to desire the GRG be the only organization that verifies supercentenarians, I reject that the GRG is the only source capable of verification & that it is infallible. Indeed, as a Smithsonian article pointed out,

For every supercentenarian that the Gerontology Research Group confirms, probably at least one more slips through the cracks.

Perhaps we need to develop a criteria for supercentenarians reliable sources akin to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). If that is your desire, please start an RfC. But until consensus changes, WP:RS still applies.

Peaceray (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so I'm saying that the sources are not reliable enough for this specific claim, and thus it shouldn't be included, based on WP:RSCONTEXT and the the policy of WP:V. Local consensus cannot override policy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 11 April 2018 (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.

Consensus Above

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.

---

On the votes taken above, 3 of the votes were summoned by "Bots" whatever that means and so may not be reliable. If you tally the votes by actual editors, it totals to 4 yes and 4 no, which is a tie. So, not really a consensus either way as to whether Maria Emilia Quesada should be included on the page. JasonPhelps (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"Summoned by bot" merely means that an editor subscribes to the feedback request service. Neutrality^talk 02:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. If the consensus says that Maria Emilia Quesada should be moved from this list, do we need to form a new consensus for where Maria should be moved to? The current Longevity Claims requirements are that the person be older than the oldest verified person. So, do we want to form a consensus for changing the requirements on the Longevity Claims page for placing Maria Emilia Quesada there? Also, there are other people on this list that are just as unvalidated as Maria Emilia Quesada--some examples: Ida Troupe, Dorrisile Dervis, Tava Colo, Shimoe Akiyama, and others. If there is a consensus to remove Maria Emilia Quesada from this list based on the sources not being sufficiently reliable to make the claim, should also these other people whose sources are similiar or less sufficiently reliable also be removed? Should there be a consensus about that, and then also for where they should go? JasonPhelps (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A simple vote does not necessarily = WP:CONSENSUS. As this vote defies the established consensus any attempt to remove Quesada will result in the matter being taken to WP:ANI. I see no reason at this point to make the incident editor-specific. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. I was not aware that Maria could still be included on the list with the above vote. Glad she can still be included on this list. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this now. As the closing administrator, I want to make crystal clear is NOT a correct interpretation of the RfC close. As the close made very clear, the consensus, based on the strength of argument in addition to the numbers, was not to include Ms. Quesada. If you wish to make a challenge to the close, you can do so following the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE procedures, but you may not unilaterally act against the RfC result. Neutrality^talk 04:25, 27 April 2018 (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.

Italisize non-verified claimants

With the death of Nabi Tajima the other day, and the deletion of the several claimants younger than her but older than the now oldest-verified (by GRG or GWR) claimant, perhaps it's time to add a little clarity to this list. I propose we italisize or otherwise distinguish those claimants whose age has been reported by a reliable source, but who have not have that claim verified by GRG or GWR, etc. In this way, we will instantly know visually which claimants are pending, and which might suffer deletion from this list if they become older than the GWR-accepted claimant. It's a little weird to come back after two days and see the person who was 4th on the list on Friday now suddenly number one.

Any thoughts? Canada Jack (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the most reliable source besides GRG and GWR?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

IDL, though I'm not sure if they have been cited of late. Canada Jack (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

As per previous consensus, there no differentiation in this article between GRG and GWR and other WP:RS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

But what other reliable sources are there?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Anything which passes WP:RS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That answer still doesn't show the existence of reliable sources besides GRG and GWR. Georgia guy (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

As per previous consensus, there no differentiation in this article between GRG and GWR and other WP:RS Yet there is on related pages, hence the confusion and inconsistency here. Witness the recent debate on Maria Emilia Quesada whose claim to be included on this page was rendered moot upon the death of Tajima. The rules for inclusion here seem completely ad hoc. At least this way we can differientate between claims which have been vetted and confirmed verses those which have simply been reported by a source. It's not a subtle distinction, it's a fundamental distinction. Canada Jack (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Something has to be done to avoid inconsistence with List of oldest living people, which includes other sources. I see two options: we can align the criteria of that page to this one, or viceversa. Paolotacchi (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that this page will not be reverting to differentiating between the GRG and other sources that would mean changing the criteria of List of the oldest verified people to include anyone with a reference which is a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Average Age Over Time

