This source for Isabelle Boizeau states she is 110 years old and is the Dean of Loiret: http://www.larep.fr/montargis/2015/11/21/la-doyenne-du-loiret-vit-a-la-boisserie-a-montargis_11673303.html

Nearly a year later, this same source states that Marie Dacier is the Dean of Loiret and has celebrated her 110th birthday: http://www.larep.fr/coullons/vie-pratique-consommation/2016/09/24/marie-dacier-la-doyenne-du-loiret-a-110-ans_12084346.html

This third source from the same publication made it clear that Isabelle Boizeau lived in a retirement home at the time of her 109th birthday (the same place she was still at when she turned 110) and not at a personal home or with family: http://www.larep.fr/loiret/actualite/pays/gatinais/montargis/2014/11/20/isabelle-boizeau-a-fete-ses-109-ans-a-la-boisserie_11227056.html

It strongly appears that Isabelle Boizeau died sometime during 2015-2016 and should be removed from this list. Since she was already in a retirement home at 110 and had been there at least a year, it seems highly unlikely she moved out of the district of Loiret and is still alive somewhere else. Therefore, I'm going to remove her from this list unless someone can prove with a reliable source that she is still alive. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

She's NOT dead. This shows a photo of her at her 111th birthday:http://centenaires-francais.forumactif.org/t18-preuves-de-vie-sur-les-personnes-de-110-ans-et-plus It doesn't matter whether or not the source is reliable because the photo confirms it. And literally I put her 109th birthday link back in as a reference so I have no idea how you were still saying it's fake: http://www.larep.fr/montargis/2014/11/20/isabelle-boizeau-a-fete-ses-109-ans-a-la-boisserie_11227056.html--Dorglorg (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked on the forum and I see no photo of her in the post about her alleged 111th birthday or in any other post. Also, it still wouldn't matter if it was there because forums are not reliable sources. We wouldn't know where/when it came from or if it really depicts her. I never said the source you added today was fake, I was referring to the fake source she DID have for almost 20 months. Those are two very different sources, so don't try to conflate this to you have always been in the right about her having a reliable source. Also, the source you added would be insufficient since that does not prove she made it to 110. Up above, I provide reliable sources about her age and how she was the Dean of the district of Loiret (oldest in that district) and how the same source states later that another younger woman is now Dean of Loiret, which strongly implies that the longtime retirement home dwelling resident Isabelle Boizeau is dead. She should not be re-added to this list unless a recent and actually reliable source proves she is alive. The longevity fan echo chamber you want us to rely on with the source you keep pushing with an evidently fictional photo does not mean at all that she is still alive. The actual evidence shows otherwise. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your statement about the "Dean of Loiret" apparently changing constitutes OR and cannot be used to determine that someone has died and therefore it violates BLP to remove them from this list. On the other hand if there is no reliable source that states that Boizeau was alive on her 110th birthday in the first place then that IS a basis for removing her from the list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a source I provided above that she made it to 110, but Dorglorg didn't think to use a proper source when he re-added her. Thank you for responding to me DerbyCountyinNZ with policy to make your point and a not a bunch of lies like Dorglorg. I agree with your factual point on why she should stay on the list. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't lying, I made a mistake.--Dorglorg (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Was Kaoru Ueda removed on purpose or accidentally? [1] --Dangermouse600 (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we use 14 January as her birth date based on this forum: http://centenaires-francais.forumactif.org/t18-preuves-de-vie-sur-les-personnes-de-110-ans-et-plus because it's the only source that gave a birth date or should we use 18 January based on the publication date of this article: https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/societe/jeanne-bot-fete-ses-112-ans-perpignan-1484735863 --Dorglorg (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Upon very closely reviewing this source (https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/societe/jeanne-bot-fete-ses-112-ans-perpignan-1484735863) there does seem to be enough reasonable doubt about her date of birth that assigning a specific date based on it is arguably OR. Forums are not reliable sources, so any information contained in them, whether accurate or not, is invalid for the purposes of Wikipedia. Unless a specific reliable source can be found for Jeanne Bot's age, I believe she needs to be removed. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source which explicitly states a date of birth or birthday then she should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't we use January 1905 as her birth date?--Dorglorg (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed Jeanne Bot per consensus. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well can we?--Dorglorg (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Everyone on all of these lists has and has to have an exact birthdate. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to have someone with only their month of birth than to not have that person and the article be missing data. Is there any set rule that they must have an exact birth date?--Dorglorg (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, AFAIK it has always been required for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is going to be missing data regardless since there is an estimated 600 or so living supercentenarians so removing one more doesn't really hurt. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

<<== Oldest in Britain ==

Is there any reason it isn't considered a reliable source? Has there ever been an incident where it gave information that was inaccurate?>>

Moved from my talk page.

It's not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. I'm not sure why. Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People just says that it is not reliable. RightGot (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

So when you are already here. Why don't you first of all answer the question one above why you removed Kaoru Ueda without giving a reason? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Was I the one who removed Kaoru Ueda from the list? I can't remember doing that. RightGot (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You should stop editing when you can't remember what you are doing! --Dangermouse600 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not considered a reliable because it is self-published. It is in the same category as the 110 club and the gerontology Wikia: they are essentially fan sites which do not require the same standards regarding sources as Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ is correct. The summary here by User:Ca2james explains best why it's not reliable as does WP:BLPSPS CommanderLinx (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Margit Kovács is not the oldest person in Hungary, even the article cited states that she holds the record only in Bács-Kiskun county. The oldest is a 114-year-old lady whose name and exact birth date is not mentioned in the article. – Alensha ^talk 17:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a very interesting article about her in Aletiea. She's a sister of The Daughters of Charity and the oldest living catholic religious in the world. Williamb (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeanne Bot (born 01/14/1905), Jeanne Lara (born 04/01/1906), Marie Dhauyre (born 10/27/1906) and Yvonne Guillaumin (born 10/28/1906) are four clearly referenced French supercentenarians who don't appear in the list. See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_grands_centenaires_fran%C3%A7ais for references. 86.218.152.222 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Yvonne Guillaumin's listing does not appear to be sourced at all. The other three all seem to use this page for a source, but that's not a reliable source because it's a forum with no professional editoral oversight. CityOfSilver 18:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone found a way to alter the table so that the numbers don't have to be updated manually?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I request that you add all of the men in listed in Genesis chapters 4-5 to this list on a separate table, as most of them they have lived more than 900 years and are notable enough to be on this list, as the bible is considered true. For a list of the genealogies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.41.100.206 (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

They are listed in Longevity myths where they belong. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Several proposals:

1. Rename this list "List of verified oldest living people".
2. This list should only include people validated by the Gerontology Research Group of UCLA, and explicitly mention that this is the criterion for inclusion in the intro. As it is, there are people on this list on the basis of articles from local newspapers (notoriously gullible) that are sometimes several years out of date and other dubious sources and thus inevitably inaccurate. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This contradicts Wiki policy which determines that any reliably sourced entry may be included. Note that, since the policy was clarified for longevity articles, a number of editors who have made edits pushing the "GRG only" point of view have been blocked form editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know GRG's is the only list generally considered reliable of SCs who are regularly verified to be still living. A newspaper article may or may not be reliable for a person having attained a certain age *on a particular date*, but it is not reliable for continued survival - Magdalena Oliver Gabarro is number 8 on the list, on the basis of a local newssite that seems a doubtful source and is over 12 months old. There is also the issue of having a uniform standard of inclusion; Gabarro is listed even though GRG does not consider her verified. I would add that your second remark is not polite. NPalgan2 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Gabarro alive or dead? I can't find a source from 2017 that says she is still alive. That's the problem with relying on newssources - even if you consider the local Spanish newssite is a reliable source for verifying Gabarro's age, how long without confirming whether Gabarro is alive or dead can she remain on the list? How can editors decide this question without straying into WP:OR? NPalgan2 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No to both. As I brought up in a discussion last month, Wikipedia's job is to determine whether or not sources are reliable or, in a few special cases, what kind of information they can be considered reliable for. It is not within our purview to "rank" sources to determine which sources are "more reliable" than others, as this would come down almost entirely to someone's POV. The only exception would be if two reliable sources contradict each other, at which point we make an editorial, consensus-based judgment. So when Guinness declares that the world's oldest person is an 117 year-old Japanese woman, we don't have to list every 140 year-old listed by the local paper. This has worked out in the GRG's favor in the past as well: if the New York Times publishes a story about a 115 year-old man, but the GRG publishes research demonstrating that he was only 90, then editors have favored the GRG and removed the man from the list.

If we excluded cases not "approved" by the GRG, then we (as an encyclopedia) would be implying that those claims are false, which they may not be. That would be original research, which we do not engage in here. We simply report what the reliable sources are saying. Furthermore, if we relied solely on the GRG, then we would fall victim to the vicissitudes of the organization. Although they may have the best and most understandable excuses in the world, the reality is that if we only used them, then we could only list one man on any page that discussed the oldest people. That would be ridiculous and not at all representative of the topic; readers want a broad understanding of what people are saying about the subject and we leave it to them, based on our reporting of the reliable sources, to come to an understanding.

To answer your specific question, I believe that consensus has been that names are removed after one year without an update, so if it has been more than a year, Gabarro will presumably be removed. I may be wrong though, so someone else is free to correct me on that one. Canadian Paul 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"If we excluded cases not "approved" by the GRG, then we (as an encyclopedia) would be implying that those claims are false, which they may not be." If a claim is not supported by the best known reliable source for this type of information, then including it raises questions of WP:UNDUE. List of tallest buildings is based on the ranking compiled by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, lists of people by net worth is based on ‘’Forbes’’, many other Wikipedia lists and rankings are based on the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. When multiple RSs have compiled competing rankings - e.g. List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Lists - Wikipedia presents them side by side. But in areas where there are non-trivial methodological problems, Wikipedia does not attempt to compile its own rankings. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No source from 2017 saying she is still alive. Similarly are Teru Oshiro (大城テル), Kimi Asanuma (浅沼キミ) - also 12 months without a source saying they're still alive. Is there any reason not to remove them? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Stumbled on those articles today. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20171224/mckenzie-hosts-special-function-honour-jamaicas-oldest-person http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Jamaica%26%238217;s_oldest_person_turns_117_on_Christmas_Day http://www.loopjamaica.com/content/another-record-making-next-jamaican-hits-117-year-mark What do people think? Those articles basically copy the same story, and I did not find any mention of Ida Troupe anywhere else.--universimmedia (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Other source http://jis.gov.jm/oldest-jamaican-honoured-christmas-day/ Jamaica Information Service, a governmental website. Is this a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universimmedia (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of the current situation regarding inclusion/removal of people on this list.

1. Inclusion: Previously when this list consisted of all known living supercentenarians a reliable source for the person having celebrated their 110th birthday was sufficient. An earlier report of a 109th birthday, or even that they were a day from their 110th birthday was insufficient. With the change of the list to the oldest 100 people the minimum is now almost 111 years. As their is no way of determining if the person is alive, even though the likelihood is >50% that they are not, the 110th birthday report will have to suffice.
2. Retention/Removal: Previously persons who did not have a report that they were alive in the last year were removed. As in most cases the report was shortly after their birthday so this was relatively straightforward. This means that some entries will only be on the list for a few weeks if there is no report of a 111th birthday. There are 2 issues which need to be considered. Firstly, the assumption that a person has died without a reliable source stating this is a violation of WP:BLP. Secondly, the GRG moves people from their living list to the limbo list if there has been no "recent" report that they are still alive; there is no indication of what constitutes "recent". Given that the proof that someone on the GRG list is still alive is that they are still on the living list, which is updated regularly but is now limited to those aged over 112 years, it would seem logical to remove anyone no longer on that list unless there is evidence elsewhere that they were alive within the last year.

Can we agree that:

1. Anyone who is reliably sourced to have been alive within the last year and is old enough to be on the list, AND is not older than the oldest living person as per Guinness World Records, can be added to the list.
2. Anyone who is on the list who has not been reported alive within the last year (plus a few days for a report to be found seems reasonable) or who has been removed from the GRG living list shall be removed from this list?

Any arguments based on Wiki policy are welcome. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a violation of BLP to say someone *has died* without evidence, it's not a violation to remove them from the recently verified list. GRG say at the link that it puts people in limbo if there is no proof of life within twelve months - given that GRG has made contact with the person and their family/caretakers to perform their validation, they generally will learn of a death more quickly than that. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand "AND is not older than the oldest living person as per Guinness World Records". For example, what is the rationale behind the non-inclusion of Ida Troupe (mentioned on an above thread, w/o answer) who is announced to just have turned 117 on the official (governmental) Jamaica Information Service. Does it means that claims by official governments are considered less reliable than organisms like GRG or Guiness? Not that I push to include this specific case, but just to understand. What about adding a column to the table mentioning the source of the information, since the question of source is so touchy here. Of course there are the links in reference, but it would be clearer to have some quick code in the table. --universimmedia (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be pointless to include all the people who are claimed to be older than the oldest person whose has been independently verified by an authority on the subject of longevity. That would include not only the 20 or so currently on the living list at Longevity claims (which has an upper limit of 130) but also those, such as Mbah Gotho, included in Longevity myths. Regarding Ida Troupe, this is a classic case of government promotion. The 3 links cited are all variants of the same report, none of which mention what documentation has been used to establish her age. Nor is their any information from or about Troupe such as marriage, children etc. And the reports lack credibility when they claim she is the world's oldest person when she is clearly younger than Nabi Tajima. There is in fact nothing to stop her being added, the only people who will complain will be the GRG fan club. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So Troupe can be added to the list of verifieds because her claimed age is less than Tajima, but if the same sourcing was given to support a claim that she was older than Tajima, she would only be in Longevity claims? NPalgan2 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

