Talk:List of oldest living people

Talk:List of oldest living people/Archives

Criteria for Inclusion

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)

Hi Canadian Paul - firstly, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one concerned about WP:NPOV issues here, nor am I the only one who feels it important to distinguish between validated and unvalidated claims. The irony is that those who were complaining about Wikipedia being a "copy of the GRG tables" have actually turned Wikipedia in to even more of a copy by removing unvalidated claims and only including verified cases sourced to the GRG's Table E (which is not necessarily a bad thing, though).

My bigger concern, as I have expressed here, is that some people want to treat news reports as if they are equally reliable as the GRG, GWR, etc. But it's quite clear from looking at examples such as Bernando LaPallo that newspapers only report the claim, but typically don't attempt to verify it. Therefore I believe it's very important that a distinction is made between validated and unvalidated cases in the best interest of the article's educational and encyclopaedic value.

My suggestion for this article is as follows:

1. Make two lists: one with people validated by any international verifying organization, and one with unvalidated people (but reported in other reliable sources).

2. Exclude any claim to 110+ whereby a reliable source suggests the age claimed is less than 110 (such as Bernando LaPallo).

3. Have an upper-limit cutoff of "114 years, 364 days", with claims to 115+ going to Longevity Claims.

Thoughts? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Paul and Ollie23121, the issue of validated vs unvalidated entries is being discussed on the WT:WOP project page here and I've put forth another proposal here. To avoid repetition and ensure everyone can be involved in this discussion, please can we keep that aspect of the discussion centralized at WT:WOP? Also, decisions on points 2 and 3 would be implemented at other articles (like List of Japanese supercentenarians), so could we please hold that discussion at WT:WOP as well? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well since this discussion got hijacked immediately, I'll assume that no one is opposed to the changes I proposed for the introduction, so I've gone ahead and made them. Ca2james, I never wanted to discuss the issue of validated vs. unvalidated entries (as I stated explicitly in my comment), I only used it to frame my explanation of why I believe changes to the introduction are imported. Canadian Paul 18:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you the verified/nob-verified issue is being discussed extensively so mentioning it is almost guaranteed to hijack the conversation. My apologies for not discussing your proposed introduction before now. I agree that the previous one had the issues you identified and I like the changes you made. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, the intro has been further changed from the version you propose above because table entries are not limited to only those verified by the GRG or similar agency. Therefore, I reverted your replacement of the intro you wrote (along with the IPs removal of the entry not verified by the GRG). Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

... so you see a disagreement among users acting reasonable and your solution is to revert the user and protect the page so that only administrators can edit it (yes, I know that doesn't affect me, but it does prevent anyone else who disagrees from editing the page)? Clearly given the volatile nature of this subject, one would think that the best option for any disagreement would be a discussion, as I have attempted here by starting this section, as a sign of good faith. I've been down this road before, many years ago, where longevity walled gardenders push otherwise good editors into acting just as inappropriately as they do (I am certainly not innocent of this), so perhaps a good move forward would be to get some third opinions/uninvolved editors to take a look at the current situation, give us all a breather, and see where agreements can be made. Canadian Paul 04:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Technically, protection was made here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, I'm not seeing a lot of the assumption of good faith in your interpretation of my actions. I do think that the best way forward is discussion, and I have been discussing changes on this and related pages. Also, the page protection affects me as well as the other editors of the page because I'm not an administrator. At the time I made the request for page protection, the Vera Wagner entry had been added and removed something like six times in the preceding 24 hours or so (along with changes to the lede) and I didn't see that as users acting reasonably. I thought requesting page protection was the best thing to do since I figured that even if I stopped editing the page itself, other editors would continue to add and remove the material. I thought page protection would stop the edit-warring and hopefully force us all to discuss instead of revert back and forth. If I was wrong in requesting page protection, then I was wrong, but to imply that I was deliberately being manipulative and underhanded is uncivil and counterproductive. Ca2james (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I can assume that an action is made in good faith and still point out that it was poorly thought out. I did not "imply that [you were] deliberately being manipulative and underhanded" (as you point out, you're not an administrator and thus it affects you too); if you interpreted any statement of mine that way, I apologize. I did point out that protecting the page "does prevent anyone else who disagrees from editing the page" and that is a fact. Consider the broader implications: there is a situation that is rapidly devolving into a battleground for a whole host of reasons and it is largely due to one party who is more than happy to use "the admins protected this page" as fuel for their own arguments and an excuse to be more obstinate. One of the purposes of discretionary sanctions, at least as I understand them, is to prevent having to protect pages to the admin level since individuals can be blocked after one revert. If a registered user is engaging in an edit war, they can be blocked. If IPs are the problem, regular protection will suffice. Is the convenience of an admin-only page worth the push away from a compromise? I don't think that the page protection mechanism was abused or wrongly implemented, I just think that one must consider the repercussions it might engender in terms of the dialogue we are attempting to create; there's a difference between "can" and "should". Both sides on this issue need to take a step back, stop worrying about what the other side is doing wrong, and start thinking how their own actions might be perceived and what can be done to remedy the situation for the benefit of the project. And if a third opinion or a fresh pair of eyes is required to accomplish that, then I encourage it strongly. If one side is so intransigent that progress cannot be made, they will be banned from the project; the community never fails to do that when it comes to it and thus the important part is not to drag oneself down with them (believe me, I'm quite familiar with this). The longevity-related pages have been incredibly problematic for almost a decade now; if they remain that way for a little while longer in the spirit of taking a patient approach, the world will keep spinning. Canadian Paul 17:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I thought page protection would be the way to go but I now understand that it wasn't the best choice and that my actions could be misinterpreted. It would have been better for me to step back, discuss, and wait to see what happened before making any request and that's what I'll do in the future. Thanks for your patience and the lesson.

