Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Major issues with Japanese supercentenarians

While going through this article after removing two Spanish supercentenarians I discovered had sources over a year old and updated sources could not be found, I made an unpleasant discovery. Eight Japanese entries have sources over a year old, the sources no longer exist (sometimes with no idea what date they were even from), or outright fake. If google translate is to be believed, one persons source is over two years old, and another is explicitly nearly four. How many of these people are even still alive? I have no knowledge of Japanese so I am unable to research new sources, but I can unequivocally say these peoples sources are junk: Natsu Kotsuka, Seki Inagaki, Tsunahei Ogawa, Kaoru Ueda, Sumie Yabune, Sanae Uchiyama, and Tame Yamaguchi. Sumire Hishikawa's "source" is a photographers blog post.

I am going to remove all eight entries right now and please do not add any of them back without each having a reliable up to date source. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is currently an editing dispute on three different pages about this change, the others being List of Japanese supercentenarians and Oldest people. Could any of you please provide your own analysis on this issue to reach a consensus since TFBCT1 is refusing to abide by policy or discuss the issue. @CommanderLinx, @The Blade of the Northern Lights, @DerbyCountyinNZ, @JFG Newshunter12 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is called canvassing and is prohibited. You should not have done this!TFBCT1 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I can read Japanese. I checked the source for Kaoru Ueda, which was published on 1 September 2017, stating her name as the oldest woman in the Osaka prefecture as of that date. I found a more recent announcement, dated 1 September 2018.[1] It lists Katsuko Nakajima (中嶋 勝子), born 8 April 1907 (明治４０年４月８日), as the oldest living woman in the Osaka prefecture; I will add her to the table. I did not find an obituary for Ms. Ueda, so I don't think she should be removed from the list just yet. I would suggest adding a {{cn}} tag explaining that we need a more recent source. — JFG ^talk 02:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I have removed Ueda. If she were still alive, she would be listed in the prefectoral report instead of Nakajima. If an editor finds proof of life, it will be easy to restore her entry from article history. — JFG ^talk 02:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

For Nagasaki Prefecture, Ogawa and Uchiyama are unchanged and confirmed living in the September 2018 report. Updated source accordingly. There was a reading error on Uchiyama's first name: it's Masae, not Sanae. I also filled in and translated the source for Kagoshima Prefecture. — JFG ^talk 03:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@TFBCT1 It is the policy on these pages that individuals are removed if their source is over a year old, non-existent or fake, and yet you want all three of these gross policy violations to stay in place. All eight entries violate these policies and should be removed immediately as I did. You also re-added Sumire Hishikawa and her fake source each time you reverted and you lied in your edit summaries on each page that I reverted you three times. I reverted you only twice each. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a guideline, not a policy that all "reliable sources" be updated every 12 months. It is a policy that in order to remove individuals from these lists, you need to show proof of death, especially in reference to Prefecture reports which are not "fabled" as you contrive and are updated regularly. It is haphazard and reckless to remove 25% of all Japanese from these lists clearly because you are ignorant as to how to update their sources. You have a habit of demolition and dismantling rather than rectifying and fixing and that will not be tolerated here. I'm not going to respond to your infantile bickering and quibbling per above.TFBCT1 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish. It is long-standing consensus, which you repeatedly choose to ignore, that any person without proof that they are alive within the last year, can be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Says the person throwing personal insults at the person following long established policy that you yourself use when it suits you. I never said prefecture reports themselves were fabled, but unless they are presented here for review they might as well be. Facts need proof, not assertions that oh it exits in exactly the way I say it does. It's not my fault you have a failure of comprehension. I was also not canvassing above, but trying to resolve this dispute as quickly as possible since you were refusing to use the talk page to discuss this. Those editors have a long standing interest in these pages, I didn't just summon some group of personal friends who would automatically take my side. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no "long-standing consensus" for this guideline and I can go through the history and point out several cases where it was overlooked. Point in case, 10 of the current 100 did not meet this stringent guideline, yet nothing was done about it until 2 days ago. @Newshunter12 , you have said twice now that I refused to discuss this matter on the talk page which is false. I responded in less than 2 hours- we're not all as manic and infantile as you are; I'm assuming you are about 12 years old. And yes you did canvass and ping several like-minded editors to help your cause which is a serious violation which I am prepared to take action against you. I will be going on vacation and will not re-visit this matter until I return 11/24.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again your refusal to accept that there is a consensus shows your lack of comprehension when it comes to Wikipedia, as does the fact that it is not a guideline, it is merely the established WP:CONSENSUS for this article. I can show you multiple occasions where such consensus was defined, a look at the last time you were taken to ARBCOM should be sufficient. Perhaps next time we'll find an admin with a better comprehension of the facts than yours. I look forward to your detailing of the "several cases where it was overlooked" along with your justification for why this overrules consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Think twice before "taking action" against your fellow editors, as your behaviour would also be scrutinized if that happened. Calling people "ignorant", "manic", "infantile", und so weiter, falls afoul of the encyclopedia's WP:No personal attacks policy. — JFG ^talk 14:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to report me for whatever you like, but please notify me on my talk page so I get a notification as is policy, and not on my user page like you did the last time you frivolously reported me. I'm a little too old for finding Easter eggs. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely missing the point here. Change of focus. My contention is that you removed several Japanese from this list who had valid "reliable resources" from September 2018, many have already been found by JFG and will be updated and others are surely to follow. Address why you removed several valid entries of Japanese supercentenarians. In your reverts you state it's because "Prefecture reports are fabled." That is not a valid reason. So was it because you were lazy, ignorant, or purposely trying to sabotage the Japanese entries on this list? DebryCountyNZ- regardless of your personal feelings- try to stay on point here if you wish to contribute through your canvassing.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your lack of comprehension grows exponentially! Where have I canvassed anyone? And I am sticking to the point, which is: There IS a consensus, which you have chosen to ignore, again, by, edit warring, again, and then incorrectly claiming that because the consensus (which you claim doesn't exist) is not being followed to the letter, it is invalid. So exactly how is it possible for a consensus which, according to you, doesn't exist in the first place, to be invalidated by inaction? To be invalidated it must exist in the first place. QED! And if there was failure to follow the consensus then that is down to the editors who most actively follow the article, the most active of which is you! So therefore any supposed failure to follow the consensus is your fault, proving yet again that you have no intention of actually following consensus which must seriously call into question, again, whether you are actually interested in editing Wikipedia cooperatively at all. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