But that's just an ad hoc standard. It's WP:OR for Wikipedia editors to decide whether something a supposedly RS says is a "claim" vs. "verified" just like that. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The alternative to applying actual common sense is to blindly follow Wiki policy to the letter and allow this sort of fanfluff. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, per WP:IAR our aim is to come to a consensus that helps the project best represent the topic for the benefit of the reader based on Wikipedia policy and common sense/practicality. Based on the ARBCON case (listed at the top of every longevity-related article) and the numerous GRG-related threads at the reliable source noticeboard, consensus seems to be that neither relying solely on the GRG to update nor posting every claim to this page regardless of age is in the best interests of the project. In the interest of codifying these trends and supporting Derby's attempts at gaining consensus, I suppport their proposals/assertions. On a purely arbitrary basis, I think one week is long enough to wait for an update; names can always be re-added if updates come later. Canadian Paul 14:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, RightGot thanks for removing the ones I mentioned. Also needing to be trimmed: Kimi Asanuma (still needs to be removed), Misao Ueki (2015, can’t find more recent), Futsuko Furuie (over 12 months old, can’t find more recent), Mary Jorden (her nursing home is not a RS for verifying her documents), Anonymous of Kyoto (2) (link does not work), Marguerite Duperray (over 12 months old, can’t find more recent info), Andrée Roy (nothing since Feb 2016), Julie Montabord (nothing for over 12 months), Lillian Howell Stubbs (ditto), Henrietta Irwin, Clara Cedeño Tello, Josefa Santos Gonzalez (nothing for over 12 months), Margit Dezsőné Kovács (ditto), Ella Neumann, Renata Bianchi, Agnes Reisenweber, Matsue Kimura, Beulah Meloche (she seems to have turned 111, but only social media coverage https://www.facebook.com/pg/unitedhelpers/photos/?tab=album&album_id=10155426692028541 so uncertain what to do), and Vivian Reese NPalgan2 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Verified by whom? Maybe it would be good to add who has verified the age of these people. Is it GRG? At least some of them I don't find on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:23:15:C417:344B:E033:CA34 (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No, verified by a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ernestine Garst (tie for #55) has died per GRG list of supercentenarians who died in 2017 with a reference to her obituary. Her death was on December 28, 2017. Bromleychuck (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this sufficient? https://m.facebook.com/315622578557146/photos/a.315649395221131.73690.315622578557146/1460376717415054/?type=3&theater

Yes, it is Facebook, but it confirms her to be alive which is all we need. This is not her main source anyway, there are articles about her from a few years ago which provide her information that can be used as her main source, such as this one: https://www.adiantegalicia.es/costa-da-morte/2016/12/24/la-abuela-de-galicia-sopla-112-velas-en-ponte-do-porto.htmlDorglorg (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dorglorg, Facebook is not a reliable source and cannot be used at all. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be used as a source, but that it confirms her to be living so she should be on this list. THIS would be the main reliable source we use for her: https://www.adiantegalicia.es/costa-da-morte/2016/12/24/la-abuela-de-galicia-sopla-112-velas-en-ponte-do-porto.html--Dorglorg (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That source is from 2016. She needs one that confirms she is alive within the last year. And no, that source can't be Facebook. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Facebook shouldn't be used as a main source, but this provides clear proof that she is still alive. It shows her with a cake with the number 114 on it. If you won't accept that photographic evidence just because of the website it's on then that is ridiculous.--Dorglorg (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not ridiculous, just policy. Facebook would be a self published source (See WP:BLPSPS). Also read WP:ELNO numbers 6 (may require registration to view the photos) and 10 (social network site) and have a look at WP:NOYT which gives a note about Facebook. Try using Facebook in an essay for an assignment and see if they let you use it. CommanderLinx (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What about this one? Could this article be used as a reliable source? --Nixus Minimax (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you please add that new name above to the top ten oldest people chart? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:4141:983E:2CF6:25B0 (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Were you wanting me to add Emilia Maria Quesada (mentioned above) to the Top Ten Oldest Living People chart on wikipedia instead of putting her on this List of Oldest Living People page? JasonPhelps (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this comment was from since it's unsigned. JasonPhelps (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There are five men on this list who are not on the List of the verified oldest men. The youngest, Kameo Oya, has age 110 years, 364 days. The List of the verified oldest men extends to younger men at age 110 years, 316 days. Therefore Kameo Oya and the others should appear on the List of the verified oldest men. Why don't they? Jefft0 (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The other day about 7 people were taken off of the List of Oldest Verified Men, including Richard Arvin Overton and some others. An editor who wanted Magdalena Oliver Gabarro on the Oldest Verified People list but was told she couldn't be on there due to her not being verified by GRG took all the men off the oldest verified men list that were not verified by GRG and took people off similar lists that had not been verified by GRG. Based on the discussion above under Maria Emilia Quesada about longevity lists on wikipedia, it may be that editors are not supposed to base wikipedia articles off of just GRG, but we should wait and see what DerbyCountyinNZ and the unbiased experts come back and say about this. What goes on with the Oldest Living People page I would think maybe should be consistent for other longevity pages, but again we'll have to wait and see what is said about this. I'm holding off on putting Maria Emilia Quesada back on the Oldest Living People page until that the discussion among the unbiased experts is complete. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, the (9) men removed, were removed because they are not "verified" by modern standards, just as Magdalena Oliver Gabarro and Maria Emilia Quesada are not. As men in prior years who are not validated, they should never have been added.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as how some people just don't get it, due to the latest round of edit-warring I have requested that this page be fully protected. If editors continue with such edits before an admin sees the request it will probably help their decision. If on the other hand editors would like to do something useful they could look back through the article history and find what happened to those editors who removed the rankings last time, in fact how about every time someone tried that going back to about mid-2015? That will save me the trouble of doing it myself. I'd do it now but it extremely warm here, I've just been for a run and there a beer in a pub somewhere with my name on it...Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone resolve the problem going on with this article by making 2 separate tables?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No. That was the previous state of this article. The WP:CONSENSUS was that it violated Wiki policy. It's in the archives somewhere, I might look for it when I have time...DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no issue with ranks. As I said in the edit summary, we cannot rely solely on the GRG for ranks because their tables are so largely incomplete. An estimated 150-600 living 110+ year olds but only 50 odd are on their list. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My edit was completely valid and constructive as it is the norm on all other pages of wikipedia. If you cannot substantiate a rank by means of longevity "modern standards," it should not be listed. In this case, "yes" the GRG rankings are the only ones that are vaild. This protects from showing Maria Emilia Quesada with a "ranking" of #2 when it is very likely that she is not even a supercentenarian. If you check longevity claims, Cuba had a claimaint from the end of 2012 that was nearly age 128 years. I will be removing ranking once again once protection is removed as they are on the pages of U.S, Japan, England, Spain etc.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This was actually an issue back in 2015 when all the big changes were made. Initially, the ranking column was removed altogether. I proposed back then that it be replaced with a number 'No.' column, showing numerical listing, but not suggesting ranking. This was done for quite some time and I don't know why or how it was changed back. I'm guessing it was inconsequential. I'm going to propose that it be changed back to a 'No.' column, showing only numerical listing and not ranking.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Source for Maggie Kidd says that she celebrated her 113th birthday on december 8th 2017. The source also says that her date of birth is december 8th 1904. But this list states her date of birth as december 8th 1905 and states her age as 112 years, x days. This must be rectified.

