Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 19

Two separate lists

I think we should split current list about those whose age has been verified by GRG and other cases whose age has been reported at source. There were three lists at time until someone insisted that lists about pending cases and other cases should be removed. I really think that we should return that old list about other cases, right? 62.80.158.106 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No. This idea has been suggested, debated and rejected at least once before. I believe it's been suggested more than once but I can't remember where other discussions took place. (See here for one discussion). CommanderLinx (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It was suggested, debated and rejected; suggested, debated and rejected; suggested, debated and rejected; suggested, debated and rejected; suggested, debated and rejected. Also, suggested, debated and rejected, plus suggested, debated and rejected. Later, it was suggested, debated and rejected. EEng 12:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts on...

...changing the rule on the limit of this article from including everyone 110+ to including the 100 oldest living people?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be against it because it would imply the list reflects the 100 oldest on Earth when it would only actually reflect the 100 oldest sourced on Earth. Plus, 100 is a completely arbitrary cut-off. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Alberta Lyles

Please do not add Alberta Lyles. Research conducted suggests she was born in 1909.

Here are the census records for her:

United States Census, 1910 Name: Alberta Flowers Residence: Gulledge, Anson County, North Carolina Gender: Female Age: 0 Marital Status: Single Race: Mulatto Relationship to Head of Household: Daughter Birthplace: North Carolina Father's Birthplace: North Carolina Mother's Birthplace: North Carolina Father: Janeco W Flowers (26) Mother: Effie B Flowers (20)

United States Census, 1920 Name: Alberta Flowers Residence: Gulledge, Anson County, North Carolina Gender: Female Age: 10 Marital Status: Single Race: Mulatto Relationship to Head of Household: Daughter Birthplace: North Carolina Father's Birthplace: North Carolina Mother's Birthplace: North Carolina Father: James W Flowers (36) Mother: Effie Flowers (30) Brother: Hubert Flowers (8) Sister: Rena Flowers (6) Sister: Othella Flowers (4) Sister: Arlene Flowers (3) Sister: Ola Flowers (0)

United States Census, 1930 Name: Dallertia Flowers Residence: Gulledge, Anson County, North Carolina, United States Gender: Female Age: 20 Marital Status: Single Race: Negro Relationship to Head of Household (Original): Daughter Birthplace: North Carolina Father's Birthplace: North Carolina Mother's Birthplace: North Carolina Father:James W Flowers (46) Mother: Effie B Flowers (40) Brother: Walter H Flowers (18) Sister: Runa B Flowers (16) Sister: Othella Flowers (14) Brother: Arlan Flowers (12) Sister: Leola Flowers (10) Sister: Jestene Flowers (8) Brother: James Flowers Jr. (5) Sister: Effie Flowers Jr. (3)

United States Census, 1940 Name: Alberta Liles Residence: Gulledge Township, Anson County, North Carolina Gender: Female Age: 28 Marital Status: Married Race: Negro Relationship to Head of Household: Daughter-in-law Birthplace: North Carolina Last Place of Residence: Same House Mother-in-Law: Catherine Liles (58) Brother-in-Law: Vernon Liles (17) Husband: James Liles (27) Son or Nephew: Edgar Liles (8) Son or Nephew: Benjamin Liles (4)

The evidence suggests she is 106, NOT 111, and including her is promoting age exaggeration. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, this is the reason a GRG-only approach is needed - otherwise, frauds like Alberta Lyles creep in. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Your WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH has no place on Wikipedia. Find a reliable source that disputes/disproves her age and she can be removed. Census matches aren't allowed as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. And in case you hadn't noticed, this is Wikipedia not the GRG. Consensus above was to use sources other than GRG tables. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No, consensus was to use GRG Tables A and E as well as other sources. However, I agree with you that original research has no place on Wikipedia; therefore, we should keep Alberta Lyles listed. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted back to GRG-associated

Greetings,

I've reverted back to a version that is associated with the GRG. It is considered the authority and is the source Guinness uses. Please refrain from attempting to use newspaper articles as proof of age. They rely on the claimant. As seen with Shigechiyo Izumi, Kamato Hongo, Carrie C. White, Walter Williams, Pierre Joubert, Damiana Sette, Martha Graham, and several other cases, age validation is needed - we can't just take the claimant at their word. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And I reverted you. Wikipedia goes off reliable sources, not just GRG only. In case you didn't notice, this is Wikipedia not the GRG so other sources can be included. Consensus is also to include sources outside the GRG. It's not a good idea to revert against consensus on a topic area where discretionary sanctions are in place. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No, consensus was to use GRG only. I have a proposal. Unverified cases can be left on the list, but rows with unverified cases must be color-coded red, and pending cases in blue. Verified cases don't need a color coding. This way, people can tell whether a case is verified or not, and unverified cases can be included. Everybody wins. Sound fair? --Sailor Haumea (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is to use sources as well as GRG tables (here and here). This has been discussed and rejected several times. We are NOT going to use GRG only nor will there be separate tables. If you really want GRG only then go join the rest of them over at the Gerontology Wikia otherwise read over the discussions and help with this wikiproject. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hardly. Why should Wikipedia be a mouthpiece for the GRG? As far as Wikipedia policy goes, verified means passing WP:V with a reliable source, which most newspapers are. It's not our business to doubt their statements. clpo13(talk) 23:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The GRG is the internationally recognized authority on the subject. Age verification lets us weed out the frauds - otherwise, cases like Alberta Lyles - who is actually 106, NOT 111 - get traction and it's Carmelo Flores Laura all over again. Remember him? His family claimed he was 123, and news outlets carried the claim....but then researchers found his baptismal record which revealed he was born in 1906 and only 107. Remember Bernando LaPallo? He claimed 114, the documents said 108. There's a long list of cases featured in the media over the years that were not the ages claimed - Zaro Agha, Shigechiyo Izumi, Mitsu Fujisawa, Maria Diaz Cortes, etc. Cruz Hernandez claimed to be 128 when she died in 2007. But last year, researchers found her baptismal record, which proved she was born in 1893 and only 113 (almost 114) at her death. Age verification is needed to prevent fraudsters like Charlie Smith from getting attention for their deception. At the very least, distinguished between GRG-verified cases and cases with just a news report. The GRG is the source Guinness uses. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Several other members of the 110 Club persisted in taking this view about the GRG. They are no longer able to edit longevity-related articles on Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
So you admit you deliberately blocked users in an effort to silence those who disagree with you? I'm not proposing we have several tables, I'm proposing we color-code based on research status. Throughout history, many fraudulent longevity claims have come and gone, and it's better to have some way of distinguishing between cases we are completely certain are the ages claimed (Guinness has the documents) and Li Suqing of China who claims to be 117 and whose family has not submitted documentation. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the investigator! --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
And? When such frauds are revealed, the articles can be updated to reflect that. It's not egg on Wikipedia's face to have reported what reliable sources said, even if those sources ended up being wrong. I have no qualms about using GRG as a source, but excluding other reliable sources is absurd and goes against Wikipedia policy. clpo13(talk) 05:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
No we are not going to have separate GRG verified only tables. This has been discussed and rejected. You should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in place in this topic area. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the cases you just listed have articles published by experts that debunk their age claims. Said articles are considered reliable sources, which is why they aren't featured on the various other "oldest" lists here. However, none of the folks you removed from this article in that mass removal of yours have been debunked by experts. What you did is vandalism. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Verified_vs_Verified_by_GRG