None of the entries met policy to be included in this article when I removed them, which is the only relevant point here. Someone else finding and adding recent sources for a few individuals who are later re-added to the list is what should have happened, since there is no policy to wait and see if a citation comes at some future point. I've already explained the prefecture report issue and by the way, all eight people removed were replaced by reliably sourced entries I researched and put together, so how am I lazy or ignorant? Newshunter12 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• After the updates JFG did and that I did on behalf of the IP editor below, the only outstanding issues with Japanese entries on this list are with Seki Inagaki and Tame Yamaguchi. There is a recent reliable source for Inagaki below, but it does not state her date of birth. Yamaguchi's source no longer exists and while the entry was added 30 December 2017 by TFBCT1, they didn't fill out the citation properly, so we don't even know how old the source was.

According to gerontology wikia, the following individuals are supposedly still alive and included in the recent round of Japanese prefecture reports. If anyone wants to research 2018 reports so they can be added to the article, here are their names and prefectures: Michiko Yamazaki, 113, Nagano Prefecture; Maki Miura, 112, Miyagi Prefecture; Kesa Yamada, 111, Gunma Prefecture; Yoshi Baba, 111, Yamanashi Prefecture; Tsurue Furuno, 111, Kumamoto Prefecture; Chiyako Iwamoto, 111 (would have been 110), Gunma Prefecture. Based on the 2017 Fukuoka report, the 2018 report for that prefecture may have a few individuals that could be added as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, Newshunter12.

Here is some more information:

Mrs. Tame Yamaguchi (20 March 1907) and Mrs. Chiyako Iwamoto (20 November 1907), 15 September:

http://www.yukan-daily.co.jp/news.php?id=75064 (Enlarged image: http://www.yukan-daily.co.jp/news.php?id=75064&mode=pic&pic=3)

Mrs. Kano Ebara (30 March 1907), 18 September: http://www.sanyonews.jp/article/790267/1/

Date of birth reported in August: http://www.pref.okayama.jp/uploaded/life/572886_4659484_misc.pdf

I understand if you don’t add Mrs. Chiyo Nagaki (10 November 1907). While she was confirmed alive on 20 September (https://www.oita-press.co.jp/1010000000/2018/09/20/JD0057332103), the source requires a newspaper subscription.

Her date of birth is supplemented in this document (she’s the 109-year-old on the top right): http://www.city.kunisaki.oita.jp/uploaded/attachment/9661.pdf

Mrs. Tsurue Furuno (25 August 1907), 10 September: http://tanasoko.amakusa-web.jp/Diary/Pub/Shosai.aspx?AUNo=64939&KjNo=60

The above source looks like a blog, though, so I understand if you don’t take it.

Her date of birth can be found on page 21 of this document from January: https://www.pref.kumamoto.jp/common/UploadFileOutput.ashx?c_id=3&id=24896&sub_id=1&flid=161138

This is probably a stretch, but Mrs. Fusa Tatsumi (25 April 1907), who was removed several months ago due to insufficient sources, was confirmed alive last month (2 October: https://m.facebook.com/masaya.shibatani/posts/1833657126753829). The only issue is that it’s a Facebook post. I also don’t know of any sources besides the YouTube video (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfters16vuQ) that was used earlier this year.

I still don’t have a source for Mrs. Seki Inagaki (4 November 1906). She is indeed still alive (112th birthday: https://mobile.twitter.com/black_ssaki5296/status/1059432803106877443), but besides that Tweet I’ve found nothing official for her date of birth. We may have to remove her if nothing reliable can be found.

Lastly, the Fukuoka Prefecture report from this year (http://www.pref.fukuoka.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/45087.pdf) only lists the number of people at a certain age, and not names or dates of birth. Not sufficient for us.

As for the others you mentioned:

Michiko Yamazaki, 113: Confirmed alive in September; however, she was not explicitly named. Reports merely indicated that a 113-year-old woman was alive, leaving the assumption that it was indeed Mrs. Yamazaki.

As for her date of birth (28 July 1905): that’s also conjecture, if I’m not mistaken. It could actually be anywhere between 28 July and 1 September, 1905; 28 July seems most likely, however. As a result, there’s no solid source for her date of birth.

Maki Miura, 112: Another case where she was confirmed alive, but not explicitly. The oldest person in her city was 112, leaving the assumption that it was her. Source is last page of http://www.city.tome.miyagi.jp/koho/shisejoho/machizukuri/sinotorikumi-top/documents/201809gatsubuchotoukaigishiryou.pdf

Her date of birth is from a Facebook post six years ago. This obviously doesn’t meet our criteria, but here it is: https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=357980674281414&set=a.341217359291079&type=3

Yoshi Baba, 111: I don’t have any sources for Mrs. Baba.