http://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/oldest-living-georgia-resident-turns-113/85-498115083

PrithviMS (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maggie Kidd's social security record shows a birth date of 12/8/1904. And her family celebrates this year and date and accordingly the news reports it as such. However all other documented material shows that her actual birth date is more likely 12/8/1905.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You know the "documented material" can't be used per WP:BLPPRIMARY right? Source says December 1904 so that's what should be used unless you have one that says otherwise. CommanderLinx (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Maggie Barnes, Susie Gibson, Eunice Sanborn, Grace Clawson, Delma Kollar, and Maggie Renfro all have sources showing that they celebrated alternate birth years, and it states in their biographies that they have differing claimed birth years, all likely in error. Are you suggesting that we should change all these birth years because of these news reported celebrations? That makes no sense, nor does it for the case of Maggie Kidd.TFBCT1 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please delete Maria Emilia Quesada? Why, because she is not on any other pages for oldest people in the world. Could you please delete Maria Emilia Quesada? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:EC19:B01C:6E6C:78B1:9B0E (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed in a few conversations above, I suggest you add your thoughts there. Thanks. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple different sources that show Maria Emilia Quesada as a supercentenarian. Since she is not verified by GRG I don't think she should be put on the Oldest Verified People list at this point, because those have to be "verified by modern standards". However, there seems to be enough reliable sources in general that Maria Emilia Quesada could be put on this list of Oldest Living People. Here are some of the sources. This source includes mention of an Identity Card verifying her date of birth (January 5, 1901): http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?o=rn&id=22979&SEO=worlds-second-oldest-woman-is-cuban. There are also a bunch of other sources that have made mention of her from time to time: https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Cuba-Is-Home-to-Some-2000-People-over-100-20170531-0038.html, http://www.5septiembre.cu/maria-emilia-solo-una-vida-para-116-anos/, https://www.cibercuba.com/noticias/2018-01-06-u43231-e43231-s27061-cumplio-anos-ayer-cienfuegos-mima-segunda-mujer-longeva, and other sources too beyond these. I'm going to add her to the list. Let me know if any objections. Thanks. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a section in the longevity pages Longevity Claims for individuals who are of an extraordinary age, and have yet to be validated. This is where Maria Emilia Quesada belongs. The same argument has been used in the past to keep María Félix Nava dob 20 July 1900 and José Delgado Corrales dob 10 March 1900 with sources that could place them on this list. It is not reasonable to add a supercentenarian to the list for a country, Cuba, in excess of 117 years of age, when that country has never had a validated supercentenarian. If this is acceptable in current criteria, then this subject needs to be re-visited.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As clarified here: Any living person who has a reliable source and is under the validated oldest living person can be included, even if their claim is almost certainly bogus, that's the way Wiki works. And the next time you edit war without a valid reason you go straight to ANI, and no, it's not an idle threat. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That has been changed. It had been that anybody in excess of 115 years of age could be included on Longevity Claims. That needs to be changed back. It is highly improbable that the GRG will miss validating someone of that age. The only near miss at that age was Anonymous of Tokyo and that was rectified late. Also an African woman born in 1902 was removed from this page as not being valid even though she was younger than the world's oldest person. It does not make sense to add a blatantly bogus claim to a list that many people have worked hard at making reliable.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Changed? By who? When? Provide the links to the relevant discussion. I see nothing more recent than the 2017 December discussion which appears to be the latest on this subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see The GRG only PoV bullet #2 for the Longevity Claims page from April 23, 2016 : " 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."TFBCT1 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that she shouldn't be on the list. It is a bogus claim. She belongs in longevity claims, not here. RightGot (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that she shouldn't be on the list. It is a bogus claim. She belongs in longevity claims, not here. Выползень (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, firstly there's an RfC going on further down the talkpage. But more importantly, why did two users post identical messages in succession on this talkpage? It's very odd, but surely too blatant to be a WP:MEAT violation? I don't get it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Could be someone using two different user names on Wikipedia. It seems like there are a lot of people that don't sign their posts or only have IP Addresses for their posts, which makes one suspicious that some users are duplicating their posts or that some of people's posts may not be as credible as others. It's very difficult to know which ones to trust and which ones not to trust though. JasonPhelps (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

She is into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_people and validated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.120.0.244 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

She is not "validated" (if you mean by Guinness, the GRG etc) she is merely verified by a "reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

She should not be on the list, as she is clearly unvalidated. Not likely that she ever will be. Lowenan (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems there are still editors who are pushing the "GRG is the only organisation which verifies supercentenarians, the others are not verified" "or "GRG super-cs take precedence over other super-cs so lets have separate lists/rankings". Lets have a look at what happened to such suggestions (listed in order from most recent first going back to early 2016).

1. Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_16#Policy_change included the suggestion that "This list should only include people validated by the Gerontology Research Group". Rejected. See the rebuttal by CanadianPaul.
2. Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_15#Merger_proposal included a suggestion that the super-cs in this article that are 115 or over be merged with Longevity claims#Recent on the basis that only the GRG can relied on for such cases. Rejected (clearly) by consensus on the basis that the condition of the at that time passes WP:V and WP:RS.
3. Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_15#Reverted_back_to_GRG-associated Reverted back to a pro-GRG list and immediately reverted. The editor that made the pro-GRG revert topic-banned from longevity articles 17 days later for pushing the pro-GRG stance. Some contributors to the recent disruptive editing really need to read the close of Arbcom sanction here.
4. Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_14#RfC:_"List_of_Verified_Oldest_Living_People"_as_title_instead_of_"List_of_Oldest_Living_People" Proposed a pro-GRG list. Rejected as contravening WP:V and WP:RS.
5. Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_14#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede? Which offers the choice between a GRG-only list and a list including any entry with a WP:RS. Convincing consensus in favor of the WP:RS list. Note that the proposer is the same editor n #3 who was eventually topic-banned.

