Talk:List of the verified oldest people

Merge lists of men and women

There is strong overlap between this list and List of the verified oldest women (94 out of 100), given that only 6 men are on the list of 100 oldest people. Therefore I would suggest merging both lists by gender into this one, with a dedicated section for men, to be lifted from List of the verified oldest men. In the main list of oldest people, we could list the ranking by gender in a separate column, and prolong the global list to match the top 100 females (that would take it to 106 entries). — JFG ^talk 06:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of extending any list beyond 100 entries. If anything, they should be pared back, since very few entries are notable beyond their age and it doesn't take very many entries to inform readers. Wikipedia is not a directory of old people and allowing so many entries means living people all too frequently come onto the list, which in turn leads to some unscrupulous people treating longevity as a contest, which contributes to the fancruft problem that has plagued this whole project for over a decade. Wikipedia is also currently acting as a free WP:WEBHOST for the GRG's data, which should be reduced as much as possible. All that said, I would support a three way list merge that created two lists in one article. A 50 person list of the worlds oldest people (including both genders - presently 47w;3m) and a 25 person list of the oldest men. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support a merge and have supported it for years. A list of a 100 most "anything" humans is fraught with unavoidable errors and very mislieadinfg to our readers. The absence of any Chinese , Indians, Arabs and Africans etc is a huge clue we don't really have the top 100 oldest. Even if we note poor research or records means we exclude large parts of the world population, we are surely missing many people in first world countries who are older then some of the 100 listed because no one gets excited enough to start writing in RS about people who are years away from breaking a record and statistically highly unlikely to break a record. We also have the problem that everyone who lived before some date not too long ago is completely missing because no one bothered to or could realistically track and centralize data on really old people. GRG really only covers a limited part of the world population and we have almost no way to verifiy their work except for RS that mention the top few names. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, Legacypac. Do you support making other changes, such as reducing the size of the merged lists? The chance for fewer errors is another benefit of shorter, more focused lists. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: We should definitely place some caveats in the prose to explain the inherent bias in statistics, due to varying degrees of research applied in different countries, especially the bias towards countries which happened to keep accurate birth records more than 100 years ago and managed to preserve them to this day. This naturally excludes a lot of the world's probable supercentenarians, who will never be "verified according to modern standards". We should also define what these "modern standards" are, with reference to sources describing them. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newshunter12: I have no problem keeping 100 entries on the global list; we should rather pare down the lists by country to 50 individuals. Taking into account prior remarks, and the reality of statistics, I would keep only a non-gendered list of the oldest 100 people and a list of the oldest 50 men. That would place the cutoff age at roughly 114 years and 100 days for all people, and roughly 111 years and 200 days for men only. I feel that keeping only 25 people would not do justice to the topic, and would only encourage interested readers to expand the lists again. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been a contentious area so I suggest we deal with the merge of three pages to one, removing the oldest woman list as redundant and listing the men below the combined list. We can head the combined list with some prose saying nearly all the oldest people are female so presenting a seperate list would be redundent.

Seperately, we propose to trim the country/region lists to 50 names. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This is NOT a new idea. It has been suggested before and shot down before because in essence a merge of the lists eliminates the mens list. I will also not support a reduction in the number of entries at "100" which this list has had for over 15 years.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The entries on this list should remain at 100, not be reduced. The country lists should also stay at 100, being consistent with this list and the oldest living people list. RightGot (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Since you, JFG and Legacypac, both support at least initially keeping the worlds oldest lists to 100, that is what I support as well. We can deal with the number of entries on the various lists separately at another time. Just getting these three lists merged into one article while dropping the woman list as redundant with language to that effect on the combined list would be an important step forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Newshunter12. Let's do that, and once everything is organized it'll be easier to determine whether it's optimal to find a different number. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I am against any merge per the concern above that it would essentially get rid of most if not all of the men. Why would we go down to 50 when 100 has worked? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87 please reread the proposal. We would be keeping the list of men, but merging the pages. So there would be a list of 100 oldest people (about 94 woman and 6 men) and then the 100 oldest men list. The only names being dropped would be the 94-100 oldest listed woman and we know that there is no way they are really the 94-100th oldest woman due to large areas of the world without data collection. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I am against any merge. Delete the 100 oldest people list and just keep the lists for 100 oldest women and 100 oldest men. Crveni5 (talk)