Again, thank you for your time. 108.206.39.136 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I was able to successfully add Chiyako Iwamoto, Kano Ebara, and Chiyo Nagaki to the list, and update Tame Yamaguchi's entry. I was unable to add Tsurue Furuno and Fusa Tatsumi or use the birthdate for Seki Inagaki because the sources were a blog, Facebook, and Twitter respectively. None of these sources are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, even if the information were true, so you don't need to worry about using blogs, forums, or social media. We aren't able to use any of them. You explained it perfectly as to why the other cases you mentioned could not be added. Articles with paywalls are tricky, but there was enough "poking out" from behind the paywall that I was still able to add Chiyo Nagaki. As long as we are able to tell that the information is there (which for us was just her name and that she is alive as the other source had her date of birth), it's good enough. This discussion has been going on for five days and no one has produced a reliable source with a birthdate for Seki Inagaki, so I will remove her. Any editor is free to add her back if they find a reliable source. Thank you again for your help with this project. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Remove the tags that keep the list within the page from rendering in a browser. 209.17.40.42 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done I reverted the edit that broke the list, since I am not sure how to fix it. Also, it looks like no source was provided for removing the person, as required. RudolfRed (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2018

Rudy de Luca is 118 years old. 173.54.17.7 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

No, she is not verified. So no no no, we are NOT going to add Rudy de Luca. Thank You!

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

Sri Sri Shivakumara Swamiji of Siddaganga Mutt was orn on APRIL 1 1907. He should e included in the above list Source wikipedia 106.51.136.78 (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

He died. Moot request. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Elisabeth Frenoy

Elisabeth Frenoy from France (born Feb. 7, 1907) celebrated her 112th birthday a couple days ago. Here is the confirmation. http://abonne.lunion.fr/id38836/article/2019-02-09/la-doyenne-du-departement-est-chalonnaise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 02:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Added her, and two more French ladies. — JFG ^talk 16:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Fusa Tatsumi

Hello,

The December 2018 town issue from Kashiwara, Osaka Prefecture, Japan confirms Mrs. Fusa Tatsumi (born 25 April 1907) to be alive. She was previously on our list, but no source for her other than a YouTube video was able to be found.

The confirmation, along with her birth date, can be found on Page 25. It’s a pretty large PDF, so it may take a while to load.

http://www.city.kashiwara.osaka.jp/_files/00177412/201812kouhou.pdf

Thank you.

108.206.39.136 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Added her, also on Japanese list. Thanks for the tip! — JFG ^talk 16:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Could I talk with me now 2/20/2019

I noticed that on 12/2017 there were supercentenarians removed from the top 100 oldest living people list because they were not confirmed alive with in the past 12 months; but I also notice that too is that all of those supercentenarians removed from the top 100 oldest living people list were still alive during that time.

Also to is that I think gerontolgy wikia is much more accurate than wikipedia. They accept supercentenarians from Social Media like Facebook, twitter, instragram. I also think that to is that these supercentenarians that are sourced from social media is real; and also to is that gerontolgy wiki said wikipedia is not a reliable source and I found it on the comments.

Also since Wikipedia's policy is so strict they are making the list false I think. So maybe, you should remove the policy that the supercentenarians may not be on the list of they were not confirmed alive with in the past 12 months.

So talk to me to see what you think about what I just talked about.Born in Decade X (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

According the the Guiness World Records they accept the oldest living people list by 2 sources gerontolgy wikia and gerontogly research group and since the Guiness World Records is a reliable source I think maybe you know what wikipedia should remove (I do not want to say this) Maria Kononovich, I am not sure about Antonia Valderrama Ocampo but maybe her, Katerina Kornarou, and Arcadia Aguilar Noyola. So what is your opinion about what I just said.Born in Decade X (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So since maybe we could do is maybe list Maria Kononovich, Antonia Valderrama Ocampo, Katerina Kornarou, and Arcadia Aguilar Noyol as Disputed and get there color code in; and also let us and an addendum to the list of the 100 oldest living people.Born in Decade X (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You're wasting your, and our, time. This is Wikipedia not the GRG or it's fansite gerontology wikia. Longevity on Wikipedia has been brought into line with Wiki policies, guidelines and the consensus of largely uninvolved editors. Longevity won't be reverting to its former fan-based excesses. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I knew you were the one that was going to talk about what I just typed about this yesterday (on 2/20/2019) DerbyCountyinNZ.Born in Decade X (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

But also to is that why do you consider gerontolgy wikia as an unreliable source? Also to is that did you know that to is that other wikipedias in different languages takes gerontolgy wikia as a reliable source like Russian wikipedia I think. So maybe what we should do is that make all of the wikipedias have the same policy and the list too; and so then the language is different to; but it shares the same website to do now this is weird so why English wikipedia is not similar to all of the other Wikipedias; Why? So then this is your decision

Decision A: Is to keep the list the same.

Decision B: Make the list similar to other wikipedias.

Decision C: Remove supercentenarians that are not validated by the gerontolgy research group when they are 115 or 116.

Decision D:Remove the policy that all supercentenarians that have to have a source comfirming them alive with in the past year

Decision E:Add a new column in which is what country was the supercentenarian born in.

Decision F:Extend the oldest living people list from top 100 to list of supercentenarians ages 110+.

