Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Rankings and sortable table

TFBCT1, you undid my change to remove rankings and replace it with a sortable table with the edit summary "unconstructive". Did you have a specific objection to the change? I've been removing ranking columns because it doesn't make sense to rank people when there are living and deceased people in the same table (which admittedly doesn't apply here) or when these lists include people that have not been validated by the GRG. Before, non-validated entries were skipped in the table rankings but that won't happen because colour is gone and it's not certain that validated entries will be distinguished in any way (see the RfC). There are advantages to a sortable, non-ranked table: it's easier to maintain when adding new entries, and it enables the reader to sort the information in different ways (such as by birthdate or country of birth). Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

THE GEG RANKS THEM AND SO WILL WE. THIS BEHAVIOR WON'T BE TOLERATED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.242.198 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it's been close to four years since TFBCT1 has commented on a talk page, I wouldn't expect much. That said, I support not ranking people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm an optimist. I have this (possibly naive) belief that if I work with members of this project/GRG supporters, they'll accept the changes. I see that articles are being created at the Gerontology Wikia. I hope the activity over there - where they aren't bound by the MOS, notability requirements, or content policies - means that they're willing to work within the policies and guidelines here. Ca2james (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I tentatively support keeping the rankings, simply because they provide a quick visual way for readers to see exactly how many people are on the list. It would be harder to maintain a ranked list every time a new entry was added; this has been the status quo for years now, and the issue doesn't seem to have been raised very much over those years, but that is why my support is tentative. That being said, I do agree that the list should be made sortable, so if there are no objections please make that change. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 07:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

We have an outside agency that ranks the oldest people in the world. There's nothing wrong with having a ranked table sourced to that agency. What we can't have is Wikipedia coming up with its own ranks, because that's WP:OR. Does Wikipedia decide who the 8th best golfer in the world? No, so it shouldn't decide who the 8th oldest person in the world is either. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That outside agency ranks the oldest people that they validate and ignores people that they haven't validated. Since the list is necessarily incomplete, it's WP:OR to rank the people in the list (not to mention misleading). Ca2james (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So Wikipedia citing an outside source and "mirroring" their list is original research? Are you being serious? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You're conflating my two statements. Please reread them. Ca2james (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've re-read them and I still don't see anything different. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

my first statement (Vera Wagner): the GRG isn't the only reliable source for these entries, and so to mirror only its tables is WP:UNDUE

my second statement (this section): Since the list is necessarily incomplete, it's WP:OR to rank the people in the list (not to mention misleading)

I didn't say citing an outside source and "mirroring" their list is original research in either of those statements and it does look to me like you put the two of them together. I don't mind discussing things with you (to a point; even I get tired of going circles eventually) but I'd appreciate it if you would quote me accurately. Ca2james (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove the rankings. Wikipedia is not a GRG clone. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not any kind of argument. A reliable source has a ranked table. Wikipedia can therefore produce the same table referenced to that source. As I've mentioned above, there are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia that have "cloned" tables from reliable sources (like here, here, and here.) -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source has a ranked table. This isn't "List of oldest people by the GRG". If Guiness has a different listing (either one person more or less), do we have both rankings? What about other reliable sources? The ranking doesn't make sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if that were the case of course you could list both. I gave the article "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" as an example of multiple tables being included where reliable sources disagree. It's just a question of following WP:NPOV. Saying that other reliable sources might hypothetically disagree is no reason to remove a ranked table. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Rankings break

Gosh, for a minute there I thought this section was headed Rantings break :) EEng (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So where do we stand on the table rankings issue? To me it doesn't make sense to rank living people for a variety of reasons which I've outlined above. Ollie231213 and TFBCT1, you had previously wanted to keep the rankings. Is that still your position, or are you willing to remove the rankings, or do you have another position? If we still disagree on this, then perhaps we should consider an RfC to get the broader community's input. What do you all think? Ca2james (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If we agree to use multiple sources which have disparate lists, then this page should have its own rankings. The ordering is not an independent piece of information to be sourced; it's derived from the collection itself. As the list here is a superset from multiple sources, it has its own ordering. If necessary, there should be a note that says so, e.g. "These rankings are based on the order of entries from multiple sources. The rankings themselves do not originate from any individual source." Optionally: "The ## sources in use agree on the ranking up to position ###" but I wouldn't want the job of keeping that statement up to date :-). -- Jevanyn _talk 12:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That's clearly a violation of WP:OR. It's not for Wikipedia to decide that "person X is the 12th oldest person in the world", that needs to be based on outside sources. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So we have one reliable source, the GRG's Table E, which has a ranked list of the oldest living people in the world. We then have a variety of other sources like newspaper reports that report on other claimants individually. WP:NPOV requires that we represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If we have one reliable source (which is reputable and considered an authority on this subject) that has a ranked list, then Wikipedia can't just simply overrule it and create its own list. Again, the simplest solution is this: have two separate tables, one of which is a ranked list of oldest people according to the GRG, and another which is an unranked list of other cases which have been reported on by other sources.

It certainly does make sense to rank cases where the ranking can be reliably sourced, as it adds encyclopedic value to the article. Equally, it's against Wikipedia policy for Wikipedia to create its own rankings. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If everyone is listed in order of their ages, there will be a de facto "ranking" anyway. The ranking also helps keep the number of men and women listed in the sentence prior to the table accurate, too. You can go and look at how often those corresponding numbers were wrong on the previous "pending" and "unverified" tables which were not ranked compared to the "verified" table which was ranked. Also, I think it is a good idea to keep the table as sortable. It helps out if I want to see all the males separate from the females or if I want to see supercentenarians by country. 68.119.50.77 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the rank order for a collection is defined by the collection itself. However, the list is (necessarily) incomplete, so any ranking will be misleading. There's also the problem that some of these people might be dead, in which case their ranking will be wrong - and ranking living people doesn't actually make sense because it's only in death that their place in the hierarchy will be known. That one reliable source ranks its entries does not mean that Wikipedia must rank the entries in the same way, or even rank them at all. I'm not sure it's OR to rank reliably-sourced entries according to their place in a list determined by age - but course we can always ask experienced, uninvolved editors at WP:NORN. Ca2james (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's not for you or any other Wikipedia editor to overrule or pay no attention to the GRG's rankings because "some people might be dead" or whatever.

"That one reliable source ranks its entries does not mean that Wikipedia must rank the entries in the same way, or even rank them at all" ---> No, but it's something that must be given due weight as per WP:NPOV. Of course it's WP:OR to create our own rankings because we have no reliable source to reference the rankings to. That's for an outside agency to determine. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The GRG is just one single reliable source and we still have to be careful not to give it WP:UNDUE weight. Moreover, we are not required to include everything that is included in a reliable source even if the majority of the article is sourced to a single reliable source. So again, just because the GRG ranks entries does not mean that Wikipedia has to rank them - we are in fact free to ignore those rankings. Given that the table will likely include entries sourced to not the GRG, I think that not ranking the entries at all is the best way to go. Since we obviously hold differing views here, I think the best solution is an RfC to get the community's input.

