![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hello everyone,
why is the anonymous supercentenarian from Japan mentionend in the table, also in the table of 100 oldest persons ever and Supercentenarians from Japan? On the source which is mentioned in this case there is no anonymous supercentenarian... Please check and remove, thanks. -- 31.18.248.6 ( talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above IP editors. "Verified" and "Anonymous" are mutually exclusive conditions. Either the anonymous "verified" entry should be moved to the list of unverified claims, or (my preference) claimed anonymous entries should be removed entirely. Unless there's a clear objection I will likely do the latter soon. 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, what is the name of this Anonymous's woman, and Hikari Takaoka, born September, 6 1903, she is died, she is not died, why is not in this list ? -- 86.204.216.118 ( talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here, I have been removing the "pending verification" mention and designation from this article along with a rewrite to stop treating Wikipedia as an extension of the GRG. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ricky, I am afriad, that you misinterpret the title of the topic, you created. The title is "Removal of unverified claims". Well, all the supercentenarians, that appear in the GRG table EE, have been validated as pending. That means, that their documentation has been reviewed. Firstly by a person responsible for validation and secondly by the GRG headship. The Gerontology Research Group is considered by world's press and scientific circles as recognized authority in respect of extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study. On the other hand, if we are going to remove "pending" cases because they are "technically" unverified, then why list "any" unverified cases? Because of the fact, that the Gerontology Research Group, considered as whole (and not just parts of it) is the recognized authority on supercentenarians, all its tables and its content is considered as reliable with no exceptions. Waenceslaus ( talk) 08:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Today the number of entries in the list was limited to 50. Is there any reason for this? Shouldn't it contain all verified living supercentenarians for which confirmation is available? I can't see the reason behind this choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.60.224 ( talk) 08:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
admin @ MusikAnimal: reverted it and protected the page. We need to include everyone over age 110. We have a few hundred people there.
I believe the listing for "other" should be removed. If someone out of the blue claims in a newspaper to be 110 years old does not make it real. At least the "pending list" in most cases has a newspaper report and has at least one document verified by the GRG. Also dump the anonymous listing for alleged #4 oldest person and alleged #20 oldest person. If the GRG believes that the source used as N.A. for verification is good enough for Wikipedia they are completely wrong . Hiding the identity and hiding the source of verification so nobody can check the GRG data makes it unverifiable and in violation of Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.149.134 ( talk) 21:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Is the current title grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "List of the oldest living people" at the very least? What about "List of the world's oldest living people" (it sounds better to me). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The list as it stands has no lower or maximum number limit. Obviously there should be either a minimum age or a number, i.e. Top xxx, the most obvious being a top 100. That should be relatively easy to fill out as, if there is no distinction between the GRG and any other source, then those from longevity claims should be included, and, if necessary, any living cases from List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 as well. And, sticking strictly with Wiki policy (AFAIK) any such cases should remain on the list until there is a report that the person has died, which means there are quite a few cases removed from these articles because they exceeded the upper limit which could also be included as it could be assumed they are still living. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It's called Table EE versus Table E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 ( talk) 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to request the removal of the entire "Unverified living supercentenarians" section (and its subsection) from this version. This would be in line with this discussion noting that the RSN discussion agrees that the GRG "pending" and unverified listings aren't reliable sources and shouldn't be included. We can discuss whether to include anything from below after that. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just looked at the most recent version of this article and noticed that unverified claimants are mixed in (and ranked) with the list of verified claimants. Sorry, but this needs to change. I don't care if the entries are sourced to a news report if their ages haven't been independently verified. The masterminds at work here have ingeniously decided that the GRG's pending table isn't reliable because "fact checking isn't complete". Oh, but Bob Smith who works for the Daily Post writes an article about some old woman who lives the mountains HAS done all the fact checking has he? No, of course not. We cannot allow cases verified by a scientific organisation to be put on level terms with claimants who have no original proof of birth. It's unscientific and misleading to the general public. Ollie231213 ( talk) 14:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to get on the GRG bandwagon. They are extremely slow to "validate" cases, and having 3 separate lists is stupid. However, there is a DIFFERENCE between a proven age, vs. somebody claiming to be old, which often turns out not to be the case. The Guinness Book for example, looks for proof, and that is widely accepted as the world record holder. Whoever altered this page to the current slop of useless, inaccurate information, in my opinion, should be banned from Wikipedia edits. Flippantly changing content to FROM something that was credible, to nonsense, is no different from vandalism, even if the person doing the editing did so out of ignorance. If you don't know what you are doing, then you have no business making an edit. Wikipedia should not tolerate unqualified persons who decide to make themselves authorities on a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.201.223 ( talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Lol, you losers lost. The admin reverted and protected our version. No one cares what "Wikipedia" thinks, it's just wrong. The GRG is the only reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.167 ( talk) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me explain in detail. The RSN discussion stated that the verified claims by the GRG are considered reliable sources. The pending and unverified cases are not on the other hand and thus on their own should not be included. At the same time, other reliable sources can be considered when deciding what should be listed here. As such, I presumed that when the editors who were adding names to this list and checking those names and that detail were only including names based on verified sources (and not, as I have suspected, just adding Methuselah-level nonsense). If in fact the GRG was including complete nonsense into their unverified and pending listings, then that supports ignoring their pending and unverified listings. As of now, we have a mix of GRG verified listings and other listings that are based on other sources (the alternative was to just take the verified listings from this version and then delete the rest and argue them back in). I'd prefer to let everything be listed for now and then remove the nonsensical ones. If those sources are not reliable sources, then we should start subheadings naming each one by one and then we can remove them quickly (this is stuff that the WOP project pages are ideally for so as to be consistent across the entire project). The point is that the GRG's verified listing aren't the sole determination of what is included here, people seem to agree that more than the verified listings should be included. The RSN discussion agreed that pending listing shouldn't be included so we need a determination of what else can be included. As to the 50 limit, there's another section for that and I will discuss it there. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
He is not dead, i don't uderstaind ! -- 109.221.248.154 ( talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
He is living
Table EE is reliable source, will into validated. There is need to Pending cases living supercentenarians in List of oldest living people.
It seems to be a need to Pending cases living supercentenarians in List of oldest living people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.193.195.138 ( talk) 05:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a list of oldest living people. Remove any listing that says anonymous or NA. For the listing of an oldest living person a real persons name must be listed. Whats next? Are we going to accept listings for people using fake names like Santa Claus or the Easter bunny if the GRG says so? The GRG group is not God and just because they say an unidentified person is real we should not take it on faith. The person alleged in the top 10 if she really exists is GRG anonymous and she cant be verified by anyone else. Unverifiable sources are directly against Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 ( talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
What is rubbish is a no name oldest living person. Your statement is rubbish because the GRG will not list a real persons name for the alleged oldest person #4. A complete violation of Wikipedia rules having an unverifiable no name as truth. I tried to contact the GRG and they refused to give the name of the alleged #4 oldest person. If they did I would verify her and post her real name on this site. We would have no Anonymous or N.A fake name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 ( talk) 23:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Just because Robert Young and his drones from the GRG says its true Wikipedia is about verification. GRG hidden data under anonymous cannot be verified independently and should be banned. The alleged no #4 oldest person hidden under the term anonymous is a joke. If it is allowed then anything that is not verified should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 ( talk) 15:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the above statement. The GRG is not the FBI and Robert Young is not J. Edgar Hoover. The GRG cannot claim National Interest to refuse to list the name of the alleged 4th oldest person. The site sourced for anonymous says N.A or Not Applicable. When did Wikipedia ever accept Not Applicable as a source? I agree the anonymous listing should be removed right away. Not applicable is not a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.146.69 ( talk) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this needs to be removed. Anonymous is not a persons name. N.A. is not a valid reference source.