These are all of my decisions I came up with. So decide which decision you want accept; do you want to keep the list the same or change it; that is your choice.Born in Decade X (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Born in Decade X: Thank you for your suggestions. The reason we do not use "gerontolgy wikia" as a source is because it is assembled from user-generated content without editorial supervision. To maintain encyclopedic integrity, Wikipedia cannot pick up information from any such site, see WP:IRS for more details. — JFG ^talk 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your proposals:

• A. No action needed
• B. We do not use other-language Wikipedias as sources. We can use them as inspiration, but whatever we do here must be compatible with general policies and guidelines of the English-language Wikipedia. Policies may differ on other Wikipedias, so that they may accept sources that we do not. There's nothing wrong with that, as consistency between language versions of the encyclopedia is not an explicit goal of the project.
• C. Claims of extreme longevity are already under extra scrutiny, and most of those above 115 are indeed listed by the GRG, so that I see nothing to change here. However, the GRG is one validation source among several others; we consider its pros and cons like we would consider any other reliable source. With the historical exception of Jeanne Calment (currently under diapute), no reported age above 120 is considered valid; some of the relevant people are listed in our article Longevity claims.
• D. This is actually not a "policy", but a convention among maintainers of our various lists of supercentenarians, so that we do not keep potentially false or misleading information for too long. That one is certainly up for debate. I would personally support a proposal to note such "limbo" people with a different color after one year without news, and only exclude them completely if no report of their life or death can be found after two years. Note that such a proposal would need to go through an WP:RfC to be enforceable.
• E. If a person's birth country is different from his/her death country, the foreign country is already included in the "Birthplace" or "Place of death or residence" column; there is nothing to change.
• F. There is consensus against making the various supercentenarian lists longer than they already are. If anything, there have been some requests to reduce some of the longest ones, or to remove individual lists for small countries. The main reason is that listing all people over 110 would include several thousand people, which would provide no significant encyclopedic information to readers, be extremely tedious to maintain, and violate our WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy.

Bear in mind that "decisions" here are governed first by our policies and guidelines, then by consensus among participating editors. If you feel strongly that one of your proposals should become the accepted standard, the WP:ONUS is on you to obtain consensus from the community. The best way to achieve this would be to open an RfC at an appropriate forum, for example WT:LONGEVITY. After 30 days of debate, the proposal would be accepted or rejected by the community. — JFG ^talk 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also got more decisons. Decision G:We when we thought this was the oldest living person but it was someone older like when we originally thought that when Eugénie Blanchard died on 4 November 2010 thought that Eunice Sanborn became the oldest living person at 114 but it was someone older it was Maria Gomes Valentim that who was 11 days older than Eunice Sanborn or maybe it was someone older than her that was Ana Nogueira de Lucas who was 3 weeks older than Maria Gomes Valentim and they were both from Brazil ;so maybe what we could do is that add supercentenarians older than Kane Tanaka and they have to be younger than the oldest undisputed person ever.

Decision H:We could see a column in which shows the references which we already have an artice that does have it that which is called longevity claims.

Decision I:Also this is a new decision I got from another Page called Longevity claims and it is let us add a column which show that when the supercentenarians when they were last confirmed alive.

So now I added 3 more decision for you; which of all of these decisions you would decide what I came up with.Born in Decade X (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Briefly:

• G. Irrelevant: longevity is not a horse race.
• H. I don't understand the proposal.
• I. Typically the date of "last confirmed alive" is already included in the journalistic source cited. A column would be duplicate.

Again, thank you for your engagement. — JFG ^talk 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So now what we should do now ,someone just mentioned Icie Clark on 2/23/2019 about someone removed her back in November of 2018 and also had a supercentenarians Anne Braz-Later who is now 112 and last year someone said add her back to the list and we did not and she was alive at that time and then we found a reliable source about her reaching 112. I think she is still alive and would be on rank 58 on the list and this was mentioned on the talk page of [[list of American supercentenarians]]. So maybe we should remove the policy that all supercentenarian have to have a reliable source confirms my them alive with in the past year; and maybe also I think we should raise it up from 1 year to 2 year; and also to is that the talk page is not a verified page so you might not accept it and add Icie Clark to this page. My opinion is that she is still alive you might not take it seriously but so is that also maybe we could come up with more decisions.

Decision J: Raise it up from 1 to 2 years when the last time a supercentenarian was comfirmed alive by a reliable source.

Decision K:Make a new article called the List of the oldest living men.

Also write about your opinion and also talk about what I just talked about; and also I have come up with two new decisions.Born in Decade X (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You proposed lots of decisions. How will you (User:Born in Decade X) start designating them when the number exceeds 25?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So could I tell you this; why do I have to start designating my decisions when the number exceeds 25?Born in Decade X (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The key is that you use letters of the alphabet to designate them; and you'll be out altogether then. Georgia guy (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

So then after I use the letter Z I would use for my letters of my decisions I would use AA, AB, AC, AD, and AE, and then so on.Born in Decade X (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We are constantly adding new people to this list. Tari Chiba is considered the 22nd oldest living person so that means we are missing lots of people like Icie Clark and 8 other Japanese supercentenarians. We should remove the policy that all supercentenarians have a reliable source comfirming them alive in a year. Lately, I see former oldest living person that dose not have an artice; Why?Born in Decade X (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

my life .com

Is my life .com considered a reliable source.Born in Decade X (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Need someone who reads Japanese for source review

According to an IP editor above months ago who could read Japanese, this source on Fumio Rikiishi does not state his date of birth, and yet he was later added to this article by TFBCT1 anyway with the same source. Can someone who understands Japanese please review this source to see if Rikiishi's date of birth is explicitly stated. I suspect he was added with birth information from gerontology wikia. Thank you.