First, however, we need to figure out the OR question so we know whether giving rankings to all entries is a viable option. Since we also hold differing views here, I'm going to take this to WP:NORN.

Finally, you've suggested splitting the table into validated and unvalidated entries. However, that's related to the whole "should validated entries be distinguished from non-validated entries" question currently being discussed at this RfC. Therefore, that suggestion should be brought up as an option there. Will you do that, or shall I? Ca2james (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have asked the OR question here. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion has been archived without a formal close. An uninvolved editor thought that ranking calculations are WP:CALC because they're based on age and are therefore not original research. EEng posted their take, which boils down to "we shouldn't be ranking without clear hedging that these rankings reflect only the contents of the article and do not reflect world rankings".

So it looks like we could rank Vera Wagner. Honestly, I'd much prefer to remove rankings for this article entirely. Even if we include a blinking, large font disclaimer that the rankings are only valid within the context of this list, the presence of rankings implies to the reader that these rankings are definitive. Ollie231213, I know you wanted to include rankings along with split tables. However, the RSN and NORN consensus appears to be that Vera Wagner can be included and ranked, and consensus in the RfC is against splitting the tables. Therefore, are you now willing to have the rankings removed from this article? If not, we'll need to go to RfC. Ca2james (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I only meant that IF any kind of ranking is included it would have to have blinking red disclaimers (figuratively speaking). I'd prefer no rankings. EEng (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, your opinion on what consensus is in the various discussions is questionable to say the least. Secondly, I would rather have no rankings than rankings made by the Wikipedia Original Supercentenarian Research Committee, but it would be better to have the rankings sourced to the GRG and separate validated and unvalidated cases. Think about it: the GRG's table E has been deemed a reliable source at RSN. Therefore, I don't see why it is an issue to include rankings in this article. What we're saying here is "this is a list of the oldest people in the world whose age has been validated by an organisation who specifically deal with lists of the oldest people in the world". We're not saying "this is a definitive list" and that "person #24 is definitely the 24th oldest person in the world", but we're saying that they're the 24th oldest person whose age is known to be true. So no, I'm not willing to remove the rankings from the article. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing include the GRG rankings as separate or in lieu of any rankings here? Because there's an implication that only table E should be here so it's just those rankings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I thought the implication was that sources other than the GRG could be used, which is why there's a conflict with respect to rankings. Once the other RfC has been closed (so that there's absolutely no question regarding consensus about separating grg-validated from other entries), I'll start an RfC about rankings.

Ollie231213, please stop being uncivil. If you disagree with my assessment of consensus regarding table splitting, you could have just said that without having to insult me. I have been nothing but respectful in my interactions with you and I ask for the same in return. We already know that there is disagreement and conflict here; adding rudeness and incivility to the mix poisons the atmosphere and makes a difficult situation highly unpleasant. Please strike your statement above. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Goldie Michelson limbo?

Goldie Michelson, oldest verified russian born ever has last seen alive in her 112th birthday [1]. After that there hasn't been new information about her and no information about her 113th birthday. There has been rumour that she has passed away in November 2014 according to these sources [2] [3] but are they reliable? I hope that GRG does not declare her case limbo yet until we found new information. Does GRG declare person limbo if there hasn't been new information over year? 62.80.158.106 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We aren't the GRG. Do you think Michelson should be included? Your first link is dead and the other two I wouldn't consider reliable sources so I'd say not at the moment but we can still discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not even a cententarian.

There is some weird evidence that Susannah Mushatt Jones, the currently claimed oldest people on the Earth is just an age cheater. See Microsoft's high profile analysis at http://kepfeltoltes.hu/150922/howold_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png I've used her picture from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/06/susannah-mushatt-jones-birthday-116-worlds-oldest-person-guinness-world-records/29758893/, when she turned to 113 on the picture. Here the difference of the ages is huge: 113-91=22 years. 94.247.94.237 (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No comment. EEng (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Facial recognition software is not a reliable way to determine someones age, especially on a picture where said persons face is obscured greatly by giant sunglasses. 71.12.161.156 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's right. The only scientifically accepted method is to cut the person open and count the rings. EEng (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing? No one? Not even outrage from the humorless? EEng (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah, had the exact same offer made about me recently when I won my age group in a road race. 8| DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm often thought of as humourless because I don't usually "get" jokes and I dislike statements grounded in sexism/ageism/sizeism/other isms. In this case I thought the statement was funny (if perhaps a bit tasteless) given the absurdity of this whole section. However, if you want outrage I'm sure I can come up with some for you. Ca2james (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I just didn't find it very clever, considering that joke has been around for many many eons. Williamb (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you know? Did you cut it open and count the rings? EEng (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

unverfied and Limbo cases

Where is it possible to find this cases since middle of Aug 2015? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.10.132 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Can anybody give me an answer to that question? Who knows, where I can find all this cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.195.149 (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

oldest human

There is a man in Turkey who named Mehmet Esen. He is 130 years old currently. And also he is W-W-1 veteran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.209.104 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide independent, reliable sources about his birth date. From there, there's a separate issue of whether it can go here or at Longevity claims or elsewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reported death

According to the 110 Club forum (blacklisted for links) "I'm so sad to announce you that Mrs. Maria (called Margitì) Crescini wid. Carrara passed away today (at the age of 111 years and 331 days) in Riva di Solto, province of Bergamo, Lombardy Region, Italy. She was born on 20th January 1904 in the same village. Margitì was the 27th Oldest Supercentenarian Ever in Italy. GRG correspondents for Italy, unfortunately, are waiting for this news because, one week ago, the daughter of Margitì told me (on the phone) that situation was suddenly precipitated. RIP cara Margitì" to which Coyote77 Posted: Dec 17 2015, 06:47 PM posted this bit of humor "Unexpected for me. She looked well in he pictures of the GRG gallery. Rest in peace."

I also just can't believe that someone nearly 112 years old died... they looked so old and still breathing in photos to be taken so young. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

84.180.24.31 (talk) 12:21, 21 February 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, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2016

Masamitsu Yoshida should have been added to any of the lists because no new male supercentenarians have been verified. At a minimum, there should be a notation or "pending" or "unverified". Currently it is unclear who the worlds oldest man is. See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35349692 and http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/asia/japan-oldest-man-dies/ Learnedmachina (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

His age has been verified by Japan's MHWL. His inclusion on this list doesn't reflect whether or not he is or isn't the oldest man on Earth. No declaration of such is made like you imply. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Further, we do not distinguish between validation criteria used within a single source. While you didn't state it, it's clearly the GRG you are referring to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Standards of verification of old age.