In my opinion, the information provided by GRG should be accepted as any other original research which protects the privacy of individuals. No one would argue that research papers citing statistical results based on real patients should be verified by giving patient names to some Wikipedia vigilante. GRG is a conglomeration of medical practitioners, researchers and other people with the highest integrity. A subset of these people painstakingly verify and maintain the list of super centenarians. Those who are genuinely interested in super centenarian research should join the GRG and contribute something original. Then they would also be in a position to participate in the verification of claims. Manfred Bartz ( talk) 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There are six states (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina) in the U.S. which allow winners of the lottery to remain anonymous. Even though their names are not shown on any winnings postings, these people still have been verified as having won the lottery. -- I love old people ( talk) 14:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I really object to this change in the wording. By stating that only 50 are "reliable sourced" (without a citation) which is based entirely on the GRG table, you are in fact increasing the emphasis on the GRG, not reducing it. The point was that one source (the GRG) reliable sources 50 people which is their right and which is what is correct. Either the page should reflect the number of people in the table or it should reflect what sources say (and we have Young himself saying 600 exist). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This table array September 1 2015, but hé gavé à supercentenarians died ? -- 86.204.84.119 ( talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
So I'm a little late to the discussion, but I've just noticed that the WOP issue has flared up again. It might surprise a lot of people to learn that I actually preferred the old version of this page better because I feel that it was more representative of a NPOV... it listed all (reasonable) claims of being 110 regardless of country of origin but made clear distinctions between those that can be verified. I never minded the pending cases either, because they differentiated those "unverified" cases that are more likely to become verified from those that are just claims. I feel this page is now more of a copy of the GRG with all of its biases and limitations (I don't necessarily mean that as being negative or malicious - if they don't have correspondents in a certain language or the state of records in a particular nation is poor, then that's not necessarily their fault). Having said that, I'm not advocating changing it back (consensus has been reached on that matter), but for clarifying the introduction so that there is a clear criteria for introduction. Right now, the way it reads suggests a) that the GRG is the only organization that is qualified to verify a supercentenarian, which it is not (a while back, for example, Guinness World Records verified the age of Harry Patch before he turned 110 for other reasons, and I don't think that anyone had a problem with that source's reliability in these matters) and b) that everyone who is genuinely 110 or older is included (one possible interpretation of "Only supercentenarians, those who have attained the age of at least 110 years, are listed"), which is a claim that the GRG does not make.
Since changes on this page can be contentious, I thought I'd propose some new wording that makes things clearer... this is just an idea, so I'm completely open to suggestions and modifications, but I think that we should have some clarity regarding this issue: "The following is a list of the oldest known living people. Only supercentenarians, those who have attained the age of at least 110 years, who have been verified by an international body that engages in scientific verification of records (such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records), are listed." I could take or leave the final sentence about Jones; I can see how it is relevant to the list, of course, but I also don't think it adds much.
Ultimately, a much more detailed (but not based wholly on the GRG's definitions) description of longevity research and why this list doesn't include every news report about 110 year-old people would be beneficial, but for now a clear statement that establishes the foundations of how this list is constructed is necessary to avoid long debates about inclusion. What are people's thoughts? I think that this is one area were people on both "sides" of the aisle can come together to start building this into something mutually agreeable. Canadian Paul 17:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
(Repinging Ollie231213 as I screwed up the ping. Sorry about that. Ca2james ( talk) 01:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC) )
Hello
There in there any supercentenarians checked by example: last night
If so, could this be added. By cons, I will like you to redo the table "Supercentenarians pending cases" and "Supercentenarians other cases".
Or worse, you can make a new article: List of oldest no verified living people.
I don't not now if oui agree... But, you choose ! -- 86.204.84.119 ( talk) 20:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe the GRG pending list with two verified documents should be posted. These people are actually verified awaiting a third final document for total verification. Those people that have more than one document are legitimate. Before total removal the pending list allowed people on it with one or two documents. I agree that one document verification should not be allowed because one document could be a wrong date or a typo error. When you have two documents that are verified this is unlikely. I value opinions on this idea of adding back pending people with two legitimate documents of verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.146.57 ( talk) 21:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
IF two documents are verified by the GRG then the person is verified waiting for final approval. I believe the pending list should be returned for the people who have two documents verified. You are correct that one document could contain information that was incorrect. Two documents gives the information increased credibility that it is accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 ( talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Why was the pending list removed? It was useful.-- Old Time Music Fan ( talk) 22:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Kiyo Oshiro is listed on the linked GRG citation (number 4) as still being alive, but she was removed from the page apparently by an IP editor who cited some source I've never heard of claiming she had died on an unknown date. Should she be re-added to the list on the grounds that she is still listed as living by the GRG source used for literally every other name on the list? As it stands, this article has a list of 49 validated living supercentenarians and cites a source containing 50 living supercentenarians. I don't like the contradiction here. 74.129.182.181 ( talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The oldest living man is Jose' Uriel Delgado Corrales from Costa Rica. he is 115 years old.