Would it be possible to create some measure of the 'average age', or even the 'youngest' age on this list over time, since such a record could be interesting as a way of measuring future trends. Can it be created automatically in the same way the ages update when the date changes.80.42.151.60 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. That would be interesting to know how it is increasing over time with the increasing trends in life expectancy. However, I'm not sure what the wikipedia policies would be on doing something like that, or if it would be outside of the bounds of what can be on this page. JasonPhelps (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the sort of fanfluff that belongs at the 110 club, not an encyclopedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Leonora Noel from Grenada

Leonora Noel who lives in Carriacou, Grenada was apparently born in Venezuela 9 December 1901 [3]] [4]. Could someone add her case on the list? 109.240.115.225 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Further Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/694965/queen-elizabeth-birthday-telegram-114-year-old-woman-oldest80.42.154.247 (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

GRG verification

Why is GRG verification of new supercentenarians stop for over two years? I think that many on this list are really age they claim. GRG is not doing their job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Dorrisile Dervis

I noticed on the recent deaths page that Delphine Gibson was the oldest living American at the time of her death. This list includes Dorrisile Dervis who (according to the birth date given as 25 December 1901) is older than Delphine Gibson. I checked the source [5] and it states, "Robert Young, of Gerontology Research Group, told WLRN, South Florida’s NPR station, last year that age verification would require a document much closer to 1901. He spoke with the station last June about Dervis’ claim — Dervis was living in Florida at the time." It sounds as though Dorrisile Dervis age is not properly verified and should not be included on this list. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The ad hoc approach being used now requires a fully verified claimant to be the world's oldest person, i.e., verified as such by GRG or Guinness, but anyone else younger just requires a "reliable source," even if that source is simply reporting an age claim. (Only fully verified claims on the all-time lists, though.) It seems perverse to include an American who is older than the recently deceased recognized oldest American, but it seems that that is what we are stuck with. Unless we add another ad hoc rule such as no claim older than a verified oldest national claim shall be on this list... good luck. Canada Jack (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed tag. I was a bit confused by the message at the top, "This is a list of the 100 oldest people who have been verified to be alive within the last one year and whose death has not been reported by a reliable source. It is estimated that there are between 150 and 600 living people who have reached the age of 110. The true number is uncertain as not all supercentenarians are known to researchers at a given time and some claims cannot be validated or are fraudulent." I guess it says that the list of only of those verified to be alive in the last year, not people whose age is verified. It also says that some claims cannot be validated but does not specify if the list is supposed to include claims that are not validated. Perhaps the intro should be updated to reflect the ad hoc rule? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Claim from El Salvador

Juan Pablo Villalobos Maradiaga from El Salvador is apparently born 26 June 1901 [6]. 188.238.139.194 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Here it says that Juan Pablo Villalobos died in October 2017: http://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/nacional/403643/muere-don-pablo-villalobos-el-salvadoreno-de-116-anos/ JasonPhelps (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

1901 Birth Claims

Are Juan Pablo Villalobos Maradiaga and Leonora Noel going to be added? The latter has been referenced by a UK National Newspaper80.42.172.66 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Here it says that Juan Pablo Villalobos died October 2017: http://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/nacional/403643/muere-don-pablo-villalobos-el-salvadoreno-de-116-anos/ JasonPhelps (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Oldest woman in Nicaragua?