The arguments used in favor of using non-GRG sources have been thoroughly debunked. Thus, I'm reverting again, and reporting the people pushing an anti-GRG view to the Wikimedia Foundation. It's been ten years of this nonsense, which has resulted in correspondents for the GRG being blocked from editing. Sailor Haumea (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New claimant for title of World's Oldest Man

The Times of India is reporting a new claimant for the title of World's Oldest Man. The Times are a reliable source, so this claim warrants inclusion. [1] Canada Jack (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Highly unlikely to be true. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
That's only your opinion. We go by reliable sources on this page, and this reliable source claims this man is the world's oldest, at 116 years of age, his claim therefore warrants inclusion. Canada Jack (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Weren't you taking a GRG-only stance mere months ago? Also, this man does NOT look the age claimed. As the age claimed is greater than 115 years, 0 days, he goes in Longevity claims. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I took a "verified-by-recognized-authorities-on-the-subject-of-extreme-age-only" stance several months ago. That position failed to carry the day, and it was decided that "reliable sources" would suffice. Unless you can state why we can't use this reliable source - and your opinion on what someone that age is "supposed" to look like don't rise to that level - your objections here are misplaced. Canada Jack (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it's accuracy too but that's not the point right now. Canada Jack, that source relates to List of the verified oldest men as well. He would actually beat Kimura by a number of months. Be aware that changing that will not be an easy move. I suspect we'll need further discussion on the issue. Many sources are repeating it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
To quote researcher Robert Young on this claim (he's in every GWR edition nowadays...):"This man doesn't look anything like 114 years old. He doesn't exhibit any signs of sarcopenia (muscle wasting) associated with extreme aging. Also, I notice that there's no exact date of birth, only a round year number (1900). This phenomenon is called "age heaping" -- picking general numbers when the actual time of birth is not known."
So it's very doubtful he's the age claimed, even if multiple sources are claiming he's 116. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Well if Robert Young's analysis is based on how people looked alone, I'd question the reliability of his theories. However, I know it's not and I'm aware that Indian sources are largely nonsense but we shall see. Is there something from the GRG that you can point to (not a discussion board comment) about it? I recall they had a page of hoaxes for a while I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Here you go: Incomplete or Fraudulent Cases First entry. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
So we are supposed to go with the "he doesn't look that old" answer? That's also from 2014. Canada Jack do you recall if the GRG's fraud pages are considered reliable sources or not? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
What's someone that age supposed to look like since we have so few examples? That GRG page just casts doubt on the claim, it doesn't disprove it. Claims of people this old are, by definition, clouded in doubt. But in this case, he has some pieces of identification which lend credence to the claim, and this reliable source quotes them, and is specific about a claimed date of birth. What is clearly gets wrong is "oldest person" - he'd be third oldest - though he would be oldest male. Canada Jack (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that List of oldest living people be merged into Longevity claims#Recent. The two lists essentially duplicate each other: the criteria for inclusion on that list are "These notable living supercentenarian cases, in descending order of claimed age, with full birth and review dates, have been updated within the past two years, but have no publicly available early-life records to support them.", with all persons included there being aged 115 or over. On the other hand, the criteria for inclusion in this article are that a "reliable source" (i.e. newspaper article or similar) states that a person is aged 110 or over; again, public early-life documents confirming age are not necessary for inclusion in this article.
In other words, both this article and Longevity claims#Recent collate a list of living persons who claim extreme longevity, but for whom early-life documents supporting their claim to longevity have not necessarily been found. I see no reason to maintain these two virtually identical lists, so propose that they be merged. Chessrat (talk,contributions) 05:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Until recently, this list only included cases with early-life documentation and which were either verified or pending according to the GRG or an associated source. A group of people has hijacked this article. Every time someone tries to restore it to its pre-hijacked state, it gets reverted. Sailor Haumea (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Stop whining. Consensus is against you and the GRG-only proponents. That's not hijacking; that's the way Wikipedia works. The reason other GRG-proponents have been blocked or prevented from editing longevity articles is because they couldn't accept that. clpo13(talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
In almost all fields of scientific vs nonscientific controversy (evolution vs creationism, global warming vs climate change denial), Wikipedia favors the scientific position. WHY, in this particular field, is a small but powerful cadre of coup leaders able to overturn 140+ years of scientific consensus and also violate Wikipedia's three core principles: verifiability, no original research, and reliable sources? Answer that question for me. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, not seeing how those principles are being violated. There are no unsourced entries on this list. clpo13(talk) 17:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Verifiability is being violated in that the cases you're adding haven't been proven to be the age claimed by a validating authority. No original research is being violated in that you're using sources besides the GRG - the accepted authority on the subject. Reliable sources is being violated in that news reports ARE NOT RELIABLE AS PROOF OF AGE. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you're reading different versions of WP:RS and WP:V than I am. They don't mention GRG anywhere. Consensus is that non-GRG sources are perfectly acceptable on longevity articles. clpo13(talk) 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
No consensus exists. You arbitrarily decided to change things. Sailor Haumea (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 14#RfC: How should we word the lede?. clpo13(talk) 17:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm against any merger. This list is more than comprehensive and long enough to warrant it being a standalone article. This entire debate continues to be GRG-only versus other sources, which has already been debated ad nauseam. Either accept the consensus or stop editting about this topic, because this isn't constructive. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please could we stay on topic? The sourcing/inclusion debate isn't really relevant to this merger proposal. While there is an argument for revisiting the reliable source criteria for this topic, that is not what this discussion is about. Assuming that the reliable source criteria for this article remains in its current form, the question is: should this article be merged with Longevity claims? This is nothing to do with inclusion criteria, so could we please not go off-topic! Chessrat (talk,contributions) 07:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Those who have disputed longevity claims usually do so in order to gain undeserved media attention. This being said, I would feel uncomfortable merging the list with legit cases. As for the inclusion criteria per WP:N I feel that only notable people should be included, if the person is the oldest verified person in x country and/or they have a Wikipedia article about them then they stay. The list as you said is a bit to manage with over 150 entries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are separate topics and issues, and links can appropriately be made at the bottom of each page for those interested. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Suppose we merged the two lists together, then it would be possible that claims older than Susannah Jones (or Jeanne Calment even, for that matter) would be at the top of this list... would we really want to be in a situation in which all sources outside of Wikipedia would report the world's oldest person to be Susannah Jones, whereas we'd be the only one arguing against that? How credible and reliable would that leave us? Furthermore, research has shown that only two percent of claims above the age of 115 has turned out to be true in the United States of America [2], a country with generally readily accessible data. If in a country with reliable record-keeping, thus, only two percent has turned out to be true... then what would that mean for this list? Would we really want to run the risk of including 98% false cases as that is what is being reported? Then where would the scientific value of this article be? Therefore, I simply cannot see how including the list of (living) longevity claims would add any value to this article. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think any claim that high would fall under WP:Fringe anyway and would be omitted here. Perhaps this discussion should actually be about removing Longevity claims#Recent entirely. A merger is obviously unacceptable. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I'm all for trimming the list to notable people (ie have Wikipedia articles) only. Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's hard to take you seriously when you believe Methuselah lived to be 969. Sailor Haumea (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Please avoid personal/religious attacks. It only detracts from the actual discussion. I think Legacypac's position on trimming down the list to only those who have articles is a bad idea and doesn't follow precedent from other lists on this site. Basically, his idea seems predicated on the belief that if they are notable, they already have an article. That's untrue. Doing that would only lessen the comprehensiveness of this list, and one of the biggest reasons why this list was changed to include more than just the GRG was to make it more comprehensive. His idea defeats that purpose entirely. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia should report that the Bible, considered a very RS by billions of people, reports Methuselah lived to 969. There is nothing wrong with that. Legacypac (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • With the GRG, we know the cases listed are the age claimed. With other cases, we run the risk of including frauds...like Alberta Lyles. Sailor Haumea (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Sailor Haumea's been topic-banned for continued disruption, violation of DS, etc. EEng 21:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Should Gladys Terrill be in this list?

