Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 17

Dumitru Comănescu

Would this source be sufficient for his inclusion? https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/social/cine-este-dumitru-comanescu-cel-mai-varstnic-cetatean-al-bucurestiului-1150042 94.112.0.230 (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a bona fide journalistic WP:RS, which cites an official government agency dealing with population statistics. Good enough for Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 10:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who died in 1903 make this list?

Marsylla Lewis Keith was ~ 116 year old - not sure how she could be verified - but this was quite the accomplishment in that day and time. Her second child was born around 1819. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samatva (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that would require appropriate research into her case by specialists. A family tree website is WP:UGC, therefore not admissible as a reliable source. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, a cursory look at said family tree shows her birth date of 1787 to be very implausible, as she would have had six children in her 50s and 60s (from 1841 to 1853). The gap of 17 years between the listed first child and the first of the next seven ones would tend to indicate a second marriage of the father to a younger mother. — JFG ^talk 10:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2020

Kimina Xuan Tran (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Nguyen Thi Tru (Female, Vietnam) 123 years old ( (04/05/1893 – 12/07/2016)

Here is a source for it – Thjarkur (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This list is based on the research conducted by the Gerontology Research Group, and as of their most recent 16 Jan 2020 update, she is not listed. The organizations that certified her age, the World Record Association and Vietnam Record Association, have no apparent record or standing in judging extreme longevity claims. Further, the claim of 122 years would exceed the longest previously-established age for any supercentarian by five years which is an extraordinary claim. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Row #24A

It's very confusing that this table has an extra row between #24 and #25. In a sequence of rows numbered 1, 2...24, 24A, 25... row #25 is really the 26th row. Do you deny this?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is confusing and misleading per the section below, readers are also complaining about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Men's list.

25 unranked and counting. Within a few years unranked entries are going to outnumber ranked entries, then what? Will two separate lists be necessary? IMHO, the list already looks amateurish with so many blank ranking-spaces, whereas the women have a nice neat list. I am aware that the GRG isn't validating men under 112 anymore, but surely a more effective ranking system can be thought up by users who are passionate about the subject. MattSucci (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest removing deceased people that were never validated by GRG after a specific time (2-10 years) from their death.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:991E:B21:64F9:626F (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit. There is no reason why there needs to be 25 unranked entries on the list. The ones that are not on GRG either should be included, or shouldn't be included. Having this just effect the men's list runs against a WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of the actual 110+ men are not verified as often as the 110+ women, because they don't live as long past 110 on average, so they don't all get a chance to get verified before they die, and then aren't always verified. One really good solution would be creating an additional list below the men's verified list called "Oldest Men Not Yet Verified" or something similar, and put those cases on that list below on the same page. JasonPhelps (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So the sources that list the men on the list that have no numbers are not reliable sources? Why are we going by just what one source says here? It would be better if we do not include the non numbered entries at all if they can not be verified as true per WP:V. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, I have added the unbalanced tag to the section as I believe reliable sources are not being represented here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: I undid your edit as there is an active discussion going on here with points raised. Why are we giving sources undue weight, when others are just as reliable? Should we JUST include GRG as a source then if the other sources are no good? Should there be a separate list for entries that are sourced through other means? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Jules Theobald

The date of birth of Jules Theobald in this list differs from the date in the List of the oldest living people but i was not able to find which date is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.183.135.4 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Both articles cite the same source, which talks about his birthday on 17 April. Unless another source contradicts this, we'll have to assume that "13 April" was a typo. I have corrected it here. — JFG ^talk 15:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Conrad Johnson

The sources supporting his age are more than 5 years old. If he was not verified in 5 years he is unlikely to be verified later. I suggest removing him if there is no recent or regularly updated source supporting his age.93.99.12.251 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

His death was reported by a WP:reliable source as the then-oldest man in the U.S. No reason to exclude him (that is, not until the list gets trimmed to the effective top 100). — JFG ^talk 10:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between this list and Longevity Claims? There should be more differences than not contradicting Guiness.109.183.135.4 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

1897 Philippines case

pls. verify francisca susano believe to 122 yrs old with birth cert. negros oriental philippines

Wikipedia does not "verify" supercentenarian cases. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

Maria Kononovich is missing in the list. 93.22.132.41 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - QuadColour (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on sourcing

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.

---

I am constructing this RfC to clarify what should count as a reliable source when it comes to list inclusion here at List of the verified oldest people. Editors are welcome to join and place their input on how they feel on the matter: Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Prior discussions

• Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 16#Verification standards and sources
• Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 16#Inclusion of non-verified men on male list

Policies

• WP:UNDUE - "An unbalanced article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant."
• WP:V - " Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources."

Comments by OP

The first discussion goes into how there was never any RfC on the matter as "it was not needed", but ended with editors still questioning why other sources used were not to be counted. While I agree with the notion that "every entry has had their age validated by modern standards by an independent organisation specialising in longevity research" is a good standard, things have changed with these new non GRG sources added. The purpose of this RfC is to address if or if not GRG is being given undue weight as an authority over all the other sources provided. If if these other sources provided are not " independent organisation specialising in longevity research" sources, should they be excluded?

Proposal 1

Any entry that is not sourced by GRG is excluded from the list, no exceptions.

• Oppose – GRG inclusion criteria should not supersede Wikipedia inclusion criteria, per policy. This has been affirmed in numerous RfCs about national lists of oldest people. — JFG ^talk 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Sources can be included and ranked if they meet the definition of an "independent organisation specialising in longevity research".

• Oppose – GRG appears to be the only "independent organisation specialising in longevity research", so this proposal folds back to Proposal 1, which is a non-starter per policy. — JFG ^talk 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Sources can be included but not ranked if they seem reliable (appears to be the status quo)

• Oppose – Untenable for men, as the "list of 100" pushes 125 entries, and may soon become untenable for women too, when sources from non-GRG countries start gaining prominence. Gives undue weight to GRG's rankings. — JFG ^talk 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4

A new list is to be created for all sourced entries that are not cited by GRG

• Oppose – Why a new list? Again why give GRG special standing? Keep all sourced entries in a single list, and simply explain that some of them have been validated by the GRG, and some have not. — JFG ^talk 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Keep and rank all reliably-sourced entries, per general Wikipedia policy. Bring this article in line with national lists of oldest people.

• Support – Keep all well-sourced entries in a single list. Per general Wikipedia sourcing policy, include newspaper reports and obituaries (even in foreign languages), exclude self-published sources and social media. Explain in the introduction why some entries have been validated by the GRG, and some have not. Drop the ambiguous "verified" qualifier from the article title. This would be in line with criteria applied to the numerous national lists of oldest people, which have been upheld by several recent RfCs. — JFG ^talk 13:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I could not more vehemently oppose. ‘Reliably sourced’ has no credibility on an age verified list. The only national list in which an RfC ruled in this favor was on the Italian page. In turn JFG applied this rational to other national pages. Unfortunately all these national pages have not been maintained consistently since June 2019 and are a complete mess and this would be the same fate for these lists.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Wrong. RfCs titled "Defining the 100 known oldest people" were performed on the French, German, Italian, Spanish and Canadian lists. They all reached unanimous support (plus 1 neutral comment). That's as close to a standard consensus practice as we're ever going to get on Wikipedia. Also, no idea why those national lists should be considered "a complete mess": several editors are updating them, albeit not on a daily basis, but certainly every time a person dies or a new case emerges in RS. — JFG ^talk 19:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DUE. We can not throw all of our support behind one source if other sources out there are just as reliable. We have community venues such as WP:RSN if editors feel sources used can not be used in said context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is not a web hosting service for GRG longevity tables. They can use the word verified in any way they like, but what it means here is definitely not "only if the GRG says so." GRG lists disproportionately represent nations with regularized, systematic birth/death and pension records. If one of the oldest people who ever lived, or who is alive now, resided/resides among the Yanomamo of South America or the Bushmen of the Kalihari, they would not appear on a GRG list. That's not how Wikipedia verifiability is supposed to work.

I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that the results of these tables should comport with WP:MEDRS and wish the person looking for such a source or sources good hunting. There have been heaping helpings of electrons expended - on longevity pages, RSN boards, RfCs, edit-warring boards and other dramatic venues - on this topic over the years without much success. FWIW, very little of the work of GRG has stood up to sincere MEDRS scrutiny. David in DC (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments

This RFC does not clearly outline the current scenario at hand. We have two different lists with two different sets of criteria. The women’s list which is not up for discussion has always been a “verified only” list and already falls into proposal 2 which is really a mesh wish proposal 1 in that there are no other independent organizations that exclusively specialize in age verification other than the GRG. The men’s list used to operate under the same criteria until November 2018, largely pressured by one editor and now follows the criteria of your proposal 3. This has caused a lot of contention and has been a failure for the past 15 months. I would support having both lists once again have the same criteria for inclusion which is proposal 2 and remove all unranked entries from the men’s list. It is important to remember that just because something is reliably sourced does not make it “age verified” for these lists. There is no point in adding additional lists to this page for “unverified males.” There was already a strong push to cut this page back from 3 lists to the current 2.

To reiterate I support proposal 2 to be implemented for the men’s list as it is already for the women’s list.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the source of the issue is the discrepancy between the general meaning of "verified" on Wikipedia (Reliably sourced and Verifiability, not Truth) and the specialised meaning of "verified" in longevity circles. As acknowledged in many prior discussions, Wikipedia inclusion criteria should not be considered subordinate to GRG inclusion criteria. The idea of limiting entries to those verified by an "independent organisation specialising in longevity research" is a non-starter according to Wikipedia policy. Especially as the only such organisation appears to be the GRG, so that proposal 2 amounts to "just mirror what the GRG says". Instead, we should be listing all reliably-sourced entries, and drop the ambiguous "verified" qualifier from the article title. There is room in the article's introduction to explain what the GRG is doing and why some entries are sourced elsewhere. It is no longer tenable to maintain a list of the "100 oldest men" that is pushing 125 just because we refrain from ranking some of them. I wouldn't be surprised if the list of women drifted towards 110 people too, as appropriate sourcing from countries NOT covered by the GRG develops (China, Russia, India, South America, etc.) — JFG ^talk 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is correct that it is not tenable to list 125 entries on the men’s list or start adding “unranked” entries to the women’s list. Neither has a place on an “age verified” list and “reliably sourced” has no credibility for an “age verified” list. It is also rather a clear understanding that the GRG does not systematically exclude countries such as China, India, Russia etc. Said countries did not start recording age records back far enough to meet the current standards of age verification. When their records become more current, eventually those countries will be included as well. That doesn’t mean we preclude the age verification process.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@TFBCT1 I respect your perspective, but I think you are clinging to a bygone era. From 2015 onwards, the GRG has essentially stopped validating people under 112 and currently the youngest person on their living list is two and half months from turning 113. This has meant that GRG validation of men is functionally extinct. Only one man has been validated after May 2018. The presently ranked entries on the "100 verified oldest men list" are a relic that no longer reflects factual reality and to remove all the non-GRG entries or deny rankings is to create a museum list, not a current encyclopedia.