Also, does anyone know why the bot seems to have stopped archiving discussions on this page? Newshunter12 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The bot stopped archiving because at some point the title of the article got changed from "List of oldest living people" to "List of the oldest living people". I've fixed the bot so it should archive properly again within 24 hours from now. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct: the document from Hokkaido Prefecture only states the years of birth of individuals listed: Meiji 40 = 1907 for Fumio Rikiishi. I'll correct the typo on first name. Perhaps we can find another source that gives his exact birthday? — JFG ^talk 07:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The document also states that the list was compiled as of 1 September 2018 (and published on the 15th), and Rikiishi is listed as 110 years old, which means he was born some time between September and December 1907. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A search for his name on Japanese Google finds several press clippings since 2009, writing about his woodcarving skills or his dancing on stage, aged 101, 102, 105. None of those I saw gave his exact date of birth, unfortunately. I could not find a report of his 100th birthday either. — JFG ^talk 08:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work, JFG. I think it seems clear he needs to be removed at this point since we don't have a WP:RS stating his exact date of birth. He can always be re-added later if one is found. I will do it now, unless it's already been done. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is justified to add Fumio Rikiishi with a range of dates based on the Hokkaido Prefecture report. No matter his exact birth date, he is in the top 100 oldest humans alive. Several independent sources have confirmed his age over several years. — JFG ^talk 00:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No, previous consensus (IIRC) is that exact date of birth must be specified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall such consensus, but then again I don't recall a similar case. Can you find a relevant past discussion? — JFG ^talk 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarification/reminder

The consensus for inclusion in this article in the first instance is that there MUST be a report that the person has celebrated their 110th. A report from before their 110th birthday, even 1 day before, is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct. The edit has been reverted again by TFBCT1, who has a long history of refusing to abide by the policies of this page and trying to sneak in entries that violate policy. We've dealt with this issue multiple times before with TFBCT1 just in this one article, but here is a dif from the List of American supercentenarians that puts what he is doing in the proper perspective. He removed other editors' additions of a woman confirmed alive at age 109 years and 363 days over this same issue five times and still wasn't done reverting, and yet now says a much larger margin before a woman's 110th birthday is fine. This is classic TFBCT1 - he has no fixed principles, he just does whatever he feels like on these pages and then demands others follow him and edit wars when he doesn't get his way. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And for good mesure, here's a dif of him saying there is no discussion to be had over removing entries like this - they must go. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Birthday sources over 1 year old

Following this edit] by Newshunter12, I'd like to discuss whether we should immediately remove people whose last-cited proof of life (typically a birthday article) is over one year old. Let's face it: most reporting about supercentenarians takes place on their birthdays or within a few days, and upon their death. Removing their entries just after one year of "no news" risks losing correct information. I would advocate removal only if no news appear within two years of the latest RS report. Sometimes the local press skips a birthday, but they rarely skip a death. People who die within a year or two of their last "proof of life" report will be duly noted at the right time; those with no news after a second skipped birthday can be removed. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 20:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@JFG Your statement is highly misleading. I removed those four individuals because their most recent sources are from before they turned 110, which is obviously a completely different policy then removing them after one year proof of life or not. I can see what you're doing - it's the ole "never let a crises go to waste" strategy and your trying to exploit my action for your own ends. Also, while sources on SC's are primarily birthday or death notices, their is a fair amount of occasional other feature coverage at any time of the year. Your focus on birthdays is very shortsighted, which undermines your credibility to reshape this page from how it has always been run. I am strongly against this change, which will allow many dead people to fill up the list and necessitate getting information from garbage sources like Facebook, blogs, and fan sites to deal with entries, not to mention the much more likely edit warring over individuals gerontology wiki or Facebook say died, but reliable sources don't. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Newshunter, chill! I have nothing against your edit; in fact I did not revert it. Can we just discuss the issue under mutual AGF?

So, first let's take the immediate cases at hand: newspapers ran articles about people who were about to turn 110 (within a day or a week at most), then we heard no further news: what does that mean in real life? Is it more likely that the interviewed person dropped dead before reaching the supercentenarian milestone, or that s/he just went along and nothing special happened, in which case we'll next hear about them around their next birthday? I'd argue that if such a person died within days of their 110th birthday, the newspaper would immediately amend the story; in fact I've seen that happen a number of times: just check people who died on their birthday, or a couple days later, due to the extra emotional stress, and read local media coverage thereof. For these reasons, I would not dismiss such reports automatically, but rather evaluate them on a case by case basis, typically by double-checking other sources.

Second, my broader point: I have come to understand the practice of erasing entries older than one year, and when I notice them I try to find more recent sources (and I'm sure you do the same). Sometimes I find journalistic reports, sometimes I find family reports, sometimes I find obituaries, sometimes I find nothing. When there's something, we must assess the credibility of the source and act accordingly. When there's nothing, we are faced with the "limbo" problem of GRG fame, and we should have a convention about how to deal with such cases. The current practice is to remove people when no RS is found within a year, and that's a fine rule. I am just pointing out that we are likely excluding several people who do not seek publicity, or who have not attracted recent press attention. Does that mean they're dead? Hardly. Nowadays, in the countries that have good press coverage of their oldest citizens, deaths rarely go unnoticed. Therefore, with our current practice, it is more likely that we remove living people prematurely than likely that we miss the death of a previously-listed supercentenarian. There are several ways we could update this practice, and those should be debated openly towards a WP:LONGEVITY guideline. For example, we could give people a "grace period" of two years as I suggested above. Or we could mark people with a certain code if there have been no news for over a year since their last documented birthday (for example, a question mark after the "Living" mention, plus a standardized footnote explaining the lack of news). Or we could list "limbo" people in a separate table (I don't like this solution, it just kicks the can down the road, and damages the readability of our lists). Or perhaps editors will come up with another suggestion. We could also just keep the current practice as is. My point is that we should debate this issue and agree on some rules, because it comes up several times a month, and the same arguments are made all the time by various editors, with no general consensus on how to deal with them. — JFG ^talk 03:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Related article