Some research supports possible birth year of 1905 or 1901.

Pasted from forums of another site that is blacklisted...

Gladys Caster claims to have been born on 12 September 1905 in Missouri. She is the daughter of Thomas and Lula White Caster and the wife of Clarence Terrill.

She currently resides in Lebanon, Missouri, and today celebrates her 110th birthday (if still living)

109th birthday article

Future grave

Obituary of a sister (confirms she was alive in March 2015 at the age of 109 and gives her parents' names.)

Some findings - 1910 census match (supports 1905) Thomas Caster Head M 31 Pennsylvania Lula Caster Wife F 25 Missouri Gladys Caster Daughter F 4 Missouri Virgil White Boarder M 20 Missouri Charlie Mcnew Boarder M 21 Virginia Frank Beck Boarder M 18 Missouri Anderson Nevils Boarder M 18 Missouri Peyton Mcgown Boarder M y

- 1920 census match (supports 1905) Thomas Caster Head M 39 Pennsylvania Lula L Caster Wife F 34 Missouri Gladys B Caster Daughter F 14 Missouri Orville S Caster Son M 7 Missouri Leota L Caster Daughter F 3 Missouri

- 1930 census match (supports 1905) Clarence A Terrill Head M 28 Colorado Gladys B Terrill Wife F 24 Missouri

- 1940 census match (supports 1901) Clarence A Terrill Head M 38 Wyoming Gladys B Terrill Wife F 38 Missouri

USPR match Name: Gladys Terrill Residence: St. Robert, Missouri Date of Birth: 12 September 1905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.66.175 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Original research has NO place in Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Alice Ducat

Alice Ducat, born May 8, 1905, of the UK can be added: [3] She's mentioned as 61 days older than Vera, which equates to a birthdate of May 8, 1905. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

IP is a sock of a banned user. EEng 13:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2016


84.180.1.97 (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016


84.180.2.44 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2016

Add living supercentenarian: Name: Rose Thayer Sex: Female date of birth: September 01, 1905 Place of residence: Wisconsin, USA

Newspaper report from Jefferson County Union newspaper

https://www.facebook.com/DailyJeffersonCountyUnion/photos/?tab=album&album_id=873300259373509

4321stop (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Facebook is not a reliable source either. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Born in 1896. What is the standard of reliability?

Hi

There are a number of sources claiming that Celino Villanueva (still alive) was born on 25th july 1896. Among them:

On one side, Chile has an old and reliable registration system. On the other hand, Villanueva was registered when he was 63, which arises a significant margin of doubt. How is this case solved? --Jbaranao (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranks

Since all people listed here are living people, per WP:BLP, we must have reliable sources to back up the information. Unfortunately the article here is violating WP:SYN and WP:OR by creating its own ranks for people whose rank is unknown - where there is no reliable source to back up their rank. All of the ranks must by WP:BLP have a reliable source, or should otherwise be removed. It's quite clear from looking at the article history that new cases are often 'slotted in' when a new reliable source is discovered, and the ranks are just edited up or down. It's clear that this article is violating WP:SYN and WP:OR in order to create its own information about ranks for living people - in violation of WP:BLP. Any ranks without a reliable source to back up the information must be removed immediately per WP:BLP. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CALC. No source is necessary to show that the oldest living person ranks at the top of a list of living people ordered from oldest to youngest. clpo13(talk) 23:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There actually was a discussion about this in September 2015 (Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 13#Rankings and sortable table), but as far as I can tell, no consensus to remove ever came of it. Now, I wouldn't be opposed to having a civil discussion about whether ranking is appropriate, but let's not WP:CRYBLP. clpo13(talk) 23:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The article itself states that there are somewhere between 150 and 600 supercentenarians. Here we have <150 listed, and new people keep appearing on the list ahead of other people. For example, Corine Snow was added on 15 July 2016 as the new #53 [[4]]. Everyone's rank below that was then shifted down one. Clearly Corine Snow didn;t suddenly become older than all those listed as younger than her - she just wasn't known about. But the ranks were therefore incorrect because of the lack of information.
WP:CALC should be a case where something is - and must be - a fixed value. Unfortunately, because we have sparse information on supercentenarians, it is not. The article also states that "The true number of living supercentenarians is uncertain because not all supercentenarians are known to researchers". If that is the case, then we should not be making the assumption in the ranks that all supercentenarians are known. We cannot apply WP:CALC here because the calculation is not obvious - it relies on incorrect assumptions and is therefore conflating hundreds of reliable sources as per WP:SYN. We do have some reliable sources that support some of the ranks on the list, but the vast majority have no source for that data. As we are talking about living people here, any unsourced information such as the ranks should be removed immediately per WP:BLP SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Feli Noi

Did Feli Noi of Suriname die? She is no longer listed here so I am curious as to what happened to her. Mzimmerle (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There was no source since her 111th birthday, so she was removed. --Nixus Minimax (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's Make a Page for Francisco Núñez Olivera - Oldest Combat Veteran in World History

Hello. I am an American photographer who lives in Spain. During the course of a 7 month long photographic essay on the oldest living Spanish people, I met Francisco Núñez Olivera, who is verified and documented as the world's fourth oldest living man, born on December 13th, 1904, currently age 111 and 233 days. At 18 years old, he joined the Spanish Army and was sent to fight in the 1920-1926 Rif War, and saw front line action as an infantry solder. He is lucid, and has told me stories about his war experiences, and what he learned about being a "real man" from his commanding officer. He is not only the sole survivor of this war, but the world's oldest living veteran. I believe he deserves his own wikipedia page. I would be happy to contribute any information available to me. I have direct contact with his family, and can assist in obtaining any further information required.