I agree. This list is a duplicate of the information shown in the other two lists. Delete this list and there will be no need to merge any articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.128.90 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Updated proposal

From the comments above, there is no consensus to trim down any of the lists, but there is significant support for avoiding duplication among the current three lists proposed for merger. Therefore I would suggest the following course of action:

• Keep only this page (List of the verified oldest people), divided into two sections: one for the 100 oldest women, another for the 100 oldest men.
• Get rid of the mixed-gender list, which is 94% duplication of information in the women list.
• Redirect the pages about men and women to the appropriate sections on this list.

Participants @Crveni5, Knowledgekid87, Legacypac, Newshunter12, RightGot, TFBCT1, and The Blade of the Northern Lights: please state your support or opposition to this plan. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support that is a better plan. 100 men, 100 women, some text to say nearly all the top 100 women are older than the top few men. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Include some text about how nearly all the top 100 women are older then the top few men. It's a good compromise plan. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support updated proposal Crveni5 (talk)
• Support updated proposal. EEng 13:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. RightGot (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Merged — JFG ^talk 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Post merge discussion

Yes, it's done today. And now I have no way to indicate that Maria Giuseppa Robucci's lifespan is equal to Christian Mortensen's for November 27, 2018. Poor implementation.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Use your mouse to scroll down to the men's section then back to the women's and you will see that for one day they share the same age, and surely it's no big deal, as the positives, IMHO, greatly outweigh the negatives,MattSucci (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What gives the user the inclination to even do what you are suggesting? That information should be made readily available to the user and easily identifiable as it has been in the past, not something they need to search for. As for the inherent positives or negatives to this merge, the United States is only one of 25 countries to change to this format, that should tell you something.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Age is not a contest, TFBCT1. What you are complaining about is not an encyclopedically important point, but a fancruft wish. You also didn't show up to support or oppose the new format at voting time after being notified, so I don't really see a basis for you to complain about the change either. You didn't care about supporting the previous status-quo when it actually mattered. I would also point out that your bitterness and negativity towards any changes to the longevity project on Wikipedia brings down the morale of other editors, and might recommend that you choose to leave the topic area if you truly find it so distasteful. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Newshunter12The list is called the top 100 verified people(which it no longer is) and is associated with corresponding ranks which are updated on a daily basis by all 25 countries who maintain this wiki page. It is not a contest; it is pure encyclopedic, factual information as viewed by all 25 countries. I'm sorry you don't see it that way. And, yes, the U.S. page is now lacking. Not that I have to explain myself to you, but I did not participate in this proposal, because like others it is highly canvassed by like-minded editors and to participate would be comparable to "beating a dead horse." I would suggest you keep your personal opinions to yourself. You are often childlike and reactive and your rants serve no purpose. And surely you kid that I leave this topic that I've been contributing to for 13 years with the utter lack of general knowledge regarding longevity and gerontology of this current group of editors?TFBCT1 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The list is called List of the verified oldest people not the top 100 verified people amd as a regular editor of the page I'm surprised you don't know the name of the page. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: While most people appreciate your diligent updates to various lists, you should beware of a tendency to WP:OWN those pages. Adopting an antagonistic tone doesn't help; please refrain from calling your fellow editors "childlike" or other condescending epithets. — JFG ^talk 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG. May I remind you that you have no ability to determine what my tone is. May I also remind you to "mind your own business" and be concerned only with your own personal accountability when addressing other users. And for the record, I have never described any user as childish, only their provoking behavior as childlike. Also, I'm far from alone thinking this merge was purposeless and lacking.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been the only one perceiving your writings as antagonistic. But carry on. — JFG ^talk 01:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why was done this awful merge?? The good useful article which provided me gerontological information is now reduced to senseless page. Very very pity...Levgr (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No information was lost in the merge, and prior lists of men and women are redirected to both sections here. — JFG ^talk 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Is that a vote to delete the entire senseless page? Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a vote to restore the prior list.Levgr (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG, DerbyCountyinNZ, Legacypac Even when I am very definitely correct, I am made out to be a villain. I receive no backup from other editors who have implemented the policies I am defending. So, you all get your wish, I'm leaving the topic of longevity after 12 1/2 years. I will no longer be updating all tables on a daily basis I have done for the past 4,575 days. I'm tired and I'm done.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not have three lists: oldest people, oldest women, oldest men. There are valid reasons to want each of the three. I have been following this list for over 10 years and I'm disappointed that now I can't simply look at the list and see the real ranking of the oldest people. Have all three lists and everybody is happy. Makes sense to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackinnyc (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 December 2018(UTC)

