Jump to content

Talk:List of oldest living people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unicodesnowman (talk | contribs) at 06:18, 26 February 2020 (→‎Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hilda Clulow deceased December 24, 2019 age 111 yrs 284 days

I am not sure what a "reliable" source is but according to Oldest People In Britain (oldestinbritain.nfshost.com) Hilda Clulow died on December 24, 2019. The site is now listing Joan Hocquard and Bob Weighton as the joint-oldest people in the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OldestinBritain is not considered a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several websites report her death - all quoting the same date. Wikipedia is far more likely to look unreliable by continuing to keep her listed as the age attained increases once there is any published report of death ie reliability is important where exaggerated claims may be made. An exaggerated 'claim of death' is so improbable as to warrant prima facie acceptance of such notifications.165.225.80.65 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I deleted her name.-Phil of Bristol 15:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil of Bristol (talk • contribs)

The criteria for removal from this article are that the person does not have a report from within the last year that they are alive or there is a reliable source reporting that they have died. Reliable sources do NOT include OldestinBritan, Gerontology Wikia or the 110 Club. For the benefit of other users the link should be posted either in the edit summary or on this talk page. So far none of the criteria have been met. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link were already mentionned but here are just 2 sources: - https://the110club.com/hilda-clulow-1908-2019-t22619.html and gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/Hilda_Clulow.--Phil of Bristol 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil of Bristol (talk • contribs)

Neither of which is considered reliable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for removal have been clearly spelled out above and have still not been met. I am adding Hilda Clulow back to the list until proper criteria for removal have been met. The question here is if the oldest person in the United Kingdom died 5 weeks ago, why are no reliable sources available?TFBCT1 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a recent memorial from Thomas Brothers The Funeral Directors in Redditch, England, confirming the death of Hilda May Clulow on December 24, 2019. https://www.facebook.com/ThomasBrothersTheFuneralDirectors. 211.197.11.17 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

Dumitru Comănescu, born 8 November 1908, seems to be the oldest living man in Romania: https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/social/cine-este-dumitru-comanescu-cel-mai-varstnic-cetatean-al-bucurestiului-1150042 Please add him to the list of the oldest living people if this is sufficient.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:3895:ED87:61C1:FC29 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The page isn't protected, so you should be able to make the change yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added him but I will probably need some help with links and the HTML comment below the bottom of the list.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:910D:ED82:D39F:A2B7 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I hope I have done it right.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:910D:ED82:D39F:A2B7 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kononovich

There is an edit war between at least one user who believes that Maria Kononovich belongs to Longevity claims and users who believe that she should be included in this article. Should she be kept here or removed? 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:8499:38D2:94E7:95E (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She meets the current criteria for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If she outlives Kane Tanaka and doesn't get validated by GRG, then she may be moved to the Longevity claims article. Georgia guy (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just would like to be clear that my revert was based on the statement that the birthdate had to be fixed around the Julian / Gregorian date issue before Kononovich could be included on this list. That seem to me to be an invalid reason for removing her altogether when the problem could be noted & discussed.
As to whether Kononovich should be included or not, I am not weighing in on that as others are far more familiar with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Just because I am growing older does not make me an expert on gerontology.
Peaceray (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most recent journalistic source is from August 2019. Consensus is to keep entries with less-than-one-year-old RS coverage. — JFG talk 12:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100 entries or maybe fewer?

After extensive cleanup today adding new citations, removing entries where only outdated citations existed, and removing a dead woman, there are only 96 entries on this list. While this article is not the GRG, their words and practices can be informative for our own practices. As stated here, The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons. By assigning rankings to these individuals that clearly do not correspond to reality, this article is in effect a WP:OR horse race. The GRG sensibly dropped routine validation of those under 112 and no reliable source presently tries to do what this list does: gather together GRG data, Japanese Prefecture reports and a hodgepodge of random birthday fluff articles from the media.

Given that this list wildly doesn't reflect factual reality and the enormous maintenance burden (too often neglected) of maintaining it, would trimming it to say 50 entries (other ideas welcome) have community support? Keep in mind a great many entries are already listed on other longevity lists, so duplication reduction is another problem that has been long neglected but can be partly resolved with this change. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem the number of supercentenarians has increased greatly since I started this article thirteen years ago. Useight (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria De La Talamates

I noticed she was removed because of lack of sources but I found a post of her 111st birthday from just a couple weeks ago Facebook Supersammy00 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social media, blogs, and self-published sources like Oldest in Britain are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. She can only be re-added with a recent reliable source proving life, such as a newspaper article. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: List world's oldest 50 people or 100?