http://www.nacion.com/vivir/educacion-familia/Jose-Uriel-Delgado-Corrales-hombre-longevo-mundo_0_1504249638.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.163.91 ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The sources attached seem to indicate that she hasn't been officially verified by a body that deals with longevity research. The line "The Office for the Aging and the Baptist Home, where Van Wagner resides, are working closely with the Gerontology Research Group to officially verify her age. Once she has successfully completed the process, Van Wagner will become one of the approximately 80 oldest officially verified supercentenarians in the world", makes it clear that verification of her age is still pending at best, since she isn't listed in GRG's Table E, and since I can't find any sources that say her age has been verified by anyone. Given that, I think her entry should be removed. Yiosie 2356 00:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, one of the issues with the entry on Vera Wagner in this article is the sourcing. I know that there are other issues (namely rankings and verification) but I'm thinking it would be good to deal with each one separately. Would anyone object if I took the sourcing question to WP:RSN to get input from the broader community? Based on the discussions at WT:WOP this will need to be done for many sources so I'm thinking that this one case makes a good starting point. Thoughts? Ca2james ( talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Newspapers are reliable, but there are other sources that are more reliable. So... here is my attempt to cut through the debate: If a newspaper has reported that someone is 110 years old, we can take that report as being reliable - unless a more reliable source has looked into the case and actually rejected the claim.
While I would consider GRG to be a more reliable source, the fact that GRG omits someone from their list does not constitute a "rejection" (they specifically caution that their list is incomplete)... so... to shift the classification of a news source from "we usually consider this reliable" to "however, we do not consider it reliable in this instance" we would need the GRG to say: we looked into this and, nope... the claim is not valid.
According to the conversations in 110 Club Argentina oldest verified woman Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero has passed away 1 September 2015 at the age of 112 years and 63 days. The information was sent by her grandson via email. But do we have to wait official announcement before this information can be confirmed? 62.72.228.251 ( talk) 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hello everyone,
why is the anonymous supercentenarian from Japan mentionend in the table, also in the table of 100 oldest persons ever and Supercentenarians from Japan? On the source which is mentioned in this case there is no anonymous supercentenarian... Please check and remove, thanks. -- 31.18.248.6 ( talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above IP editors. "Verified" and "Anonymous" are mutually exclusive conditions. Either the anonymous "verified" entry should be moved to the list of unverified claims, or (my preference) claimed anonymous entries should be removed entirely. Unless there's a clear objection I will likely do the latter soon. 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, what is the name of this Anonymous's woman, and Hikari Takaoka, born September, 6 1903, she is died, she is not died, why is not in this list ? -- 86.204.216.118 ( talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here, I have been removing the "pending verification" mention and designation from this article along with a rewrite to stop treating Wikipedia as an extension of the GRG. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ricky, I am afriad, that you misinterpret the title of the topic, you created. The title is "Removal of unverified claims". Well, all the supercentenarians, that appear in the GRG table EE, have been validated as pending. That means, that their documentation has been reviewed. Firstly by a person responsible for validation and secondly by the GRG headship. The Gerontology Research Group is considered by world's press and scientific circles as recognized authority in respect of extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study. On the other hand, if we are going to remove "pending" cases because they are "technically" unverified, then why list "any" unverified cases? Because of the fact, that the Gerontology Research Group, considered as whole (and not just parts of it) is the recognized authority on supercentenarians, all its tables and its content is considered as reliable with no exceptions. Waenceslaus ( talk) 08:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Today the number of entries in the list was limited to 50. Is there any reason for this? Shouldn't it contain all verified living supercentenarians for which confirmation is available? I can't see the reason behind this choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.60.224 ( talk) 08:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
admin @ MusikAnimal: reverted it and protected the page. We need to include everyone over age 110. We have a few hundred people there.