I also believe he is the oldest confirmed combat veteran in human history, and the third oldest male military veteran of any kind (source: List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars):

The only two male military veterans older than him, never actually participated in combat, although one, Henry William Allingham, was present at the Battle of Jutland as a mechanic.

Second Boer War: 111 years and 146 days - George Frederick Ives - fought in combat as part of the Imperial Yeomanry

WW1: 113 years and 42 days - Henry Allingham, *was at Battle of Jutland, although as a mechanic*

WW1: 111 years and 38 days - Harry Patch, saw front line action as infantry soldier in trenches

WW1: 115 years and 156 days - Emiliano Mercado del Toro *never deployed, war ended while he was at a training camp*— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.186.82 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Living Male Supercentanarians

There are several male supercentanarians who have reached the age of 110, but are not listed on here. If anyone is up for the challenge of adding them, and if a notable source is available, these men can go on the list: Anonymous (Male from England)- born 30 November 1904 Frank Simes- born 10 July 1905 Tanzo Hotta- born 8 February 1906 Mzimmerle (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And Mortimer Lamazon born 22 July 1906 from Guyana. Mzimmerle (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: Frank Simes died September 18th. Mzimmerle (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Limit length of list to 100

This list is getting way too long, and suffers from a previous criterion which used to be limiting but no longer is - i.e. to include only those who are 110 or older. Ten years ago, that would be several dozen. Today, we have a ridiculous 155. Since a large number of people are now achieving the age of 110, surely it is time to make this list consistent with other lists, especially within the general topic of longevity, and make this list 100 deep. Since so many people are living to 110, that age, once notable, no longer is. And the list should reflect that. Canada Jack (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If an objection to this idea is we won't know who is #101 on the list when someone dies, we can keep an updated list of the 101-110 or whatever ranked people on this page for inclusion when someone on the main list dies. There are certainly enough people here who would maintain such a list. Canada Jack (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There's only 150 to 600 living supercentenarians on the entire planet of billions how is that a large number ? 173.69.20.107 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with user 173.69.20.107 The fact that only 155 people have reached the age of 110 out of 7 billion people is really significant, and they should all deserve a spot on this list. I no longer enjoy viewing this Wikipedia page since the number has been restricted to 100. Mzimmerle (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that only 155 persons who are currently alive have reached the age of 110 can be pointed out in the article Supercentenarian, I don't agree that it warrants to have a list naming all of them. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said at the top, we have all-time oldest lists which limit themselves to being 100-deep. I fail to see any rationale as to why page should be different, we are simply listing all super-c's when at the outset, a decade ago, that criterion made sense as only several dozen would reach that age and be alive at any given time. With well over 100 at that mark, it is time to change the criterion. Canada Jack (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Guess I'll just go to Gerontologywikia.com if I want to see the full list of living supercentenarians since I have no idea who the other 55 living supercentenarians are and if they are still alive since someone insisted on changing the criteria for this page. Mzimmerle (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The same applies if you want to know who the 120th-oldest person ever was. I've not seen any rationale why it is so crucial to make a list that deep for living people when the other lists are fine at 100-deep. The criteria changed because it no longer is limiting, it is no longer notable. I'm surprised it lasted this long, frankly. Canada Jack (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It's no wonder people are leaving Wikipedia for other websites when you have so many users with this type of attitude. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The "attitude" is simple - demanding consistency and a rationale for what appears on a page. At wikipedia we need to justify why this particular list had a criteria which meant it had 155 people on it - potentially as many as 500 as per the "incomplete" note - when no other list on this subject was any more than 100 deep. Why, as I said above, is it more relevant to know, for example, who the 130th-oldest living person currently is than who the 130th-oldest person ever was.
It's an age-old problem when we have lists based on a criteria whereby a particular milestone is reach, a milestone which at one time was achieved by few people - like those who had achieved a four-minute mile. When a small handful reach a milestone, then the milestone is the criteria. But when, as time passes, the milestone is reached by dozens or hundreds, then it is time to change the criteria to a round number such as 100 as it is no longer a notable achievement BY DEFINITION.
It wasn't too long ago, relatively speaking, that the 100th verified superc EVER turned 110 - in the mid 1980s. But, by 2014, well over 1,600 people had achieved this once-rare milestone. With the verified list likely now close to 2,000, it clearly is not a notable achievement anymore. Canada Jack (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a personal opinion to me. The user is right, you will see a lot more people migrating to other websites because of the demand to change certain pages that didn't have anything wrong with them to begin with. If it's not broke don't fix it. When an editor does not take under advisement the wants of viewers, Wikipedia will cease to be an important website, and your page will become irrelevant. Mzimmerle (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fansite. There are plenty of outlets for those who want to indulge in pet projects/trivia/fanfluff etc which Wiki does not consider appropriate. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I never insinuated that it was a fan site, but you guys hear what you want to hear. For the sake of documenting, which is the purpose of Wikipedia, a limitation should not be set for living supercentenarins. How do we know that people such as Richard Arvine Overton or Flossie Dickie, or Zolton Sarosy, or Zhou Youguang, or Celina Fernandez are still alive if there is not an encyclopedia that documents that they are living supercentenarians? The answer is we don't, unless the article is restored back to the way it was. Or unless an additional article is created listing the 101-200 oldest living people. Mzimmerle (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As Derby notes, wikipedia is not a fansite. As for fixing what aint broke, this page had already been "fixed" when it wasn't broke, going from first a super-c verified-by-GRG list with an additional unverified claims list page, to a super-c verified-by-GRG-only page, to a super-c verified-by-any-reliable-source page. The problem with the latter is that, given the "incomplete" note, this once-manageable page threatens to list HUNDREDS of people for no discernible reason other to satisfy the urge from some for completeness. This problem only exists now for the simple reason that the "super-c only" criteria, which used to limit the lists to several score as per how the page used to be set up, now opens the doors to potentially hundreds. Obviously, it's time to apply a more limiting criteria, i.e, limit the page to 100-deep, in line with the other similar extant pages.
As I have repeatedly noted and have YET to have any response to, NONE of the other longevity lists go beyond 100-deep even though, arguably, it is far more notable to be the 150th oldest ever person in history than to be the 150th oldest currently living person.
"How do we know that people such as Richard Arvine Overton or Flossie Dickie, or Zolton Sarosy, or Zhou Youguang, or Celina Fernandez are still alive..." This is total fan-boy stuff. Wikipedia is for the general public, not for those who have an urge for completeness ESPECIALLY when those "complete" lists have little or nil notability. We already went through a purge of many of these longevity pages for this precise reason - they appealed only to a narrow band of list-lovers who could easliy get their list-fix elsewhere.
But, as instigator of this thread, I think there is at least some reason to restore some of what has been lost - and that is to list MEN who have achieved 110-plus, as I doubt there are even 20. Might be an idea to have a separate list of men on this page, noting that something like only 10% of super-cs are men, hence the need for a separate tabulation. Canada Jack (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"For the main article, see Centenarian."