Should this list enumerate the 50 known oldest living persons as reported by various reliable sources (proposed change), or should it enumerate the 100 known oldest living persons as reported by various reliable sources (status quo)? Newshunter12 (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for change

Maintaining a list of 100 people while following topic area quality standards is a heavy maintenance burden for the small number of dedicated editors in this topic area, and is too often neglected, which is why the list is presently failing to even have 100 entries after undergoing long-neglected clean up. Every single person on this list is either already on 1-3+ other longevity lists (in addition to sometimes possessing individual articles or mini-bios) or will never become notable enough to reach another list. Such duplication and over-representation is tedious for the small group of dedicated editors to maintain and unnecessary.

A list of 50 also eliminates the core sources of conflict that have been plaguing this topic area for over a decade. Namely, a list of 50 creates a de-facto age threshold of approximately age 112, where SC coverage becomes much more steady and reliable. This eliminates the common disputes over excluding entries with sources from before age 110, and the vast majority of the often heated disputes over entries with sources from 110th or 111th birthday coverage, but no 111th or 112th birthday media coverage causing removal. A more focused list would also greatly cut down the number of disputes over the reliability of death reports, especially since reliable coverage improves at increased ages since the individuals are more notable. A list of 50 would also eliminate most of the well intentioned or not attempts, which have been happening repeatedly for over a decade, to add individuals (most often age 110 or 111) with unreliable sources that than have to be removed (often the same ones repeatedly). Newshunter12 (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Please express your preference with Support (for listing only the 50 oldest living people) or Oppose (for listing the 100 oldest living people) and a brief rationale. Longer comments should go in the #Discussion section below.