Clemencia Lopez Dormus from Nicaragua is born 23 November 1904 and accourding to source is oldest living woman in Nicaragua [7]. 109.240.121.53 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Fredie Blom, 114 years old

South African man produced a birth certificate stating that he was born on May 8, 1904. [8]

No-one can be included in this list if they are claimed to be older than the person stated by Guinness World Records as the oldest living person, and no man can be included if they are claimed to be older than the man identified by Guinness as the oldest living man. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Nepal oldest woman

Batuli Lamicchane whose birthday is 23 March 1903 is apparently oldest living woman in Nepal [9]. She has been in news many times during the last three years so her case might be true. 109.240.5.230 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

2 archives for this page?

Why we have one complete archive index and one incomplete? Isn't the complete one sufficient? --Paolotacchi (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the incomplete index as it's redundant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2018

Number 43- Maggie Kidd was born in 1904, not 1905. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/oldest-living-georgia-resident-turns-113/85-498115083 23.91.152.103 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Social Security Administration is not the "end all" of authorities for age verification. As I have addressed previously, several supercentenarians, have altering Social Security records and celebrated birth years. Maggie Barnes and Maggie Renfro, just to name the Maggies. Maggie Kidd is pending verification with a clearer indication of a birth year of 1905.TFBCT1 (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to a source supporting the birth year of 1905? 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:6C5A:FC:508C:1E91 (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The only link I can find is http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Maggie_Kidd which will be argued as not reliable although it is most definitely accurate. As a side note, over 10% of supercentenarins claim and celebrate alternate birth years which are not accurate. I've already named (2). You can add Susie Gibson, Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, Eunice Sanborn, Grace Clawson, and Delma Kollar. It's not a matter of hearsay and speculation.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently one reliable source which give the year as 1904. Only if other reliable sources are provided which provide a different year then the person is removed. Hearsay and speculation are not justifiable reasons for either removal or altering the year that is provided by the reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

See above link provided from wiki with valid information arguing for a 1905 birth year. Why have you decided to change this after Maggie Kidd has been listed for one year as 12/08/1905 with the source listed? You have now set up a conflict in that if/when Lessie Brown dies, Maggie Kidd will not be the oldest living American. You changed Maggie Kidd on this list, but left her unchanged on List of supercentenarians from the United States creating a conflict in the longevity pages. I'm not here to clean-up your sloppy work.@DerbyCountyinNZ:TFBCT1 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Gerontology Wikia is not a reliable source. I didn't know that this entry had been added incorrectly, I'm not in the habit of checking every entry to make sure it has not been deliberately added incorrectly. There is no edit conflict. And I'm not here to edit ALL your fanfluff misinformation (but I will when I become aware of it). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The apparent tone and demeanor of your response is as per usual uncompromising and asinine. I personally did not add Maggie Kidd to this list, but I see nothing deliberate on the part of the person who did to do it incorrectly. I believe you've been admonished in the past for your contrary nature. And, yes, there is a conflict if Lessie Brown (the current oldest American) dies, because you have Maggie Kidd as next in line to take that title and she is NOT the next oldest living American. And lastly, nothing here is personally mine as you appear to think. If you make a change to one of the longevity pages, it is your responsibility to see that the changes follow through to all corresponding pages, if not your work is incomplete and sloppy as yours was here.@DerbyCountyinNZ:TFBCT1 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And wrong again, as usual. I never said you added Maggie Kidd. SPA IP longevity editors are just as prone to GRG bias as long-term editors. However if you were aware of it you could/should have fixed. There is no "conflict", there is just the usual disagreement between sources as to who is the oldest American: is it even currently Lessie Brown? What about Dorrisile Dervis? A clear case of WP:CRYSTAL, a "problem" which can be resolved if/when it happens and is not justification for ignoring consensus. I've "been admonished in the past for your contrary nature"? Really? You mean trying to see that consensus is followed? Would you like to point to anyone else reading this page where I've been warned officially (It may have happened but you can waste your time looking through my talk page archives, I've got better things to do)? Or do you mean the time I got taken to Arbcom, which resulted in the petitioner getting a 1-year wiki ban and Robert Young getting indeffed from Longevity, while I did not even get a warning? And there's no need to ping me every time you want to reply to me, I'm watching this page and will respond when necessary (and as my currently intermittent internet connection allows) . DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I do apologize for the late response, but I just got around to reading this. I think you were confused, I was not interested in your personal details of your sordid wiki interactions. But as per usual with individuals with egotistical personality disorders this is what you focused on in great detail and disparaging others. My main concern is your lack of ability to follow through and complete work on corresponding pages of Wikipedia which leaves the pages in conflict and relegates your work as incomplete and sloppy. This you did not address at all.@DerbyCountyinNZ:TFBCT1 (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Does George Feldman meet criteria for inclusion?