I do have one question: if I had wanted to have discretionary sanctions applied, how would I do that? Would I file a request at AE or contact a random administrator or ...? Thank you for your help. Ca2james (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never done it, but I believe WP:AE is the way forward, so long as the user has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. Unless I'm missing something. Canadian Paul 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; that's what I thought. To clarify, I don't want to see any editor receive discretionary sanctions if there's a way to avoid it. I'd much rather see us all work together to get all these articles fixed up without having to invoke the sanctions. Ca2james (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(Repinging Ollie231213 as I screwed up the ping. Sorry about that. Ca2james (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC) )

I'm half joking but I say we cut off the "oldest's living people" to 115 years old and have just a top five here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Vera Wagner

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)

There's no requirement that says only "officially verified people" should be listed. The standard is WP:V. The fact that WP:RS has considered her claim is sufficient. The fact that the GRG has not does not per se mean that her claim is not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

How can the source be reliable, when it claims that Vera Wagner is the oldest person living in the state of New York, when Susannah Jones who LIVES IN NEW YORK, is the oldest person in the world, according to not only the GRG but Guinness Book of World Records. Clearly that source is WRONG, so not sure why you are calling it a "reliable" source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.154.150 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. That being said, shouldn't there be some kind of indicator included to differentiate claims from reliable sources from claims that have been officially verified by a body that deals with longevity research (the GRG or Guinness World Records)? I'm thinking an efn note attached to the name, with the line that her official verification is currently being processed as of today, or pending verification as of today. Since the majority of cases listed here are verified by the GRG, this would be an easy way to include claims from reliable sources without pushback from those worried about mixing verified claims from those that are not. Can this be done? Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 07:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There's an RfC on that very question over at WT:WOP. Ca2james (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Seems like her inclusion borders on original research. That said, I don't see why the late Emma Didlake who was verified by the VA as having been at least 110 (note: early census records indicate she was actually a year older than claimed but including that before the GRG looks at the records would be OR) wasn't listed here or why the late Alice Herz-Sommer wasn't included/why she isn't currently listed as verified on the List of supercentenarians who died in 2014 (hadn't her age been previously verified so as to accurately bestow upon her the title of "oldest Holocaust survivor"?) or why pretty much every Japanese claim isn't automatically included (since the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare keeps track of every advanced age claim, though they don't always report when someone dies and will often keep some names and dates confidential for privacy reasons). Those aforementioned cases have been verified as being true by reliable government organizations, have they not? Vera Wagner, on the other hand, just has a couple of newspapers and her nursing home claiming she's definitely 111. This really just seems like a few folks on Wikipedia wanted this list to not be a mirror of the GRG's Table E, but they haven't really put forth any forethought over who else could be considered as a "reliable source." It might be better to revert back to the old setup. But hey, that's just this anon's thoughts. 75.137.18.113 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: Whatever is determined here on the supercentenarian pages should also apply to List of living centenarians and its related pages, right? 75.137.18.113 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This table definitely shouldn't be a mirror of Table E, but it will take time to add other reliably-sourced entries. I wasn't aware that these other proposed entries existed, although it looks like they're dead and this is a list of living people. Do you have reliable sources for living people who can be added to this list? Ca2james (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"This table definitely shouldn't be a mirror of Table E" ---> If that were the case, why would that be such a big issue? You do realise it's not against Wikipedia policy to mirror a list from a given source? Such as the FIFA World Rankings or Official World Golf Ranking. Or, if multiple sources are in disagreement, listing them all separately - such as at List of countries by GDP (nominal). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that the GRG isn't the only reliable source for these entries, and so to mirror only its tables is WP:UNDUE? Ca2james (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