  • Support- will make what is currently a sourcing and trivia nightmare slightly less nightmarish. Reyk YO! 06:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A smaller list that better conforms to our sourcing standards is better than a longer one that's proven impossible to keep up to our minimum requirements. David in DC (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified support provided that links to articles where each entry would be found is provided outside the infobox. I have this concern because of the place of residence column. Currently, people from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Jamaica, Romania, and the United Kingdom would not make the cutdown to 50. Keeping as broad a geographic view as possible is ideal and easy links, especially for mobile users, should be made readily available. schetm (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's nothing wrong with the current list and entries require a reliable source for inclusion so that's not really an issue either and like Schetm said a lot of countries would be cut from the list if it was lowered to 50. 172.58.139.3 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ban evasion, struck. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If possible and verifiable -why not? Atbannett (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was also concerned that there would be no more male representation if the list was cut to 50, but I did a little looking and found Oldest_people#Ten_oldest_living_men. This page grew to such length because its original title was List of living supercentenarians. But its name later changed, no longer implying any particular age cut-off to make the list - instead just an arbitrary number of the top X oldest people, regardless of their age. No particular reason it should be 100 instead of 50, except the status quo, because it was always something around 100 (looks like it was 78 when the page was first created. Let's bring it down to 50 because of the difficulty in updating. Useight (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dubious rationale. Entries pass WP:RS which is deemed by the Wiki community to be sufficient. Supposed "difficulty" is based on the Longevity-fanclub unwillingness to accept this decision, and an over-emphasis on the importance of this list. Reducing the list to 50 places excessive emphasis on the GRG "verified" entries which previous discussion, indeed consensus, has determined to not be in line with Wiki policy/guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The number of entries to keep on such lists is an arbitrary decision by Wikipedia editors. In making that choice, we have to weigh in the article's usefulness to readers. Most of our national lists of oldest people have established consensus to keep 100 entries, striking the right balance between information density and difficulty of maintenance. Granted, the present list is a little more difficult to maintain than national lists, but the burden does not look disproportionate compared to the benefits of having same-size lists for most "oldest people" articles. This article also notes that such a dynamic list is necessarily incomplete, and absent authoritative sources Wikipedia cannot claim full accuracy. Verifiability not truth. Finally, the list of 100 does give a hint of geographical diversity of supercentenarians, which would be hidden if we trim the list at 50. — JFG talk 12:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I appreciate that there is a heavier maintenance burden with listing the top 100 living people, but we should make decisions absed on what is more helpful to our readers. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thoughts on having the top 50 on the article page and some more on the talk page as a "watchlist", like is done on List of most consecutive starts and games played by National Football League players and List of most consecutive starts by a National Football League quarterback? Useight (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Useight There is already a hidden list of up to 10 "extra" people in this article, it's just coded to not be visible unless you are editing/reading the article's code. The article would still have something like that even if cut to 50. @Atbannett As described, the over 10 year history of this article is deeply troubled and the editorship just doesn't exist to maintain the present numbers of 100 and quality standards, while a list of 50 eliminates the vast majority of these long running issues. Your last edit to the article was in May 2018, so perhaps your unaware, but maintaining this article is like a conveyer belt. It needs constant tending, but rarely gets the copious attention needed to maintain a quality list and deal with the steady stream of improper inclusions. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I was unaware there was already such a list. Thanks. Useight (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DerbyCountyinNZ Your opposition boils down to you don't want the list to put to much emphasis on the GRG, but you are forgetting the past. Five years ago, this article consisted of a 57-strong GRG only list, a 60-strong GRG pending cases list, and a 154-strong list of unvalidated individuals up to only age 113 sourced elsewhere. The GRG's influence and presence in this article was massive, while nothing in my proposal is pro-GRG. It's just that the GRG has started to focus in recent years on only the most notable SC's (the oldest), which by chance overlaps with the more rational direction I am proposing to take the article. To allay your concerns, non-GRG citations could simply be left in place when individuals are validated, instead of being wholly removed. Please reconsider your vote, as multiple other discussions just presently on this talk page demonstrate the validity of the maintenance issues I discussed.
I did not say it that I don't want it, I said the Wiki community has, over the last few years, concluded that over-emphasis on the GRG as a more reliable source than other RS is not justified. Reducing the list to 50 to get rid of entries some editors deem "unreliable" does exactly that. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DerbyCountyinNZ Good to know, but I think you are overthinking this. This list, especially the bottom 50 entries, is a miserable slog to maintain by Wikipedia quality standards as media/government coverage is quite spotty from early birthday to birthday (coverage tends to get much more consistent at age 112+), and often comes from before 110th birthdays. That a list of 50 would presently often overlap with the GRG speaks to how their own list piggybacks off from the consistent media coverage SC's get at older ages, not a possibility of giving them deference here. No one else has even brought up the GRG as this conversation is about maintaining a list under Wikipedia's own quality standards, like requiring proof of life within one year, that a list of 100 inhibits upholding. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG You've stated a number of provable inaccuracies. Out of 15 countries that presently have oldest people lists, only six have 100 entries and the rest typically have far fewer entries, such as List of Swedish supercentenarians. The vast majority of entries on national lists are of dead individuals, which require at most very rare tweaks, while this list is of only living individuals and is extremely burdensome to maintain as over 10 years of history has shown. Furthermore, List of supercentenarians by continent or List of the oldest people by country do a far better job informing readers of the geographic diversity of supercentenarians then this list could ever do. Trimming this cumbersome and duplicative article hides nothing. Please listen to reason and moderation. Every single entry on this list is already on 1-3+ other lists or will never be notable enough to make one of the copious number of other longevity lists. You've admitted before that you like supercentenarian content and I respectfully ask that you put the article's quality above your own personal fan content preferences. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@schetm Would something like this suffice for you: Belgium, United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, Japan, Canada, United States, along with List of supercentenarians by continent and List of the oldest people by country? Newshunter12 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's messy, but it'll get the job done. This'll probably go down as no consensus. schetm (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sc from India

I found a SC born in India in 1908 last year. and the reliable sources on the claim do implicitly state her birthday as December 8 1908. However, her name is only mentioned as “Mae”, and her real name (which can be seen on the Gerontology Wiki), would be considered Original Research. Can she be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterheint (talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misterheint Please show the sources you found, so other editors can weigh in. — JFG talk 19:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerontology Wikia is not a reliable source, so another source would be needed for the claim. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: https://indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/goa-food-cuisine-this-day-and-age-goa-grandparents-6122435/

https://www.ozy.com/good-sht/where-you-can-taste-wine-as-old-as-grandma/88257/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterheint (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people&oldid=942689937"