I hope this is sufficient to put an end to the current edit-warring. If not I can only assume that some people are still averse to following Wiki process so they can expect a more personal view of how Wiki works. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ This is your response to my iteration that Longevity Claims used to be for all claims 115 years of age or greater on Maria Emilia Quesada- 'Changed? By who? When? Provide the links to the relevant discussion. I see nothing more recent than the 2017 December discussion which appears to be the latest on this subject.' Perhaps you should read your bullet #2 from above from April 2016 which shows that Longevity Claims was indeed in fact for all claims 115 years of greater. Maybe this will jog your dull, smug, fortuitous memory?TFBCT1 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And wrong again. As I in fact followed correct Wiki procedure by making the proposal in June 2017 on the Longevity claims talk page, the appropriate place to define the content of that article, and as there was no objection, the current requirements for inclusion in Longevity claims is anyone living who is claimed to be older than the oldest validated living person and for deceased claims anyone older than the oldest ever validated person, making it entirely consistent with the content of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm quite correct. You responded increduously that the Longevity Claims page was ever inclusive of those age 115 and greater. You seem confused. We're not talking about what you did or did not do in June of 2017. I don't care. I'm talking about your feingned incredulity that the Longevity Claims page was ever defined for those age 115 and greater (of extreme claimed age). Here's the definition from April 23, 2016 from the information you supplied. Longevity Claims page from April 23, 2016 : " 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."TFBCT1 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You also diverted the attention of the RFC team above who acknowledged that less than 2% of all longevity claims above the age of 115 are ever accurate by saying that nobody provided you any information that the Longevity Claims page was ever defined in such a manner (greater than age 115). Well, here it is from April 2016. Perhaps then Maria Emilia Quesada would have ended up on this list where she better belongs.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble with understanding calendars as well as English comprehension. The CONSENSUS for Longevity claims is that made in June 2017; June 2017 is more recent than April 2016. It is therefore the current consensus. Either you are having enormous difficulty in understanding that the latest consensus is the current consensus or you are blatantly ignoring that FACT OR you feel that the consensus is somehow invalid. If the latter is the case please enlighten us. In both cases the proper Wiki procedure was followed: the criteria were proposed on the relevant talk pages, that for Longevity Claims for reasons as defined in the proposal, and which have no direct bearing on the criteria for this article; the criteria for this article based on the earlier RFC. There was opportunity for editors to formulate counter proposals, in line with Wiki policy (WP:V and WP:RS), the earlier RFC and the ARBCOM decision. That you, or any like-minded editors, failed to object at the time is your own fault or simply bad luck if you missed them (but I though you watched these longevity pages). If at ANY later time you realised that the consensus was different to what you thought it (still) was you could, in fact should, have taken it to the talk page and gained a new consensus. That you have failed to do so despite my prompting on countless occasions and have continued to bring up earlier outdated criteria is just another in your increasingly long list of disruptive behavior. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Could we add the existence of publicly available early-life records to support claimed age as a necessary condition for inclusion in this list? This would probably remove most false claims and create a clear difference between this page and Longevity Claims. 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:2CCD:4866:6E83:8BEF (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write about directly using primary sources. I wrote about the existence of such sources. Aren't early-life records required for verification by GRG? 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:3DBC:85AC:AED8:E0F (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The closer of the above RfC may ascertain which sources are considered reliable enough regarding the topic of extreme age claims and their inclusion in this article, such as Maria Quesada. As the arguments being discussed in this section are probably going to be mostly resolved by the result of the RfC, I see no point in discussing it here at the moment. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The closer of the RFC above should take note that the specific request of the RFC, as to whether it is OK for editors to ignore consensus without any justification under Wiki guidelines, was not actually answered by anybody. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The specific request of of the RFC is not "whether it is OK for editors to ignore consensus without any justification under Wiki guidelines"– portraying it like that is a strawman. The purpose of the RFC appears to be, quite simply, whether or not Maria Quesada should be included in the article. Of course it is difficult to tell the exact purpose of that RFC, due to it being improperly formatted (against Wikipedia RFC policy). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was clear: There is a consensus for inclusion for this article. One or more editors IGNORED that consensus to the point of edit-warring. Instead of going straight to ANI I decided to be generous and see if there was any basis, under Wiki policy, for consensus to be repeatedly and blatantly ignored. That generosity is at an end. The RFC was a mistake not only in that it was a soft option but also assuming that contributors would have sufficient comprehension of the English language. I will be making sure the next trip to ANI will have no such issues (which is why it may take a few days). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no such consensus for inclusion in the list. This topic was most recently discussed Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_16#Clarification/discussion_of_requirements_for_inclusion,_retention_and_removal_from_this_list, where it certainly doesn't look like there is a consensus present. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed, discussed and agreed to by a majority of those involved as per WP:CONSENSUS = consensus. If you don't like it start a new discussion and achieve a new WP:CONSENSUS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two consensuses clearly governing inclusion:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 6#RFC: Should the world's oldest living people tables identify that their claim has been validated?:

There should be no greater weight given to one reliable source over another. If it's reliable enough for inclusion, then no special designation is needed beyond that. If the source is not reliable enough to count as verified, then its information should not be included in the article.

• Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 14#RfC: How should we word the lede?:

Both clear consensus and policy support for relying on Wikipedia:Reliable sources for this article, as we do in all our other articles.

While I appreciate the desire for stringency that leads some to desire the GRG be the only organization that verifies supercentenarians, I reject that the GRG is the only source capable of verification & that it is infallible. Indeed, as a Smithsonian article pointed out,

For every supercentenarian that the Gerontology Research Group confirms, probably at least one more slips through the cracks.

Perhaps we need to develop a criteria for supercentenarians reliable sources akin to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). But until then, WP:RS applies.

Peaceray (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Could the use of early-life records be such criterion? 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:8950:500:CE9E:4D46 (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a possibility– generally that would run afoul of "no primary sources" policy, but it's something to be considered. It's possible that a RFC would determine that, due to exceptional circumstances regarding determining longevity-related reliable sources, such primary sources may be used to determine source reliability. I'm not sure about it to be honest, but it's something that must be looked at. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm still not convinced that all of the sources used in this article abide by current RS policy, but such a thing is of course difficult to tell. So, what I'd suggest is this. We'll wait and see what the conclusion of the above RFC is, keeping the current inclusion criteria for now, and following the conclusion of the RFC have a discussion (perhaps a new RFC) with the purpose of discussing and drafting a new policy similar to WP:MEDRS, for determining source reliability on the topic of longevity-related topics. Would this be acceptable to everyone?
By the way, on the topic of those two RFCs that you referenced, they certainly don't contain any consensus that anyone older than the current GWR-recognized oldest person cannot be included in the article if supported by, e.g., newspaper sources, but that anyone younger than the current GWR-recognized oldest person can be included if supported only by similar newspaper sources. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

In that discussion, two people supported the proposal (DerbyCountyinNZ and CanadianPaul) and two people were questioning/opposing it (universsimmedia and NPalgan2). So there wasn't even a majority in favor. And, of course, lots of people won't have noticed that proposal as it's just a proposal on a talkpage. It's natural that there would be little interest in a talk page discussion, because most people don't notice it, but there would be a lot of opposition when someone tries to implement such a policy in the article (e.g. by adding Quesada to the list). I think the good-faith way of acting in this situation would be to have opened an RfC on whether or not that specific policy that you proposed in December should be kept, or alternatively messaging the users who tried removing Quesada from the article, to inform them about said recent talkpage discussion and suggest that they reopen the discussion if they oppose the inclusion of Quesada in the list. In my opinion, what you intended to do with the RfC seems unnecessarily convoluted and not as helpful. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, please note that even if that talk page discussion had had a majority of people in favor of DerbyCountyinNZ's proposed changes, WP:NHC states that the strength of the arguments are more important than the number of people who supported the changes. In addition, the discussion was not formally closed, and the guideline given at WP:CLOSE that "Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious." clearly does not apply here. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