Realistically, your choices are to either let all reliably sourced entries be ranked (which you have before said is a red line for your participation in articles) or to cut the size of the list so that the vast majority of unranked cases are no longer applicable. A list of 35 ranked GRG validated men would mean currently only Gustave Gerneth was unranked. @JFG Would you be amenable to cutting the men's list in this manner as a compromise for now? Yes, it sucks that the GRG is basically the only scientific organization that validates these people, but it's much better to have some quality standards for cases then none. We shouldn't be uncritically listing anyone that something somewhere spat out coverage of and there hasn't been an official WOM in over a year to use as an age cut-off. I also think your being quite alarmist about the women's list, which doesn't have a problem and the GRG does validate people from "third-world" countries. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Newshunter12. I would be amenable to a cut off at age 112 on the men’s list which is similar to what you have proposed. It would include a couple more entries from this year that I believe may be verified- and would only include future new “unranked” cases (nothing from the past). Any men who have reached the age of 112 are relevant. I would not support any changes to the current criteria on the women’s list.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of having a cut off age of 112 for the men. There are currently 39 verified cases 112 or older, and as the life expectancy increases over time there will get to be more and more men that make it to 112 or older and the list will eventually become longer and more complete. There are currently 5 living men listed as unranked (not yet verified) that are 111 years old...I bet at least a few of them will make to 112 and then if they make it to 112 GRG might verify them, and that will start making the list longer and closer in size to the women's list of Oldest Verified. No one on the women's list is under age 114 due to how more woman make it to an older age. We could almost have a cut off at 115 on the women's list if we wanted to simplify things a bit on the page, as 47 women have now been verified at that age or older. Just a thought. JasonPhelps (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying that we should cut the list to conform to GRG's standards? What about all of the other independent sources used? Are none of them reliable in the field of longevity? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a difficult decision. It has been discussed before how this page focuses too much on GRG and how we need to get away from GRG being the only main source, but that it's difficult because there aren't many other groups that reliably verify 110+ year olds. So, you have a point, but then we got to have set criteria at some point and what should be verified and what shouldn't. How do we know that all 25 of the unranked cases are actually the age they say to be? There's probably at least a few that aren't. There's got to be specific standards for who makes the list and who doesn't. If we let all reliably sourced 110+ make the list, then we lose accuracy and trust in those on the list actually being the age they say they are, and we end up with a less accurate encyclopedia. There's got to be some set rules and criteria for having someone be ranked on the list that will ensure accuracy. At the same time, it's good to try and get away from GRG only, so it's tough. Got to find a balance. Not all 25 of the unranked men should be on the list because there's probably at least a few that aren't accurate, but at the same time going GRG only is not great either. JasonPhelps (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we try to find some sources then that follow the same model as WP:MEDRS? More weight would be given to sources that are peer reviewed rather than news stories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Finding some sources that follow the same model as WP:MEDRS is a good idea. Peer reviewed sources would be a lot more accurate and believable than just simple news stories. I don't know how many of these sources we'll be able to find, but we should at least try. If we find such sources for some of the people, we should keep the people on the list and give them rankings if we find at least one such source for them that has been published in the past year. If we cannot find such a source for them, then if they are among the unranked we should consider removing them from the list until we can find a reliable source for them that has been published in the past 1 year. If we can't find such peer reviewed sources for any of the unranked individuals than we should consider other ideas before removing them from the list or giving them rankings. JasonPhelps (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• What is the GRG?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  The Gerontology Research Group. Our article sums up their work, and WP:WikiProject Longevity has some guidelines on when to use data of theirs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  We rely on them too much, Robert Weighton has been named the World's oldest man now by multiple reliable sources... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Comment. When you say "we rely on this source too much", I would prefer you say it as "we rely on Source A too much and not enough on Source B", where Source A and Source B are equally reliable sources that should be given equality when determining whether something is valid for Wikipedia. Georgia guy (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  My mistake and I agree with you. It is just frustrating as we have lists right now that contradict each other. Names are omitted from ranking on List of the verified oldest people, but are included on List of the oldest living people. Oldest people additionally includes Weighton under "Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973", are these verified or not? It is getting to a point where the line between verified and not is getting a bit blurred. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  It seems that Weighton will stay in Oldest people until GRG updates their list. List of the oldest living people requires recent reliable sources. It could be a good idea to apply a similar rule here. If there is no recent source that considers the person to be a supercentenarian and no recently updated reliable list includes this person then the person should be removed.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:147A:C49B:912E:4B9F (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think most of the complexity arises from the perceived need to have lists of equal lengths. But to do so requires different criteria for different lists. Despite what some seem to think, we need verifications not from what wikipedia sees as reliable sources, but from a body which specifically assesses claims of extreme age. Why? Because the subject if fraught with deception, error amd fraud. By definition, there are no people around who can attest to the fact that individual x indeed was born on the date they claim. GRG and Guinness are pretty well the only ones who do this rigorous research, and given the recent New Yorker story on Jeanne Calment, it seems that there are people with disiniformation agendas who seek to discredit any authorities on the subject. Even with this rigour, there have been a good number of claims which have turned out to be untrue, but a relative few. But to include ALL claims which some news sources have published makes a mockery of what studies have shown - many, many claims of extreme age are simply false.

Given all that, I propose we simply base the lengths of the lists on the reliability of the data, instead of changing criteria to allow for an arbritary list length of 100, or whatever. So, the 100-deep list for women and over-all should stand as we have the data to fill it with confirmed cases from these organizations. When it comes to men, since it seems the GRG only assesses men 112+, then we limit the list to however many 112+ year-olds there are with a similar level of verification. It makes zero sense to populate lists with post-2015 claimants or whatever, non-numbered as being on a par with the verified claims. Why not go back and add past claimants who might make it to the list? Simple solution: shorten the lists. Canada Jack (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020

Bob Weighton has been confirmed by Guinness as the world's oldest man but there is only a link to a newspaper confirming this in this list. Could you add this direct link to Guinness: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2020/3/englishman-bob-weighton-confirmed-as-the-worlds-oldest-man-living-at-112-years-o-613615/ 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:D08C:136F:B357:4F97 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary. Coverage from journalistic secondary sources is preferred to primary sources such as Guinness. More details on our sourcing policy at WP:PSTS. — JFG ^talk 10:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it now possible to give Mr. Weighton a ranking? MattSucci (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue of rankings within the men's list is being discussed above at #RfC on sourcing. Feel free to weigh in. — JFG ^talk 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I would, but the only reason I ask is that I was the one that tried to get this ball rolling again by creating the section 'Men's list', just before the RfC section and have seen little to no progress since. I find it very strange that with many decent editors contributing, it is still so hard to find common ground and agree on a mutually, satisfying consensus.MattSucci (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand. When routine discussion can't resolve longstanding problems, RfCs are the appropriate way to attract more editors and viewpoints, so that the content dispute has more of a chance of being settled. Then, an RfC consensus is enforceable towards editors who still disagree, unless they manage to get enough support for their point of view in a subsequent RfC. Your input matters. — JFG ^talk 08:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Men's list : Robert WEIGHTON has been verified

The age of Robert Weighton has been verified by Guinness world records on march 30th 2020, should now be ranked in the list. See https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/67479-oldest-person-living-male?fb_comment_id=864151920314451_879330175463292 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.45.36.237 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion for new sourcing

I'm wondering if other sources that can be used like those for WP:MEDRS. Does anyone here know of any foreign expertise? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how strict should be the requirements for the sources but I would require independent evidence of the age of the supercentenarian - at least such things like school, military service or marriage if the sources don't confirm the existence of an original birth certificate. Self-claimed age shouldn't be the only primary source.93.99.12.251 (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Shivakumara Swami

This source mentions two different dates of his birth: https://www.rediff.com/news/report/prominent-lingayat-seer-shivakumara-swami-dies-at-111/20190121.htm Are there other sources proving that the 1907 date is true or is his date of birth disputed?93.99.12.251 (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Jirōemon Kimura

Why in the list there's no Jirōemon Kimura died at 116 years and 54 days? --Joetaras (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

He is in the second list.93.99.12.251 (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Maria Kononovich

Why is she not on this list? She's currently the third oldest person in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.38.11 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Francisca montes-susano is a filipina living woman with 122 years old 109.117.162.214 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 16:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Maria Kononovich is missing 93.23.15.33 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2020 (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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Original research?

Does the men's list here violate Wikipedia's "no original research" policy due to the fact that not all of these men are actually verified by the Gerontology Research Group? 68.96.93.207 (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement to be "validated by the GRG". On Wikipedia, all reliable sources can be used to add a person to the list, including the GRG, but not excluding every other credible source. See #RfC on sourcing above. — JFG ^talk 21:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an Addition to the Article

Could an auto-confirmed Wikipedia user please hyperlink Hester Ford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A700:A7E:650C:3A02:BC31:9E81 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Some ideas for what to add

Where it says ". The 100 oldest women have, on average, lived several years longer than the 100 oldest men", maybe add that 18 of the women lived longer than all the men (the oldest man is the 19th oldest person).

The oldest 6 men, 3 of the 4 oldest women, and 11 of the 17 oldest women have a place of death or residence in either Japan or the U.S. (including Puerto Rico, which has been U.S. territory since the end of the 1890s). This seems noteworthy. Maybe add some numbers for how many on the list are from each country and calculate it as a percentage of the country's population, or what percentage of the list is from each country and compare it to what percentage of the world population is from that country.

47.139.43.53 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This article does not need more OR trivia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

On the part with Hester Ford, change her birth year from 1905 to 1904. A census found in 2018 showed her birth year being 1904. Aamccorm99 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

​We need to follow secondary sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sort by death date no longer working on the women's table

Sort by death date used to work just fine on the women's table but after trying it today I found it no longer works. (Sort by birth date still works and both still work on the men's table.) Oska (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix it, but it looks like this edit inadvertently broke it. Useight (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that Useight. You're right, it still works before that edit and breaks immediately after. But it was just a standard edit to reorder the table. I've looked through and can't see where the regression was introduced. Oska (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Just for completeness of this discussion, I see that JFG fixed the issue with this edit, by explicitly marking the birth & death columns as sorted by date. Interesting that the table used to work even without this but anyway it's a good fix. Oska (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dumitru Comanescu died

https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/dumitru-comanescu-declarat-cel-mai-varstnic-barbat-al-planetei-a-murit-la-111-ani.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarni mar (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is the dispute over Calment's age the only dispute mentioned in the footnotes?

Why is the only dispute mentioned in the footnotes the one against Calment? Lucy Hannah and Nabi Tajima have also been disputed. Also the same researchers who dispute Calment (Valery Novoselov and Nikolay Zak) also dispute Sarah Knauss. Either mention all of the disputes or none of them in the footnotes. There should be consistency here. Quagga1883 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Quagga1883, what do you mean?? Let's examine what the researchers say about Calment. They say:

Calment in fact died in 1934, but because her family didn't want the need for taxes to go up so high, they pretended it was the death of her daughter Yvonne by allowing Yvonne to adopt Calment's name and birth date.

What do they say about Sarah Knauss?? Please explain. Georgia guy (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the arguments they use against Knauss is that she is an extreme outlier like Calment. I'm just calling for consistency here. The same researchers question both cases. Quagga1883 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

How to be specific?? I explained how they question Calment very easily. Georgia guy (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I just told you why they question her. It's one of the same reasons they question Calment--because they think she's an extreme outlier. From a scientific perspective, it's ridiculous to question either of them because there isn't any actual evidence, just conjecture. I'm just calling for consistency, if conspiracy theories are being taken seriously on this page. Quagga1883 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What do they think is the truth about Sarah Knauss?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - "Was disputed" pretty much sums up the statement. It sounds like the study has been discredited from the longevity community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Any reason it was actually discredited?? That is, the community isn't simply doing whatever they can to try to show that it is wrong simply because they don't want it to be true or because they dislike it. Georgia guy (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, many in the community of Arles, where the Calments were from, discredited it. The Calments were very well known there, and when Yvonne died, basically half the town turned out - to what would have been an open-casket funeral. Townsfolk scoffed at the notion when Zak published the theory, pointing out the very patrician and haughty Jeanne was not liked by the communist citizens there, who would have instantly called out such a ruse, when it occurred, or certainly would made sure it was known later on. Further, after the Zak theories were published, they found documents which established Yvonne indeed suffered from tuberculosis, including photographs of Yvonne at a Swiss sanitarium and a 1928 letter from her husband requesting six months leave to tend to his ill wife. And that tax claim? The Calments inherited a substantial inheritance in 1926 which would have easily covered the relatively small asset tax they would have faced in 1934, 250 francs. It would be an extremely elaborate ruse for the gain of a relative pittance. And, of course, Yvonne would have had to pretend to be married to her father-in-law, her seven-year-old would have had to pretend his mother was his grandmother... and Jeanne, known as a great walker, would not have gone unnoticed by townsfolk if it was Yvonne instead. Zak's theories to explain away all this got more and more byzantine and improbable. The theories might have been plausible if the Calments were a bunch of hermits. But they were very public and social people, Jeanne in particular.