See the extensive discussion above. Come back when you're serious here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

To stop the turmoil I propose a verification standard that all could agree on. Lets say MRS Jane Doe claims a birth date of January 4, 1905. The GRG uses the first 20 years from birth. That would be January 4, 1905 to January 4, 1925. SO we could key on this period. What happens in this period? Birth,baptism, school, two census,draft or young military service, possible young Marriage. SO we research from earliest from point of birth. It would look like this: 1. Birth certificate 2. Baptism 3. School records from age 5- age 20. 4. 1910 census. age 5. 5. 1920 census.age 15. 6. Joined military? Age 17-age 20. 7. Young Marriage ? Age 16-20. 8. Birth of a child before age 20 End GRG approved period Start non approved GRG period age 20-age 111. 9. Marriage age 20 or after 10. Military joined age 20 or after. 11.1930 census 12. Social security records approximately 1936 start date. 13. Tax records. 14. Purchase of property records. 15. Drivers license records. 16. Census 1940 17. Birth of children at age 20 or older. 18. Criminal record showing birth date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC) We don't examine primary sources nor go around here playing games looking for the WP:TRUTH. This is not a place for actual research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Yeah, all of that is original research. It isn't the duty of Wikipedia to verify age claims, and even if it was, it's absurd to think we should apply the exact same standard the GRG uses. At that point, it'd just be us doing their work for them. The entire point of all the discussions about this topic recently have been concerning what other sources - besides Guinness and the GRG - are considered credible when they say Person X is 110. It's pretty clear that random news articles are not, but government agencies such as the United States military or Japan's MHWL are. 66.168.191.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC) So you go by secondary information like unreliable Newspapers. Dewey defeats Truman type newspapers. Like the ones that predicted Donald Trump would win in a landslide in the primary in Iowa. So actual facts( truth) mean nothing. Might as well put the guy from India reported to be age 156 as your oldest living man then. If truth and facts have no meaning here go with the most preposterous news paper report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Hey I found one born January 6, 1835! Health 202 Vârânasî| A retired cobbler from northern India, Mahashta Mûrasi, claims he was born in January 1835, making him not only the oldest man on earth, but the oldest to have ever lived, according to the Guiness World Records. According to indian officials, the man was born at home in the city of Bangalore on January 6th 1835, and is recorded to have lived in Vârânasî since 1903. He worked as a cobbler in the city until 1957, when he retired at the already venerable age of 122. “I have been alive so long, that my great grand-children have been dead for years” explains Mr Mûrasi. “Somehow death forgot about me… And now there’s hardly any hope left. Look at the statistics, nobody dies past 150, even less at 170. At that point, I guess I’m immortal or something. I might as well enjoy it!” The man’s birth certificate and identity cards all seem to confirm his version, but unfortunately no medical examination can confirm his saying for now. The last doctor Mister Mûrasi visited died in 1971, so there is little information available about his previous medical files. History India Man World record SO the worlds oldest man was born in 1835 according to newspaper records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am serious. When truth logic and fact mean nothing go with stupidity, untruth , illogical claims like the man born in 1835. Hey the newspaper reported he is 181 years old and you believe newspapers are fact so post his age. You have a verified secondary source in this Indian newspaper. For your information I have read all the posted garbage about age discussion. Most appear written by drunk dope smokers who know nothing about verification of peoples ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine. It's not a reliable newspaper source. We aren't idiots. I can find you a dozen online Indian newspapers that talk about someone who allegedly cured cancer by staring at the sun all day but no one here cares. No one thinks all newspapers are reliable just as we don't think all books are reliable nor all websites are reliable. Should I go and say "all of the internet isn't reliable because this online newspaper is junk and therefore we shouldn't trust anything online"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So pick 5 reliable newspapers you want to use as fact. I will find in those newspapers phony claims , fake stories and outright lies.Does not matter which ones you pick. They are written by liberal dipsticks that never check their facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WTF are you on about. What kind of person brings politics into a discussion about reliable sources.clpo13_(talk) 06:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Republicans Williamb (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