I believe the listing for "other" should be removed. If someone out of the blue claims in a newspaper to be 110 years old does not make it real. At least the "pending list" in most cases has a newspaper report and has at least one document verified by the GRG. Also dump the anonymous listing for alleged #4 oldest person and alleged #20 oldest person. If the GRG believes that the source used as N.A. for verification is good enough for Wikipedia they are completely wrong . Hiding the identity and hiding the source of verification so nobody can check the GRG data makes it unverifiable and in violation of Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.149.134 ( talk) 21:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Is the current title grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "List of the oldest living people" at the very least? What about "List of the world's oldest living people" (it sounds better to me). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The list as it stands has no lower or maximum number limit. Obviously there should be either a minimum age or a number, i.e. Top xxx, the most obvious being a top 100. That should be relatively easy to fill out as, if there is no distinction between the GRG and any other source, then those from longevity claims should be included, and, if necessary, any living cases from List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 as well. And, sticking strictly with Wiki policy (AFAIK) any such cases should remain on the list until there is a report that the person has died, which means there are quite a few cases removed from these articles because they exceeded the upper limit which could also be included as it could be assumed they are still living. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It's called Table EE versus Table E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 ( talk) 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to request the removal of the entire "Unverified living supercentenarians" section (and its subsection) from this version. This would be in line with this discussion noting that the RSN discussion agrees that the GRG "pending" and unverified listings aren't reliable sources and shouldn't be included. We can discuss whether to include anything from below after that. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just looked at the most recent version of this article and noticed that unverified claimants are mixed in (and ranked) with the list of verified claimants. Sorry, but this needs to change. I don't care if the entries are sourced to a news report if their ages haven't been independently verified. The masterminds at work here have ingeniously decided that the GRG's pending table isn't reliable because "fact checking isn't complete". Oh, but Bob Smith who works for the Daily Post writes an article about some old woman who lives the mountains HAS done all the fact checking has he? No, of course not. We cannot allow cases verified by a scientific organisation to be put on level terms with claimants who have no original proof of birth. It's unscientific and misleading to the general public. Ollie231213 ( talk) 14:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to get on the GRG bandwagon. They are extremely slow to "validate" cases, and having 3 separate lists is stupid. However, there is a DIFFERENCE between a proven age, vs. somebody claiming to be old, which often turns out not to be the case. The Guinness Book for example, looks for proof, and that is widely accepted as the world record holder. Whoever altered this page to the current slop of useless, inaccurate information, in my opinion, should be banned from Wikipedia edits. Flippantly changing content to FROM something that was credible, to nonsense, is no different from vandalism, even if the person doing the editing did so out of ignorance. If you don't know what you are doing, then you have no business making an edit. Wikipedia should not tolerate unqualified persons who decide to make themselves authorities on a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.201.223 ( talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Lol, you losers lost. The admin reverted and protected our version. No one cares what "Wikipedia" thinks, it's just wrong. The GRG is the only reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.167 ( talk) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me explain in detail. The RSN discussion stated that the verified claims by the GRG are considered reliable sources. The pending and unverified cases are not on the other hand and thus on their own should not be included. At the same time, other reliable sources can be considered when deciding what should be listed here. As such, I presumed that when the editors who were adding names to this list and checking those names and that detail were only including names based on verified sources (and not, as I have suspected, just adding Methuselah-level nonsense). If in fact the GRG was including complete nonsense into their unverified and pending listings, then that supports ignoring their pending and unverified listings. As of now, we have a mix of GRG verified listings and other listings that are based on other sources (the alternative was to just take the verified listings from this version and then delete the rest and argue them back in). I'd prefer to let everything be listed for now and then remove the nonsensical ones. If those sources are not reliable sources, then we should start subheadings naming each one by one and then we can remove them quickly (this is stuff that the WOP project pages are ideally for so as to be consistent across the entire project). The point is that the GRG's verified listing aren't the sole determination of what is included here, people seem to agree that more than the verified listings should be included. The RSN discussion agreed that pending listing shouldn't be included so we need a determination of what else can be included. As to the 50 limit, there's another section for that and I will discuss it there. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
He is not dead, i don't uderstaind ! -- 109.221.248.154 ( talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
He is living
Table EE is reliable source, will into validated. There is need to Pending cases living supercentenarians in List of oldest living people.