No reliable source states George Feldman ever reached 110 years of age nor has he been reported alive in well over a year by a reliable source. He should be immediately removed from all oldest people lists in which he appears because he does not and has never met the criteria for inclusion. Hearsay from a claimed relative that he was alive a few months ago is not a reliable source for inclusion in any Wikipedia article.

Kameo Oya has not been reported alive by a reliable source in well over a year and therefore no longer meets the criteria of inclusion on these oldest people lists. He should be removed immediately from all oldest people lists in which he appears, unless a recent reliable source states he was alive in the past year. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Kameo's last living confirmation was this report from September, less than a year ago. https://mainichi.jp/articles/20170919/ddl/k44/040/178000c And Newhunter12, you really shouldn't say claimed relative, it's quite disrespectful if they really are related.--Dorglorg (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If anyone had a problem with George Feldman or Kameo Oya being listed, they should have made a contention on 04/20/2018 back when they were re-added. George Feldman was re-added because his grandson protested that he was removed and confirmed that he was alive (04/2018). Kameo Oya has a valid source from 02/2017 less than 18 months ago and there have been no reports that he is deceased. The 12-month guideline is just that, "a guideline." not a stringent rule. And once a person has been established on the list, there is criteria for deletion. Newshunter12 only had a problem with these two after I deleted (2)of their new entries on another list.TFBCT1 (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for helping properly apply Wikipedia policy consistently to these pages, DerbyCountyinNZ. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the only thing that matters here is policy, not personal sensibilities. The policies are against you in this instance, TFBCT1, so please do not claim I have a vendetta against you as an excuse to try to prop up your failed policy arguments. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus of the criteria for inclusion in this article. That one editor continually fails to abide by that consensus continually undermines the concept ofr co-operative editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The new reliable source provided above by Dorglorg demonstrates that Kameo Oya was alive less then a year ago, so as long as it is added to the articles he is present in, by policy he should stay now. George Feldman still needs to be removed and if a reliable source ever becomes available in the future, he can be re-added then. Any information a relative, real or pretend, provides to Wikipedia from themselves is original research and invalid for our use. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added a temporary source for George Feldman showing that he reached his 111th birthday and indicating a better source is needed on all pages where he is listed. Similar to the case of Fusa Tatsumi, where there is significant evidence that the person is living, but the source may not quite meet criteria. Just to clarify, I am the one who initially removed George Feldman from this list 03/2018 and then added him back 04/2018 when his grandson protested and confirmed he was still living. There was no contention at that time. Also George Feldman will in all likelihood, if still living, be verified within 4 months and there is no benefit to this list to keep adding him and removing him. I hope this resolves all concerns.TFBCT1 (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source, so you should not have added that citation to this article. As has been explained, by policy, George Feldman has never qualified to be on these lists, so you should not have re-added him. The whims, well intentioned or not, of the man claiming to be George Feldman's son have no bearing on Wikipedia policy. He needs to be removed from all lists he is present on unless a reliable source is provided. We have no way of knowing if a reliable source, such as a GRG verification, will surface if he lives to his alleged 112 birthday. In the past, such cases have been removed until a reliable source is found because that is our policy. DerbyCountyinNZ agreed with the need to remove George Feldman and Dorglorg raised no objections to his policy based removal, so the consensus is he needs to be removed, which I will do shortly. I will also add the new source for Oya to the appropriate articles. Please do not re-add Feldman unless you have a reliable source. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached. And obviously you cannot read or understand my comparison to his being added with a temporary source like Fusa Tatsumi with "youtube" and indication of a "better source needed." George Feldman has been listed on Wikipedia on this list, List of supercentenarians from the United States, and even the List of the verified oldest men, until I removed all unverified candidates from that list. All those lists used the 11/23/2016 source without contention or dispute because of his considerable exposure and celebrity and consistent updates from his relatives of his well-being. He already has been listed at various times for 1 year, 8 months on these lists without contention. It is not unreasonable to list him for an additional 4 months, until most plausibly verified with the temporary source as I've proposed.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No. That is an ad hoc argument not grounded in policy. Just because you and others failed to adhere to policy in the past does not mean we get to ignore it now. There was indeed consensus to remove; just because you don't like it doesn't mean it hasn't been reached. YouTube is not a reliable source either. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