The intro states; "For the main article, see Centenarian." As if that page deals with supercentenarian status. Surely it should be the supercentenarian page? I am hesitant to change this, but I will and if wrong it will obviously be reverted. MattSucci (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC))

@MattSucci: works for me! ... richi (hello) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a table with the male centunarians

Restricting this list to 100 entries had the effect that there is almost no male supercentunarians, as most of them barely reach 110 or 111.

Personaly, considering the small number of living supercentunarians, I would just list them all and wait until the ;arge number became a real problem before limiting it.

My feeling is that some wanted th list to be limited only by rigid application of principles and not for real technical reasons (we have many shorted lists of countries that are much longuer than that without any complain). But anyway, since resolving this arbitrary created another problem, I suggest listing also on this page a table with, let say, the 40 oldest male supercentunarians (I am not even sure if there is 30 of them alive…) 45.73.14.41 (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

My point was there was no rationale to list every super-c living if there were well more than 100 of them, when were were limiting other lists of super-c's to being 100-deep. Sure, 100 is an arbitrary number, but so was listing all of the super-c's. It's not some "rigid application of principles," it's common sense. I have yet to see any justification as to why we need to list ALL known super-c's, when it was at 155 when we shortened the list, potentially it could have been in the hundreds. Lists of countries is entirely different - there are a fixed finite list of countries. Not so with super-c's. As for the suggestion we have a separate list of male super-c's, I made the same suggestion in the post above. Canada Jack (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I see no justification for including a random number of extra male supercentenarians. A list of 100 is entirely consistent with other longevity articles. There are fansites for those who want to follow the minutiae of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I can see the argument for including a small list of living male supercentenarians, for example 10, if there even is that many. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It is questionable if anyone cares about even the top 100 but claiming to be the 105th oldest person alive... not notable. Also there is no evidence to say that #87 or #56 or whatever are really ranked there - just our list itself - and we now the list is incomplete. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Confusion about definition of centuries

Morano is NOT the last surviving person born in the 1800s. The 1800s go from 1801 to 1900, so there are three of them. --Gspinoza (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. What you mean is the 19th century (1801-1900), the 1800s are 1800-1899. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It's the same. --Gspinoza (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
No they aren't. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

John William Douglas born 2 August 1904

John William Douglas born 2 August 1904 is not listed? As he is the third oldest verified man he should be on your list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:65F8:C85A:7EFB:E9FD (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If you provide a reliable source that had his date of birth then he can be added to the list. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I think John William Douglas would be the 4th oldest living man. Another American man, Allen Charles Jackson, born 24 NOV 1903, may be living, but he is still not verified as a living supercentenarian. It seems to be impossible to verify Jackson. BjörnBergman 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Allen Charles Jackson

Allen Charles Jackson and his twin brother Allan Ceascear Jackson, born Nov 24, 1903, are known as two of the oldest twins ever. Allan Ceascear is confirmed dead, but not Allen Charles. If he really is living, he is a supercentenarian (113 years old) who is the second-oldest man after Israel Kristal, but then why is he not put in the list? If he hasn't been confirmed deceased, he would be living, or is he still not verified? BjörnBergman 20:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The consensus for inclusion in this article is that there is a WP:RS stating that the person has celebrated their 110th birthday. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Unverified

Aren't these now unverified? Marie Antoinette Redix Not on GRG snd http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Marie-Antoinette_Radix says she's now unverified. Francisco Núñez Olivera Not on GRG and http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Francisco_Nunez_Olivera Avelina Mouzo Leis Not on GRG and http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Avelina_Mouzo_Leis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonds775 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

They're verified according to Wikipedia's standards not the GRGs. If someone's age has been reported in a reliable source then they can be added. The gerontology wikia isn't a reliable source anyway. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oldest Living Men

Why isn't Alfred Thambiayah Sri Lankan businessman, politician and Member of Parliament on the Oldest Living Men list? According to his webpage on Wikipedia he was born 8 November 1903 which makes him over 113 years old and the second oldest man in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NLVMom (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be a reliable source which states that he was alive to celebrate his 110th birthday, and that he was alive within the last year. Nothing in his article suggests that is the case, in fact it states that he "was a Ceylon Tamil businessman, politician ..." which suggests he is deceased. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
He is probably deceased in 2013 because this source says that late Alfred Leo Thambiayah [5]. But it wont say when he has passed away. But it was before his 110th birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.113.52 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
His wife passed away in 2009 and her obituary said too late Alfred Thambiayah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.113.52 (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017

Yesterday, January 4th 2017, A dominican woman named Natividad Martinez de la Cruz celebrated her 117th birthday http://www.elnuevodiario.com.do/mobile/article.aspx?id=514884

Her age was confirmed, she was born on January 4th 1900, which makes her the 2nd oldest living person in the world, and overall the 7th oldest person in history.

Her identity card is approved by the dominican governmenrt, and expires in January 4th, 2024.

Here is a picture taken by her family of her ID https://postimg.org/image/7h5pkofn5/

Due to these reasons, she must be listed on both lists of Oldest living people and Verified oldest people Rcharddomino18 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: We're gonna need a lot more sources in order to validate obvious WP:BLP concerns... Aurato (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the people who make this list now absolutely less interesting. Consensus of 3 HOLY WOW!!!!!!!

This list is now boring. From the perspective of a health care practitioner and health services researcher, it was fascinating to see how this list has expanded over the last 7 years. I was disappointed when the verification pending list was removed, but could understand that from the perspective of data integrity. This limit of 100 was arbitrarily selected and I think that it is not in spirit of Wikipedia which is to expand knowledge in my understanding. Those of you who wanted a list of 100 should have started another page with a limit of 100 and called it the 100 oldest verified living people or similar, and left this page ALONE.