It seems to be a need to Pending cases living supercentenarians in List of oldest living people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.193.195.138 ( talk) 05:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a list of oldest living people. Remove any listing that says anonymous or NA. For the listing of an oldest living person a real persons name must be listed. Whats next? Are we going to accept listings for people using fake names like Santa Claus or the Easter bunny if the GRG says so? The GRG group is not God and just because they say an unidentified person is real we should not take it on faith. The person alleged in the top 10 if she really exists is GRG anonymous and she cant be verified by anyone else. Unverifiable sources are directly against Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 ( talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
What is rubbish is a no name oldest living person. Your statement is rubbish because the GRG will not list a real persons name for the alleged oldest person #4. A complete violation of Wikipedia rules having an unverifiable no name as truth. I tried to contact the GRG and they refused to give the name of the alleged #4 oldest person. If they did I would verify her and post her real name on this site. We would have no Anonymous or N.A fake name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 ( talk) 23:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Just because Robert Young and his drones from the GRG says its true Wikipedia is about verification. GRG hidden data under anonymous cannot be verified independently and should be banned. The alleged no #4 oldest person hidden under the term anonymous is a joke. If it is allowed then anything that is not verified should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 ( talk) 15:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the above statement. The GRG is not the FBI and Robert Young is not J. Edgar Hoover. The GRG cannot claim National Interest to refuse to list the name of the alleged 4th oldest person. The site sourced for anonymous says N.A or Not Applicable. When did Wikipedia ever accept Not Applicable as a source? I agree the anonymous listing should be removed right away. Not applicable is not a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.146.69 ( talk) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this needs to be removed. Anonymous is not a persons name. N.A. is not a valid reference source.
In my opinion, the information provided by GRG should be accepted as any other original research which protects the privacy of individuals. No one would argue that research papers citing statistical results based on real patients should be verified by giving patient names to some Wikipedia vigilante. GRG is a conglomeration of medical practitioners, researchers and other people with the highest integrity. A subset of these people painstakingly verify and maintain the list of super centenarians. Those who are genuinely interested in super centenarian research should join the GRG and contribute something original. Then they would also be in a position to participate in the verification of claims. Manfred Bartz ( talk) 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There are six states (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina) in the U.S. which allow winners of the lottery to remain anonymous. Even though their names are not shown on any winnings postings, these people still have been verified as having won the lottery. -- I love old people ( talk) 14:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I really object to this change in the wording. By stating that only 50 are "reliable sourced" (without a citation) which is based entirely on the GRG table, you are in fact increasing the emphasis on the GRG, not reducing it. The point was that one source (the GRG) reliable sources 50 people which is their right and which is what is correct. Either the page should reflect the number of people in the table or it should reflect what sources say (and we have Young himself saying 600 exist). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This table array September 1 2015, but hé gavé à supercentenarians died ? -- 86.204.84.119 ( talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
So I'm a little late to the discussion, but I've just noticed that the WOP issue has flared up again. It might surprise a lot of people to learn that I actually preferred the old version of this page better because I feel that it was more representative of a NPOV... it listed all (reasonable) claims of being 110 regardless of country of origin but made clear distinctions between those that can be verified. I never minded the pending cases either, because they differentiated those "unverified" cases that are more likely to become verified from those that are just claims. I feel this page is now more of a copy of the GRG with all of its biases and limitations (I don't necessarily mean that as being negative or malicious - if they don't have correspondents in a certain language or the state of records in a particular nation is poor, then that's not necessarily their fault). Having said that, I'm not advocating changing it back (consensus has been reached on that matter), but for clarifying the introduction so that there is a clear criteria for introduction. Right now, the way it reads suggests a) that the GRG is the only organization that is qualified to verify a supercentenarian, which it is not (a while back, for example, Guinness World Records verified the age of Harry Patch before he turned 110 for other reasons, and I don't think that anyone had a problem with that source's reliability in these matters) and b) that everyone who is genuinely 110 or older is included (one possible interpretation of "Only supercentenarians, those who have attained the age of at least 110 years, are listed"), which is a claim that the GRG does not make.
Since changes on this page can be contentious, I thought I'd propose some new wording that makes things clearer... this is just an idea, so I'm completely open to suggestions and modifications, but I think that we should have some clarity regarding this issue: "The following is a list of the oldest known living people. Only supercentenarians, those who have attained the age of at least 110 years, who have been verified by an international body that engages in scientific verification of records (such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records), are listed." I could take or leave the final sentence about Jones; I can see how it is relevant to the list, of course, but I also don't think it adds much.