GRG dropped the ball

WP:NOTFORUM. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

After the death of DR. Leslie Stephen Coles the GRG looks like it is falling apart. DR Coles died on December 3, 2014 and the last person on the verified list the GRG verified was born on 6/9/1904. Nobody with a birth-date after that date has been verified by them. That is a year and a half of unrecognized people over 110 that have been ignored. No man over 110 has been GRG verified even though 25 men are known to be over 110. They should not be considered the premier source any more of age verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC) As far as I am concerned, I see no reasons to suggest that the GRG is falling apart; last time I checked, a case was verified by the organisation only yesterday [4] (filter via "Date Added"). Not only is that the case, I have also noticed that the GRG continues to be referred to by a(n international) variety of RS such as [5]; its post-Dr. Coles-activity therefore seems obvious and existent to me. As to why it has no verified supercentenarians born later than 9 June 1904 on its list, that is a question not suited for a Wikipedia talk page; I suggest you take a look at the GRG website itself, where you will find plenty of options to contact the organisation. What I can tell you is that referring to "25 living men over 110" is an example of gender-bias; the current list shows that the majority of living supercentenarians is women. In other words, trying to include as many men as possible (= selection bias, favouring men!) would lead to skewed data, which is not what science is about. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Unless you're attempting to dispute whether the GRG can still used as a reliable source (I believe the accurate place to do that would be on Wikipedia:Arbitration committee, though I may be mistaken), this isn't the appropriately place to air the grievances you have with them. It sounds like you should email them yourself, but I'll remind you that the GRG is much like Wikipedia: reliant on contributions by unpaid enthusiasts. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC) How is the GRG "much like Wikipedia: reliant on contributions by unpaid enthusiasts" if it has an entire team of correspondents (not enthusiasts, I would say) it can rely on? Moreover, the GRG is more than just a team verifying supercentenarians - as it shows on its website that the supercentenarian division is just a subset - with actual jobs (see the button "Jobs" on its home page) available. Thus, you would even have to apply to the GRG and you will even have to be approved of (as in, 'hired') before you can become a member. Nothing open-sourced about that.Fiskje88 (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC) This is the accurate place to discuss the failure of the GRG. It is the place to talk about the improvements needed here. One improvement is the failure of the GRG to have an oldest living man as a back up to the previous record holder. If they are going to be a reliable source why would you drop the ball and not have at least two males verified at all times.That should be a minimum standard so when someone comes to Wikipedia they can know who the oldest living man is. If the GRG wants to be considered the primary source of data they should act like they care who the oldest living man is. If they cared we would all ready know. They are concerned with females born before 6/9/1904 or before. Does anyone really care who the next 112 year old female is? Or is it more likely they want to know who the oldest man in the world is? I believe the oldest man is the answer to the questions. You notice user Fisk a obvious GRG person will not answer the question" why are they are concerned with women age 112" and could care less about men. He then claims it "gender Bias" to know who the oldest man is and his back up and having both verified in case the record holder dies. If the GRG is a primary source act like one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC) This, or any Wiki talk page, is "is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." (as stated at the top of this page) as you are doing here and elsewhere. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Also, the GRG does not own Wikipedia nor is it the only reliable source used to create longevity articles. The comment "That should be a minimum standard so when someone comes to Wikipedia they can know who the oldest living man is" assumes that the GRG is the only way to include the WOP on Wikipedia, which is the type of attitude that many editors have been trying to rid the WOP group of for some time now. ~ RobTalk 03:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC) User 50, once again you do not understand what either gender bias or skewed data means. You claiming that "the GRG wants to be considered the primary source of data" is an interesting notion in your flawed argument, as I cannot find anywhere on its website that it has this goal. Instead, the website reports that "[b]y definition, a supercentenarian is anyone who has been validated to have lived to be 110 years or older. Verified supercentenarians have multiple documents throughout their life course to prove their age, including, at minimum, one early-life document; one mid-life document; and one late-life document. Further, the documents must be reviewed to show sufficient matching points in order for the case to be determined to be 'validated' " [6]. Apparently, "minimum standards" (your words!) for this organisation require more than just a newspaper or website report on someone claiming to be 110+. As such, you could argue that it might currently be difficult to determine who the oldest man is (there are men claiming to be older than the youngest verified person on the GRG list, so I suppose that if it had been straightforward who the world's oldest man was he would have been verified by now), which is further supported by the fact that Guinness World Records currently doesn't have anybody occupying the title World's Oldest Man either. Moreover, I would have to agree with DerbyNZ that this talk page is not meant to have a discussion about the GRG; your comments cannot be answered by any of us, as we have no idea of the internal structure of the GRG. Once again, if you have a question or complaint I suggest you contact the GRG; however, I doubt that a non-profit organisation such as the GRG would skew its data just to meet the expectations of some obsessed longevity fans. I suppose a reason for this could be that some people are not publicly identified until they become a country's oldest (such as Masamitsu Yoshida), which would lead to misidentiyfying the world's oldest man or woman. Clearly, this is something you cannot fathom.Fiskje88 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Actually what it says is exactly this at the top of the page." This is the talk page for discussing Improvements to the list of oldest living people". And that is what I talked about. Notice my words. "It is the place to talk about improvements needed here" When you learn to read what is actually said Derbycountyin NZ then comment something of value instead of showing your own stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Wrong again Fort Wayne troll! The GRG list of "Validated supercentenarians" is considered a reliable source, the GRG list of pending supercentenarians is not. Any discussion about any perceived slowness in updating its website is irrelevant. As for stupid, I'd class a repeated failure to sign talk page posts as right up there. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) Wrong again Derbycountynz I am not from a place called Fort Wayne. As for improvements to this list the so called reliable source GRG dropped the ball. If they were reliable they would have made it a priority to verify another man when Sakari Momoi died on July 5,2015. What they did is absolutely nothing from 5 July 2015 until the death of Yasutaro Koide who died 19 January 2016. Now for over a month we have had no GRG verified males listed. GRG reliable? Not hardly unless you consider a ? for the answer to who the oldest living man is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Wrong again, User 50. A simple look at the GRG World Supercentenarian Rankings List ([7]) proves that between 5 July 2015 and 19 January 2016 on average every three days a supercentenarian was verified. The fact that no men were among these verified supercentenarians is your fan-based idea that men should take precedence over women. On top of that, if I look at the complete dataset of verified cases - as you are implying when you say "no GRG verified males [are] listed" - then I have to disappoint you: I count about 150 of them. Furthermore, the GRG has continued to verified people even after 19 January 2016, as evidenced by the verification of a Mexican lady - wow, the GRG goes international! - last week. Take off your biased glasses. Fiskje88 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC) So because there are not a ton of supercentenarian males verified by the GRG, you're saying they aren't a reliable source for the other 50+ living supercentenarians they have verified? There are several internal reasons why they do not have any males currently verified (Wash Wesley's unexpected death prior to Koide, Hatch's death the day before Koide, the inability to certify Krystal's claim since the earliest document for him is when he is 25 (which falls outside their own 20-year rule), the case of a Florida man who says he is 112 but no documentation has been found from my understanding, the uncertainty of Shingo Kitamura's case (whether he is alive but moved somewhere or is he dead and his death wasn't announced because he wasn't the oldest man in Japan), etc.). The lack of them verifying certain people doesn't preclude them from being used as a reliable source on what they have verified. I can say this: they have documents submitted for most of the males we have included here. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC) And how exactly can you say that? I don't see any of those men on its (reliable) list of living supercentenarians, nor on its (unreliable) pending list.Fiskje88 (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Fisk either you are blind or just stupid. The GRG has ignored living males that is why we have no verified living Male by the GRG as oldest living male. They are more concerned with the 35 oldest living female than the oldest living male thus ignoring 50% of the worlds population. Until they take males seriously the GRG is a joke . Not to mention they have ignored well over 2 billion people by ignoring anyone from India or China for verification. What they should call themselves is the GRG for USA, Europe, and Japan. What they should have is separate list for research. A list of Males, Females and a combined list called the human list. Until they do they are deeply flawed and not to be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC) User 50, first of all I do not understand your aggressive approach towards me. There is no need to call me “blind or just stupid” only for having a different opinion from yours. Instead, your attack only shows your unfortunate inability to refute my arguments in a civil, rational manner (as one would expect on the public talk page of a scientific encyclopedia). On top of that, your refusal to log in when leaving a(n aggressive) comment on a talk page is, in my view, disappointing, as you consciously seem to try avoid being identified for your view. Second, your argument that “[t]he GRG has ignored living males” is wrong; there have been several newspaper reports mentioning that the GRG was involved in researching (for instance) Mr, Kristal’s age, as supported by – among others – [8], even showing that one does not only need to contact the GRG, as sometimes it is done the other way around. In short, even newspapers and other types of media acknowledge the fact that the GRG is, in fact, trying to verify a new world’s oldest man. Third, I cannot find any evidence to support your fringe theory. Please note that the GRG has about 150 male supercentenarians in its database [9] and even has two verified supercentenarians from India (which you can identify in that same table). As such, it seems obvious to me that the GRG is not discriminating based on prejudiced, biased views, but based on verifiability (110+ years ago, civil administration might not have been as good on the Indian subcontinent as it was in, say, Western Europe). Last, again you completely ignore the idea of data skewedness; in science, it would be considered data bias to verify men simply because they are missing from a certain list. As the GRG is a scientific organisation, I can imagine it is trying to educate us about who the oldest people in the world are. Frankly, I take it that means if men are not the oldest, then they will not appear on the list. If they are, and they are verifiable on top of that, then time will tell whether the GRG will verify their claims. In short, I am disappointed to see that instead of helping organisations such as the GRG (but also NECS, IDL, GWR) by sending them documents for supercentenarians from men or from “the rest of the world”, you only blurt out an opinion which is not based on any tangible evidence. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of GRG from the lede

I've removed the GRG language from the lede. If someone wants to make this into List of oldest living people according to the GRG, so be it but that's not here. If that's what this is supposed to be, then all other references should be removed as irrelevant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask all the people editing the page to discuss this here so let's @Canada Jack, Legacypac, BjörnBergman, and TFBCT1:. Again, it doesn't make sense to include any other references if this is only going to be a GRG list. There's no evidence that the GRG list is itself notable in the same way that Time 100 or Billboard Hot 100 are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not GRGopedeia. Nothing wrong, and everything correct about including Zhou Youguang as he is indisputably over 110 and other then 1 Japanese guy identified by GRG, the 2nd oldest man we know about. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There's some more at Talk:Zhou Youguang, including the nonsensical comment "Verifiable does not mean it was verified". As if the GRG is the sole authority on age in the world. clpo13_(talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we just focus on the lede here? The Zhou issue is above. I'm trying to figure out the logic of the lede being "a list of all GRG verified claims". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Until recently - like in November - the lead did not have all the GRG stuff. Will need to dig to see where it got stuck back in. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.... -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