+1.Levgr (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's now impossible to, at a glance, work out where the men fit in the overall list (for the very few old enough to be among the 100 oldest people). If this change is written in stone, a column added to indicate where each person would place in a "merged" list would have value. That way we'd know the 100th oldest man (at the moment, Lloyd Myers) is ranked 1018 overall ... (which is a strong argument for going back to a merged list, but I digress ... ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHLister (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Verification standards and sources

Today I added some people to the list of men, taken from our list of 10 oldest living men, and accompanied by recent reliable sources. I was reverted by TFBCT1, who stated that Only those "verified by modern standards, not just reliably sourced can appear on a "verified" list. This was thoroughly discussed and determined over 1 year ago and coincides with the womens list. That sounds like a fair enough standard for inclusion, but could we please see what exactly are those "modern standards" and discuss which sources can be considered valid? A pointer to the "over 1 year ago" discussion would also be helpful. — JFG ^talk 16:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Until we can determine precise rules as to who can be considered "verified", I suggest adding the relevant living people again, without a ranking, as seems to be the practice on several national lists of supercentenarians. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note also that the article currently does not define the verification criteria. Those should be added and sourced, otherwise readers can't guess the meaning of "validated by modern standards". — JFG ^talk 16:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

TFBCT1 is quite correct. "Verified by modern standards" essentially means validated by an organisation specialising in extreme age validation, the only one of which publishes regular updates is the GRG (Guinness using that same data for the most part). To use only WP:RS as a requirement means that almost every entry in Longevity claims (whiuch is not even close to being a comprehensive list) and many from Longevity myths meets the criteria. Trying to make a list including all such entries would not only take an extremely long time, the result would be encyclopedically meaningless. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We have determined who can be verified, you just weren't around. Also, you've deleted the appropriate pages to go back and look at the discussions- they were on the "list of the oldest verified people" and "The list of the oldest verified men" which no longer exist. A body that can verify must be one primarily dedicated to age verification, such as Guinness World Records or the Gerontology Research Group. We cannot add those individuals back because it violates prior consensus. It also creates an inconsistency in criteria for inclusion between the mens list and the womens list. If you will not accept this clear information from me, check with DerbyCountyinNZ who was key in making these determinations.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that articles were merged, not deleted, so that all prior discussions are still available. Looking for the discussion you alluded to, I found this relevant thread in the archives: Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 16#Magdalena Oliver Gabarro. Editors were discussing the discrepancy between the men and women list, and DerbyCountyinNZ remarked that the GRG only verifies people above 112. This creates an imbalance between men and women, because all the 100 oldest women are above 114 years old, whereas the 100 oldest men are mostly under 112 (60% at current count). Consequently we cannot possibly track the 100 oldest men by relying only on GRG data, and we should accept other sources. I'm not familiar with criteria used by Guinness World Records: do they track the 100 oldest men somewhere? — JFG ^talk 17:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason the GRG now only publishes ages from 112 is due to lack of resources/funding as they previously published 110+ then more recently 111+. For this and many other reasons, it is regrettable that there are no other comparable organisations. It is unfortunate that this creates a discrepancy between the frequency which men are "validated" as opposed to women. Either we put up with it, as with the discrepancy between the oldest ever and oldest living lists due to the different criteria or we ignore any criteria except RS with the major problem that would ensue. I believe that Guinness no longer does its own research, except possibly in very rare cases, and doubt they maintain any sort of list independent of what the the GRG publishes. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything DerbyCountyinNZ has said. And please note that it was also brought up at that time that for reasons of "consistency," we cannot maintain separate standards of inclusion for the mens list and the womens list. Thanks.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have made a note in the list of men, to explain why some of them are not ranked. That takes care of the discrepancy while being as informative as we can for our readers. — JFG ^talk 18:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You cannot make these edits without consensus regarding verification which DebyCountyinNZ has already pointed out "major problems will ensue." You also cannot maintain a separate set of standards for the mens and womens lists which has already been previously pointed out to you and was voted by consensus. These lists are not as the country list criteria, perhaps that is causing the confusion here.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not see any clear consensus in the archived discussions I have perused. Could you kindly point me to the relevant RfC, if any? In any case, we have to address the issue that GRG and GWR no longer provide any data for men under 112. That alone is enough justification to use different criteria for men as for women. I am totally open to debating what these criteria should be and which sources we should accept. — JFG ^talk 19:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a lengthy discussion between myself, DerbyCountyinNZ, CanadienPaul and others. Check through all the longevity pages. It was determined no "unverified" enrties on either list per the multiple problems DerbyCountyinNZ has already pointed out to you regarding longevity myths- Shivakumara Swami is a prime example- his age is not universally excepted. And it was also determined that mens and womens lists would not be subject to alternate criteria for inclusion. There is no alternate resource for age verification then what has been presented to you. I belive the discussion is under "Oldest living people."I am going to revert your non-complying edits.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the mass removal of sourced data as vandalism. If it happens again we can start discussing sanctions. This goes back years - GRG people insist that only people the "verify" belong on these lists making the lists and Wikipedia a GRG hosting service. In this one topic area we are told to throw out all the normal WP:RS rules and rely 100% on the GRG tables, whichthemselves have no stated sources. Various editors ended up topic banned for pushing this GRG only narrative. TFBC1 is well aware of the discussions and history. The deal remains that we follow Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and that GRG is one RS we can use. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