But, what this reliable source does is verify ages and rank data... other sources don't. The way this article was laid out before - with separate lists of validated cases (sourced to the GRG) and unvalidated cases (sourced to newspaper reports) solved this problem! -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

and that solution isn't going to work. If uninvolved editors object to a verified column they're not going to go for separate table. Instead of focusing on what you used to do, please focus on how we can move forward. The easiest way to solve this is to remove the rankings, which I already did but TFBCT1 reverted me. I'm still waiting for his comment. Ca2james (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a suggestion for how we move forward, and it's perfectly sensible. This concept worked well in the past and is the best way of giving due weight to sources. The GRG list is effectively the "official list" (you'll notice that in recent years, Guinness World Records books include the GRG's list of top ten oldest verified living people) and such a list has encyclopedic value. A "directory" of cases thrown in to one table is of less value. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It worked terribly in the past. It "worked" in the sense that we had a decade of edit warring to keep it in place with every list containing "pending" and "unverified" claims by the GRG. The GRG "official list" was never the point until someone brought it up to RSN again and got all the pending claims removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Vera Wagner break

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)

If people respected the fact that age validation is recognised concept, then this wouldn't be necessary. I don't see how any editors at the RSN board can determine if these particular sources are reliable without actually attempting to verify her age themselves. The point of the GRG is that they attempt to verify claimant's ages for us. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to do this. If you do take this to RSN, you need to make the distinction between whether or not this source is reliable for saying "this person claims to be 111" and "this person is 111". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if age validation was as well-recognised and important as you say it is, that doesn't necessarily mean that other sources wouldn't be reliable. Moreover, since not every editor agrees with you regarding the recognition or importance of age validation, I guess this is going to RSN. Ca2james (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at RSN here. Ca2james (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion at RSN has been archived after discussion petered out. Discussion ended with this comment The last uninvolved suggestion was this:

  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.

This means that the two sources for Vera Wagner are considered reliable in the absence of information from the GRG to the contrary. Ca2james (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur, with the proviso that there needs to be some sensitivity to the possibility that the paper is merely reporting the subject's own claim, which in many cases would not be sufficient. EEng (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think run-of-the-mill "person is celebrating their 112th birthday" news articles are different than "person might be the world's oldest!" or "person is 129!" articles. Claiming to be the world's oldest or older than the oldest known person are extraordinary claims and I think that they do need extraordinary evidence (ie news articles aren't enough to support those claims). Each news article will need to be evaluated as a reliable source for the age, and we'll need to consider the newspaper's reputation (the Daily Mail and tabloids wouldn't be reliable sources for even run-of-the-mill age claims since they're not reliable for BLPs) as well as whether the article is just reporting someone's claim or there's more to the article. Ca2james (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How do we determine and reach a consensus on what constitutes an "extraordinary" age claim though? Simply saying "older than the current oldest person" is rather arbitrary since the age of the oldest person has ranged from 113 to 117 in recent history. I think using a scientific measure (i.e. the age at which "unverified" age claims become significantly unreliable according to scientific journals) would be a better measure than the age of the oldest living person (or oldest person ever). --T Kanagawa T (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I made myself clear. I was referring to two different claim types: a) claims that someone is the world's oldest, and b) claims that someone is older than the oldest known validated person ever, who is Jeanne Calment at 122. Consider a). The world's oldest person is a well-known, well-publicized fact that has been scrutinized and validated by at least two organizations: Guinness and the GRG. Because the world's oldest person is so well-publicized, any article that says that someone else is the world's oldest person is making an extraordinary claim. The issue here isn't the age claimed itself but the position the person claims to occupy. Now consider b). The oldest person known to have lived is very well documented and any claim that someone else is older than 122 is therefore extraordinary. Both cases are clear bright lines that are easy to evaluate.

How do you propose to transform the correlation between older supercentenarian age claims and increasing unreliability into a way of determining what is an extraordinary claim? Ca2james (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the low participation RSN discussion achieved a clear consensus, and that wasn't the last comment from the discussion. --T Kanagawa T (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, I was incorrect in saying it was the last comment in the discussion: it was the last uninvolved suggestion in the discussion and everything below that was arguing about it. I've corrected my statement, above.

Perhaps there was a lack of participation because the rest of the community is tired of the endless, repetitive discussions associated with this wikiproject? Either way, uninvolved editors weighed in and that's really all we can hope for. Ca2james (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Rankings and sortable table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rankings break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction wording

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)

I don't see the problem. The current criteria for inclusion is that any entry is "reliably sourced". There are currently 51 such entries, including 1 that is not by the GRG. There is nothing to prevent other entries being included as long as they are reliably sourced. The paragraph summarises the list, there is no need to include citations for the total, especially when, as long as there are sources other than the GRG, there is no citation which would reflect the total in the list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be reliably sourced so there's no need to say that in the lede here. Ca2james (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Supercentenarians died

This table array September 1 2015, but hé gavé à supercentenarians died ? --86.204.84.119 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GRG Cases

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'm not quite sure what you're asking for here, but I think you're asking for the page to be returned the way it looked here. However, Table EE was found to be unreliable per this discussion on the WT:WOP talk page. Ca2james (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Pending list with Two verifications.