There is an interesting New Yorker article about this controversy published earlier this year. The final nail in the coffin in the article on the switcheroo theory are the documents that have Jeanne Calment and Lucien Arnaud, an Arles actuary, both signing and attesting. Arnaud not only signed the Jeanne 1896 marriage document, but the 1926 Yvonne marriage document, where all three are present. They all knew each other well socially, frequently attending the balls of the Arles chapter of the Alliance Francais that Arnaud headed. But Jeanne also appeared in front of Arnaud's successor, Louis David, in 1933 and 1942 - and David would have known her too well to be fooled by Yvonne in disguise, as Zak has claimed. As Lauren Collins, who authored the piece, says, "How many people would Yvonne have had to co-opt? Two notaries, a priest, a seven-year-old boy, a crowd full of mourners, a whole city?" Canada Jack (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oldest person alive

Hi, I apologise if I am wrong or this was found to be false, but what about this guy? Isn't he the oldest? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10091111/worlds-oldest-man-passport-123/ https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/swami-sivananda-oldest-man-ever-says-no-sex-no-spice-daily-yoga-key-to-age/story-TfNv8QsC670tfP7lTIfSWP.html KR72 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

the oldest men ever leaved is iranian which he died recently, his name is ahmad soufi (احمد صوفی) born in 1882 february 28th. https://www.instagram.com/p/CHyDdc3ppi7/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link (source) 89.219.93.112 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: While the source is the BBC, that post explicitly says that they are unable to independently verify the accuracy of the information (assuming Google is getting the translation right). Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and beating out the top number on this list by 15+ years strikes me as pretty exceptional. We're going to need something much more solid to add this. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 00:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Iris Westman died

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/iris-westman-obituary?pid=197419172 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A708:B600:38FB:2F5D:9339:6314 (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

GRG's list declining

Traditionally GRG's list of living people had 30-something people; now it only has 23. I would like to know if anyone has opinions on this proposal (it's not time yet, but eventually it might be time)

It's okay to include living people mentioned by any reliable source if they're younger than all those on the GRG list. (Now this means born after December 16, 1907; a later date may be substituted if GRG's list is updated to include younger people.)

(Please distinguish from the rule that has already been adopted at List of the oldest living people, which is that is okay to include people mentioned by any reliable source if younger than at least one person on GRG's list; the rule I've proposed is if they're younger than all those on the GRG's list.) Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed already at Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 17#RfC on sourcing. GRG is a great source... but we can't rely on it as the only source out there per WP:UNDUE. The only other option we have is to make something like WP:MEDRS, and that's a long shot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Oldest Woman Alive

Əzizova Tamam is an Azerbaijani woman was born 1890 and she is still living Orik.lone.wolf (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Does not qualify for inclusion in this list and too old to qualify for Longevity claims. Try Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

116 year old woman in Mozambique

This news story from Mozambique not only interviews the woman but has a document proving her birth date https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8qkrO4kd7k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmairenehall (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make cut-off for women's list 115 years old and cut-off for men's list 112 years old

The current two lists show the top 100 women and top 100 men. This list size of 100 is fairly arbitrary.

I am suggesting that we use a less arbitrary cut-off of who to display by choosing a certain age attained. Furthermore, I am suggesting we use 115 for women and 112 for men. This would give us currently a list of 50 women (probably soon to be 51 with Mina Kitagawa) and 44 men. I feel that this would make the lists look less "Guiness Book of Records' and more 'encyclopedic' in that they would simply record men and women who had reached a certain (extremely advanced) age. Oska (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose 100 is the standard size of such lists and is encyclopedic. Setting an age limit rather than specifying the number in the list makes it open-ended which means it will grow ad infinitum eventually becoming unmanageably large. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if it is "the standard size of such lists" (this is quite vague), that still doesn't stop it being arbitrary. And a list of women who lived to over 115 is much more encyclopedic than just some top 100 list (of verified cases). So I think you're still missing the point of why a top whatever number is still arbitrary. Finally, as the list grows (which it will only do quite slowly), the cut-off year can simply be adjusted up by +1 if it's getting too long. Oska (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Responding further to Derby's assertion about 100 being a standard size of 'such lists'. Yes, there are many lists of top 100 books, songs, films, etc. But these are essentially a promotional gimmick (nothing wrong with that in their context). And those lists are compiled outside Wikipedia and only reported on here (if they are notable enough). However, if we look at lists of exceptional natural phenomena in Wikipedia we don't find such top 100 lists. To give two examples: In the List of highest mountains on Earth, a cut-off of 7,200m has been chosen, giving a list of length 109. And in the List of rivers by length, a cut-off of 1,000km has been chosen, producing a list of length 189. So I think this makes my point - a list of exceptional natural phenomena by some criteria shouldn't be of arbitrary length but should be set to be above some level of the measure that is extraordinary. In the case of age, this should be some whole number of years. Why do we include two women who lived to 114 years and 140 days now, when soon, these two entries will be dropped off from the bottom of the list? It's hard not to see it as an undue fetishisation of a current 'top 100'. Which is somewhat inappropriate on Wikipedia. Oska (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Lists of geographical superlatives don't change so any "arbitrary" cut-off is essentially static. A list of people known for their age will continually expand. Many longevity lists have previously had age cut-offs resulting in fanfluff such as this. (More later). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your link, which is to an article about longevity claims. This article is about verified people, which keeps most of the fanfluff out. But having a 'top 100' list is still too fannish, in my opinion. None of these people are celebrating the day when they qualify to be on Wikipedia's original research (doesn't exist outside here) current 'top 100' list by reaching 114 and 140 days or whatever. But they do celebrate their 115th, 116th, etc birthday. A cut-off should apply at some notable extreme age reached and verified, not just to fit into an arbitrary set.

And I think you are making too much of the list growing. It will only do that slowly and as I've already said, we can adjust the cut-off upwards by 1 year, if/when a verified age of > 115 becomes less notable (probably not for at least another decade). As it is the list already changes frequently with additions and then removals to keep the 100 quota; making a cut-off of 115 (for women) will actually keep the list more static (as you are only adding new entries to a smaller list).

Alelia Murphy just made it into the top 100 list last year and then died and will be the next person to be removed from the bottom of the list when a new entrant exceeds her age. What's the point of adding and then removing a person to the list over such a short period of time when they just managed to fit into the arbitrary quota and then dropped out again? Oska (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I still see no point in the change, which seems to be change for change's sake. So unless there is a consensus for change I'm still opposed. I'll put a notification at WP:LONGEVITY which may get a broader response. 07:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The List of the oldest living people was recently changed to 50 people. A similar change could be beneficial for this list.93.99.12.251 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SLOP, this boils down to someone's personal point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The reasons for changing the List of the oldest living people that appeared in the "RfC: List world's oldest 50 people or 100?" in February (archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_the_oldest_living_people/Archive_18 ) could be valid for this list too.93.99.12.251 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous opposers. Seeing as this proposal is nearly two months old and has no supporters aside from the nominator, I suggest we close. Jusdafax (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No-one has engaged meaningfully so far apart from DerbyCountyinNZ, who opposed, and 93.99.12.251, who linked to pertinent discussions elsewhere without taking a position. I would like to see more intelligent discussion before closing. Oska (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This should be closed in favor of those who "oppose" as this has been open for more then 3 months now. If you really want to push for an additional consensus then start an RfC on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There has only been one well argued oppose position put forth, that of DerbyCountyinNZ. I have held off commenting on the justification you gave for your oppose position but I will say now that it was clearly bogus. Oska (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The lists have worked well for many years with 100 as the total, which in my opinion is a nice, classic amount to work with + a cut-off of 115 is a bit too arbitrary in my opinion. MattSucci (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I argue the opposite - that a top 100 list is arbitrary while listing people who have achieved a certain (very advanced) age is much less arbitrary. Newspaper articles and other media interest happens when people reach these very high ages, on or leading up to their birthdays. But no interest is shown when people make it into the top 100 verified oldest people except for them suddenly showing up on wikipedia. So what we are doing here with this list is arbitrary and also Original Research (you won't find a top 100 oldest verified list maintained anywhere outside this article).

Thelma Sutcliffe is going to be added to the bottom of this list this week (presuming she doesn't die in the next 4 days). That will be noted exactly nowhere except here. It is not notable that she has reached 114 and 140 days except for the bogus notability of it bringing her into the top 100 list maintained here (and only here). What would be noted outside here is if she reaches 115. Oska (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that reaching 114 isn't Wikipedia-worthy/notable in itself, and apart from an occasional newspaper article or local TV news segment, these stories rarely gain coverage, and the majority of the people on these lists become nothing more than a name and ranking, due to not having their own pages or bios. But what is the difference between 114 and 115? Personally, I see no difference. I would also like to add that I would also have no problem with having shorter lists: 50/25 even down to the 10 oldest men and women, but, as I wrote in my comment above, consensus has been to keep the lists at 100 each, however "arbitrary" that may be. MattSucci (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent sources

The sources for Marcel Meys and Lawrence Brooks seem to be more than one year old. Are there any recent sources confirming that they are alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.12.251 (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have found a new source for Lawrence Brooks: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/09/12/oldest-living-wwii-veteran-celebrates-111th-birthday/ Does it count as reliable? 93.99.12.251 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Add Emilio Flores Marquez

The GRG have notified us about a person from Puerto Rico called Emilio Flores Marquez, who is 112 years old and is an Oldest Living Person claimant with extremely strong proof - the only reason he was not known is due to his family requesting privacy until January this year Please add him to the oldest men list https://gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/Emilio_Flores_Marquez — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretGalaxy (talk • contribs) 09:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that would require another source. I don't think that gerontology.wikia.org counts as reliable and we cannot use unpublished sources.93.99.12.251 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The answer is no per WP:FANDOM, we need a reliable source confirming this person meets the criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hester Ford died

Per [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:a70b:400:4c35:4c6b:a61b:e71e (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior concerning Jeanne Calment

From: https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#jeannecalment The person we know as "Jeanne Calment" may actually be Jeanne Calment's daughter, Yvonne, who allegedly died in 1934. Jeanne/Yvonne relished the attention that her officially recognized status as World’s Oldest Person conferred. In 1994, when the city of Arles requested family photos and documentation for their archives, any incriminating evidence was burned by a cousin of her putative grandson/son, her heiress Josette Bigonnet and the wife of her executor – reportedly on Jeanne/Yvonne’s instructions. Therefore, no photographs survive of Madame Calment between the notional ages of 60 to 110. If Jeanne/Yvonne's identity were challenged, then Raffray’s children and grandchildren would have a claim on her estate. Only DNA evidence will settle the issue. After a "rather tense" meeting of the National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) in Paris on 23 January 2019, the INED agreed exhumation was needed. Alas, individual initiative in testing the Calment family DNA, whether motivated by forensic sleuthing or antiaging research, would count as grave desecration under French law.

So what motivated the selective burning of her family photographs and other documentary evidence – allegedly on her instructions, aged 120 – by a cousin of her grandson/son when she was requested to bequeath them to the archives of Arles?

In 2001, the English biologist Tom Kirkwood, briefly considered whether Jean Calment's record could be fraudulent. In "Time of Our Lives: The Science of Human Aging" (2001), Kirkwood remarks that "Could she be a fraud? It is hard to see how unless it was the mother not the daughter who died in 1934, the daughter assuming the identity of her mother." https://www.leafscience.org/valery-novoselov-investigating-jeanne-calments-longevity-record/

The Calments were buried rather than cremated; the family grave is in Arles. DNA evidence could settle the issue. If aging is recognised as a terrible genetic disorder, and medical science should urgently aim at a cure, then DNA testing of Jeanne Calment, her husband Fernand and their daughter Yvonne would seem mandatory. Either the evidence will reveal the genetic profile of the doyenne of humanity – or a family with a shrewd grasp of money management.

Only DNA evidence will settle the issue. After a "rather tense" meeting of the National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) in Paris on 23 January 2019, the INED agreed exhumation was needed. Alas, individual initiative in testing the Calment family DNA, whether motivated by forensic sleuthing or antiaging research, would count as grave desecration under French law.

Sadly, exhumation of the bodies for DNA testing will not be straightforward. See: Jeanne Calment: pourquoi la question de son exhumation est compliquée. https://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/jeanne-calment-pourquoi-la-question-de-son-exhumation-est-compliquee-3845465 Reportedly, Jeanne/Yvonne Calment’s heirs and distant relatives are vehemently opposed to DNA testing. The selective destruction of the photographic and documentary evidence was unfortunate. Yuri Deigin has also sifted through such photographic evidence as survives. Nikolay Zak’s paper “Evidence that Jeanne Calment died in 1934, not 1997” has now been accepted for publication in the journal Rejuvenation Research. A January 2019 meeting of the Institut National D'études Démographiques in Paris in the wake of the Russian study was quite fraught. The efforts of Russian researchers to unravel the mystery have not been warmly welcomed in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.37.128 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Marcelino Abad (Perù)

Hi dear, yeasterday I've read this article about covid-19 vacination on Marcelino Abad. He's 121 years old. Newspaper --Joetaras (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Does not meet the criteria for this article. Try Longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you dear --Joetaras (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

I want list me Arya1918 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Accept Arya1918 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Leap Year 1900

Since there was no leap year in 1900, in the List of Oldest men, 45 James Wiggins and 46 George Feldman should be tied for 45th place as they lived the same number of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1E5F:F87A:1DB5:C7EA:7DC6:2FA (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length previously, see the archives for this page #3, #4 and #8. Wiki goes by the sources provided, anything else is original research. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

surely WP:COUNTSORT applies here Weburbia (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC).