See above regarding Maria Emilia Quesada. This person has been removed on the basis that 1 or more editors don't believe the claim is genuine. Whether or not it is genuine is not up to editors to decide. The criteria for inclusion in this article is that the person is a) old enough to make the list b) has been reported alive within the last year yb a reliable source and c) is not older than the oldest living person as announced by Guinness. The reasons for these criteria are given here. Editors opinions that anyone should be excluded while meeting this criteria is pure WP:POV and needs to be actively discouraged. Seeking input from impartial and experienced editors as to whether WP:IDONTLIKEIT is sufficient to over-ride or change consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay I will hold off on putting Maria Emilia Quesada back on the list until you have checked with the impartial and experienced editors about the WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment– I think the problems here are: firstly, the arbitrary nature of current policy, and secondly, the question of which sources pass the criteria given at WP:RS.
  The arbitrary nature of current policy may be seen in that *any person who is older than the oldest living person as listed by Guinness cannot be listed in this article*– in other words, the criteria used to determine whether someone's age is sourced reliably enough to be listed in this article are dependent on the age of another unrelated person. This policy doesn't make sense. Additionally, what happens if there is no oldest living person listed by Guinness? That situation has occurred before, as Guinness often takes a few months to list a new oldest living person after the current oldest living person dies. So, I think the conclusion that should be drawn is that the current policy for determining inclusion is insufficient and should be changed.
  This brings us to the second point: reliable sources. Which sources should considered reliable for the purposes of longevity-related articles? The problem is that there are many sources which would definitely be considered reliable for most purposes, but it's not at all clear whether those sources are indeed reliable regarding the topic of individuals who claim extreme longevity. For example, many of the persons listed at the Longevity claims article have their ages supported by reliable sources (one example: this Chilean man, who claims to be 121 years old and whose age claim is supported by the Guardian, but who isn't listed in this article and whose age claim *is not accepted* by Guinness World Records. There are many persons like that in the Longevity Claims article, who claim to have achieved extreme longevity and whose age is supported by ostensibly-reliable sources such as The Guardian, but whose claimed age is not accepted by bodies such as Guinness World Records who carry out dedicated work into longevity.
  The conclusion, I think, is that sources that normally pass the WP:RS criteria for non-longevity-related topics should not necessarily be considered reliable for the purposes of longevity-related topics. I would therefore propose a new policy which would apply to all longevity-related articles:
  In the case of persons who claim extreme longevity and who were not notable prior to their longevity for reasons other than longevity, more stringent criteria should be used to determine which sources are considered reliable sources. A whitelist of longevity-related reliable sources will be created, and this whitelist shall consist of sources which are known to reliably assess and verify the ages of people who claim extreme longevity. All other sources, even those which are normally considered reliable, will not be considered reliable for the purpose of topics related to extreme longevity.
  Examples of sources which may be included on this whitelist include Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group. Every source would only be added to this whitelist by community consensus.
  Note that this policy would not apply to people notable prior to their longevity– for example, if Roberta McCain were to still be alive in ten years' time, then her age would not need to be sourced by one of the sources on the new longevity-related source whitelist. However, if a random hitherto-unknown person called John Doe were to claim to be 116 years old, and this claim was supported by, say, a newspaper which is normally considered reliable but which is not on the whitelist, then John Doe would not be included in this List of oldest living people article, because the source used to cite his age isn't included in the whitelist of sources which reliably verify the ages of extremely old people. John Doe could, however, be included in the Longevity claims article, and he may even get his own Wikipedia article if he is considered to be notable enough, but if his age is not supported by one of the sources in the list of longevity-related reliable sources, John Doe would be described as a person who "claims to be 116 years old" rather than as a person who "is 116 years old".
  Right, this is the best solution to the dilemma that I can think of. It isn't perfect, but I think it's the most accurate and impartial way in which Wikipedia can display the facts. Thoughts? Should we adopt this as a new policy? Are there any parts of it which aren't good? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The concept of only relying on the GRG for verification of longevity claims has already been rejected as being counter to Wiki policy of accepting other reliable sources. In fact users who have persisted in editing Wiki articles on that basis (i.e. GRG is the only source of verified supercentenarians) have been topic banned or (IIRC) even completely banned from Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting relying solely on the GRG. Any body which is dedicated to verifying ages should be fine to add to my proposed whitelist of longevity-related reliable sources (for example, I believe the IAAF verifies the ages of athletes to determine age group world records). What I am suggesting is that a lot of newspapers, etc, which are usually reliable sources of information, don't tend to be reliable sources when it comes to identifying the ages of people who claim extreme longevity, and thus there needs to be more stringent analysis of exactly what should be considered to be a reliable source when it comes to the topic of extreme longevity.
As for editors who persist in editing topics to only include GRG-related information, well yes, of course if you continue editing contrary to an established consensus then that's a form of disruptive editing and you'll get topicbanned if you don't stop. What Wikipedia is about is sometimes discussing and challenging the consensus on talk pages, if you think there's a better alternative, but not unilaterally deciding to edit in a manner that is contrary to the consensus. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Addendum/disclaimer: I have occasionally edited on longevity-related topics in the past, but do not do so regularly and have not done so recently, so I think I'd consider myself impartial. If that's not acceptable for the purposes of this RfC, then I apologize. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet I do think Chessrat may have a point. If we start adding every supercentenarian claiming to be younger than Nabi Tajima but still old enough to be included in the list of oldest living people, we would possibly be including many unreliable claims (if they are supported by a reliable source), as scientific research has stipulated that out of all the claims to age 115+, only 2% is true^[1]. Would we really want to risk, being a notable encyclopedia by now, displaying information as "true" that may, in fact, not be so? Even today, birth registration can (easily) be falsified (as shown by this reliable source^[2]), meaning we risk including (many?) cases in which the claimant is not the age claimed. I realise a balance should be found between what experts such as GWR and the GRG have validated, and what everybody else puts forward, but I fear that with the inclusion of many 115+-year-old claimants such balance will be lost. Fiskje88 (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Scientific consensus is that the vast majority of claims to 115+-years-old are false. We shouldn't be listing them here. RightGot (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RightGot, you have edited on this page recently, just as I have. I think DerbyCountyinNZ was looking for impartial editor's opinions, people who haven't edited on this page in a while or at all. We should both let impartial people discuss this. Thanks JasonPhelps (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we need to get the opinion of impartial editors, but conversely impartial editors are unlikely to be as well-informed about the issues here. I don't know what the normal procedure is in RfCs like this– whether editors who are not impartial may give comments too. I think everyone who has edited on topics like this before should state their bias, though. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This is, I think, the crux of the problem. A source which is usually reliable becomes less reliable if it supports outlandish claims. For example, if a seemingly-reliable newspaper says that a person is 90 years old, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then it's safe to consider that that newspaper is a reliable source. But if that same newspaper says that a person is 150 years old, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that newspaper should not be considered reliable due to the outlandishness of the claim. I think almost all editors here would agree with that. The question is, of course, where to draw the line between 90 and 150– at what point does it become the case that an age claim is extreme enough that any source which has not thoroughly investigated the truthfulness of that claim is likely to be unreliable? I proposed one possible solution– requiring more stringent sources in cases where someone is primarily notable for their age– but there are other options. I believe DerbyCountyInNZ's proposal is too lax, and the source used to cite Maria Quesada's age is in this case not reliable enough. But I would like to hear any other suggestions/compromises. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment- In my opinion this RfC is not worded neutrally, for a content dispute of this nature the question being asked should be - include or exclude. Having said that, if she meets the criteria for the list, and there are sources that verify the claim being made, then yes, she should be included on the list. As far as I'm concerned, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for inclusion or exclusion in a content dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed– as far as I'm concerned, the wording of this RfC is not neutral. It shows the situation in the opinion of one particular editor who has some bias, and I'd argue that the opening of this RfC forms a strawman by improperly portraying anyone who opposes the inclusion of Quesada in this article as violators of WP:IDONTLIKEIT– indeed, I think those who oppose the inclusion of Quesada, such as myself, are basing this opposition on two factors. Firstly, challenging the present criteria for inclusion on this list, and secondly challening whether the sources in question do indeed pass the WP:RS criteria. As Fiskje88 said, one scientific analysis shows that only 2% of people who claim to be 115 years old actually are the age that they claim, so there's a strong argument that the source given for Maria Quesada's age is not, in fact, reliable. So, if the opening statement of this RfC is not neutral, that is contrary to the stated policy at WP:RfC. One problem is that WP:RFCEND doesn't seem to provide any mechanism to end improperly-formatted RfCs (such as RfCs with a non-neutral opening statement) with a technical close. So, I'll ping @DerbyCountyinNZ: to give them a chance to respond to this accusation of potential bias. Is it possible to reword the opening statement of RfCs once they have been opened? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I won't rehash the arguments on who a "reliable source" in terms of longevity claims should be. Obviously, an internationally recognized arbiter - like GRG - should determine who is verified, given the copious evidence of frequent exaggerated or plain fradulent claims of longevity. But that argument is a losing one here. So I propose a hybrid solution, though it more properly applies to the all-time list pages..