May I point out that you have been consistently updating the longevity pages and have done nothing about Feldman, so it is you, not me, who has failed to adhere or ignored policy. I addressed this issue in 03/2018 and 04/2018. I received no input or contention from you nor anyone else.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not everything on Wikipedia is "black and white" there are some grey areas. Some guidelines are just that, methodology put in place in order to "guide." I've already given a thorough history that George Feldman has been listed on Wikipedia lists for the past 20 months in some respect without contention(execpt for my own in March 2018). To remove him arbitrarily at this point would be haphazard. My means of resolution is sensible, list him temporarily with "inadequate source" and wait 4 months and see if he's verified. If not, re-visit the issue. And to clarify, you did not reach consensus, in fact, some users appear to be offended in the manner in which you went about attempting to remove George Feldman.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My contention wasn't with him removing George Feldman, but with the wording that he used.--Dorglorg (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification, Dorglorg. To be clear, I am looking at things from a cold, policy based perspective, not intending to be rude to anyone. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently consensus has been reached. I personally have a problem with the inconsistency of "looking the other way" for 20 months, then deciding to a strict interpretation of "guidelines" at whim at some point in the future. This will be more inflammatory if George Feldman only becomes verified within the next 4 months. I will be removing George Feldman. This would have been a lot smoother if it was contested when I re-added him 04/20/2018 after having removed him in March 2018. I will also be removing Fusa Tatsumi in that we can't show leniency in interpretation in one case and not in another when both are compelling. Consistency is the key.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dorglorg:You are quite savy at finding sources. Does a better source exist for Fusa Tatsumi?TFBCT1 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

She wasn't reported last September so she's probably dead.--Dorglorg (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional people

Now that Chiyo Miyako has been sorted out, could someone please add around 5 to 6 people to the hidden section? It is completely empty right now. PrithviMS (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako, and GRG "limbo"

I've reverted Miyako's removal. Not only is the GRG putting someone into limbo NOT the same as the person having a reliable source stating they have died, the criteria for inclusion in this article are that the person is not known to have died and there is a report that they were alive within the last year, which is true for Miyako. Note that there is an apparent contradiction in my statements here which is highlighted by this situation. Point 2 should be: where the only source that a supercentenarian was alive within the last year is the GRG living list and that person is moved into limbo, then they can be removed from this list which is implied by the statement in the paragraph above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If she's been put in limbo it means there hasn't been a confirmation of her being alive in over a year, so she can be removed.--Dorglorg (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Multiple reports from this year indicate she is still alive., Just because the GRG says that there are no reports is not good enough for Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's clearly not correct that [10] 'No other "reliable" sources trump "GRG."'. However my problem is that I'm not seeing these sources in our article. For example in both the previous edit, and this edit [11], the only source for Chiyo Miyako is the GRG. As long as we are using the GRG for her, we would have to follow their latest opinion. If other sources are added, then we can discuss the problem and any claims that the GRG trumps any other source should rightfully be dismissed. If there is dispute over that, I suggest it is brought to WP:RSN. But we can't discuss how other sources compare to GRG if those sources haven't been provided. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple sources in her article that would suffice. However, as this, and other articles, have been messed up by the pro-GRG lobby, it is now a wider issue which needs to be dealt with at WP:WOP. I intend to do just that once I have dealt with a related issue which needs addressing first. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, one thing we should definitely avoid is something like this [12]. It makes absolutely no sense to say