No. Apart from being an essay, and therefore not trumping OR, afaik WCOUNTSORT is not applied to peoples ages. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The ranking in the list is not sourced, since more recent data is compiled from separate sources rather than a single RS list. Furthermore, calculation of ages is not something that needs to be sourced. If we know the birth and death dates, then we can trivially include the age in days or years, per WP:CALC. I would suggest we put them tied at #45 per the OP's request, with a footnote explaining why.

As an aside, this phenomenon could potentially result in an even more extreme situation. If Person A lived from 1 January 1897 to 2 January 1902 (a period with no leap days), we'd list them as 5 years 1 day. If person B lived 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2005 then we'd list them as 5 years 0 days. But in fact, person B outlived person A by one day, (1,827 days to 1,826), due to seeing two 29th Febs to person A's zero.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The ranking is based on the sources not what wiki editors have calculated. This longevity fanfluff has been covered before, more than once. The editors who kept pushing this have mostly been topic banned or left voluntarily when they couldn't get their way and can be found a gerontology wikia where there are undoubtedly numerous pages devoted to these topics. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This list and five similar regional lists are being edited by a single user on a daily basis to keep them in order. Can he really be following reliable sources to do that? What happens when they take a break? The passive agressive reference to fanfluff and people being topic banned is not helpful. The history of that episode was about much more than discussions about table ordering. How can it be said that WP:COUNTSORT is not applied to ages when there are Wikipedia:Age calculation templates for that purpose, and tables can be automatically ordered on that basis? The stated rationale on the age templates page for not using them in tables is that it makes them take too long to load, yet the templates are already being used to calculate ages in the tables. Perhaps the technical limitations have changed since this was last considered? Could someone with suitable technical expertise make a draft version of the page with automatic sorting on age in days to see if it works? Weburbia (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I see from discussions above that there is a problem with template caching that requires the page to be edited daily, but that is still a technical issue rather than one of wikipedia policy. Weburbia (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Why deleted "Age as of [current date]"-remark?

Today the age of Kane Tanaka is 118 years 43 days, but the article says 118 years 41 days. So the remark "as of 12 Feb 2021" needed to prevent misunderstanding.--Levgr (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The age is current. It does show 118 years 43 days. You need to refresh the page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Today the age of Kane Tanaka is 118 years 82 days, but the article says 118 years 81 days. Using the refresh button on my browser had no effect. Editing the page could help but nobody has done that today.93.99.12.251 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says "118 years 82 days" now. It seems that adding that comment did help. 93.99.12.251 (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The template updates when the article or its talk page are edited; refreshing your browser has no effect, and neither has anything else you can do on your end. This particular article is kept in sync largely by the efforts of a single editor, who - probably automatically - edits the article within the first few minutes of every new day (compare the article history). Well, almost every day. There was a gap between 24 March and 27 March of this year, which caused the problem noted by the previous IP user (and which was solved by that very remark, at least for the next 12 hours). Renerpho (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Levgr:@DerbyCountyinNZ: I suggest adding an "as of [current date]". We should not rely on single editors, no matter how dedicated they appear. Renerpho (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. Wiki is assumed to be current so the "current date" is irrelevant. And regarding the issue above, adding a current date template won't make any difference to the ages shown by the age template. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree, but since when is Wikipedia "assumed to be current"? On the contrary, the sole reason to keep editing is that it is outdated by default. Renerpho (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Would there be a way to use a mathematical formula to calculate the age each day, or a bot built to change that, then only changes to the table order would need an editor. Whosbasil (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oldest person alive as on 12 June 2021

Swami Shivananda of Kashi, India, born on 8th August 1896 and is currently 125 years old. 2402:3A80:CFE:E9D1:C13C:3518:D124:7419 (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◎ | melecie | t 14:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

Death date ! Age ! Place of death
or residence 86.167.161.212 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The record has been broken

There is a women from Indian Occupied Kashmir who is 124 years old. Her name is Rehtee Begum.

Source : www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/124-year-old-woman-rehtee-begum-administered-covid-jab-in-jammu-kashmir-officials-2455004%3Famp%3D1%26akamai-rum%3Doff&ved=2ahUKEwiI3d39wqXxAhVU4jgGHXloCLsQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2p24VFUXiQFUQPuE9FvjzJ&ampcf=1 PSAFDTH (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry guys, the woman hasn't self confirmed this yet, so maybe this can't be added PSAFDTH (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The only source is her ration card, which seems to suggest she is 124 years old PSAFDTH (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No matter what "evidence" for her age is supplied, she does not qualify for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Justina Santana da Silva

Hello there. A woman named Justina Santana Xavier da Silva of Brazil is ranked #9 on List of the oldest living people. She is 114 years, 183 days old. She should be tied for 88th place. Please add her. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• User:Chicdat, it is consensus that the table in this article can only have GRG-validated people for its living people. Georgia guy (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Manuel García Hernández

Manuel García Hernández is a Mexican with 124 years old, apparently there is no doubt of his age according to the news. The age has been confirmed by the president of Mexico. Librero2109 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.sdpnoticias.com/nacional/amlo-saludo-manuel-garcia-hernandez-124-anos.html https://www.clarin.com/internacional/historia-manuel-garcia-hernandez-hombre-vivio-siglos-17-hijos-30-nietos-40-bisnietos_0_nZ5eVP286.html http://spanish.xinhuanet.com/photo/2018-12/26/c_137699872.htm

Have you contacted Guinness World Records to see if they can verify this age?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No Librero2109 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mexico claims to have many 121-year-olds.[2] They can't all be that old. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

Change Dexter Kruger green living highlight to while deceased. Dexter Kruger (111 year old man in Australia) sadly passed away. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-21/australia-s-oldest-man-dies-aged-111/100308610 203.219.128.207 (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Completed Tubby23 talk 05:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Zaro Agha is the oldest person to have ever lived. He was a Kurdish man who lived until the age 170 (1764-1934).88.230.35.212 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Should exact page names be used and are aka names appropriate?

User Bart Versieck has made many changes in the past few days and I'm not sure how many of these edits are productive. Some changes are: Emma Morano has been reverted to Emma Morano Martinuzzi, Lucile Randon has gone back to Lucile Randon aka Sister André and now Marie Josephine Gaudette is Marie Josephine Gaudette, aka Mother Cecilia. Do these changes require consensus? Regards, MattSucci (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The name should match (only) that in the cited source(s). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the protocol when sources give different versions of names? MattSucci (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends. If multiple sources are roughly equally divided for the different versions then both should be used with a citation for each. If the majority give one version but some give an alternative the alternative should be added as a note. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

None of them are productive. They should all be reverted. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Be my guest ;). I have changed the two names that aren't correct as per the GRG table. MattSucci (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Bart has continued this behavior and refuses to discuss, adding unexplained parentheses to Giuseppina Projetto and married names to Italian supercentenarians. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

He also doesn't leave any edit summaries to let one understand his reasons. I hope I'm wrong, but I get the impression that he is searching for conflict. MattSucci (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And no matter how many times I revert him, he adds the names in again, still an edit summary. The only indication of discussion I can see is the fact that every time I revert him he thanks me (!) for the revert. Yes, I think he is searching for conflict. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think what he is doing is taking too literally the point that DerbyCountyinNZ has made and is now simply copying the names straight off of the GRG table. However, most of his changes are, I believe, invalid, because as Derby puts it, the "majority" of sources should contain the exact names he is changing to, but having made a few searches, they don't. I would also like to add that the persistent thank-and-revert and thanking for insignificant edits is rather strange and reeks of potential conflict or trolling. MattSucci (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't want a conflict at all honestly and I am just a polite person, hence, so I just did this since a few of the Italians already were mentioned with their married names as well: logical would be either all or none of them, hence my edits, all in good faith really (plus Guiseppina was called Pina: what harm could those parentheses possibly do?)! Extremely sexy (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Your editing would apparently contradict that on occasions, with multiple reverts and thanking. I alone received 8x thanks from you yesterday. That's as many as I receive in a normal year! Longevity articles have been notoriously divided between supercentenarian fanboys who change things for their own pleasure and users with a more encyclopedic taste in editing, so if something could possibly be contentious, like changing names, take it to the talk page first, which is what you appear to have now done. MattSucci (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood, and I will do so in the future! Extremely sexy (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Links to Italian supercentenarians mentioned in a separate paragraph

Why don't they work (the ones I added), while the one already there does? Extremely sexy (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this: apparently I forgot to add the pipes, hence! Extremely sexy (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

THE Philippines has the world’s supercentenarian.

Her name is Francisca Susano. She recently celebrated her 124th birthday, making her the world’s oldest living person.

Senior Citizen Party-list Representative Rodolfo Ordanes filed House Resolution 2207 congratulating Susano and urging the House of Representatives to grant her P1 million as an incentive for being a supercentenarian.

Susano was born on September 11, 1897 in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental.

Read: Surprises greet 'oldest living Filipino' on 124th birthday

Upon celebrating her recent birthday, she widened the gap between her and the second oldest living person in the world, Kane Tanaka of Japan, who was born on January 2, 1903. 103.137.205.122 (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LauritzT (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

She is in Longevity claims where she belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

As per indiaTimesInsta, Swami Shivanand, a seer from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India, is 125 years old and got the vaccine jab recently. 2405:201:9001:D0C7:E1A7:1A54:97ED:E70E (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Already in Longevity claims where he belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

New world record?

Link: https://www.nypost.com/2021/11/24/francisca-susano-oldest-woman-in-the-world-dead-at-124/amp/

According to the article above, a Filipino woman named Francisca Susano died on Monday, aged 124, which broke the world record. How come our article did not mention this woman at all? 120.16.43.59 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it's a completely unverified claim. She is in Longevity claims where she belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2021

edit pls new updated Fransis uda (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

On the page “List of oldest living people number 14 Erminínia Lopes dos Santos is 114 years and 181 days which would put her on the “List of verified oldest people” page tied for rank 98 Jfallik (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The list including known and validated supercentenarians who died before 2015 was compiled by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG).[5] Later cases are included in more recent GRG data,[6] with administrative reports or press coverage as supplementary sources, as indicated in the table. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Marcel Meys deceased

As per https://www.francetvinfo.fr/france/auvergne-rhone-alpes/isere/marcel-meys-le-doyen-des-francais-est-mort-a-112-ans-en-isere_4882371.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A786:7E00:A5B0:BEF6:1F0F:D6ED (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

I have an addition to this list. She was born May 9 1908, passed away in 2020/ Thank you. https://www.parkmemorial.com/book-of-memories/4250828/Buttiri-Margherita/obituary.php 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:A462:F32B:6146:B268 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The list including known and validated supercentenarians who died before 2015 was compiled by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG).[5] Later cases are included in more recent GRG data,[6] with administrative reports or press coverage as supplementary sources, as indicated in the table. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oldest living people on here

Justina Santana Xavier da Silva and Ermínia Lopes dos Santos (both women of Brazil) are older than number 100 but aren't in this page. Is this intentional? Avengingbandit 21:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 17#Justina Santana da Silva DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The GRG doesn't really like verifying women of Brazil. Another, Margarita Blanco (in 20th place on the living people list) is also unverified. 🐔dat (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Number 71 on the list of oldest women

This is a very interesting web page and handled well, but I'm intrigued by one possible anomaly.

The number 71 entry is "Anonymous of Hyugu". I am wondering, how can the GRG have verified the age of this woman if her name is not known? I'd assume verification involves examining records of birth, and I can't see how that can be done without knowing the full name.

Howard Freeland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfreeland (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the person involved doesn't want their name known. 2001:56A:FA85:3800:FD24:D451:2F36:E311 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing entry?