...but so is... Georgia guy (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG, DerbyCountyinNZ, Legacypac Even when I am very definitely correct, I am made out to be a villain. I receive no backup from other editors who have implemented the policies I am defending. So, you all get your wish, I'm leaving the topic of longevity after 12 1/2 years. I will no longer be updating all tables on a daily basis I have done for the past 4,575 days. I'm tired and I'm done.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: Nobody called you a villain, and I would be sad to see you go. WP:Consensus can change, and we need all competent voices to express themselves, so that we can converge on the best path for the benefit of our readers. — JFG ^talk 19:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG, please add missing footnotes for Gustav Gerneth's place of birth found on Oldest People page and Shivakumara Swami's found on his bio page and Zhou Youguang's found on his bio page, then re-letter all footnotes accordingly. Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Conrad Johnson, born Kymbo, Vastergotland, Sweden, died Rockford, Illinois, U.S.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, except for Zhou Youguang, who was born and died in China; political regimes changed, but the city he came from did not swing between rival powers as was the case with Stettin or Magadi. — JFG ^talk 01:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG (And apolgies to TFBCT1, this discussion started as I left for work and I cannot (or should not) edit Wiki at work) You should not have made the changes to t he criteria for this article without gaining consensus. One of the reasons the Wikipedia:WikiProject Longevity was started was to ensure that there would be appropriate consensus for each article under its scope. The current consensus for this article, as TFBCT1 has mentioned, and also in part stated at the top of the article, is that every entry has had their age validated by modern standards by an independent organisation specialising in longevity research. By making ad hoc changes and introducing exceptions you have ignored and implicitly changed one of the key criteria for the article and opened it up to a serious potential problem: there is currently no criteria for the article which defines an upper limit, this being unnecessary while the criteria was only for validated people. By making exceptions for a few any editor is now free to add any man, living or dead, who meets the same criteria. The appropriate course of action should be to revert your changes, seek consensus for the changes you wish to make and THEN make the changes. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If only GRG verified people are to be included, ignoring all other RS (something I disagree with) and GRG does not bother with verifying anyone under age 112, than we need to trim out everyone who has not reached 112. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The reasons for this have been explained multiple times elsewhere. Whatever the criteria used should be based on consensus, and the changes made by JFG are not in line with the current consensus. If people want to change that then it should be agreed by consensus FIRST. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: Could you point me to the RfC that materialized the consensus, if any? I did not find it when perusing the archives. — JFG ^talk 22:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no RFC, it was not needed. When I have time I will have a look for the relevant discussions, some of which will probably be elsewhere including Talk:Oldest people, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. In any case, the first sentence at the top of the article defines the inclousion criteria and your additions do not meet that criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point. The problem is that the first sentence talks about "modern validation standards" but does not define what these standards are, nor does it specify who adjudicates verified cases (apparently only the GRG). Note as well that "verification" has a totally different meaning in Wikipedia, namely that any statement can be WP:Verified by readers simply by checking the cited sources. Unfortunately, the introduction to this article arbitrarily makes Wikipedia fully dependent on the GRG, and the GRG has stopped validating people under 112. We as encyclopedists need to address this issue, which is obscuring the topic for our readers. My additions to the list of men are admittedly a stopgap until a better approach is developed by the community. A new RfC is in order. — JFG ^talk 23:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In which case you should revert your changes until the RFC has reached a consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I won't revert that, because I haven't seen the discussion(s) that established the consensus you are talking about, and because I put readers over process. Instead of fighting this, let's work on fair and transparent inclusion criteria. — JFG ^talk 10:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert in this field, but I believe this discussion is dependent on the interpretation of what is a "reliable source", where do they source their information and the verifiability of that information. An example might be the "reliable source" that allows Maria Vikentyevna Kononovich to be listed in the 100 oldest living people. That page shows an old lady, but one that in my opinion is, judging by other photos of supercentenarians, an obviously non 110+ woman. I know this could be a subjective perception of the photos, but it should reopen the discussion into which sites/sources can be described as reliable. MattSucci (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Among supercentenarians, some look good, some look bad, and this babushka certainly is in the good-looking group. That subjective impression says nothing about the validity of her age. Sadly, nobody from the GRG or GWR has stepped into Eastern Europe, which explains why nobody from Russia or other former Soviet states is listed as verified. As encyclopedists, we need to work with the material that is available. Today I found a more recent, independent report about this woman, so it refreshes last year's source. If/when more people from this part of the world are "discovered", we'll report on them, with the usual caveats about likelihood and verification. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Verified by modern standards" seems to mean GRG verified, yet they have had to unverify some cases. Now the "gold standard verified" with more sources than any other case, world record holder is looking like a fraud. So what are the standards exactly? Maybe we should fall back on normal Reliable Sources, and add a healthy dose of skepicism wording to everything. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree that this verification is solely based on GRG standard is not right. (unless they are sponsors of wiki, j/k). I added Zhou youguang cases a while back but was removed. (now, someone else added it back). I even emailed GRG and they gave the same reason because they can't verify with their standard while there are significant evidence that Zhou does live that long. Statistically, with Chinese 1.3 Billion people (largest % of total earth population), it is almost impossible that no Chinese is in the list before Zhou. The same thing should apply to Indian. If there are proper documents available and can be accepted by major press or government, those should be listed as verified or at least list as not verified by GRG but verified by other reliable resources with good reputation until strong evidence challenge it. Not every developing country has super high standard birth certification notarized 100 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing number between 15 and 16