Upon the death of Nabi Tajima of Japan on 21 April 2018, Chiyo Miyako, also of Japan, became the world's oldest living person. Upon Chiyo Miyako going into limbo on 24 July 2018, Kane Tanaka of Japan became the world's oldest living person.[3]

Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Since the casual reader coming across the page might think that Chiyo Miyako going into limbo indicates she is on the edge of hell and eternal damnation, might be an idea to explain what that means in terms of tracking superc's. Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

And now it turns out that she was put in limbo because she had died, meaning that I was totally in the right to remove her.--Dorglorg (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Utter rubbish! Removal for going into limbo violates multiple policies. That the GRG is too incompotent to list her as dead when she had in fact died does not justify that. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

She wasn't listed as dead yet because the information was private and they didn't have a death date yet. And if it was such a severe violation of policies, how come nothing happened when you took me to Arbcom?--Dorglorg (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have never taken you to Arbcom. Yet. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe that I have to create a section on this page for that...

I am forced to create this section because I have corrected (twice) a typo in one of the names : Lucille Randon (and not Lucile Randon as is written on this page, see [13]) and it has been reverted (twice) because the typo is in the source... It is easy to verify with a simple Google search ! So, is it posssible to correct simple mistakes like that without launching an edit war? Eleventh1 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while most of the sources that have Lucile are not particularly reliable (most of them have copied the GRG, which is prone to errors of this sort), none of the sources that have Lucille are much better. If there was a source from a major newspaper (e.g. Le Figaro) then that could be used. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Le Parisien, France 3, Midi Libre, Var Matin, Le Progrès, La Croix : if it is not enough, what would be ? Eleventh1 (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Good enough for me, fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Eleventh1 (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Iseno Sanjo

I've attempted to add this Japanese to the list and have had my edit reverted twice by Newshunter12. They have a problem with the source being a Prefecture report. https://imgur.com/IbJVeko?r We have had several Japanese listed with Prefecture reports. They are questioning, "How do we know where this report came from?" Prefecture reports are known to be credible and this is from 05/2018. I had to correct (5) errors of individuals who were added to this list with the wrong dates of birth yesterday by this editor. I have found this editor to be difficult to work with and of a retaliatory nature. Any opinions if Iseno Sanjo dob 08/13/1907 should be added to the list?TFBCT1 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't know where that purported document came from. The website says the image was uploaded - it doesn't say by whom as far as I can tell. For all we know, you could have created that picture and posted it yourself. The website itself is an image upload website where anyone can post stuff so it is no different then a forum, twitter, etc. It's an unreliable source just as a forum is with a picture of an old person in front of a birthday cake with 111th birthday written on it. It is clearly against policy to use this source, even if the information contained in it were true. Yes, yesterday I made the same one character mistake five times when I spent my valuable time adding five people to the addendum that does not show up on the page, so I missed my mistake. Occasional mistakes like that are part of the life of editors who work hard maintaining these pages. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the so-called source does not pass [{WP:RS]]. All similar sources should also be removed. That any errors have been in an unrelated context is totally irrelevant to this discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This argument is flawed. Japanese Prefecture Reports have been considered credible and accurate for over 100 years. Quite frankly I don’t know what their system of delivery is, but this is clearly not from a forum; it is a table. It is also a moot point in that Prefecture reporting is deemed acceptable. I already know the opinion of Newshunter12 who reverted my edit twice. I am looking for input from others who have familiarity with Prefecture reports.TFBCT1 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Any other opinions other than from my arch-nemesis DerbyCountyinNZ who I would expect nothing more than disagreement before I put this to rest?TFBCT1 (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