Recalling that one of the long-standing critiques of GRG and Guinness is the length of time they take to verify claims, how about we a) stick to this any "reliable source" criterion and allow any claim under the current recognized Guinness/GRG eldest claim. (Perhaps when there is no current recognized elder, we stick to whoever was #2 on the list and so on until one is named by Guinness/GRG) But, and this is the new thing, b) allow only those deceased claimants on these pages (obviously not this one, but the other all-time lists) who have had their claims verified by GRG/Guinness etc. This would address another problem that exists on those pages: If we accept the wider definition of "reliable source," then the all-time lists which were are populated only by those people whose claims were verified by GRG etc will start to be populated by those who were never verified by GRG. Should we not then, logically, add a note saying those who died pre-2015 (or whenever the new policy came into effect) as being verified by expert bodies but those post that date may not be? Shouldn't we go back and insert claimants from the past if that was so?

If we accept these new deceased unverified-by-GRG/Guinness claimants onto those lists, it renders the all-time lists meaningless as people are there under very different criteria. In the meantime, however, they should be able to be on the list while still alive, as per the current "reliable source" criterion. Canada Jack (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies for the delayed response, computer issues). A lot of comments here seem to have missed the point. The issue here is whether it is OK to ignore established consensus without a valid reason. The consensus here, as per the archived discussion, is that any reliably sourced entry under the validated oldest person can be included. The whole point of that discussion was to avoid exactly the sort of issue here. The fact that those involved in this issue who disagree with that consensus, for whatever reason, failed to bring that up at the time is no excuse to over-ride it to the point of edit-warring. If anyone disagrees with the consensus they need to start a discussion to get it changed BEFORE adding/removing people based on what they think the consensus should be. And seeing as they've been raised here, I might as well respond: As far as I can recall it has never been the consensus for this article that the maximum permitted age of inclusion for non-validated entries be 115 years; I've already asked for a link to any discussion where that was agreed but no-one has provided it, although maybe this was what they were thinking of Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 14, where Fiskje88 raised the suggestion and it was certainly not included in the consensus. The closing comment of the admin for the relevant RFC was "Both clear consensus and policy support for relying on Wikipedia:Reliable sources for this article, as we do in all our other articles"; there is no mention of any age limit. At the risk of aggravating a few editors (but then fair's fair) I think they need to WP:LETITGO. If Quesada is included 1 of 3 things will happen eventually: 1. She will die before Nabi Tajima (problem solved). 2. Nabi Tajima will die first, Quesada will be older than the oldest validated person (assuming there's isn't someone who gets validated from out of the blue who is older), so she gets removed (problem solved). 3. Quesada gets validated (and we can all be suitably amazed). And one last thing, as there was no valid reason for her removal I will re-instate her until such time as the consensus changes, or one of the above 3 options occurs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think the problem is that the consensus isn't clear– the consensus is, of course, that we need to use reliable sources– but there is no agreement on exactly what constitutes a reliable source on the topic of longevity. I am hoping that the closer of this RfC can try to determine/establish criteria to determine which sources are reliable regarding the topic of extreme longevity. For example, would you consider this source to be a reliable source? It states that a 135-year-old woman named Maritina Vangatala is living. So, determining source reliability is the key to this discussion– and the fact that there doesn't seem to currently be a consensus on this is a sign that this RfC is necessary. As for the final part of your argument, the fact that Maria Quesada will likely be removed from this list regardless in the fairly near future is not a sign that we should be intentionally inserting unreliably-sourced information into the list at the moment! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually the current WP:CONSENSUS IS clear: Any source which passes WP:RS can be used. The exact argument that some media reports are NOT reliable (which I totally agree with in the general sense) has been used before in regard to longevity I think it might even have been tried at WP:RSN (and failed). So if the"consensus"" is to amend the WP:CONSENSUS to read "...except in cases where the person is claimed to be aged 115 or more" then that needs to be a new topic. Good luck! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, as SMcCandlish pointed out, any given source might be reliable regarding information about a topic in general but not reliable regarding a specific field. Secondly, I'd like to know, even if there were a current consensus to include newspaper articles as reliable sources for extreme age claims (and I don't believe that is the case), well, what's the actual purpose of this RfC then? It was started to discuss whether or not Maria Quesada should be included in this article (with an arguably-biased opening post against RfC guidelines, but let's ignore that). And now, when I and several other participants in this RfC are suggesting that Quesada should not be included in this article and suggesting policy-related reasons why this should be the case, including using a more stringent system of RS criteria in certain cases, you are suggesting that there should be a new topic to discuss this? I'm not quite sure what you intend the purpose of this RfC to be, if not to discuss the policies behind inclusion/exclusion of persons like Maria Quesada in this list? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Concur with Chessrat, to wit: "Any [reputable] body which is dedicated to verifying ages should be fine to add to my proposed whitelist of longevity-related reliable sources ... [but] a lot of newspapers, etc, which are usually reliable sources of information, don't tend to be reliable sources when it comes to identifying the ages of people who claim extreme longevity, and thus there needs to be more stringent analysis of exactly what should be considered to be a reliable source when it comes to the topic". This principle is true of many topics (e.g. newspapers are not valid sources for medical claims under WP:MEDRS, either, for the similar reasons. No source of any kind is categorically reliable for every conceivable claim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Longevity Claims page from April 23, 2016 : " 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. I was a big opponent of Maria Emilia Quesada being placed on this list. I wanted to relegate her to Longevity Claims instead where she was better suited. However I was unaware of this discussion, eventhough I was its main target and I was not asked to participate.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Longevity_claims/Archive_2#Proposal_to_improve_the_encyclopedic_value_of_this_article from 5 June 2017: proposal that "this article be limited to living cases which are older than the current "verified" oldest living person (i.e. as per Guinness World Records)". No objection. Implemented. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, the discussion further down on this page, Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people#The_GRG_only_POV, is further discussing this RFC and the background behind it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, there is a lot going on here and I'm not entirely certain what exactly needs commenting on, but the one thing that is clear is that this at least started with a question about whether or not Maria Emilia Quesada should be included on the list. I'll clarify that I'm commenting from the perspective of someone who has been dealing with the troubles caused in longevity-related articles, including being on the sidelines of the ARBCOM case on the topic, for a decade now. First, I support including Quesada on the list based on my understanding of the current consensus on the topic (per the links provided by DerbyCountyinNZ), which is that we start from a baseline that all claims made in reliable sources should be listed, regardless of country of origin, and that measuring the "level" of reliability is not within the purview of editors, only determining whether or not a source is reliable. In the first case, we do this because we had significant problems in the past with editors deciding for themselves which countries had "reliable" claims and which ones did not, often on a basis that was less scientific than was claimed. In the second case, judging the relative level of reliability would constitute original research, because we would be relying on our personal judgment to weight one option over the other. I know that there are cases (such as IMDb, Find-a-Grave, etc.) where we judge that they are reliable for some things and not others, but these are always policy-based decisions, such as determining that parts of a website are user-submitted or have no editorial oversight.