I am considering starting a new page with a title of living verified super-centenarians and you who are wanting to limit to 100 can stay here, and those of use who want a comprehensive list will play on that page. Would anyone work on submitting updates and corrections to a living verified super-centenarians page? Would those of you who must limit themselves to 100 leave the other page alone if I do start such a page? Thanks, MTA, PhD Associate Professor of Pharmacy and Health Sciences— Preceding unsigned comment added by IARXPHD (talk • contribs) 15:31, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not a list of indiscriminate information. There has to be a limit somewhere. Also, you should read WP:POVFORK. Starting a duplicate page because you don't like the editorial decisions made on the existing page is frowned upon. How about a discussion instead? As a start, why do you think the limit of 100 is a problem? clpo13(talk) 19:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Previous discussions on a limit: Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 15#Limit length of list to 100, Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 14#Limit on entries. clpo13(talk) 19:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"This limit of 100 was arbitrarily selected..." And listing only 110+ -year-olds is not arbitrary? I initiated the move to 100-deep lists as there was no justification - NONE - given for why we needed to know the name of each and every person who was reported to be 110+. As was stated on numerous previous occasions, NONE of the other lists on related pages here go beyond 100-deep, so why the hue and cry for this particular list? Besides, let us not forget, the only reason the living lists were 110+ before was because GRG didn't start authenticating candidates for inclusion on their lists until they reached that age. So THEIR criterion for inclusion (110+) was ARBITRARILY adopted here. Ironically, part of the reason for the changes to this page (GRG no longer the sole verifier) was the huge number of cases of super-c's - going from only 100 verified all-time circa 1985 to something like 2,000 now - and GRG's tardiness in verifying many of these new cases.
Another question no one has bothered to answer - given the clearly magical importance to some editors in knowing those who achieved 110 years of age - is why is it more important to know how many living 110+ - year-olds there are than how many, say 110+ -year-old men have been verified all-time? Or, indeed, why is it more crucial to know this information than it is to know, say, the 200th-oldest people ever? It seems to me to be a FAR more impressive achievement - a far more notable achievement in the language of wikipedia - to make THOSE lists than it would be to be the 160th living person to reach 110 when that age has been achieved in something like 2,000 verified cases.
A final point on a 100-deep list, as a health-care professional, IARX, I am surprised you have little or no interest in looking at the demographic aspect of how old someone needs to be to make this 100-deep list. Having had an interest in this subject in general for nearly 40 years, I find it astounding that now one needs to be nearly 111 to make the list! Canada Jack (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

From a demographic perspective, knowing how many people are reaching 110 is more interesting and significant. If it's 125, and stays at 125, that shows a plateau in the affect of current technology on life extension. And actually that would show a bit of a decrease, knowing that as a % of living people it had decreased. Again, I'm not going to argue that 100 isn't any more or less arbitrary than using the 110 year age. I just have tracked the number here for 8 years, and it isn't really growing much. All good conversation. :)

Gerontology Wikia, run largely by the GRG and editors banned from Wikipedia or who disagree with Wikipedia guidelines, has their version of oldest living people which is limited to "claimants age 110-114 that could potentially be verified in the future are included here". This is more appropriate for longevity fans who wish to avoid the restrictions of an encyclopedia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Even given the restrictions noted by Derby for that Gerontology Wikia page, there are some 225 people on that list! Given estimates of there being between 150(!) and 600 living super-c's (surely out-dated estimates), the case for expanding the list here gets weaker and weaker as achieving that age becomes more and more common seemingly by the year. Canada Jack (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
just why has the number of verified living supercentenarians increased from a few dozen a decade ago to well over 100 now? do people now having a greater chance of living to be a supercentenarian? is it because the human population has increased? is it because there are less living supercentenarians now that are unverified or unknown? 2602:306:3653:8440:C4A4:4C9F:6C5:4705 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Or more simply, a concerted effort towards researching, documenting and tracking has increased the ability to find and prove people living to that age. Ravensfire (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

John William Douglas born 2 August 1904

Where is john William Douglas He was born 2 August 1904 and is not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:9998:F638:E68A:2C67 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Name John Douglas Age in 1910 5 Birth Year abt 1905 Birthplace South Carolina Home in 1910 Cheraw, Chesterfield, South Carolina Race Black Gender Male Relation to Head of House Son Marital Status Single Father's Name John Douglas Father's Birthplace South Carolina Mother's Name Marsha Douglas Mother's Birthplace South Carolina Attended School No Household Members Name Age John Douglas 25 Marsha Douglas 22 John Douglas 5 Lula Douglas 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:9998:F638:E68A:2C67 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Needs a proper reference, not a copy of a birth/death record. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a 1910 census listing a proper reference from the U.S census report. A U.S government official document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:9998:F638:E68A:2C67 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Census matches are a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used as a reference per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:BLPPRIMARY. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe the federal government over any clown news reporter story published as a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:1470:F91C:7BE7:CDA8 (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant, Wiki guidelines take preference. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we need a reliable source that states this man - still alive - was born in 1904. Besides, the record posted simply verifies that someone with that name was born circa 1905, not that the person alive today is that same person. Canada Jack (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

Mary Whitehurst died in January 2017 [6] 173.69.20.107 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

[7] 173.69.20.107 (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The Herald Sun has now reported her death [8] 173.69.20.107 (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Is anyone going to remove her from the page now that The Herald Sun has reported her death ? 173.69.20.107 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

List of oldest living men

Anyone think we should have a list of oldest living men article which lists verified male supercentenarians? there's probably no more than 20 of them. I think we should. RightGot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Already covered in both this article and the oldest living men section in Oldest people. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Lidia Riso

Lidia Riso turns 111 on December 23, 2016 [9] 95.237.158.150 (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Elisabet Hamm