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)

The Pending list CLEARLY does not contain verified (i.e. validated) supercentenarians. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:09, 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)

• This is all nonsense. Wikipedia's not going to host GRG's works-in-progress. EEng (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not anymore you mean. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Pending list

Why was the pending list removed? It was useful.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See above. EEng (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Kiyo Oshiro vanished from the list

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)

Can you provide a link to the diff? It would help to see the IP's edit to see what they were talking about. It would be helpful to compare the sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this edit was the one removing the name. It referred to this page but I don't read Japanese. Anyone here have any other opinions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I just ran the article text through Google Chrome's translate function and got this "100-year-old or older across the country that the 11 days up to most of the 61 568 people the past, was found in a survey of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which was before the Senior Citizen's Day. 60,000 that the beyond people for the first time since the start of the survey in 1963. 2748 people more than last year, an increase of '45 continuous. Women accounted for 87, 3%. According to the announcement of Okinawa children living Welfare Department, 100 years old or older in the prefecture in 963 people (previous year one year), statistics since the start of 1972, we updated the most. The breakdown in one day currently, 125 men, with 838 women, women accounted for more than 80%. The oldest was a = Yorimitsu ToshiMegumi's = Ishigaki in the 113-year-old. The number of people to be the 100-year-old, 387 people in the same date in 2015. Of these, men 61 people, woman has become a 326 people." The article text is enclosed in quotes in my post here, and does not seem to refer to Kiyo Oshiro at all. Granted, the translation is quite messy.74.129.182.181 (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now the indentation got messed up and I have no idea how to fix it.74.129.182.181 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it fixed itself.74.129.182.181 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted it here. I agree that source isn't clear (nor do I think it's a reliable source) and the GRG continues to include Oshiro. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That source says that the MHLW announced there are over 60,000 centenarians in Japan currently, and that the oldest person in the Okinawa prefecture is Toshie Yorimitsu (unrelated note: Toshie Yorimitsu is almost 114). It doesn't refer to Kiyo Oshiro at all. That being said, there haven't been any reports about Kiyo Oshiro, who also lives in the Okinawa prefecture, during the buildup to Japan's yearly Respect-for-the-Aged Day (which falls on September 21st this year). This means one of three things: Either she passed away unreported sometime in the past year, she moved/was moved to another prefecture that hasn't reported the news of who their most elderly are, or she still does live in the Okinawa prefecture but was somehow overlooked by the MHLW when they did their yearly survey/study. Shingo Kitamura and two other Japanese supercentenarians on this list are also currently unreported. The GRG still lists them on Table E, so we should probably wait to see if the GRG moves them to "limbo" or not before we remove them from this page. 68.119.50.77 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that source is. It doesn't look like a newspaper but I'm guessing the MHLW is a Japanese government organization, correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The MHLW is the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, which is indeed a Japanese government ministry. It is the one that tracks centenarian and longevity data in Japan, and compiles information from each prefecture's annual longevity reports. That's also why I've been so busy on the List of Japanese supercentenarians lately, as the past two weeks have seen several dozen reports come out. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent example, BTW, of a perfectly good alternative to GRG (unless someone can explain why not). EEng (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the MHLW only tracks data in Japan, not the rest of the world; the collection of data relies on each individual prefecture, which don't collect all information in the same way. While these reports are good alternatives, only a few offer specific birth dates and names; the majority just list the number of centenarians and supercentenarians of each age (number of 105 year olds, 106 year olds, etc.) living in each prefecture. So yes, good alternative but not always complete information within the scope of the articles in this project. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 06:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell no one source has complete information. That's why multiple sources are needed. EEng (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not even a cententarian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argentina oldest verified woman has died

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)

Yes, we must wait until a WP:RS (reliable source) announces her death before the information in the table can be changed. Forum postings aren't considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. Thanks for asking. Ca2james (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Then could somebody please re-add Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero to this list, given that the GRG still lists her as alive?74.129.182.181 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And could someone please remove Ichino Kawasaki from this list? The GRG has her in limbo, and NOT on their list of verified living supercentenarians.74.129.182.181 (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever removed Ichino Kawasaki, but Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero still needs to be re-added.74.129.182.181 (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In which table does the GRG list her? Table EE is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia so if she was listed in that table, we can't add the information to Wikiepdia. Ca2james (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

List who? Also, Luisa Roncoroni de Bizzozero has been removed from the GRG's list of living supercentenarians, so she should be removed from this list and added to the one of supercentenarians who died in 2015, given that the GRG lists her with a death date of September 1st.74.129.182.181 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oldest living man in the world is Costa Rican

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)

Goldie Michelson limbo?

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