According to wiki Italy - Ida Zoccarato - [3] 2001:56A:FA85:3800:FD24:D451:2F36:E311 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source for Juan Vicente Pérez Mora

The source for Juan Vicente Pérez Mora is more than 1 year old. A newer source was used for the List of the oldest living people. I think it should be used here too. 2A02:F000:1048:4F00:3806:1A6E:D9A4:F8B (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

Smartboy78 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Thelma Sutcliffe Is dead 17 Jan 2022

Yea She dead Smartboy78 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Francisca Susano of the Philippines

The Guinness World Records apparently validated that Francisca Susano was the oldest person ever at 124 years old at the time she died. Shouldn't she be ahead of Jeanne Calment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magellan Fan (talk • contribs) 05:05 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like BS to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this. Otherwise [4] Sciencefish (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sciencefish: This dubious claim is by the "City Government of Kabankalan" per their facebook page here. As you pointed out there is nothing by Guinness that supports this... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

The top 3 oldest person in the world is our fellow Filipino who just died last year, November 22, 2021 named Francisca T. Susano also known as "LOLA ISA" in our country. She was born on September 11, 1897. Put this record on to let the people know that we Filipino have also legendary and 19th Century Living Person who just deceased recently Vansofficial07 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please notice this to help my fellow Filipino to be heard Vansofficial07 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Does not meet the criteria for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Justina Santana Xavier da Silva

Why she isn't on the list (she is the oldest living Brazilian person) Thingofme (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2022

replace the old source for Juan Vicente Pérez Mora with the new source from the List of the oldest living people: https://eldiario.com/2021/05/28/tachira-cobija-al-hombre-mas-anciano-de-venezuela/ 93.99.12.254 (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done 🐔dat (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you 93.99.12.254 (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Change "during the Qing dynasty" to "in Qing dynasty China" - it should be the Chinese state that existed during the Qing dynasty because other similar notes mention states. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you 93.99.12.254 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

I would like to make a change for this wikipedia change for changing the date. Stellaff (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2022 (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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ja Hyung Lee

I've seen multiple sources stating that he passed away, including the one linked here. I see no issue marking him as deceased now. Avengingbandit 07:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That source does not count as reliable.93.99.12.254 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

But his sources here are more than 1 year old, so he can be removed without a reliable source. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

What counts as a reliable source then? We can't go by an official organization like the GRG because he isn't validated. Avengingbandit 14:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The "List of the oldest living people" says this: "The definition of a reliable source is provided by WP:RS. ANY reliable source is sufficient; there is NO requirement that the person's age has been validated by Guinness World Records or GRG. (Note, however, that the Gerontology Wiki at Wikia is NOT a reliable source, and neither is the110club.com, and neither is findagrave.com, and neither is the French Wikipedia, and neither is Facebook, and neither is any blog.) Moreover, removal of someone reliably sourced from the list within a year of the source's publishment requires a reliable source revealing that the person has died. Having any reliable source revealing the person died is sufficient for a person to be removed from the list; there is no requirement that the person has been removed from GRG's list of living supercentenarians under the assumption that they're on GRG's list."93.99.12.254 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022 Swami Shivanand

World's oldest man alive: Swami Shivanand, India. Born in Aug 8, 1896. Aged 125 years old. Recently recieved Padma Bhushan award Devashri Joshi (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Already in Longevity claims where he belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

His date of birth is based on temple records. Some temple records in Indian claims 300 years of reign for certain Hindu kings ChandlerMinh (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Delio Venturotti

There is a Brazilian man who claims to be 112 years old. Should we add him? Link: https://www.facebook.com/cesar.augustoferreiragilla/posts/4315373351903094 SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Would this be a reliable source: https://www.cronachedellacampania.it/2021/12/italiano-piu-anziano-al-mondo/ 93.99.12.254 (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@BHB95: as has been pointed out by numerous editors now, including Nikkimaria and Fakescientist8000 and myself, the source you are citing is not valid on Wikipedia. Fandom is a Wiki site just like we are, with pages written by non-experts, and as such is not a reliable source. Also, it appears that the research conducted by this Nikolay Zak that you mention does not correspond with the majority of reliable sources and the dates they give for individuals in question. Please discuss any changes you wish to make here and gain consensus for them, with evidence from WP:Reliable sources rather than edit warring to insert a source which is not acceptable. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

To be exactly specific; user-generated content (such as the source you are citing) are not considered reliable as per WP:UGC. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I note that BHB95 (talk) is suspected of being a sock of an IP who is a suspected sock of indeffed user BjörnBergman (talk) who was blocked for evading their Longevity topic ban. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Good catch! I suppose that @BHB95: should speak up to defend him/her/themself. If this is really the case, it should be brought up at WP:AN IMMEDIATELY.

Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 17:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I have just confirmed that this user is BjornBergman because: 1: BHB = Bjorn 'he 'Bergman, which is his FANDOM name. 2: Both interested in Longevity and 3: They both support the Archicentenarians wiki on FANDOM. LockzZ (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@NanoLock66: Then this needs to be brought up to admins ASAP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Keeping this for reference. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocking talk page access

The repeated requests by SPAs, for the addition of someone who will never meet the criteria for inclusion in this page is becoming tiresome. Can we have a consensus of regular contributors that this talk page be fully protected for as long as it takes for these requests to stop? I propose in the first instance that 3 days be a starting point and this be increased exponentially if the requests resume after each block is lifted. In the meantime I'll be reverting all such requests as vandalism. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: I would be opposed to it here as the ones to blame are the media for hyping up the stories. As long as claims of 122+ are out there, then there will be editors who ask "what about x?". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I just remove them as duplicate edit requests. I don't think it's Talk:The Kashmir Files levels of bad, where it needs protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have seen far too many instances where IP/inexperienced editor/whoever X goes "What about Y person, who has lived to Z years?" and it's pretty tiresome having to see every edit request be shot down like that.

I want it to be clear with this, though; I think that these IPs/newcomers are just trying to help out on the article, and add someone who they believe has lived very long to this article. They are not bad people (I hope) and I only wish the best for them. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fakescientist8000: Wouldn't it just be easier to place a banner at the top of the edit page per WP:EDNO? There is also the option of placing a FAQ at the top of the talkpage per this example. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I didn’t know that! We can most certainly do that. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 09:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

Please remove Ja Hyung Lee from this list. His death is sourced from Facebook and all the other sources used are more than 1 year old. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, although Ja Hyung Lee is deceased, he is still in the list of oldest men ever. There sadly isn't any reliable sources though. LockzZ (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think he should be removed if no reliable sources from this year can be found. Sources from 2021 would not be able to prove that he reached a sufficient age to appear on this list.93.99.12.254 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Facebook isn't exactly a reliable source - wait until something reliable confirms it. Zippybonzo | talk 16:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that. I suggested removing him because he was marked as dead without a reliable source. We shouldn't keep people on the list without reliable sources.93.99.12.254 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC

 Not done: Not removed. Death is irrelevant of being on the list He is old enough to be on the list either way. Terasail^[✉️] 13:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should put "citation needed" or something similar to his date of death until a better source is found.93.99.12.254 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Gender split

Is there any particular reason for the gender-split tables? It seems to only make it more difficult to find who're the actual oldest. Perhaps it would make more sense to have one table, but have a "gender" column so that people can split it by that if they want to? Would anyone be opposed to this? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 16:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If we did this then we would have a table of 200 entries. Its not impossible to do, but I would think two tables would be easier to manage than one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharizard yes it will even look more easier to read than a long table with mixed gender 41.223.132.222 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that the current two tables are easier to read? I'm confused by the tense in your comment. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 01:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of a "100 oldest people" and then a "100-200" section? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 01:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There are only 6 men that would make a "100 oldest people" list. This has not changed for several years and is unlikely to increase any time soon, making a combined list superfluous. Increasing the entries to 200 would not be in keeping with the consensus at WP:LONGEVITY to keep the longevity fanfluff to a minimum. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing linkings of the countries

For months and years in this article the first mention of a country was linked. What is the reason for removing these links? Is this consensus here? If yes, please show here. Thx. --83.240.140.234 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an editing convention to just link the first appearance of a word, pretty unconvenient and useless to link "Japan" 40-ish times ThatRandomFrenchie (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

OK Thanks. Hopefully Mr. Hill can be validated soon, he seems like such a wonderful man. And sorry I forgot to sign my earlier post.GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

There was Antisa from Georgia, who lived 130 years. Check out this link " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2hvkjLeUdU " 2A0B:6204:34DB:1A00:C989:3AB9:F5AF:7039 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Does not meet the criteria for inclusion on multiple counts. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Gustav Gerneth

Should he have been removed without discussion? Many of the men on the list have never been 'verified'. MattSucci (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Per this RfC, any reliably sourced entry can be included. The closer indicated that sources other then the GRG (and by implication, GWR) should be individually assessed as to whether they should be considered reliable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Then the removal isn't valid?! Regards, MattSucci (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing in the sources used for his entry to indicate that they do not pass RS. So, no. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous of Hyogo

Anonymous's death was reported here: [5]. Will she be readded when a death date is revealed? Avengingbandit 20:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Softmist (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2022

Please remove Manuel Benavente Sanhueza because no reliable source for him could be found. The only sources that were found were all rejected as unreliable. 2A02:F000:1048:4F00:64F3:3D49:1F9:F9E5 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Question: Why do you think the currently cited source is unreliable? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know but I had suggested the same source some time ago and it was rejected by Fakescientist8000 as unreliable.93.99.12.254 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this the source you're talking about? 'Cause that's a different source than the one cited for Sanhueza. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it was this source: [6] My request was later deleted by DerbyCountyinNZ: [7]93.99.12.254 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I see. Paging @Fakescientist8000. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

After further review, this does seem more in line with a limbo source than a definitively reliable or unreliable source. I am still a bit concerned about both it's reliability, but also WP:NPOV since it is reporting about the death of one of its founders. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I left the entry up but added a "better citation needed" tag. I'll look for one myself later today. (Probably.) Snowmanonahoe (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This is probably the best solution for now. We should add the same tag to Ja Hyung Lee.185.100.196.13 (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The user 2A02:F000:1048:4F00:64F3:3D49:1F9:F9E5|2A02:F000:1048:4F00:64F3:3D49:1F9:F9E5 and 93.99.12.254 is the same person. I have posted it from different places.185.100.196.13 (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Johanna Mazibuko

A YouTube video claims that this South African woman is 128 years old and showed her ID card as an evidence: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13q0LNraXLk 120.16.150.20 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned on another page, YouTube videos are not proof of anything. You need actual official records such as actual gerontology researchers would use to validate such a claim. Seanette (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Unverified claims belong in Longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Manuel Benavente Sanhueza

Manuel Benavente Sanhueza doesn't seem to have a valid source. If no valid source can be found he should be removed from this list. If valid sources exist but there is no source for his date of death he should probably be removed too. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have found a source: https://yfu.cl/noticias/youth-for-understanding-de-chile-manifiesta-su-pesar-por-el-fallecimiento-de-don-manuel-benavente-sanhueza-socio-fundador-de-yfu-chile/ Is the source reliable?93.99.12.254 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources found ( It is either Gerontology Wiki, The 110 club or Facebook which are sometimes not reliable.) Smartboy78 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

Please add a tag to Ja Hyung Lee. His death is sourced from Facebook and all the other sources used are more than 1 year old. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.93.99.12.254 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

His age is 113 not 118 2600:6C44:6E00:3600:1DDB:5132:78CC:614A (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source for Delio Venturotti

Does this source count as reliable: https://www.cronachedellacampania.it/2021/12/italiano-piu-anziano-al-mondo/ 93.99.12.254 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

After looking at it, I'd say probably not. This appears to be a Daily Mail type of news outlet, which is more of a tabloid than a reliable source. For more info, see WP:RSP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000

OK, I shall wait for a better source.93.99.12.254 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I found a source on the Portuguese Wikipedia https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delio_Venturotti Smartboy78 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Another wiki cannot be used a source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to this source. Softmist (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks ok, but if the GRG rejects his claim then he should be removed. If the GRG accepts his claim that should be used for the citation. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If Portuguese wiki not a source then there is no reliable sources found for Delia venturotti Smartboy78 (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria.