So you're going to take this to RSN then? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I’m leaving it open here for other opinions of those who have experience and familiarity with Prefecture reports and possibly knowledge of the Japanese language here.TFBCT1 (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I did it for you: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is an image upload site a reliable source?. 17:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not even close to being a reliable source. Newshunter12 is spot on. We have no idea who uploaded it or where it came from. Could easily be a random table someone made in Microsoft Word or could be a potential WP:COPYVIO. Fully support removal. Not counting the RSN discussion I'm amazed you need at least three people telling you this source is unreliable. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the people who responded, I’m not surprised at the responses here. To clarify, the information is likely valid, yet its source delivery is questionable. Also to clarify, Iseno Sanjo has not been added to the list with this source in case there has been any confusion.TFBCT1 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make it a matter of record that I was recently chastised in a discussion as “not bringing issues to the talk page.” I am now being belittled for doing “exactly that.” Amongst certain editors, I am ridiculed no matter what I do. How very tiresome. I remain.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As per the Reliable source Noticeboard response, an uploaded image of a Prefecture report is not considered a reliable source(see above). Iseno Sanjo will not be added to the list unless an alternate reliable source is found.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Kane Tanaka NOT oldest person??

What evidence is there that she is NOT the oldest person in the world?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What evidence is there that she IS? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There hasn't been any nonevidence either. EEng 06:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

Can someone please add Joe Willie Hollins born August 19, 1906 to this list ? these are two sources. http://www.pressregister.com/news/article_2f4d27fe-a735-11e8-a64a-6b79a9644d5b.html and http://www.pressregister.com/news/image_90bb5e18-a738-11e8-a23a-6fc6eb2d773a.html 100.40.125.198 (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

An even older woman.

A woman (Koku Istambulova) in Russia born 1889 is even older than the person in Japan. Reference Glen Horo (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)GlenHoro

Very interesting. I speak Russian (https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB:Xakepxakep) and watched the video, but may be the claim must be verified by an independent authoritative institution in order to be eligible for the list. Xakepxakep (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The current criteria for inclusion in this list is that the person is not older than the person identified by Guinness as the World's Oldest Person. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

7 Maria Vikentyevna Kononovich

She is older than 114 years, 92 days, but is not on this list: [[14]]. Why? Xakepxakep (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

She is, on 7 place!Glen Horo (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean that she is not included in the List of the verified oldest women: List of the verified oldest women Please, read again my posting and see the link. Xakepxakep (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

She is not on the List of the verified oldest women because she has not been "validated by modern standards" as stated at the top of the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

Celestina Penabad #95 is reported as having died on Sept. 13, 2018. Bromleychuck (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I made the edit after finding this source:https://www.farodevigo.es/sociedad/2018/09/15/fallece-abuela-galicia-celestina-penabad/1961858.html Issue is now resolved. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2018

Hello! My grandmother Dorothy Keller was born on September 28, 1907. She was previously on the list but has been deleted. She is still with us and we will celebrate her 111th birthday this Friday. Please add her back on the list. Thank you.

Cindy Buckler 12303 Pleasant Lake Place Henrico VA 23233 804 307 9647 2620:160:E728:2:0:0:0:22 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fish+Karate 13:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I made the edit adding Dorothy Keller after finding two reliable sources, one for her 110 birthday (which explicitly states when she was born) and one for her 111th birthday. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

there is a costa rican man that is 118 years old, his name is José Uriel de los Ángeles Delgado Corrales, and it's getting attention since he went to an hospital. https://www.nacion.com/ciencia/salud/chepito-el-tico-mas-longevo-se-recupera-de/HVWPYYCB5JGMPK6H2PPG75I32E/story/ 190.171.107.3 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As with most of those above: Does not meet the criteria as stated at the top of the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