On 5 December 2018 there was a blank numerical reference for list of oldest men between #15and #16. Gustav Guerther from Germany is between 15 amd 16 on the ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.47.140.187 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A note on top of the men's table says: "Unranked entries have not been validated by the GRG, which only publishes recent cases above 112 years old." — JFG ^talk 01:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeanne Clament

Isn't it a bit premature to characterize Jeanne Clament's status as oldest verified person as disputed? One study that presents mostly just inconsistencies in an undeniably old person's statements that has been out for a month and hasn't had the chance to be further considered by the gerontological field is hardly evidence. Certainly worth being considered by the experts and will hopefully be explored but not really to the point of reclassifying a previously verified claim as contested. Should other experts in the field concur that the study has merit and deserves further investigation sure, especially since motivated identity theft is a lot more likely than such a statistical anomaly, but until then its jumping the gun. For now its a conspiracy theory with plausibility. (Unsigned)

This case shows the serious flaws of "verification" and the new information sure seems more credible than the verifications. It is fair to note the question exists. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the hypothesis is only a footnote at this stage. — JFG ^talk 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This nonsensical article by two Russians, one of whom isn't even qualified in studying supercenteniarns, has itself been widely disputed and frankly debunked. The Russians have a lot of room to talk about fraud when their country, under the old USSR, peddled fabrications of very old people in Azerbaijan in order to prove a propagandistic point. sn 2 January 2019