Longstanding consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Longevity is that an appropriate citation for the claimed age of a person be included. For living persons the criteria is that there is a WP:RS that is less than a year old. For deceased persons there must be a WP:RS indicating they were alive at an age old enough to for inclusion in the list. This should be obvious, as there are hundreds (thousands) of people who would qualify for inclusion because they were alive x number of years ago and there is no indication that they are dead. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful, then 57 of the people listed under “Men” should be removed until proven with reliable, up-to-date sources. Likewise, people who’s sources are broken should either be corrected or the person should be removed from the list. If those rules cannot immediately be met, I’d love for you to do the honors and wipe out half the page because they lack the required sources. The idea that news articles become false after a few years is far from reality. Daedal45 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

If the citation of a living person is within a year of them entering the list then there is no reason to remove them. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

And why would a living person need sources within a year but a deceased person needs no sources at all? Can I put my deceased great grandfather on there without proof? That seems to be the precedent you guys want to set. The GrG is outdated and slow to move on verifying super-centenarians. You seem more inclined on using the same slow bureaucratic process and regulation to get nothing done than using your head to decide what is or isn’t a good source. Ezra Hill has shown his driver’s license, which is required by law to be accurate, as being born in December of 1910. He has met with the governor of Maryland, been reported by various news sources, and been given recognition in numerous genealogical circles. If you’re going to complain that my source is too old, then delete half the people on the list who have no sources at all. All you really want to do is be a pain in the arse. Daedal45 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the paragraphs under the Men/Women list headings?: "The list including all known and validated supercentenarians who died before 2015 was compiled by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG).<ref name=GRG-B-2015 /> Later cases are sourced either from more recent GRG data, from administrative reports, or from press coverage.<ref name=GRG-Rankings /> (For men:) From 2017 most cases have not been verified by an organization specializing in age verification, such as the GRG, unless they are aged 113+." DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What about Sarah Gudger

I guess it's not verified then- https://www.history.swannanoavalleymuseum.org/sarah-gudger/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.170.50 (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ezra Hill

Why isn't Ezra Hill included in the list of 100 oldest men? Yes, he's "unvalidated", but then none of the other living men are validated either except for Mora. https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Ezra_Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanShepherd1983 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source, and gerontology wikia does not count, he cannot be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Would this be considered a reliable source? The full text of the article cannot be accessed without a subscription, but there is an option to listen to the article. At around 50 seconds, the author starts to discuss Ezra Hill, and mentions that "at 111, [he] is America's oldest man" (the article is from March of this year). The article does not contain Hill's birthdate, but if it is deemed reliable, we can supplement it with this source. Softmist (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

Change status of Tekla Juniewicz from Living to Deceased, as she died today (19.08.2022) at the age of 116. TomeczekXD (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

TomeczekXD Please offer a source for this. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 10:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done RS found. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Oldest living person

Oldest living person ever recorded was actually was Alfred Crimm he lived to be 127 , you can find his records on Tuscaloosa Times 74.113.144.3 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have HIGH doubts that's a reliable source N1TH Music (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2022

The oldest person in the world is Johanna Mazibuko - She is 128 years old living in Klerksdorp, South Africa 105.244.162.10 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done not without a source, she's not. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Identity documents have been shown, however, most images are only partial.

Here's a twitter thread from the Mirror (UK): https://twitter.com/i/events/1525860820890042368. Rhys Tedstone (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There is something very odd about this though. Only this article and basically every british media leeching eachother off of it and nothing else. If you google the name, you find a BBC article from 2013 and again, nothing.

How come this woman hasn't shown up before in any radar? She is supposedly crushing calmant's record but we barely heard about it, even 9 years ago where she technically was. With barely any proof, has there been any verification to this more than a mirror article? Because this seems like an incredibly odd variance.

Showing her ID card is not enough unless it is based on any written record though. 2A01:CB11:3AA:A200:4DFB:806C:A8BD:9636 (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The GRG probably reviewed her claim in 2015 and there likely wasn't enough proof for such an extreme longevity claim. N1TH Music (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for this page

The women's list:

• MUST be verified by GRG. Most supercentenarians who died before 2015 are shown with a different source, but they all appear on Table B.
• Upon death, a supercentenarian's death date that the GRG reported them to have will be added. Often another source will be added confirming their death, but this is not required.
• To change a supercentenarian's status from living to dead, remove their green color, and replace the "Living" in the death column with their death date. You may need to adjust their rank according to their death date. Also, add their deathdate to the AYD template.
• If they are moved to limbo on the GRG table, this means there is no proof of life and no proof of death. Upon being moved to limbo, the supercentenarian in question will be removed from the table. If this occurs, no not add them back with a death date unless they are moved to the GRG's death table, which may never occur.
• Should there be any reason to add or remove any supercentenarian to the list (i.e. by GRG-verification/unverification), make sure to maintain the list at 100 people.
  • To add a person to the list, increase every rank below that person by 1. When you reach the 100th person, remove them.
    • If there is a tie for 100th person, things get more complicated. If there is a tie for 99th place, move the tie to 100th place. If there is a tie for 100th place, remove the people altogether.
  • To remove a person from the list, decrease every rank below that person by 1. To add a person to 100th place, go back to the revision before somebody was last added to the list. Add that person to 100th place.
• DMY notation (1 January 2001) is used on this page, even for Americans.
• When a living and a dead person are tied, the "rowspan=2" (or more) is only for the rank.
  • When two living people are tied (same birthdate), "rowspan=2" will be used for the birthdate as well.
  • When two dead people are tied
• For a person's age, the {{ayd}} template is used. For instance, Jeanne Calment's age is shown as {{ayd|21 February 1875|4 August 1997}}, which appears as "122 years, 164 days."

The men's list:

• Need not be verified by GRG. As of 2022, the GRG verifies people based on 114th birthday reports, which means that less than 10 men will have reached verification age. In place of GRG, any reliable press report may be used.
  • "Reliable" does NOT mean Gerontology Wiki, or The 110 Club, or Facebook, or Twitter. However, the latter two
• If, for a living person's press report, it is more than one year since their report was published and a new reliable report cannot be found, follow the same practices as you would if someone is moved to limbo.
• The individuals without sources are GRG-verified supercentenarians who died before 2015. They will all appear on Table B.
• A person who died before 2015 and is not verified by GRG cannot be added by any press report. This means that there is a reason why GRG did not verify the person.
• Adding a death date to the list can only be done if there is a reliable source stating the person has died. Follow the same practice as on the women's list.
• To add/remove a person to the list, follow the same practices as on the women's list.
• DMY notation is also used on the men's list.
• In ties, follow the same practices as for the women's list.
• {{ayd}} is also used for the men's list.

How about adding these to an editnotice at the top of the page? There are too many edit requests like "Add my grandpa" and "Add Swami Sivananda". And sometimes the editors are registered, and they actually do add their grandpa or Swami Sivananda. The editnotice would prevent this from happening.

🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I take it you are proposing that the above be the criteria. The actual current criteria for sourcing of entries for this page is per the Rfc here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

They seem quite similar N1TH Music (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Brañas" vs. "Branyas"

Based on consensus spelled out here on the "List of the Oldest Living People" talk page, since all credible outside sources for Maria Branyas Morera cited use "Branyas" and not "Brañas," it should be spelled "Branyas" here too. I am mentioning this here, since there has been many reverts there on this issue, and I anticipate it potentially happening here too. Damiel (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Seliman Bandang

His source is now more than a year old. Should he be removed? Avengingbandit 16:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see discussion on this same issue here. Softmist (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

He has now been removed. Softmist (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Perez Mora

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right page to discuss this, but do any of you think Juan Vicente Perez Mora should get his own Wikipedia article (similar to other male supercentenarians such as Jireomon Kimura, Christian Mortensen, and Yisrael Kristal among others)? He has been the world's oldest living man for quite a while now and he has lived substantially longer than some of the more recent holders of said title. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If there are enough sources, then sure, he can get his own article. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Eusebio Quintero Lopez

I've added this man to the list and provided a source, it seems reliable enough and his age isn't an extreme claim. I'm not entirely sure though also I don't know how to make his name green to show it's living so I hope somebody else could do that. N1TH Music (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

He cannot be added with the source given in its current state. At the stated time of the "creation" of the source, 22 January 2020, he was less than 110 years old and therefore too young for inclusion. If there is a reliable source, or if the Supercentenarios.net source had an indication that it was recently updated, then that could be used. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I got the feeling there may be something wrong with that, oh well when he turns 113 he will get GRG validated and we'll know for sure. N1TH Music (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

GRG has seemed to start validating people at 114+ now. If I remember correctly some of the people has said they've been behind in their work. Avengingbandit 15:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh well in that case I assume we won't find out until the GRG does something on the lines of what they did in 2015 N1TH Music (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ Technically, the LAS source is updated daily, as the age for each listed individual increases by one with every passing day, just like the GRG World Supercentenarian Rankings List (for which the date last updated also does not correspond to the ages of the listed living individuals). For instance, Juan Vicente Pérez Mora's age is listed as 113 years, 130 days, which is indeed the age he is today. The oldest men list as it currently stands is frankly incomplete without Eusebio Quintero López or Efraín Antonio Ríos García, two living individuals listed on the site who are old enough to qualify for inclusion in our list. Since you seemed to be OK with using the LAS as a supplementary source for Manuel Benavente Sanhueza's lifespan (compare this and this), why not include the other missing individuals? Softmist (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

An automatic update is no proof that someone is still alive, it merely gives the age IF they are still alive. LAS has merely a page creation date, it does not even have the date that the person was added to the "verified" list (at least the GRG has this). And, as with the GRG, there is no indication as to when the person was last confirmed to be alive (moving them to "limbo" is just lazy). These are quite obvious, and serious, failings of these lists if they are going to be used in Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Every one of those "failures" of the LAS living list (save for only having a page creation date) is, as you mentioned, also an issue with the GRG list. Yet, we continue to accept the GRG WSRL as a reliable source despite these issues.

To your point about no date last confirmed alive on both lists: When a supercentenarian is "validated" by the GRG, the status quo is to remove all citations to reports of that person from reliable press coverage and replace it with the WSRL as the sole citation. So, while in any other instance we implement the one-year reliable press coverage rule to maintain an "unvalidated" supercentenarian on our lists, this seems to be irrelevant once that person is validated. Otherwise, we'd have removed GRG-validated supercentenarians who've gone more than a year without reliable press coverage, such as Hazel Plummer. But we don't do that. What makes the LAS different?

Moreover, the LAS actually does list when their supercentenarians are validated (both living and deceased), albeit on a different page; see here. All of these factors considered, while both lists certainly aren't "perfect," I really don't see how the LAS "fails" so much more than the GRG list to the point that no individuals on their lists can be included. Softmist (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

The 125-year-old yogi winning hearts: Who is Swami Sivananda, the oldest man ever to receive a Padma Shri? Born in 1896, the monk has dedicated his life to serving those affected by leprosy. He follows a simple belief: 'The world is my home, its people are my fathers and mothers, to love and serve them is my religion' Joseph P Wright (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Tao Ruisheng

On Shanghai's centenarian report, he was on the 2021 list but not this year's list. Should he be removed for limbo? Avengingbandit 17:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

So who decides what is credible evidence and what isn't? There seems to be some very arbitrary removals of several names lately. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ruisheng's removal is not "arbitrary." The source Avengingbandit provided is an official report out of Shanghai. A secondary report of last year's data was used as a reliable source for Ruisheng's inclusion in the list before he went into limbo, so I'd say the newer source is reliable as well. While it is true that we cannot say with 100% certainty that Ruisheng is deceased, it is unlikely he is still alive since he isn't in this year's report.

In any case, there has been no reliable source confirming he is alive in over a year. And even if he is deceased, we do not have a reliable source citing his exact date of death. The standard practice for supercentenarians in those cases is that they are removed. And if we want to be really technical, Ruisheng should have never been included, because the source we used for him before his removal does not verify his full date of birth. Softmist (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"The standard practice for supercentenarians in those cases is that they are removed." Since when? That was not included (or even discussed) when the criteria for entries in the oldest men list was changed from GRG verified to any reliable source. I know of no consensus to remove someone form the list solely because there is no evidence they are still alive, hence this. On a side note, the whole issue of "limbo" as used by the GRG is (scientifically) a very poor procedure which doesn't translate wll to encyclopedic usage. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It's been the consensus for years and years on List of the oldest living people, and should be the consensus on other related pages. This whole "it was established for this page but not that" argument is ridiculous, and to have the criteria of one list contradict another's would be neither consistent nor encyclopedic. Your continued push for the floruit proposal is also irrelevant here, as Ruisheng's age as of his last report is too young to qualify for inclusion in the top 100 oldest men list. Softmist (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. The fact that there is a consensus for the living supercentarians article that they are reported alive in the last year has no bearing on whether they become ineligible for the oldest ever list if they have a report that they are old enough to be on it. AND it is NOT ridiculous that the criteria for an article on living people is NOT applied to an article that is not about living people. If the last confirmed report for Tao is too young for inclusion then I have no problem in leaving him out (it's just another example of the inadequacies of the supposedly reliable sources beong used as a basis for inclusion). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Having a report that someone is old enough to be on the list is one thing. Being able to verify the full extent of their lifespan, which is only possible if an exact death date can be cited, is another. It's curious that you're so persistent about this now considering you had nothing to say about it when @TFBCT1 removed limbo cases Haruno Yamashita and Osugi Sogo from the top 100 oldest people list or when I removed Anonymous of Hyōgo from the list a few months ago. Those examples show that while this practice may not have achieved official "consensus," it is indeed standard practice and dates back to at least 2019.