Just for reading, a related article: "Many of the 'Oldest' People in the World May Not Be as Old as We Think", https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/08/12/1714238/many-of-the-oldest-people-in-the-world-may-not-be-as-old-as-we-think Teixant (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

SCs from the Philippines

I wanna add some SCs from the Philippines. Here’s the thing though: All of them come from social media sites such as Facebook, but not A SINGLE one of them have a news report (Except for Francisca Susano - who claims to be older than Kane Tanaka). Still, I want to add them, and that is the reason why I am asking (to whoever is gonna answer me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterheint (talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source they can't be included. Claims older than the oldest person, according to Guinness, belong in longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

New part of HTML comment at top of list

Lately it has been common for a GRG-validated person to die and for GRG's list to have them on their list for a few days after their death. For this reason, I want to know if anyone can add the following information to the HTML comment:

Having a reliable source revealing the person died is sufficient for a person to be removed from the list; there is NO requirement that the person has been removed from GRG's list.

Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct. If someone on the list has been reported to have died by a reliable source then they should be removed. Whether or not they have been reported by the GRG as deceased is irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Gustav Gerneth

It seems that Gustav Gerneth passed away: https://www.volksstimme.de/sachsen-anhalt/todesfall-114-jaehriger-aus-havelberg-gestorben Xakepxakep (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

100?

why 100 oldest living people? why not limit on 110 year?--83.242.224.234 (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The GRG estimates there's between 150 and 600 living 110+ year olds. Do we really need a list of roughly 600 people on it? That'd be a maintenance hassle. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

I have just removed seven individuals for various sourcing issues (sources are fan websites, no date of birth, not about them, etc.) Many of these individuals have been added by @TFBCT1. TFBCT1, do not add individuals who do not have actual reliable sources that are dated within one year and have a reliably sourced date of birth. Also, when adding an individual, you must fill out the whole citation, never just slap in a url and call it a day. All such contributions do more harm then good and need to stop. If such conduct continues, any editor may be taken to ANI. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The HTML comment at the top of the list already says that the Gerontology Wiki at Wikia and the 110 Club are not reliable sources. Any other un-reliable sources that it's important for the HTML comment to emphasize?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Georgia guy Thank you for the support. Not sure if it will do any good to add them, but the additional fan websites used here were: supercentenariditalia.it and najstarsipolacy.pl The more fundamental problem, unfortunately, is TFBCT1's longstanding refusal to follow the policies of this and other related pages and just adding people based on what Gerontology Wiki says about them. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This website as well ( http://centenaires-francais.forumactif.org/ ) which was used as recently as October 15 to declare someone deceased. The above two are similar to the oldestinBritain website as they're clearly self published. And my one is a forum which is not even close to a reliable source. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing to know is that unlike most Wikia wikis it stayed at Wikia rather than going to Fandom. If I were to guess a reason, I would guess it's because it's about a formal subject. Georgia guy (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your support and appreciation for the time and effort I put into trying to keep pages updated and current when other editors go on sabbatical for weeks and contribute nothing. Also, thank you to Newshunter12 for his keen eye, if only he could contribute more consistently instead of popping up every once in awhile to push his agenda. For the record, I have never used Gerentology Wiki as a source, and nowhere does it state that using a sole url is inadequate. Newshunter12 has a habit of making up his own rules as part of his OCD nature,TFBCT1 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I just reviewed the individuals removed by Newshunter12. Four of the seven were added by me of the recent near 25 I have added to this list to keep it updated. I am in disagreement with two that were removed, but will not contest do to the editor’s uncompromising nature. I will here admonish Newshunter12 not to threaten me on public talk pages for “good faith” errors or I will be forced to take action against him. It appears by the page history that your edits have not been well accepted by all.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Mitsu Toshima or Toyoshima?

This September 2019 press release [2] from the city of Yokohama states that her name is Mitsu Toyoshima (とよしま みつ) instead of Toshima as in the GRG source. Is this mistaken or not? Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 03:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

Jeanne Lara, Irène Leptit, Marie-Florentine Jousseaume and others from https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_supercentenaires_fran%C3%A7ais are not listed. 86.218.222.222 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please note that we cannot use wikipedia as a source (WP:CIRCULAR). NiciVampireHeart 11:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Dumitru Comănescu

Is this source sufficient for his inclusion? https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/social/cine-este-dumitru-comanescu-cel-mai-varstnic-cetatean-al-bucurestiului-1150042 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:ACBF:6090:B77B:C1F0 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Geertje Kuijntjes passed away

https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/6020044/oudste-inwoner-van-nederland-op-114-jarige-leeftijd-overleden.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.69.208 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

HTML comment

The HTML comment above the list says:

Also, when removing someone from the list please move the HTML comment below the bottom (which has up to 5 people proposed to be added) below so that there are exactly 100 people on this list.

It appears that many editors of this list aren't following this direction. Anything we can do to make this HTML comment (the one at the top of this list, NOT the one at the bottom that the above is referencing) more visible when it comes to this part of it?? (User:TFBCT1 appears to be the one everyone wants to leave it up to because TFBCT1 always pays attention to the table and moves the HTML comment as this direction says. Why won't other Wikipedians do this themselves?? The HTML comment says to do so, doesn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ruth Apilado

Why is she not on the list? Daka (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which says she was alive on her 100th birthday? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The article speaks of a source from a year ago. (This one.) Daka (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Does not look sufficiently reliable to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a reliable source of her being alive in January 2009 (age 100). There are other sources that confirm that she is most likely still alive at the moment. However, they are not reliable as per Wikipedia's established guidelines, so something else will be needed in order to include her here. OscarL 23:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Did she appear in America's Intercultural Magazine after her 110th birthday? She is named as the founder of that magazine.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:897B:9400:BB72:EE1D (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not limit this list to over 111?