The entry shouldn't have a footnote at all as it is supported by one source with no third party backing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The research behind this is better/more credible than the "verification" of the claim. There are several additional sources that support that the extreme age is a fraud. One is a book on insurance. Another source is an analysis of the Russian researchers work. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"More credible"? No it isn't. It is one study by an organisation with an extremely limited history of international research, whose aim seems to have been to look for a means to discredit the Calment case (rather than a more scientifically appropriate, open-ended, re-investigation of the case) which has come up with a speculative hypothesis based on circumstantial evidence only. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What "additional sources"? Name them by name. There aren't any with any credibility whatsoever. There have never have been until this nonsensical article by the two Russians came out recently.

Please sign your posts. Use 4 ~`s if you're not signed in. Also use multiple colons to indent when commenting on the same thread. Peer reviewed work is by definition not "nonsensical". But I also doubt that Legacypac is qualified to comment authoritatively on this subject. We shouldn't change the article, imho, until a sufficient time is given to respond to/defend the original conclusion. "Disputes" should be understood to be noteworthy only if a "substantial" fraction of the expert community agrees they have merit. It's too early to make that determination about Jeanne's age, imho.72.16.99.93 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Will there ever be a point when Calment's claim will not longer be "disputed" as defined for the purpose of this list? If so, what criteria will we use to know when it has been settled? I'm currently unclear myself which side to take, but we all know there will be doubters and conspiracy theorists no matter how much evidence there is for her age or how debunked the identity theft theory is (if it is disproved). The Vital One (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The short answer is it depends on the mainstream and the spectrum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Biographies.

Can anyone now add a biography of dead/living people to this "list"? MattSucci (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the biographies section. Those belong in the person's article, not here. Bkatcher (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The biography of Aarne Arvonen was merged here recently following AfD of his own article, where there was consensus to merge. I have restored it. It's probably fine to add mini-bios of other people if they have gathered some notability beyond just making the list of oldest people. Some of these people have mini-bios on their national lists, e.g. List of Japanese supercentenarians, List of American supercentenarians or List of Italian supercentenarians. Arvonen did not fit in any of those, because he is "too young" for the List of European supercentenarians. That is the case for many men, because national lists with mixed-gender are heavily dominated by women, who live on average a few years longer. — JFG ^talk 09:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

He's one of a hundred people on a list, I don't see how he warrants three paragraphs when no one else does. Bkatcher (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That is because 1) editors at the AfD about his article reached consensus that he had some notability other than his age, but not enough to keep a full article, hence the merge; 2) other people higher on the list who had some notability either have their own article or have a mini-bio in their national list. I would welcome the inclusion of other mini-bios here, especially about men who were "too young" to be on a national list. — JFG ^talk 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

An AfD on one page doesn't mean a green light to include info on another page. This biography looks very out of place and any casual reader wouod ask the question, "What's so special about this guy that he gets a bio?" Canada Jack (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the List of Finnish supercentenarians was restored, so I moved Arvonen's mini-bio there. All is well that ends well. — JFG ^talk 22:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That reminds me to AfD the Finnish list Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Separation of genders

Was this discussed? I for one don't care for it. Bkatcher (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes: see above #Merge lists of men and women, from which discussion the #Updated proposal was implemented. — JFG ^talk 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-verified men on male list

While I accept the imclusion of living but non-GRG verified people on these lists, we should not be including the claims of those deceased people whose claims are not "validated by modern standards." It makes a complete mockery of the lists to have those unranked deceased men here, even if GRG doesn't consider claims of people under 112. (And, by the way, is this "policy" of GRG in fact a real policy?)