OMG opps! Please fix that up. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it back to reliable source which was the language prior to a certain individual changing it to focus on the GRG for some reason. ;) I don't understand what "validated" is supposed to mean since (a) that term isn't used anywhere here and (b) it's already stated to be a partial list for whatever that's worth. It seems extraneous to call this a partial list of "validated" claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I try to be conciliatory and give the masses what they want somedays when all logic fails :) the new old wording looks good. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

TFBCT1, would you mind taking part in this discussion instead of continuing to revert? clpo13_(talk) 00:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's TFBCT1's first talk page comment in almost three and a half years and it's just to redefine the criteria here so that the claim can still be excluded. We may need an RFC -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried adding "...or is a notable person with a well sourced birthdate." as a way to keep this within WP policy, but that was quickly reverted. Evidently Queen Elizabeth will need to submit her 3 documents to GRG when she turns 110 or we will have to remove her birthday and keep her off these lists. Can someone please explain exactly how famous or well documented an age needs to be to get on the list without submitting documents to GRG? Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't you all realize that this article is more or less run by GRG shills and they will never allow anything other than their research on it? Williamb (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Things have changed a lot recently. You'd be welcome to watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People/Article_alerts and lend a hand. EEng (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what your comment is meant to imply, Williamb. The GRG is not the only body verifying supercentenarians. If there are more living supercentenarians alive which have been verified by other authorities on the matter, I wouldn't mind including them. For other supercentenarians - those who have not been proven their age (yet) - I am not so sure about adding them; seems to me it's more of a lottery if only 25% of them will turn out to be true... Fiskje88 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it... I was intrigued by Legacypac's comment that Youguang was "other then (sic.) 1 Japanese guy identified by GRG, the 2nd oldest man we know about" and have done some research; it turns out that other websites are reporting more men older than 110, such as [10]. On that list, there are fifteen men older than Youguang, so why should we potentially spread false information by (independently) reporting that he's the second-oldest man in the world if he might not be so? Fiskje88 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've started an RFC below. As to Williamb's comment, there are still a number of GRG proponents around here who do not communicate or negotiate or work with anyone else. They get taken to WP:ARE and topic bans enacted. Fiskje88, the point is that our sourcing policy doesn't say "RS except when dealing with birth dates for people over age 110 and then we need a second round of sourcing from these 'bodies verifying supercentenarians'", it says we go by reliable sources on the matter. As to the bodies, only three have ever been identified: the GRG, Guiness which just posts an annual list and looks like it follows the GRG and a European organization which does not post the names of the people it has identified for privacy reasons. So then we're playing the game of ignoring all sourced information about someone when they turn age 110 because the GRG hasn't "verified" it which we can see taken to its idiotic extreme at Talk:Zhou Youguang. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Place of residence

Does the place of residence actually matter here? It's largely sourced to the GRG alone (like the rest of this) and seems irrelevant to these people. The only thing here is their birth date that actually matters and I'd be concerned about the privacy for people who are relatively unknown. It would also eliminate the oddball footnote about where these people were born and what the countries were then (which aren't sourced and for some this is complicated). -- 02:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikia list

Thanks to Fiskje88 for pointing out http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Oldest_living_men where we can see Anonymous (Tokyo) born in 1904 is the 2nd oldest man. (An unsourced claim so how can we verify that?) Incredibly down in the comments we find the GRG leader and topic banned Wikipedia editor User:Ryoung122 posting "Zhou turned 110. Please update color code." at 19:28, January 17, 2016 (UTC). With Mr Young's blessing of Zhou Youguang's birthday (though unverified by GRG) perhaps we can update the articles now? Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The wikia is not a reliable source. Besides, I think there's another issue with the rankings here as I suspect there may be others in between Zhou and the bottom of this list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed wikia is not a RS, and since GRG lists 15 unverified men between the top and Zhou, I agree there are likely more men that belong on the list. This is a big problem with long lists of oldest people. It's fairly easy to source claims that X is the oldest man, but I've seen no claims that Zhou is the second oldest man alive, even though that is were he falls below the GRG crowned oldest man (excluding the 15 unverified men, and any others that exist we don't know about). This shows a big flaw in other lists where we assert we know the top 100 oldest subset of people ranked. An interesting point seen in the comments [11] is GRG is removing the rankings at Wikia (a great idea) which helps to reduce the idea that any of these people are the nth oldest. Even Young was quoted "...Talley is one of only three people left in the world who Young has verified to have been born before 1900, he believes there are perhaps five others scattered across China, India and Brazil." [12] Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We also see numerous other Japanese males (and females) whose exact birth dates are stated (all of whom have been verified by their prefectures and the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare as being 110 or older as a part of the yearly Respect for the Aged Day) and Frank Levingston (whose age is verified by the United States Veterans Administration) on that list. I'd imagine they'd be far more acceptable to include on this list - more so than Zhou Youguang, at least - since their claimed ages have been verified by governments with no clear reason to lie (see Carmelo Flores Laura for an example where a government lied about a man's age and research by outsiders debunked the claim). And I have to question had Bill Del Monte lived to turn 110, would it have been acceptable to immediately place him on this list, as his birth date was researched and verified when research was done about the last survivors of 1906 San Francisco earthquake. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Right on - if the Japanese or US govt says they are 110+ (Plus generally we can find a news acct) we need to list them. No one needs self appointed GRG to 'verify' them. If GRG does verify that is good enough to list them, but lack of GRG verification is not a reason to exclude someone if other good evidence exists for their age. This is Wikipedia not GRGopedia. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Right on - using your criteria, let's include Ciclia Laurent's claim, the 119-year-old turns 120 later this month! The Toronto Star is Canada's largest-circulation newspaper, a reliable source, and they cite the "verification" of both the Canadian and Haitian governments. In explaining why Guinness considers that youngster Susannah Mushatt Jones as the world's eldest, it states that Guinness does not consider her claim verified. But that no longer matters as we have: 1) Canada's biggest newspaper; 2) the Canadian government; and 3) the Haitian government, all confirming her claim.[13] Canada Jack (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you just here to be disruptive at this point? There's no one arguing for Laurent other than you just arguing it to disrupt every discussion going on here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not quite, though she has documents the paper says the claim is not strong enough. However if her daughter died a few years ago at 96 this woman is definitely very old. The fair thing to do would be to dispense with the lists, merge together these various articles and give short bios that include whatever proof or doubts are out there. A GRG endorsed person would say 'listed by GRG' while another would say 'Japanese Govt endorsed person' and a guy like Zhou we just say his life is well documented going back many years and there is no known questions over his age. If we dispense with the top 100 lists and put a paragraph (linked to an article where applicable) about the oldest 5-10 women and 5 or so men reported by RS we would have something far more interesting then a table of names dates and locations. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Notable vs non-notable and how many super old people are notable?