This is a question I've wanted to ask long ago. It has been discussed several times - why limit this list to 100? -why not all supercentenarians? etc Monitoring this list since long ago, I have noticed that over time, it keeps 80+% of people aged 111 or more. So I wondered if taking this age 111 as a limit for inclusion to the list would not be a good idea. It would maybe make the list easier to maintain.Bvatant (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous of France

Does anyone know is Anonymous woman from France [3], born 14 May 1907, who lives in Paris, Ille-de-France, France still living and does anyone know her name?109.240.244.182 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

Done. I hope I have done it right.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:910D:ED82:D39F:A2B7 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

She meets the current criteria for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

OldestinBritain is not considered a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Facebook is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Misterheint Please show the sources you found, so other editors can weigh in. — JFG ^talk 19:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks. The Indian Express is an RS newspaper, but the piece was written by a close relative of the 111-year-old lady. I don't think that qualifies for inclusion, especially as the person's real name is not mentioned. Let's keep an eye on potential independent coverage in the coming months/years. — JFG ^talk 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What about "Mae Lobo" for now for the naming, since their is no mention of a maiden name. Just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterheint (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Annabelle Holblinger - Born March 16, 1909 - Callicoon, NY - USA https://gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/Annabelle_Holblinger 73.37.6.195 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. And in any case, Wikia is not a reliable source. See WP:USERGEN. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  Ban evasion, struck. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If possible and verifiable -why not? Atbannett (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose, as a longer list is more helpful to readers even if entries below 50 are of lesser quality.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - when dealing with living people we should prioritise quality of information over quantity. WP:BLP is very clear that particular care is required with information about living persons. The list should be cut down to size where managing it is not a problem.--Staberinde (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per Staberinde. Quality over Quantity. 71.161.234.197 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 100 is more useful to the users Teixant (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Gotcha. I was unaware there was already such a list. Thanks. Useight (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• @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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eslin Mulgrave-Collins

Do other editors feel this source would be enough to keep Eslin Mulgrave-Collins on this list? Her valid source is over 1 year old and the new source seems like a self-published birthday notice and not reliable coverage. There's not even a published date or authorship given. I want to gain consensus before removing or adding. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Anne Brasz Later

This source don't confirme the death of Anne Brasz Later according to me. It confirms the death of Geertje Kuijntjes. Is there an other source, she removed from the list by somebody. 92.108.15.73 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added Anne Brasz-Later as there is no proof she has died. The person who removed her is either a death hoaxer or didn't read the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Returning the list to top 100 people is more informative. 174.4.39.212 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Article remains a mess after inconclusive RfC

I have just removed three more entries whose reliable sources were over one year old, updated two others, added two new people, and cleaned up a mess involving Anne Brasz-Later a death-hoaxer/incompetent made. The entry for Eslin Mulgrave-Collins is in doubt, as described above. The citation for Miyo Arae states it is from February 2000, which given that is over 20 years old I can only believe is a mistake. The citation for Mitsuno Sato states the source is from 2018. The citation for Shige Mineshiba states the source is from 2015. I can't read Japanese, so I am not going to bother to try to find out the real dates for those sources if they are incorrect. Regardless, what are readers who see that stuff supposed to think about this article and Wikipedia?

As is, this article is a WP:SYNTH of GRG data, Japanese Prefecture reports and random birthday fluff articles that ignores the many hundreds of other living supercentenarians, and whose already utterly deficient "quality" has repeatedly turned to crud without constant intensive maintenance. It is clear the people who want 100 entries are not willing or capable of maintaining the basic quality standards of this article. So, given that the RfC was inconclusive while the problems I raised have unsurprisingly persisted, I am going to boldly reduce the list to 50, in the hope that editors can actually maintain that number of entries. This also creates a list that better reflects reality as coverage improves with age, not the present fanfiction version of reality. If anyone feels the GRG has too much representation on a shorter list, feel free to rip out every GRG citation and replace them with different sources. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The admin that closed the RFC decided that the list should be restricted to verified supercentenarians. 211.197.11.17 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Verified supercentenarians

In the last RfC, it was mentioned that "this list should be restricted to verified supercentenarians, so-decribed in reliable sources," but I haven't found a definition of what counts as verified for this list. I think that self-claimed age shouldn't count as verified without independent evidence supporting it but I don't know what independent evidence would be necessary.93.99.12.251 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A user recently removed all unverified supercentenarians it looks like they missed a few though. 211.197.11.17 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

International Database on Longevity

Recently, the list was reverted to its pre-2018 rule that only people validated by GWR or GRG are allowed. I think it's time for discussion on "how about the International Database on Longevity??" The page is:

https://www.supercentenarians.org/

Georgia guy (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia guy That change was made in error by someone who rarely edits and I reverted them. Nothing about the article's sourcing standards has changed, so a discussion on your proposed point, insofar as the IDL becoming one of three allowed sources, is moot. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

But my question about the requirements for sourcing standards was not answered. How do they differ from Longevity claims?93.99.12.251 (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing standards for this and related longevity articles are simple. To be included, an individual needs a WP:RS, which constitutes: a newspaper article, media report, government report, GRG/GWR validation, etc. To be valid proof of age and life, a source must be dated within one year, and give a specific date of birth. The following are NOT reliable sources: social media of any kind (ex. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), blogs, and self-published sources such as Oldest in Britain. There has been an over decade long controversy/debate among editors about using/allowing the GRG as a source. Never try to use them as the only source for this article.