TFBCT1 said it well in his edit summary for removing Haruno Yamashita: Removing Haruno Yamashita from list as she is now in GRG limbo meaning she is no longer validated as "living," nor can a death date be established. Your proposal would rank limbo supercentenarians according to the date a reliable source last confirmed their vital status. This is NOT the same as a death date. Therefore, we can NOT possibly know how old these supercentenarians were when they died, nor can we know WHERE they should be ranked in the table. Moreover, the publication date of the last reliable source for a limbo supercentenarian may not even be the date they were last confirmed alive; sometimes it is a private communication (good luck finding a reliable source for that). If you admit that some reliable sources have "inadequacies" as a basis for inclusion in these lists, then please don't introduce more inadequacies by insisting that we rank incomplete cases for whom reliably sourced death dates do not even exist. Softmist (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm just wondering who decided DerbyCounty is the arbitrary decider on what's a verification? Did you start this Wiki page? Just curious on how some people gained control of what's posted here. Not trying to be argumentative here. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. He should receive the Seliman Bandang treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldCheddar30 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Update times

I'm wondering who decides when to do the daily update on the living people? Most days it's done by 8 PM Eastern Time (US) but some days it's not done until much later, sometimes even the next day. Just curious why it varies so much, no matter who is doing the updates. Thank you. GS. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It can be done any time after the UTC changes to the next day. If there is no editor online at that time to do the the update then it will be a bit late, it's no big deal. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

New oldest mam for India

Name : swami sivanand Country:india Date of birth: 8 : 8 : 1896 Age:127 Realsohan (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

He is still alive Realsohan (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

As per multiple threads previously for this page, including this one, and elsewhere, he does not qualify for inclusion, and never will. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Sivananda (yoga teacher), who is listed under Longevity claims. There is no evidence at this time that his age is verified as no documents that prove a 1896 birth year have been given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary Bidwell

Mary Bidwell is absent on https://grg.org/WSRL/TableE.aspx. Is she verified by GRG? A.sav (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Softmist (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How it can be approved for now? Lucy Hannah also is on that page, but her verification was removed in 2020. A.sav (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

GRG also has since removed the verfication of Sarah Knauss as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@A.sav I've just added a newer GRG source for Mary Bidwell to the table, dated 2019 instead of 2015, to show she is validated. Interestingly, the photo gallery source lists her birthdate as May 9th instead of 19th, which corresponds with the death report for Bidwell that was already in the table, so I've updated her ranking to reflect that. @Knowledgekid87 As for Sarah Knauss, she is also on the photo gallery for her birth year, which is also dated 2019. Do you have a source for the GRG removing her verification? Softmist (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Softmist: Yeah, the current list [8]. She isn't under "Validated Deceased Supercentenarians" which has dates of death ranging from 1952 to the present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87 The fact that any supercentenarian is absent from the WSRL is not any indication that the GRG has retracted their validation of that case. We would need a source explicitly declaring Knauss's case invalidated in order to make that conclusion, along the lines of how Lucy Hannah's case was invalidated here. Softmist (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wenceslao Leyva Gonzalez

He is considered validated by LAS. Can he be added? Avengingbandit 18:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Avengingbandit I don't see why not. I've added him to the list, as well as Domingo Villa Avisencio, who's ranked right below him on the LAS list. Softmist (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Andrelino Viera da Silva

There's an Brazilian born on 03 February 1901 that is still alive. As of now, he's 122 years old, and he's quite notable on Brazilian newspapers, with some joke homages made about him being the "terror" for the Social Security. Here's one reference among several that can be found: [9]. Can he be added?

--Danlessa (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No. He is older than the verified oldest person and therefore belongs in longevity claims where he is already listed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Julian vs. Gregorian?

Hey, I was just curious if any destination is made to accurately calculate the ages of those who live in countries that had not yet switched from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar when they were born? This difference could make them appear to be 12 or 13 days older depending if they were born before or after the end of February 1900, as the Julian Calendar was still in civil use (like printing dates in newspapers, legal documents, exc) in a number of countries in the Eastern Orthadox until the early 20ᵗʰ (see List of adoption dates of the Gregorian calendar by country)

I was just curious if this issue was something that is already addresses, as I didn't see any notes at the bottom indicating that the person was born in a country that later switched calenders for offical civil use. aharris206 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC) Aharris206 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The use of, or calculation from, the Gregorian calendar is discussed in archives 3,4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 (which I haven't read, just did a search for). There may be something relevant to your question. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The Aged in Africa

I have seen the list of the oldest people in the world and I can't find one from Africa. For instance in Kenya, where i come from, i know many people who are 100+. In Nigeria, people live up to 120+ and it's a norm. A study should be conducted to verify and update the current statistics. 105.162.29.169 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Beard

OK, so how does someone get "unverified"? Seems odd that GRG would take back a verification. What"s the story? Fraud, poor records, confused identity? GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

https://longeviquest.com/2023/03/mathew-beard-status-reclassification/ 2A00:1110:212:E149:0:3:EBED:F901 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Nabi Tajima disputed?

If Nabi Tajima is proven to be 116 years and 260 days when she died, should we include the person who died just a couple of weeks short of 117 (Francisca Celsa dos Santos) in the top 10?

Not only Nabi Tajima would lose the oldest validated person to die the closest to their next birthday, she would also lose the title as the world's validated oldest living person, oldest Japanese person ever, and the last validated person to have been born in the 19th century.

Chiyo Miyako would have been the world's validated oldest living person for almost a year after the death of Violet Brown. 2603:6011:E00:4C41:0:0:0:1012 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless there is some suggestion in a reliable source that her age is disputed this is idle speculation which has no place on this talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

On GRG's Table C (world's oldest person titleholders since 1955), Nabi Tajima's name is italicized. According to legends on other GRG tables (such as this one), this means her case is verified with a lesser degree of confidence. (Mathew Beard is also italicized on Table C, whose case is, as we know, disputed and now debunked.) However, there's no footnote on Table C suggesting Tajima was a year younger, so the mere fact that her name is italicized is not enough for us to make significant changes. Just thought I would add my two cents to support the IP's statement. Softmist (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The oldest man in Kenya.

Julius Wanyondu Gatonga, a 136-year.Wanyondu's National ID indicates that he was born in 1884 with the month and exact day not indicated due to lack of proper documentation during the time.[10]https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/56836-nyeris-136-year-old-man-shares-secret-long-life-video?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=DK&utm_campaign=Promotion 178.153.140.147 (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:Oldest people, too old for this article and too old for Longevity claims, try Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding Swamy Sivanandha

The oldest living person in India is Sivanandha, who's over 126 yrs old, born in 1896. 144.48.225.85 (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(For the umpteenth time) As mentioned previously on this talk page and others, he is in Longevity claims where he belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Outdated information

world's oldest living person is Shri swami shivananda in India lives in Varanasi district of Uttar Pradesh state. He is 126 years old and recently received Padma Shri award. 2402:3A80:6ED:8487:0:E:1DE5:B401 (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

See above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

Dear Wikipedia editor,

I am writing to request a correction to an article that was recently published on your website. The article in question, titled [List of the verified oldest people], incorrectly lists the oldest living human as [Maria Branyas]. However, I have found evidence that suggests the oldest living man/human is actually a Tunisian man named Houssin Misseoui (حسين ميساوي).

The evidence I found comes from reputable sources, such as MosaiqueFM, the biggest radio station in Tunisia. They published an article celebrating Mr. Misseoui's 119th birthday, which would make him the oldest living man/human. In addition, the verified Facebook account of Al Jazeera Tunisia has also stated that Mr. Misseoui was born in 1904.

I kindly request that you update the article with the correct information. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

here's the links: -https://www.mosaiquefm.net/ar/%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%83-%D8%A2%D9%81-%D8%A2%D9%85-%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86%D8%B3-%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85/1161902/%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%81%D9%84-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%80-119-%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%85-%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A -https://www.facebook.com/AJA.Tunisia/posts/1152757341828956/?locale2=sw_KE&paipv=0&eav=AfYVD8yWEWNPuiGDhnNX2B9B-tUZbq-ciEmQB1S5bKNael8Ba-03E-3p4i73lB_OuRQ&_rdr

Sincerely, Rayen Omri R.O.H.N.B (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Does not qualify for inclusion in this article, belongs in Longevity claims with other unverified claims of this age. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Statistics para on 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120

Hello @DerbyCountyinNZ, Is there any possibility to include the paragraph since it was manually calculated using the very two tables in the page (and since it's correct as well)? If we are doubting it, then how can we trust the details of on the two tables? Thanks for your support. Nir007H (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No. This is the sort of longevity fanfluff that was removed many years ago for failing WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and/or WP:RS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Male SCs

On both LongeviQuest and LAS, Tomás Pinales Figuereo and Horacio Celi Mendoza are both listed as pending validations like Efrain Garcia is. Also on LongeviQuest, Gustav Gerneth is not listed. Is this enough to make changes? Avengingbandit 01:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

How about Amantina dos Santos Duvirgem from Brazil she turned 123 yesterday April 17, 2023! 2603:8000:BE02:DAB5:702D:6E8D:674:CE0 (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, it seems Mathew Beard was debunked. Avengingbandit 07:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I support listing Tomás Pinales Figuereo and Horacio Celi Mendoza on the list. While their claims are still pending like Efraín Antonio Ríos García's is, this suggests that their cases are at least partially documented, which is more than we can say for some entries on the list (e.g., Gustav Gerneth). I think LAS has shown to be a reliable source as far as supercentenarian-validating authorities go, especially since they independently validated Juan Vicente Pérez Mora's case over a year before he was recognized as the world's oldest living man by Guinness World Records.

I know I defended Gerneth's inclusion in the list a while ago, but if we're removing Mathew Beard's case, whose "de-validation" by LongeviQuest seems to be reliable, it doesn't really make sense to leave Gerneth in the list anymore either. After all, we are talking about the top ten oldest men ever here. And considering that women live longer than men, and that 114 for a man is roughly equivalent to 117 for a woman, Gerneth's case is somewhat of a longevity claim in its own right. (Would we list an undocumented 117-year-old on the women's list? I think not.) I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. Softmist (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I support adding Tomas and Horacio and removing Mathew and Gustav, especially Mathew. From reading some of the longevity forums, there had allegedly been strong doubts about Mathew's claim for many years. In the case of Gustav, he is listed as unvalidated because he is missing early-life proof of birth/age. Tomas and Horacio both have documentation throughout their lifespan, so they have stronger cases for being on the list than the former two. Avengingbandit 20:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on a forum is insufficient grounds for removal. What is needed is either the validating source used recanting its validation (for Beard) or an equally reliable source(s) disclaiming the case (for Gerneth). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

On LAS and LongeviQuest, Tomas and Horacio are pending validations. LongeviQuest has already announced devalidation of Mathew Beard, so if Mathew Beard is on there, so should the two LAS cases. Avengingbandit 21:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ, please note that even the GRG itself has labeled Beard's case as "disputed" as far back as 2012 (see first footnote at the bottom of the page). This indication of doubt by the "validating source," as well as LongeviQuest debunking the case, combined with the fact that the GRG accepted Beard's case in 2003 and LongeviQuest's report is a far more recent source (see WP:AGE MATTERS) should be more than enough reason to remove him from the list. Softmist (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Gerneth shouldn't have gone onto the list in the first place, Beard's claim is about as believable as Shigechiyo Izumi, and then we have the new supercentenarians. As far as I can tell, LongeviQuest still lists Figuereo and Mendoza as pending. I'm not in the belief that we should add people to the list (over 113) who haven't been fully validated by one of these groups. Maybe until then we can bring back the un-numbered rankings for them. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chicdat Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I would be OK with removing the Latin cases only if we remove Gerneth as well; all three are not fully validated by an organization specializing in age verification (not to mention each claim would have been a world's oldest man titleholder yet none were recognized by Guinness World Records). The fact that the Latin cases are pending, however, shows that their claims are supported by real-life documentation, which gives them more legitimacy than Gerneth, as @Avengingbandit said. The other thing about the 113+ age cutoff is, we would have to remove Efraín Antonio Ríos García from the list in a few weeks when he turns 113, since he is also "only" pending by LongeviQuest. But then we would have only four living individuals represented. I'm not sure how I feel about removing living cases entirely once they reach a certain age if they have not died or gone into limbo—especially if they have at least some documentation to back up their claims. Softmist (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Why 113+? I believe one of the GRG consultants/former LQ researchers has said that 115+ is the cutoff age between what's considered a case that is simply unvalidated and a longevity claim. I forget their reasoning, so I can ask them and relay the reasoning if desired, but they seem very credible.