elisabet hamm is dead look 110 club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.219.207.132 (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The 110 club is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Any source other than the 110 club that says she died? A reliable source? By the way, her name is Elisabeth Hamm. RightGot (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
One source from 10 months ago, no mention of a 111th birthday, strong indication that she was deceased in 2016. No sources that she is living in 2017. Removing Elizabet Hamm as a "limbo" and most likely deceased case. I see it's already been done. TFBCT1 —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Reverted per WP:BDP. Wikipedia assumes she is alive until she turns 115 or a source says otherwise. However she was last confirmed alive 10 months ago so we should leave her on the list for at least another two months as I think this page either does (or used to anyway) state it lists those who were confirmed alive within the last year. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
But she is confirmed dead! 110 club is the only reliable source in this case. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that it is NOT a reliable source. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Marbe166 is correct. The 110 club is a discussion forum and isn't a reliable source per Wikipedia policies or this Wikiproject. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I am removing Elizabet Hamm as a "limbo" case. I am NOT stating that she is deceased, although I strongly believe that she is. There is no mention of her exept for one source from 10 months ago. In order to add her back, provide mention of her 111th birthday, that she is alive in 2017, or has been alive within the past 6 months, this is standard procedure. TFBCT1 —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. The consensus for this article is that the person must be confirmed alive within the last year, unless there is a reliable source stating that they have died. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
What's wrong with waiting another two months and then removing her? She was confirmed alive less than a year ago and Wikipedia should assume she is alive unless a source says otherwise. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be an edit war going on with this page. She keeps being removed and put back in, removed and put back in, removed and put back in. RightGot (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a big problem with a more than likely deceased person being left on this list for 2 months. Also there should be some criteria for someone to fall into a "limbo" category prior to one year. I also have a problem with the 110 club being considered an "unreliable source." I've been monitoring their updates for the past 18 months and they have a 100% accuracy rate and they are often first to report. Does someone have a personal vendetta? I do not consider this issue closed. TFBCT1 —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no personal vendetta. As I said above, the 110 club is a discussion forum and according to both WP:RSSELF and the guidelines to sourcing at this Wikiproject it is not allowed. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@TFBCT1:They know Hamm is dead. They know 110Club is a bunch of experts. They know there will be no better source. But they like riding the rules. All experts in longevity have leaved wikipedia because of this riders of the rules. To have a correct list means nothing for them. This list is full of unverified people and now there are even dead ones on it. The longevity articles in Wikipedia have become the laughing-stock of all people who understand just a little bit of the topic. A good source is a source which proofed to be reliable. But they make good sources by definition. The number one expert of the topic posting in an forum isn't worth the half of an stupid journalist in his first year after college writing some three liner in an hillbilly newspaper. This is a willful falsification of wikipedia content and treason on the ideals wikipedia is based on.
@Linx:You can assume someone living you know nothing about. But in case of clear hints that the person is dead, and remember the person we talk about is 110+, you can not assume this person living on the basis that she was living 10 months ago. You know you are wrong! But it is more important for you to prevail this shitty rules than to have an correct article. Shame on you!
Hamm is no limbo case. She died in 2016. And of course there is a personal vendetta going on. All the experts of longevity who were mobed out of wikipedia by the same persons who have occupied this and other articles are now in 110club. They cannot accept any information from there, it would proof they were wrong. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"Experts"? Legends in their own minds! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nanu Tsukovna Shaova

Is this actually a verified supercentenarian? Maybe it's the case, but it seems a bit extreme. 126 or 127 years? 99.101.56.68 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If it was it would have been picked up by a lot more media around the world, as well as groups such as GRG, so no. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it was verified that she was born in 1890. Her documents were published. She received a message from the President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and was paid a visit by the Head Yuri Alexandrovich Kokov on the eve of International Women's Day 2017. It should be kept in mind that not all supercentenarians are known to organisations that deal in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group. I would like to remind that some people in this article are not on the GRG's list, but this is not required of course. The only requirement is that names in this list of oldest [known] living people should be reliably sourced. Her entry and others were reliably sourced as you can see in the article. There is a government press release (published on March 2017) in addition to various articles from national press agencies (RIA Novosti, Interfax, etc.) and newspapers which conducted interviews with the Russian supercentenarian and released a documentary in the Russian language. It is possible that there are even older people that we are not aware of, but N. T. Shaova is the oldest known living person in the world since the day her official documents were published. Listofpeople (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
She is actually just one of many people claimed to be the oldest person in the world, and therefore belongs in Longevity claims with the rest of them. Including every person who is claimed to be older than the person recognzsed by e.g. Guinness, would make this article useless from an encyclopedic perspective. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear DerbyCountyinNZ, the article that you mentioned is related to 'unsubstantiated' cases. Therefore, it is not relevant to our topic. As you know, the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records are amongst the sources that are deemed reliable, but there are other reliable sources as well. The GRG's list of living supercentenarians include 46 people only. On Wikipedia's list of oldest living people, however, there are 54 other living supercentenarians who obviously did not apply to the GRG, but has been 'reliably sourced' just like the aforementioned Russian supercentenarian. We should also include her in other Wikipedia lists of verified oldest people accordingly. I might also open a new article entitled 'List of Russian supercentenarians'. Listofpeople (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The GRG and Guinness are independent organisations not state-run. Many other countries claim to have "verified" extremely old people, including many over 130 years. None of these has stood up to independent scrutiny. The current consensus for living supercentenarians is that they a reliably sourced but are not older than the person identified by Guinness as the oldest. You can try creating List of Russian supercentenarians, but I doubt it would survive Afd. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear DerbyCountyinNZ, are you saying that a reliably-sourced supercentenarian younger than the one who holds the Guinness World Record for oldest living person can be added to Wikipedia's list of oldest living people, but that a reliably-sourced supercentenarian older than that record holder cannot be added to Wikipedia's list of oldest living people? Excuse me. What if a person does not apply for a Guinness World Record or the Gerontology Research Group's list? When someone set a Guinness World Record for shortest person, for instance, it does not necessarily mean there is definitely no living human adult shorter than that record holder. It only means no shorter one applied to break that record. If you really have a proof that there is a shorter human adult not in Guinness World Records, no user can ignore that proof. You can add that person to Wikipedia's list of shortest people, providing a reliable source for your edit. However, this does not change the fact another person is in Guinness World Records and on Wikipedia's list of Guinness World Record holders at that moment. If one creates a separate Wikipedia article called something like 'Gerontology Research Group's list of living supercentenarians', excluding over 50 other reliably-sourced supercentenarians in this Wikipedia article, I may understand that, but they cannot be removed from this article because the key point here is a source that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Listofpeople (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be stated it the article that this article doesn't list all the verified living supercentenarians?

There are more than 100 verified living supercentenarians, however only 100 are listed here. Shouldn't this be stated in the article? Otherwise, someone might read it and actually think there are only 100 supercentenarians verified to be alive right now. I think it should be stated that this article only lists 100 supercentenarians, but there are more than that that are verified to be alive right now. The supercentenarian article also incorrectly says that there are 100 verified supercentenarians alive right now, which shows how it gets confusing with the article not saying anywhere that not all living supercentenarians are listed. RightGot (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is a list of the living oldest people, not a list of living supercentenarians, and to be consistent with other similar pages, the list is limited to 100 individuals. Canada Jack (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Instead of saying "More than 100 supercentenarians are verified to be alive right now, but only 100 are listed here," (implying this is a list of superc's rather than oldest people) why not remove that simply add to the top of the lede, "This is a list of the 100 oldest verified living people." Canada Jack (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. I've done such. RightGot (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous of Illinois #38 on list

I was wondering why #38 on the list of oldest living people is listed as "Anonymous of Illinois" when the gerontology website lists her name as Mildred Salk. Bromleychuck (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The cited source has Anonymous. Is there a reliable source which says otherwise? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
If by "gerontology site" you mean the gerontology wiki, this is not a reliable source and can't be used here. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Armida Sholar died

http://www.greensboro.com/life/whitestone-resident-oldest-woman-in-n-c-dies-at/article_6d1e2e4d-6a6a-5068-9ccd-0af73d8f135b.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.109.234 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yukie Hino