Ultimately, a much more detailed (but not based wholly on the GRG's definitions) description of longevity research and why this list doesn't include every news report about 110 year-old people would be beneficial, but for now a clear statement that establishes the foundations of how this list is constructed is necessary to avoid long debates about inclusion. What are people's thoughts? I think that this is one area were people on both "sides" of the aisle can come together to start building this into something mutually agreeable. Canadian Paul 17:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
(Repinging Ollie231213 as I screwed up the ping. Sorry about that. Ca2james ( talk) 01:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC) )
Hello
There in there any supercentenarians checked by example: last night
If so, could this be added. By cons, I will like you to redo the table "Supercentenarians pending cases" and "Supercentenarians other cases".
Or worse, you can make a new article: List of oldest no verified living people.
I don't not now if oui agree... But, you choose ! -- 86.204.84.119 ( talk) 20:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe the GRG pending list with two verified documents should be posted. These people are actually verified awaiting a third final document for total verification. Those people that have more than one document are legitimate. Before total removal the pending list allowed people on it with one or two documents. I agree that one document verification should not be allowed because one document could be a wrong date or a typo error. When you have two documents that are verified this is unlikely. I value opinions on this idea of adding back pending people with two legitimate documents of verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.146.57 ( talk) 21:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
IF two documents are verified by the GRG then the person is verified waiting for final approval. I believe the pending list should be returned for the people who have two documents verified. You are correct that one document could contain information that was incorrect. Two documents gives the information increased credibility that it is accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 ( talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Why was the pending list removed? It was useful.-- Old Time Music Fan ( talk) 22:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Kiyo Oshiro is listed on the linked GRG citation (number 4) as still being alive, but she was removed from the page apparently by an IP editor who cited some source I've never heard of claiming she had died on an unknown date. Should she be re-added to the list on the grounds that she is still listed as living by the GRG source used for literally every other name on the list? As it stands, this article has a list of 49 validated living supercentenarians and cites a source containing 50 living supercentenarians. I don't like the contradiction here. 74.129.182.181 ( talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The oldest living man is Jose' Uriel Delgado Corrales from Costa Rica. he is 115 years old.
http://www.nacion.com/vivir/educacion-familia/Jose-Uriel-Delgado-Corrales-hombre-longevo-mundo_0_1504249638.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.163.91 ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The sources attached seem to indicate that she hasn't been officially verified by a body that deals with longevity research. The line "The Office for the Aging and the Baptist Home, where Van Wagner resides, are working closely with the Gerontology Research Group to officially verify her age. Once she has successfully completed the process, Van Wagner will become one of the approximately 80 oldest officially verified supercentenarians in the world", makes it clear that verification of her age is still pending at best, since she isn't listed in GRG's Table E, and since I can't find any sources that say her age has been verified by anyone. Given that, I think her entry should be removed. Yiosie 2356 00:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, one of the issues with the entry on Vera Wagner in this article is the sourcing. I know that there are other issues (namely rankings and verification) but I'm thinking it would be good to deal with each one separately. Would anyone object if I took the sourcing question to WP:RSN to get input from the broader community? Based on the discussions at WT:WOP this will need to be done for many sources so I'm thinking that this one case makes a good starting point. Thoughts? Ca2james ( talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Newspapers are reliable, but there are other sources that are more reliable. So... here is my attempt to cut through the debate: If a newspaper has reported that someone is 110 years old, we can take that report as being reliable - unless a more reliable source has looked into the case and actually rejected the claim.
While I would consider GRG to be a more reliable source, the fact that GRG omits someone from their list does not constitute a "rejection" (they specifically caution that their list is incomplete)... so... to shift the classification of a news source from "we usually consider this reliable" to "however, we do not consider it reliable in this instance" we would need the GRG to say: we looked into this and, nope... the claim is not valid.
According to the conversations in 110 Club Argentina oldest verified woman Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero has passed away 1 September 2015 at the age of 112 years and 63 days. The information was sent by her grandson via email. But do we have to wait official announcement before this information can be confirmed? 62.72.228.251 ( talk) 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)