The difference between the subjects in this article and the subjects in Longevity claims is that all individuals in longevity claims are older then Kane Tanaka, the oldest known living validated person in the world (to be called the worlds oldest known person (WOP) by GWR means her age claim withstood a great deal of fact checking). The currently living cases in longevity claims are all also older then 98-100 of the 100-long List of the verified oldest people ever. Longevity claims are incredibly unlikely to be true, but are considered in theory plausible for the purposes of Wikipedia. At age 130+, a person lands in the Longevity myths article. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Guiness a primary source?

At least one editor thinks that Guiness counts as a primary source and we should prefer newspapers as sources. I would think that Guiness is on the same level as newspapers and using a newspaper adds an unnecessary degree of separation.93.99.12.251 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the WP:PSTS Wikipedia policy, primary sources are usable for statements of facts and assertions attributed to the source. In this case, Guinness could be used, as they merely state that they have recently named Robert Weighton the oldest man in the world. Because we have numerous secondary sources reporting this event, some of them giving additional context, and all of them unaffiliated with Guinness, we prefer to cite reputable secondary sources: here, we refer to a rather detailed report by The Guardian. The degree of separation you mention is perhaps "unnecessary", but given a choice, it is nevertheless preferred in encyclopedic writing. With the Guardian piece, the extra citation to Guinness becomes unnecessary, and that's why I removed it.

In the case of Kane Tanaka, a Guinness announcement would be fine, because we don't cite a secondary source at all, rather we refer to a list of oldest people compiled by the GRG, which does not directly state that Tanaka is the world's oldest person. Besides, I note that the Guinness article cited is about previous record-holder Chiyo Miyako, so it is irrelevant here and I'll remove it. We should go find a secondary source naming Tanaka (I'm sure there are plenty, but have no time to go hunting for a good one right now). — JFG ^talk 08:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Guiness article about Weighton is similar to the Guardian article but the are some minor differences. For example, Weighton's year of marriage is only in the Guiness article.93.99.12.251 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring May 2020

I've temporarily semi-protected this article to stop the edit warring. I'm requesting confirmed editors to post here explaining their changes before editing through the protection. If the editing by non-confirmed editors is some sort of disruption, please explain. Editing through the semi-protection will result in full protection and some conversation at a notice board. Tiderolls 13:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tide This was no content dispute, at least not a normal one. The recent IP editors (likely the same person) who removed over 9000 bytes of data from the article were trying to make the list include only individuals validated by the private group, GRG, when it is a longstanding and very firm consensus for this article that only a WP:RS (Newspaper article, media report, government report, GRG validation, etc.) is needed for inclusion. There has been an over decade long controversy/debate among editors about allowing the GRG as a source at all, (the GRG's head and many members used to have Wikipedia accounts and dominate the various extreme longevity pages, which they used as free web-hosting, but they mostly got blocked/TB long ago or left.) There is no appetite what-so-ever among confirmed editors as a group to have a GRG only list here, so bold edits to that effect are simply disruption. Given the large number of people blocked, TB, or who troll in this topic area, everyone should be very questioning of IP or new editors, such as the very recent SPA's User talk:PinkSheepTY and User talk:Nattypnat disrupting this article and one other. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info, @Newshunter12:. Pending more input, I will most likely extend the semi-protection for a long period. I see that the article has been protected for long periods in the past. Tiderolls 18:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Exceptions to the usual rule about non-GRG sourced entries in this list

We know the usual rule is that we remove non-GRG sourced entries in this list if the source is a full year old and no newer source can be found. I would like to know if María Brañas Morera can be an exception to this rule. Georgia guy (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia guy María Brañas Morera has many reliable sources from this very month and year available, as seen in the article. Why make this pointless comment? And no, this encyclopedia does not ever make policy exceptions for fans or claimed relatives. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

She is notable for being an old survivor of coronavirus. This is intended to be about whether she qualifies as an exception; which means that she can stay on the list as long as she's alive even if GRG doesn't validate her and all of the reliable sources are at least a year old. Georgia guy (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Georgia guy There are no exceptions to such policies, and the point is moot, since she has such recent coverage as already explained to you. Please drop this time wasting discussion, as these pages are not for speculating on how long she'll live, whether she can be verified by GRG, or whether she'll drift off the radar like Magdalena Oliver Gabarro in a years time and how to stop that. Unless she is reliably sourced to have died beforehand, she meets the inclusion criteria of this article well into May 2021. Case closed. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for such exceptions. That rule is for removing people that cannot be confirmed to be alive. Notability does not change that.93.99.12.251 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Irene Dunham

The last living survivor of the Bath School Disaster in 1927 Michigan. She was born December 16th, 1907. As per her brother in law (sister's husband) Beverly A. Winters' obituary, she was still alive as of April 28th, 2020. Yet I don't see her mentioned in this article. I thought maybe she had died since then so I checked for the most recent revision before April 28th, 2020 and she wasn't mentioned there either. Can we get her added or get a source indicating that she died sometime between April 28, 2020 and today? 71.6.114.50 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No men? Need 2 lists, one male, one female?

Everyone on the list has an F. There are no males listed. Maybe we should have a list for oldest living women and for oldest living men, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people does. We could even use the still living males on that list as a starting point.47.139.43.53 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

90% of supercentenarians are women, and that ratio only increases with age. That men are rarely relevant to this gender-neutral list is a testament to biology and the factual evidence of extreme longevity, not a reason to lower the notability bar and create yet another fancruft fiefdom in the longevity sphere. There has also been a very long history of this article decaying and utterly losing basic quality standards because it contained more entries then the actual editors of this article could maintain. It's very easy to demand content be included, but when those who do contribute nothing to that tedious, time-consuming effort, history has repeatedly shown the whole article falls into ruin. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)