According to this source Yukie Hino was passed away at 13 January 2017 [10]. Why it took almost three months before this was announced? I mean that if she has been dead nearly 3 months then why it wasn't announced then when she died?62.80.158.180 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Kicchi Innoue

On 03/31/2017 I added Kicchi Innoue to the overflow of this list. He was not even on the radar to be added, but I saw that his birth date was on target, so I added him. He has now been reliably reported deceased as of 03/21/2017. He was never on this list, so he is not subject to the stringent gudelines for removal and can be readily replaced on the overflow. I added him to the overflow on 03/31/2017, and now I am removing him on 04/11/2017 based on current information. So for the usual suspects, don't add him back citing gudelines that don't apply to this situation.TFBCT1 17:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I restored him earlier because someone cited the 110 club forum as a reference. I think anyone that uses that as a reference should be reverted. But thanks to whoever found an appropriate source. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Elizabeth Koinage is 117 years old with Kenyan Government ID see BBC magazine 86.8.131.233 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Emma Morano

Is Emma Morano deceased? There is an update on the Italian page from what looks to be Robert Young (GRG) showing that she died today 03/25/2017, aged 117 years, 116 days. TFBCT1 00:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Robert Young GRG 1974 to 2017 looks like a fake account. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
She died on Saturday, 04/15/2017. Kostaki mou (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017

The table that contains ¨100 Oldest Living People¨ should include the following entry:

Name: Monserrate Maria Santana Avila Sex: F Birth Date: 20 March 1903 Place of Residence: Ecuador

Monserrate currently lives in Manta, in the province of Manabí in Ecuador.

File:Monserrate Santana ID.jpg
National ID of Monserrate Santana picture taken on April 2017

181.198.172.169 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done There needs to be a reliable source for this information before it can be added. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

News about 116 Mexican woman being denied a bank account

There has been a vivid interest on the Internet about some Mária Félix from Mexico, who had reportedly asked for something in a bank but was refused for being too old (the computer system had a maximum age limit). I am not sure if these news are reliable as there could be one source and other media did no further research and simply assessed the information as true.

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/26/mexican-bank-intervenes-after-women-116-too-old-to-receive-card

User:HHrad (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC+2)

Similar to the others listed in Longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Olga Yvonne Agar

Does anyone know why Olga Yvonne Agar is listed on the African Supercentenarians Wikipedia Page, but is not listed on the Oldest Living People wikipedia page? Seems inconsistent. Wikipedia page for African Supercentenarians where Olga is listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_supercentenarians JasonPhelps (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

She used to be listed here, but then someone removed her. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&oldid=768886599 I don't know why they removed her. 2602:306:3653:8440:7DE2:4DEE:626A:B08D (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I have restored her to the list. If she shouldn't be included in the list for some reason, it should be discussed here why that is. PizzaLuvver (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Removing Olga Yvonne Algar from list using the same rationale as was used on 03/06/2017 when she was removed. "Deleted one African longevity claimant. This case is the same as Carmelo Flores Laura, Hryhoriy Nestor and Sudhakar Chaturvedi." Not credible. I'm removing her from the African page as well. TFBCT1 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Also of note, she was only added to the African page (2) days ago. So there's your inconsistency, not that she wasn't on this list. TFBCT1 11:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sahae Kawabata

I have removed Sahae Kawabata from this list. I see that she has repeatedly been placed back when other users have removed her. While it is true that she has been reported deceased as of 04/30/2017, her source listing her on this page is from 09/09/2015. Nothing more is needed to remove her. Provide a current source that she is alive or she remains off the list.TFBCT1 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

Ilse Weiszfeld was moved to limbo she is no longer listed under Living Supercentenarians on the GRG list and should be removed from this page. [11] 173.69.20.107 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of oldest living people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2017

Grandmother, Minnie Whicker, from Roseville, CA, United States, was born on July 24, 1906, making her 111 years old. 2601:204:CB00:53BB:28DB:DC8A:55CB:2114 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We only add supercentenarians with an actual Wikipedia page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible change in the list

Rank 96 of this list, Emilienne Waquet, is probably dead

http://centenaires-francais.forumactif.org/t13-deces-de-personnes-de-110-ans-et-plus#5131

101.222.228.237 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a better source than a post on a forum? It's not reliable per WP:BLPSPS. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

slight modification

"Hungary" in the 99th row must be linked, because Dezsone Kovacs is the oldest living person of Hungary. 106.66.128.113 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

links to other lists

Just why do people keep making them? RightGot (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ena Nelson

Find a Grave is not a reliable source. I've removed her from this list. Discuss here if you think she should be restored, but she needs a better source. RightGot (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we keep her here until her next birthday to see if we get a better source? It's only a month away.--Dorglorg (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not just wait to re-add her until her next birthday if a better source comes up? There's obviously a newspaper that continues to keep up with her. What newspaper, though? Citing them directly is the best thing we could do. 71.91.98.173 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Jamaican Centenarians and Super Centenarians

The Island nation of Jamaica has number of centenarians and super centenarians. Violet Moss Brown of Jamaica died in September 2017. I did not see her on the list of super centenarians on Wikipedia she was the world's oldest person until her death.

Source Jamaica_Gleaner.com published September 15, 2017 Andrea Jenkins (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Jamaica_Gleaner.com published September 15, 2017

She was/is included in all the relevant articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Irma Ilari

Irma Ilari turned 111 on September 23 (here the article). 192.54.144.229 (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No she turned 110, born 23 September 1907. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

A lot of verified supercentenarians are missing in this page. For instance, in France, every supercentenarian on this list is clearly verified https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_grands_centenaires_français. 193.50.119.211 (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Other Wiki's are not reliable sources. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes

1. GRG has put Kamada Shimabukuro (rank 28) in limbo

2. Alelia Murphy (rank 39) is not in the GRG list. She needs an alternate source.

http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2016/jul/28/alelia-murphy-111-and-counting/

3. "Belgium" in the 100th row has to be linked because it is the first instance

106.76.207.116 (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


http://www.supercentenariditalia.it/persone-viventi-piu-longeve-in-italia

there are 3 italian ladies that should be included in the page. Mariannina Genovese (15-10-1905), Renata Bianchi (16-10-1906) and Carmela Velardi (22-10-1906)

https://cidadeverde.com/noticias/256902/piauiense-de-114-anos-pode-ser-considerada-a-mulher-mais-idosa-do-brasil

Maximina Pereira da Silva 9-10-1903


I added the Italian women Renata Bianchi and Carmela Velardi after I found actual reliable sources for their claims. The website you provided (http://www.supercentenariditalia.it/persone-viventi-piu-longeve-in-italia) is not reliable as it seems to just be an oldest people fan website. Also, its source for Mariannina Genovese's age is nearly five years old and a Google search turns up nothing reliable proving she made it to her 110 birthday. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_15&oldid=1144324826"