What are we to do now? Go back and find old claimants who might appear on this list if we need not worry about modern-standard verification for under-112s? Or do we only do so for the supposed cut-off date from when GRG stopped validating these claims? Bottom line is we can't have a different criteria for men who lived long enough to make this list but not to 112 when their age might be considered for verification. What happens when one guy who lives to 112 and 1 day doesn't make it, but would have if he had died two days earlier? It seems completely arbritary. Canada Jack (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

And I notice there is a claimant here who died on his 112th birthday earlier this month whose claim has not been verified. Why is he here? What ad hoc rule has been applied to include him? Canada Jack (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The situation is indeed delicate. We can only include whatever information is available from reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition. It appears that the GRG has thoroughly researched and documented all supercentenarian claims for people who died before 2015, so we have no problem there. Since then, several people have noticed that GRG only checks claims of people aged 112 and above, although I could not find any published GRG policy stating that fact; it just so happens that their more recent lists do exhibit this arbitrary cut-off age. This is not an issue for the 100 oldest women, because they are all over 114 years old, but this has created an information vacuum for the 100 oldest men. Editors have been adding some men who died since 2015 under 112, or barely over 112 but not yet validated by GRG. Some cases from India and China will probably never be validated by the GRG, which does not seem to perform any serious research in those countries. Bottom line, Wikipedia is not GRG-pedia, and where information is missing from GRG for their own reasons, we turn to other credible sources. — JFG ^talk 22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with JGF. We could also raise the cut off age to 112 which would help get rid of some of the harder to validate cases. If someone is not in the top 50 who really cares? Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a good idea per WP:NPOV, the number of men and women should be equal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? Woman generally live longer and therefore dominate the oldest list. We could also trim the woman's list if you wamt "equality". If no organization is bothering to verify men under 112 why are we bothered trying to list them? Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Right. Keep both lists at 100 per recent consensus. We just need to find more sources. — JFG ^talk 00:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We can't have different criteria for men than for women. While it is fine for us to show living people if they have been reported by a reliable source, the same is not true for the deceased. So to add other claimants - even if unranked - means we are not accepting the "modern standards" criteria anymore. GRG uses that standard, and is one of the very few who do, but to dismiss that standard would mean we accept ANY claim that hasn't been specifically debunked. Even if a claim is pre-2015 (which as is admitted above, is only a reflection of GRG's presumed start of their 112-plus policy, we've not seen this "policy" confirmed), why not dig up all the rest of the non-confirmed cases from the past? Am I the only one who sees the mess this will create - is creating? Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As I have pointed out so often to no avail (to the point where it is really starting to get boring), there has been no consensus to make this change (to interspersing unvalidated and validated entries). \There are clearly those who wish to have no distinction at all between (e.g. GRG) validation/verification and any WP:RS, and others who are merely intent on removing any and every GRG influence from the subject throughout Wiki, and still others whose only interest is in pedantically following a selection of policies and guidelines. And as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, if that (all RS are equal) is the eventual consensus then it should be applied throughout the topic: in other words a merge is required between this article, Longevity claims and possibly even Longevity myths. Assessing individual entries for reliability would not only take an extremely long time but would also result in as bad a bias as putting the GRG above all other RS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

And, again, why is George Feldman, who died recently on his 112th birthday but whose claim has not been verified by GRG, on this list? Since when do we include claimants who might eventually be verified? Canada Jack (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The basic problem is this animus towards GRG. But this animus ignores the fundamental empirical problem with claims of the extremely aged - ages are routinely inaccurate and often inflated, as decades of research on the subject has demonstrated. Hell, even the claimant for the oldest verified person now has some doubt in her case. So, to simply allow ANY RS ignores the issues that entails - most media organizations have ZERO expertise in assessing these claims, even in realizing it's not a matter of simply seeing a birth certificate, which is why a great many of these media sources defer to the expertise of Guinness - or GRG - in reporting a superlative like "world's oldest person."

But recognizing that there is a role for RS here, the consensus seems to have emerged that we report the living claimants who are younger than the person recognized as the oldest by Guinness, etc., but that until those claims have been verified by the experts in the field, once deceased, they should not appear on the lists. If the GRG no longer assesses claims under 112, it's no solution to plonk down any unverified deceased person (man) who might otherwise be on this list if verified. As these claims, almost by definition, are not verified to modern standards.

Logically, therefore, George Feldman, who died at age 112 but has not had his claim verified to these standards, should be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Canada Jack (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Her age is not disputed just because two random russian guys claim that. Is it also disputed that there was a moon landing because some people think the moon landing was faked? Or is it disputed that the earth is a globe? --Lord vom Ork (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)