Add Julia Flores in the list. She is 118 years and 6 days old, was born in Oct. 26th, 1900. She is from Bolivia. More information can be found on ABC website. https://abcnews.go.com/International/bolivias-oldest-woman-celebrates-118th-birthday/story?id=58835424 68.180.113.230 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Your request does not meet the criteria for inclusion stated at the top of the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

|- |99 |Agnes Lowe |align=center|F |23 October 1907 |116 years, 206 days |United States

Metaman203 (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2018

Hello,

I’m not sure if I’m doing this right, but I’d like to help out on this page. User:Newshunter12 is correct: sourcing for Japanese supercentenarians is problematic. I hope the following information is useful.

Kyoto Prefecture shows Mrs. Shizuko Otani (27 September 1907) and an anonymous woman (11 December 1907) living as of 1 September. http://www.pref.kyoto.jp/kourei-engo/news/press/2018/9/documents/sankou2.pdf

Nagasaki Prefecture shows Mr. Tsunahei Ogawa (9 January 1907) and Mrs. Masae Uchiyama (27 February 1907) living as of 1 September. http://www.pref.nagasaki.jp/shared/uploads/2018/09/1536220253.pdf

Yamaguchi Prefecture shows Mrs. Hide Kittaka (8 March 1907) living as of 7 September. http://www.pref.yamaguchi.lg.jp/press/201809/041426_f1.pdf

Wakayama Prefecture shows Mrs. Sumie Yabune (5 February 1907) living as of 31 August. http://wave.pref.wakayama.lg.jp/news/kensei/shiryo.php?sid=27869

Hiroshima Prefecture shows Mrs. Toshimi Kikkawa (31 March 1907 - 10 October 2018) and Mr. Yoshikazu Yamashita (10 April 1907) living as of 14 September. https://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/325621.pdf

Akita Prefecture shows Mrs. Miyo Hatakeyama (4 March 1908) living as of 10 September. https://www.pref.akita.lg.jp/uploads/public/archive_0000008721_00/秋田県における百歳以上高齢者等の状況について（公表資料）%20%282%29.pdf

The Hokkaido Prefecture report does not list dates of birth, as far as I’m aware. However, it lists eight people over 110 years of age as living on 13 September: Mr. Masazou Nonaka (25 July 1905; oldest man, kind of a given), Mrs. Seki Inagaki (4 November 1906), Mrs. Tari Chiba (19 January 1907), Mrs. Miyo Kubota (27 August 1907 - 23 October 2018), Mr. Fumio Rikiishi (25 November 1907), Mrs. Ume Sawanabe (17 March 1908 - 17 October 2018), and two women with unknown birthdates. http://www.ishikari.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ts/tss/press/300914-2.pdf

Mie Prefecture shows Mrs. Tome Sanwa (22 August 1907) living as of 1 September. http://www.pref.mie.lg.jp/common/content/000799580.pdf

Numerous other Japanese supercentenarians were confirmed alive in September, but I don’t have reports for them. Some, such as Natsu Kotsuka (18 October 1906), were not reported as alive in September, and thus have gone to “limbo.” I don’t know how to cite this, though.

I hope this information proves helpful. Thank you for your time. 108.206.39.136 (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done I added Shizuko Otani, anonymous of Kyoto, Hide Kittaka, Yoshikazu Yamashita, and Tome Sanwa to the list. Tsunahei Ogawa, Masae Uchiyama, and Sumie Yabune recently got updated sources, so no action was needed. I removed Natsu Kotsuka and Sumire Hishikawa (she also had been from Mie prefecture). Since it lacks dates of birth, the Hokkaido Prefecture report was unable to be used by itself, but thankfully of named living people, only Seki Inagaki and Fumio Rikiishi are not on this list with valid sources already. Miyo Hatakeyama is too young to be added at the moment, but is all set to be added once there is room on the list. Thank you very much for your help! Newshunter12 (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)