The oldest person/man/women has clear encyclopedic value. Anyone that reaches "oldest" alive generally passes GNG by virtue of the various RS that cover them even if they never did anything notable before that.

There is a reasonably good possibility that person X is not really the oldest because of poor documentation in much of the world, but not a big deal. We just report what the RS say.

The actual 45th oldest living person in the world may get local media human interest coverage about getting really old, but I've never seen media assert that anyone is the 45th oldest or 27th oldest living person. It is 100% certain every list of old people will rank the true 45th or 27th oldest much higher then #45 or #27 because every list is very incomplete. GRG estimates they only have about 1/3rd of the existent superold on their lists.

Only a superold hobbiest and some of the family of the superold care about rankings. Every superold person interviewed, from the many I've read about, thought rankings were not a big deal.

So why should Wikipedia bother listing beyond the first few people? The rankings are obviously incorrect. The lists are known to be incomplete. The positions on the lists beyond the first few confer zero notability. Look how this website limits itself to the top 10 oldest on record and the oldest living http://www.supercentenarian.com/records.html as a good guide. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The oldest today may pass GNG if the coverage shows that but that doesn't mean being the oldest alive passes GNG by definition. Are you again proposing to merge this with the world's oldest people list? I'd rather expand this beyond the table or at least introduce some other sources here. Are you suggesting just the top person and then a merger? If anything more, the problem is you need at least 22 to get to including the oldest male (unless you want a separate list) and still the only source in reality is the GRG minus the lede. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's call the oldest man/woman/American/Japanese/European at a point in time #1

For us to confidently list a person as the oldest person alive (at any point in recent history) we really should have multiple RS which are also by default enough to pass GNG. GRG does not even need to be consulted as a source to establish notability or status as #1, though topping their list is nice confirmation of the other sources. The RS on #1 sometimes name #2 and maybe #3 oldest - at least on a trailing basis. When the new number #1 oldest (who was the old #2) is declared the RS nearly always say which #1 just died.

Beyond #1 to maybe #3 Ricky correctly notes we are exclusively relying on GRG tables for the rank, which are a single WP:PRIMARY source known to be 2/3rds incomplete. We can often source the names and birthdates on the list to other RS but never the ranks. So get out of the ranking business. Just provide a link to the GRG table if someone wants to see beyond the #1 to #3 ranked oldest person in category X.

With this idea, I'm envisioning turning this article into a table of "oldest x" with one name per X (man, woman, Japanese etc) We can have a succession list of oldest man and oldest women and oldest Japanese or American for topics that are notable, which each name referenced to multiple RS and linked to their article if there is one.

It is possible, but tough to maintain a ranked list of the oldest among a small defined group like US Senators. It gets pretty tough when you go to oldest living world leaders. Expand it too oldest living among 7 Billion people and ranking beyond the first couple names is impossible to do accurately. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the number column entirely. Simple as that and write it as a list of the 50 oldest people or whatever. As the lede notes, there's hundreds more that aren't identified which is explanatory. Frankly, I would support a merger of this page, the oldest people page and the longevity claims into a single article on the topic of longevity and claims about longevity (without the nonsense of daily updated tables per WP:RECENT concerns) but until the claims content is merged around, I support keeping them separate for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the number column is useful though. It provides for an easy count of the number of people on the page, plus it makes it easy to see who all shares a birth date. From the perspective of a casual reader, I'd imagine it'd be pretty cool to see that two people of such advanced age share the exact date of birth (such as Viola Jacobi and Shizue Nagata or Nugi Ikeda and Yoshiyo Bessho do). They probably wouldn't notice that if the number column wasn't there. I think it'd be better to improve the language in the introduction so it is more apparent that, outside of say the number one and two spots, the "ranking" someone has on this list doesn't necessary show their actual "ranking" in terms of the total population. 66.168.191.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Update following death of Yasutaro Koide on 19 January 2016

The world's oldest man, Yasutaro Koide, died on 19 January 2016. A Japanese news source can be found here, and no doubt English-language news reports will start appearing shortly. --DAJF (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and included the man whom the Japanese government announced as his successor as the oldest man in Japan on this list. I believe the MHLW is a reliable source for advanced age cases, save for past cases such as Shigechiyo Izumi where subsequent research revealed fraud. If the reliability of the MHLW is in question, please put it to a vote rather than simply reverting my edit. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm good with the Japanese Govt as the RS. No need to wait for GRG to verify (presumably they have not as they only had one living man on their lists). Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that it's problematic since the Japanese government by definition isn't an "international body" and in no way "specifically deals in longevity research" so it would be disqualified under the phrasing and criterion expressed above. Under those definitions, these claims wouldn't be included here, which is further evidence that that language is problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the "international body" part was problematic for the intro and it appears to have been removed, though I do understand the other side of the argument that just using traditional reliable sources such as a news report can't alone count for this article. Clearly the GRG, GWR, IDL, and other dedicated human longetivity research groups kind of have the "ultimate" say about a persons verifiable age, so if they cast doubt or say a claim is falsified, Wikipedia should follow their reporting moreso than a newspaper or something. There's got to be a good middle-ground somewhere because as has been stated repeatedly "Wikipedia can't just be GRGpedia." The real focus of the conversation I think should shift to "what other sources, besides the GRG and GWR, can be considered reliable in terms of advanced age claims?" 66.168.191.92 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Other than Canada Jack and his 120-year-old random one-off story, has anyone actually argued for a claim that way? The issue I object to is the blatant playing with language here when the parties are directly admitting that they only have a single source in mind. Do people consider the Japanese health ministry's claims as reliable or not? If so, then they should reword it so that it's not explicitly excluded. If not, then say it. Otherwise it seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too by demanding "international bodies" wordage while explicitly ignoring it so they don't look ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, our own longevity claims article has a section about what he was saying. Neither the Canadian nor Haitian governments have come out and stated that woman was their oldest or that she was the age on her ID like he seemed to imply. I think Japan's MHWL and the United States' VA can be considered RS for this list as well as the Social Security Administration's Kestenbaum Study (odd there isn't an article on it). But my question is mostly "who else?" Bolivia's government tried to claim a few years ago that one of its citizens was 123. The GRG debunked that. Then there was a man in Poland who claimed to be 113. As far as I know, research by the GRG and GWR debunked that. So clearly we can't say all government or government bodies can be considered RS in terms of age verification. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is simple. Like everything else on Wikipedia we follow RS. If RS#1 says Mrs Smith is 110 we report it. If RS#2 says Mrs Jones is 130 that is an extraordinary claim and we should treat it like an extraordinary claim. If RS#3 says Mr Smith is not as old as reported we should report that too. Wikipedia does not decide who is how old it just reports what RS say with appropriate weight to various sources. We do not need to designate a Super Source that must verify something everything Wikipedia reports on topic.