That said, no matter what, if either Gerneth or Beard are on there, so should the Latin American cases, and if the Latin American cases are taken off, so should both Beard and Gerneth. Avengingbandit 21:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Avengingbandit, @Chicdat, and @DerbyCountyinNZ: Recently, @OrchestralHuman edited Oldest people so that the top 10 oldest men ever list and the list of oldest living man titleholders only reflect completely validated cases or cases confirmed by GWR (see here and here, for example). Thus, Gustav Gerneth, Tomás Pinales Figuereo, and Horacio Celi Mendoza were removed. I'm pinging them here a) so that they have an opportunity to read this discussion and share their input and b) because I'm curious to know if we should do the same thing for this article's oldest men list.

After all, this article is the list of verified oldest people, and with LongeviQuest verifying cases at a rate much quicker than the GRG's (at least pre-2023), I'm not sure that we will have to include male supercentenarians whose ages are only supported by media reports anymore. Indeed, 9/10 of the top 10 oldest living men list are validated by LongeviQuest alone, which was unheard of for a number of years, when the only verified living man was the oldest (checked by GWR). I believe we can return to the time when all 100 cases on the list were backed by organizations specializing in age verification (wasn't this the original intention of the article?). This would mean removing the aforementioned big three as well as other cases, like Yang Longsheng, Qin Hanzhang, Shivakumara Swami, etc. It would also mean we're returning to a time such that the women's list has the exact same criteria for inclusion (a scientifically verified case) as the men's list. What do you all think? Softmist (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no issues with it since it would make knowing what men to put and rank on the list trivial as we can leave the discussion to the researchers. Avengingbandit 04:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This would require a consensus to amend/update this RfC. Those that contributed to that discussion should be invited to comment on any new proposal for inclusion criteria (preferably in a new thread). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Names that were removed

I see a bunch of names have been removed, particularly on the mens side. So how can they be listed as "verified" in the past and now suddenly they are "unverified"? This whole process is so arbitrary. Seems things can change depending on which way the wind blows and who's in charge. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Male_SCs above. Note that despite my last comment in that thread, there was no attempt to discuss this with the wider Wiki community (including those involved in the Rfc). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@GermanShepherd1983 The cases that were removed were never "verified" by an organization specializing in extreme age verification, such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records. Years ago, it was decided to move from this criteria for inclusion to one where a "verified" supercentenarian means "reported as such in a reliable source." For the purposes of Wikipedia, a reliable source can be a media report. However, media outlets (unless you include GWR as one) do not specialize in age verification. While it is perhaps acceptable to use this criteria on other pages that do not purport to be a list of verified oldest people, it is my belief that this page should have higher standards—and in fact, for many years, it used to.

Some felt that the article relied too heavily on GRG data and acted as a web host for them; this was because, at the time, this organization was essentially the only one of its kind. Now, that is not the case. LongeviQuest validates living cases from the age of 110, unlike the GRG. This means we once again have scientifically verified living male supercentenarians who can enter the top 100 list, rather than having to use media reports to support cases that may or may not turn out to be true because they have not been verified yet. It also means that the GRG is no longer the sole arbitrator on what is "verified"—indeed, earlier this year, one of their cases that stood for decades was debunked by LongeviQuest.

As for discussing with the wider Wiki community, @DerbyCountyinNZ, nothing is stopping you from opening that thread if you feel so inclined. Softmist (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is Mary Walker not part of this list?

Mary Hardway Walker died at the age of 121 years and learned how to read at 114. Why is she not in this list? 94.227.135.252 (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Because this list is for people whose age has been verified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That means you need to provide verification from a reliable source! Peaceray (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Check out this source: https://noogatoday.6amcity.com/life-mary-walker-nation-oldest-student-chattanooga-tn 2001:8003:900C:5301:7423:197E:CC67:198A (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Mary Walker's case has not been verified by an appropriate organization, so she does not meet the inclusion criteria for this list. Softmist (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Li Chengyu

Why is this Taoist aunt not included in the list?

Link: https://min.news/en/culture/24956c3c046ee87077b0f10798f1639e.html 2001:8003:900C:5301:7423:197E:CC67:198A (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Her age claim has not been verified. The lists on this page are for verified cases only. Softmist (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

100 verified oldest man

There is not in the article of Lawrence Nathanial Brooks reference [[11]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.3.236 (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

His age claim has not (yet) been verified by an appropriate organization. See above. Softmist (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

He has now been validated by LongeviQuest, so I've added him back to the list. Softmist (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Antisa Khvichava

Georgian woman Antisa Khvichava was born in 1880 and lived for 132 years. She is the oldest human being in the world. Why is she not included in this list? She was born in july 8, 1880 and died september 30, 2012. You can find information about her in the web Samushia (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

She is listed in Longevity myths where unverified and unrealistic claims are listed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Why the oldest french men have been removed ?

I noticed that both Marcel Meys and Jules Theobald, the two oldest french men who passed away recently were removed from the top 100. This is purely incomprehensible, they were « only 112 and few days and people born in France in 1909 have reliable act of birth… How can it be possible ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8440:714A:F296:C5DF:C00D:257F:B8D1 (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Their ages have not been verified by an appropriate organization. Milus331 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Antonio Urrea-Hernandez

I just noticed he is missing from the list despite being validated by the GRG. Can he be added? Avengingbandit 04:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2023

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/amp/news/kerala/malappuram-s-kunjeerumma-at-120-is-the-oldest-person-in-the-world-five-generations-of-descendants-1.8867152

Add this person, Kunjeerumma (120),oldest women and human living in earth 27.62.29.196 (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Does not qualify for inclusion, age is not verified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

Change the name of number 34 Edie Ceccarelli to Edith Ceccarelli. That is how it is in the cited source. Maybe Edie is a nickname but the Legal name should be used. 50.217.193.131 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Change name to match the source. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2023

Change the top 1 and 2 number of Oldest woman to these two woman: 1) Johanna Ramatsi, birth: 1883/01/01 is 130 years old. 2) Johanna Mazibuko, birth 1894/05/11 is 128 years old.

References:

1.1) https://www.2oceansvibe.com/2013/10/01/the-oldest-person-in-south-africa-is-130-this-is-her-diet-pic/#:~:text=Johanna%20Ramatse%2C%20who%20turned%20130,oldest%20person%20in%20the%20country.

1.2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Io0hFNkR0

2.1) Johanna Mazibuko, died at her home home in Jouberton, North West Province, on March 3 and would have been 129 in May, according to reports.(https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/worlds-oldest-person-dies-south-africa-johanna-mazibuko-b1065603.html)

2.2) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11834035/Worlds-oldest-woman-dies-aged-128-South-African-great-grandmother-passes-away-stroke.html

2.3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDA5Oqkgm_s Evandj (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done YouTube and the Daily Mail are not acceptable sources(see WP:DAILYMAIL). The other sources' claims don't seem well established(one says "people close to her claim", meaning the proof has not been seen by independent sources) 331dot (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

André Ludwig should be added to be tied for 100th place in the 100 oldest verified men list, he was born June 6th, 1912, meaning that today (October 18th) he is 111 years and 135 days old. In France (his country of residence) he is actually 111 and 136 years old, since it is October 19th there, meaning he would simply replace the person currently in 100th place. He is verified on Longeviquest, here is the link to his page there: https://longeviquest.com/supercentenarians/andre-ludwig/ His credentials from there are: "His age was verified by Cyril Depoudent of the Les Grands Centenaires Français, and validated by the ESO on 19 June 2022."

Thanks! Someonewholikesthelists (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Softmist (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Oldest living human on earth now is 127-year-old Swami Sivananda from India

Please update your article. It does not show accurate information.

For your information, Swami Sivananda, born in 1896 and known as World’s oldest man, . He has dedicated his life of 127 years to the welfare of humanity and last year, was honoured by Government of India with the Padma Shri Award.

Born on August 8, 1896 in Sylhet district (now in Bangladesh), Sivananda Baba’s parents were beggars who passed away when he was just six years old. After their funeral rites, he was brought to his Guruji’s Ashram at Nabadwip in West Bengal. Guru Omkarananda Goswami raised him by teaching practical living through spiritual principles and yogic practices.

• www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/swami-sivananda-oldest-man-ever-says-no-sex-no-spice-daily-yoga-key-to-age/story-TfNv8QsC670tfP7lTIfSWP.html
• www.csp.indica.in/swami-sivananda-at-123the-happiest-man-by-bharatbala/

Sabby.bangkok (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please note that each list is prefaced by The list includes supercentenarians validated by organisations specialising in extreme age verification such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG). To be on list, the individual must be certified by an authority on supercentinarians. News sources are simiply not enough. Peaceray (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Kindly do deep research on information shared on comment. Ignorance is not bliss . In one of the link i shared his shares his passport number J0997766 is a verifiable copy issued by Government of India which mentions his date of birth. August 8, 1896.

GOvernment of india acknowledged him as oldest man and awarded. i shared the link

What other age old people have shared beside verification of age. ?

Btw , here is his wikipidia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivananda_(yoga_teacher) Sabby.bangkok (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You mentioned about Gerontology Research Group (GRG) , does all of oldest person on earth on your page are certified by GRC ? , If not, this does not make sense or you cannot be selective in choosing facts. Sabby.bangkok (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't put him on the list unless his birth certificate is validated. He is on the list of Longevity claims along wit hall of the other claims to longevity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems you have not bothered to see the links i shared. His passport number J0997766 is a verifiable copy issued by Government of India which mentions his date of birth. August 8, 1896.

GOvernment of india acknowledged him as oldest man and awarded. i shared the link

What other age old people have shared beside verification of age. ?

Btw , here is his wikipidia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivananda_(yoga_teacher) Sabby.bangkok (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

He was "born in extreme poverty" and his father mother and sister died when he was 6. There is absolutely 0 chance he ever had any documents from his early life which could be used to establish his age. Any later document is based purely on his word, which is entirely unverifiable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with your logic. Need to get tested by Gerontology Research Group and other verifiable agencies. Sabby.bangkok (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bolden age

The list's entry for Elizabeth_Bolden is inconsistent with our article about her, which gives an age of one day less (due to a different birth date). While we're at it, the caption for the image used in her article, File:Elizabeth Bolden at 114.jpg, is also inconsistent with its source,[12] which states that her son was 74 at the time (not 73). Renerpho (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The dates and numbers given in that article seem to be a complete mess. Renerpho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking again at the article history, it seems that the strange numbers were all introduced by a series of about 20 edits by an IP on November 2/3. I can't decide which of those edits were reasonable, and which might have introduced errors. Could someone have a look please? Renerpho (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Corrected her age in her article to the GRG source matching that used in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

I suggest adding Ping Shi (施平) as the third oldest living man on the table of oldest living men. He was born on Nov 1st, 1911 in China. His wiki link is. A recent picture of him is in this link: https://www.ecnu.edu.cn/info/1094/59541.htm

Thank you very much! Wiki Minghao (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The first of several problems with this is that the link given is not "recent" enough as it is from before his 110th birthday. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Supercentenarian claims must be approved by an organization specializing in age verification in order to be included. Softmist (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Updates

Why was nothing listed in the update history that Efrain Garcia died on Jan 11? I see Andre Ludwig was listed. I check the history to see what changes are made rather than scrolling through 200 mens and womens names to see/remember who's missing. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If you click on the Death date column twice, it will sort the list to show at the top any names of still living people highlighted in green.

StuZealand (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)