And who decides who/what is an extraordinary claim? Did I miss a Wiki policy/guideline somewhere? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Which logged out editor is the IP here? Legacypac (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

'An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Marcello Truzzi, On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification, Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978'. Wikipedia has a policy for that. WP:REDFLAG. It is not extraordinary that the govt of Japan knows who the next oldest man in the country is when the oldest guy dies. It is guarantied there is a next oldest guy and he is going to be a little younger then the one who died so when AP reports his name and age, so can we without considering it extraordinary. A Red Flag would be some guy in Bolivia claims to be 130 but we know the oldest age recognized was 122. Bolivia Guy's claim is a REDFLAG and if we choose to report the claim we better report any objections to it. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking about me? I don't have an account. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And now the can of worms is opened. Seems that a man in Israel may be the oldest man, despite the claim from AP. Yisrael Kristal, born in Poland, claims to be 112.[14] Since AP says the Japanese man is the "oldest," yet reports are that Kristal may be... who do we go with? I have yet to hear any criteria which can readily be applied here. And, I see that Ricky has avoided Derby's very basic question. What is an "extraordinary" claim? 130? 120? 115? 110? Anyone older than the person said to be the oldest? As I said before, the claim of the 120-year-old has NOT been debunked - and therefore with the new criteria, should be included. But there are - and will be - many "gray area" claims (not so easily dismissed as Laurent's claim) of 116-year-olds, etc. If you recognize no authority on the subject, then everyone can be considered an authority and we will have edit wars over whether particular claims can or can't be included. We already had a taste of that, debating whether the government of Haiti can be considered a RS. But, what's the criteria? Ricky said the other day, essentially, that "no one" accepts their authority... which sounded more like a POV assertion than a real answer to a fundamental question. And who are we to know whether - and how - even the Japanese ministry vets their claims? I am pretty sure they have high standards, but can we say that about, say, the state of New York? Or even the US military (seems they got the birth year wrong for Didlake...), etc etc.

And continuing to debate the specific claims, of Laurent, of the Japanese man, of Kristal, misses the point here - we are going to have a big mess here on our hands. Instead of debating whether we should defer to a select number of authorities on the subject, we will be debating whether claims can be included by whether the sources can be considered reliable, or whether the claim itself is credible... which is why we defer to GRG in the first place! Canada Jack (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

How is a can of worms opened? AP and the Japanese government didn't claim he was the oldest man in the world, just Japan. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Koide has been removed since he passed away. Is there anything worth discussion here that relates to this page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Simple question

Who is the world's oldest ever person? Simple replies preferred, if you can manage it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a question for Oldest people or List of the verified oldest people which exists just to have a longer table. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we are to rely on "reliable sources" instead of experts on the subject, I'd say that's an open question. The New York Times, without relying on the verification of some fan-boy hobbyist organization, mentions Methusalah's age on at least one occasion. [15] But I have no doubt there are other "reliable sources" which have reported the ages of even older people, like Guan Chen Czi from China who lived 1,200 years, or the Sumerian kings who lived even longer, without relying on some "gatekeeper" like GRG. Canada Jack (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The NYT piece (Sep 14, 1930, p.125) you linked reads, in its entirety:

METHUSELAH CITED AS HEALTH MODEL

In the course of his address before the British Medical Association, which met recently at Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Hutchinson quoted the following poem, which he attributed to "The Southern Planters, U.S.A.," in support of the health practices of Methusalah:

Methusaleh ate what he found on his plate / And never, as people do now,

Did he note the amount of the caloric count— / He ate it because it was chow.

He wasn't disturbed, as at dinner he sat, / Destroying a roast or a pie,

To think it was lacking in granular fat / Or a couple of vitamins shy.

He carefully chewed every species of food / Untroubled by worries or fears

Lest his health might be hurt by some fancy dessert, / And he lived over nine hundred years!

So either (a) you're being funny, (b) you have no idea how to interpret sources, or (c) you didn't actually look at the piece you linked. I can't tell which. EEng 22:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ouch, EENg! Still smarting from that "Type Two Error" smackdown? Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• The point remains. This is still about the oldest living people so I don't see where Methusalh matters. As to your strawman point about the mention of Methusalah, this similar discussion occurred over identifying the validated claims at all. We don't choose to identify which claims are "validated", so then why should we care about distinguishing between them for the purposes of this table? Also, there's nothing stopping the GRG from writing out a paper explicitly stating that certain claims are false (rather than "unverified") which would be a reliable source denying a claim explicitly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The point remains. This is still about the oldest living people so I don't see where Methusalh matters. This "simple question" in this section is on the world's oldest ever person. And the point is if we are to consider "reliable sources" for verification purposes, then we've effectively tossed out any notion of real verification. SO the moment we find published sources which treat Methusalah's age as accurate, we can include him. Going by EENg's logic in the past - like with the Didlake case - the incidental mention of someone's age means it has been "verified" by a "reliable source" - the New York Times in the Didlake case, even though the story wasn't about her age, it was about her being the oldest American veteran. EENg thinks my example is absurd, but I am applying his logic - Methusalah's age is only incidental to the story, but it would be considered "verified" by a "reliable source", the same New York Times. And your solution, Ricky, is to wait for the GRG to falsify specific claims? How could Methuslah's claim be falsified? Canada Jack (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Methusaleh is not relevant here. No one has claimed that Methusaleh is a living person. Genesis states that he died at the age of 969. His father may be relevant here, depending on whether one interprets Genesis as literal truth or as myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, he's dead so why does that matter here? Second, three specific reliable sources at Methuselah#Fictional call the age fictional. It would be an issue of WP:UNDUE weight to state that he actually lived all those years. You weigh sources. The GRG or any reliable source can explicitly describe his age as a myth. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, the section is on "world's oldest ever person," so it's germane to the discussion. And, you said earlier that to warrant exclusion, we'd need PROOF the person wasn't the age claimed, impossible to do in this case. Sure, many consider it a myth, but the GRG would also state that none of these people living whoi have not passed the confirmation process can be considered "verified," but I guess that doesn't count. Sounds like to me you are making this up as you go along, Ricky. Canada Jack (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does report Methusalah age using RS in context. He is also a notable individual (mythical or real depending on your religious inclinations). We don't need him mixed in with the modern people on these lists. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Methusaleh is relevant to oldest people ever if it includes mythical people. He is not relevant to oldest living people. One can interpret Genesis 1-11 in two ways, depending on religious beliefs. (You can also split the difference on Genesis 12-50 as protohistory, a literate writing down of a pre-literate oral tradition that is based partly on history.) Either it is literal truth, possibly dictated by God to Moses, but literal truth, or it is an origin myth, probably having much in common with other Mesopotamian and Mediterranean origin myths, possibly having profound non-literal symbolic meaning. In the first case, Methusaleh was the oldest living person immediately prior to the Flood, and the oldest living person ever, but is not a living person. (He presumably was buried very shortly before the Flood.)

In the second case, he is a mythical person who is the oldest person ever in a particular mythology. There is no source, reliable or otherwise, that lists him as an oldest living person. Either is a historical dead person of exceptional longevity, or he is a mythical dead person of exceptional longevity. Methusaleh's father is a different issue. He, like Elijah, is said to have been taken up into Heaven. Do you count people who have been taken up into Heaven as living people? I say no, but that is outside the scope. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the logical consequence of what you guys are suggesting, Legacy. Sure, it may be an extreme example, but I can see a strong argument to include him based on what you guys are proposing. A better example is the near-120-year-old mentioned above - reported yesterday by Canada's biggest-circulation newspaper. She should be included by your criteria even though her claim rests on shaky documentation and she would be only the second person in history (if true) to reach 120. Canada Jack (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not an extreme example, it's a stupid one that proves nothing. When the sources provided don't even confirm her age (see the Huffington Post as well which notes that it wasn't verified), a simple balancing of sources tells us not to include her (or to put her at longevity claims). If this is so impossible to be done without depending on the GRG, why is there even longevity claims at all? Shouldn't those all be deleted as well? Or is the only concern that these tables aren't "sullied" with non-GRG sources? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's a "stupid" example, is it? Actually, this is precisely the can of worms your approach will open. Not sure what the link proves - the oldest man (as per Guinness) dies and... ? The link to her on the Huffington page links to the article I mention above. And that page specifies her age. Or do you mean when you say "the sources provided don't even confirm her age" well, isn't that we have been talking about all along? Did the New York Times "confirm her age" in the Didlake case? or the military? I saw nothing in those articles which specified some confirmation process as per GRG/Guinness! Or do you admit that a "confirmation" must come from a source which specializes in this - like Guinness and GRG. Your casual dismissal of Laurent's case indicates to me you have some POV criteria of what should or shouldn't be included, and a standard of "verification" which clearly differs from EEng.

But, this is just as I suspected. You guys have NO criteria - if you rely on "reliable sources," then the near-120-year-old warrants inclusion, as did Emma Didlake. Canada Jack (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you bring up Emma Didlake, doesn't said preliminary research suggest she was actually a year older than claimed? In either case, she was at least 110 (possibly 111). I don't understand why it would've been wrong to list her here when she was living, even if she had been included at the deflated claimed age. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is the wording of the text here. The point is your criteria is nonsense. Are you actually advocating for the silliness of this 120-year-old woman? Is anyone here advocating for it? This whole nonsense started about Zhou Youguang. Do you think his birthdate on that page should be listed as 1906? Even the GRG hasn't verified it? Should he be categorized as a Category:Chinese supercentenarians even though the GRG hasn't verified it? Would you include on this table (he wouldn't be too me because it's too big as is) if he were to fit in the right place even though the GRG hasn't verified it? Where does your logic go? If he shouldn't be on the table, shouldn't you demand that he be removed from the category? Shouldn't you also then demand that his birth year be removed until the GRG has verified? Of course none of this mattered a week ago when he was age 109 but when he hit the magical age of 110, the entire world changed. Do you think this page should be remotely consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia or this all about keeping this warred garden of GRG control here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the issue is "verification." What "wording of the text" are you referring to? The Toronto Star says they have seen the documents, that the Canadian and Haitian governments accept the claim on face value, therefore the criteria - YOUR criteria - for acceptance has been met. We have a "reliable source," the Toronto Star, reporting the claim, we have TWO national government, one of which is one of the world's leading industrialized countries, accepting the claim. In discussing why she is not accepted as the world's oldest person, Guinness is mentioned as not having verified her claim. So how is this different from the Zhou claim? His claim is accepted on its face by the media. But... there is no mention of Guinness and/or GRG as having verified the claim. We know they haven't, but are you now suggesting we need a media source to SPECIFICALLY say that the claim has not been verified by one of these bodies? Isn't that redundant from our end? Because that's the only difference I detect.

Or are you simply applying your POV on this case and simply dismissing it out of hand? Because unless you can cite GRG and or Guinness SPECIFICALLY debunking Laurent's case, then, I submit, you are applying a double-standard.

In terms of where this would go, where Zhou would go, we had a place for all these claims, verified, not verified, and too old to be likely, before all you Sorcerer's Apprentices decided you knew better. Seems to me your illogical and inconsistent approach is collapsing like the house of cards it is. Canada Jack (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the issue is you are bringing up a non-issue while ignoring the fact that your proposal requires an entire re-write of the whole encyclopedia. So if you propose that only claims supported by international bodies that are engaged in longevity research or whatever you want is the current way for claims to be listed on this page, is that the same result you want for the category on Category:Supercentenarians? Should a person who's "claim" isn't listed here because it's not "verified" still have that same birthdate listed on their biography pages? If you want to propose a re-interpretation of reliable source policy like WP:MEDRS but for biographies involving very old people, go ahead and see if that'll fly but until then the logical way to handle this is to state that if the birth date is good enough for their biography page, good enough for them to be included in the category, and good enough to include at List of supercentenarians from Asia and thus good enough to include here. MEDRS works because it's a consistent, complete logic on whether or not the source is reliable or not, not this nonsense of "reliable but verified" and "reliable but unverified" or "unverified = reliable for some places but not reliable for other places". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack sorry to say that you appear to be advocating that Zhou should go in "not verified" which is absurdly crazy just because some self appointed group any of us can join and start validating people in has not managed to do what renowned scholars in China's top universities obviously accept.[16]. Please get with the Wikipedia program and off the "GRG is the only people in the world that can figure out someone's age." Age verification is not that hard. Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Age verification is not that hard"! By "verification" do you mean WP:V or the dictionary definition? 10:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

real world dictionary meaning. Assuming the person was born and lived in a place with decent documentation, it's pretty easy. My grandpa was born in 1903 and it remains easy to prove that today, even though he would be 113 now. An "international body specializing in longevity" is not required to check his US birth certificate, old age security docs, drivers license, tax records, land transfer records, homesteading, marriage record/. No one ever doubted he was 93 when he died and if he was alive today no one around him would question his age today. Since the govt recognized his age, and any RS newspaper could easily verify it, GRG would not be required to do thier magic. Legacypac (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

He was 93 when he died. It's only if he turns to the magical age of 110 that things changed. I've never seen anyone actually show that these longevity researchers are only relevant when a person reaches age 110. This isn't geriatrics, at what specific age do they specialize in? Shouldn't this criteria be applied to Lists of centenarians as well? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 23 January

I would say the specialisation is "maximum lifespan", which seems to be 110+ for recent decades. In fact, the IDL seems to provide a definition for its research: "The International Database on Longevity (IDL) is the result of an ongoing concerted effort to provide thoroughly validated information on individuals who attain extreme ages. The IDL allows for the demographic analysis of mortality at the highest ages. Originally, the data were collected on individuals who attained an age of 110 years or more - so called supercentenarians. In the meantime the data collection has been extended to include younger ages for some countries." [17] As such, it seems likely now why people only become "interesting" for age validation organisations when they turn 110+: this has been chosen as the cut-off age for maximum human lifespan. On top of that, seeing how two-thirds of those aged 110+ are false claims [18] I can understand why some organisations would not want to rely on ages being reported solely in newspapers and birthday articles. Fiskje88 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny how the IDL has never come up in terms of what is or what isn't a reliable source or what is or what isn't an "international body specializing in longevity research" or why even that phrasing but only comes up in terms of the research definition. If we are discussing the GRG, which seems to be the issue here, then we should be looking for their definition of their expertise, not someone else's definition of their expertise that isn't even referenced as a source here, shouldn't we? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)