From that baseline, my continued understanding is that we do not have to include cases for which there is a conflicting information in reliable sources, which is usually the result of us coming to a consensus. So, for example, if Guinness determines that the World's Oldest Person was born on date X, and someone claims to be born earlier than that, it is reasonable for us to not include that claim, since most editors would agree that Guinness is the more authoritative source (an implied consensus, although I suppose in theory this could be challenged). A similar situation would be cases that make claims, but are debunked by the GRG, since consensus has always been to exclude debunked cases. Returning to the original question, I do not see a contest in a reliable source to Quesada's claim and therefore it should be included. Saying that she shouldn't be included because she's too close to Tajima, or that Cuba has never had a "validated" supercentenarian, or whatever the reason is that people want her removed is not based in Wikipedia policy and strays dangerously into both WP:OR and WP:BLP territory (the latter since, by not including her claim, we are casting doubt on it without providing a reliable source to do so, potentially calling her a liar). Our job is to report what the sources say, not to project our own value judgments, expertise, or opinions on it.

Finally, the perennial option is to rely on simply "age-verification" sources only. While this is a possibility, this could be problematic because it means that we cannot list any case not validated by the GRG. This is because the GRG is, to my knowledge, the only longevity-validating body still operational (Guinness gets its data from the GRG), although perhaps I am mistaken on that. Would that also mean that if a government "confirms" that someone is a certain age, we would have to include them (i.e. do they count as an age-verifier)? It would be within Wikipedia's policies to do this, I believe, but then we are going to be left with some very short lists as the GRG's validations are few and far-between these days. While the organization may have the best reasons in the world for this, it does not change the fact that, for example, we would only have one man listed among the world's oldest. This is why I do not favor this solution, because having only one man listed in a table of the "world's oldest men" would not be very representative of the true breadth of the topic, nor would it be informative to the reader. But, as I said, by Wikipedia's policies, I agree that it is a possibility. Canadian Paul 14:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors have continued removing Emilia Maria Quesada from Cuba off this list. I would like to remind everyone that Maria Emilia Quesada has been sourced by reliable sources falling within the criteria of the consensus as outlined by DerbyCountyInNZ and others. Continuing to remove Emilia from this list without discussion on the talk page is disruptive in nature. Please respond on the talk page, even to the RFC for content dispute, if you have issues with Emilia being on this page. As far as I am aware there is no valid reason for her removal. Thank you. JasonPhelps (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, Could you please add who you said to the other pages about oldest people? Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:EC19:CD01:65E9:2155:1186 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to put Maria Emilia Quesada onto the other Oldest People pages because while she is reliably sourced (the requirements for this page), she is not verified by the GRG. The other oldest people pages require individuals be verified by the GRG. JasonPhelps (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm neutral on whether non-GRG sources should be allowed, but it seems kind of odd to me that different pages would have different evidentiary standards. 96.59.35.98 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the difference is whether or not there is the word "Verified" in the title of the page. When it's just oldest living people, they don't have to be "Verified" or "Validated" by the GRG. Validated might be the more correct term to use. JasonPhelps (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not removed anyone, but having someone on the list that in all likelihood does not belong here, makes Wikipedia look bad. I would be very surprised if she ever gets verified. Lowenan (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see my comments / notes under Archive 16#The GRG only POV. Peaceray (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @DerbyCountyinNZ:. Do you know what's going on with that RFC: was it incorrectly formatted or something? It's been a few weeks since the RFC was started and we still have no consensus on the inclusion of Quesada. I'm very tempted to go and start a proposal to create a new policy regarding reliable sources for longevity-related articles, and will probably do that soon if there's no progress towards a consensus on this topic. So, any idea what's going on? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the link for Reference #3 broken? If you click on the link for Reference #3 directly it gives a page saying you are not authorized to access this page. Not sure if the link no longer exists or if it is broken or something. Someone might want to take a look at it. JasonPhelps (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Tagged. If payment is required as well, please change to |subscription=yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Link still didn't work. I tried a couple things with changing it to subscription=yes and |subscription=yes, but neither of these made the link work either. Someone with more expertise will have to take a look at it. JasonPhelps (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

My edit was not to make it work, it was to add some text to the reference thus "(Registration required (help))". This serves as a warning that the webpage might not be accessible unless you have registered with that website. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Noticed that they are listed here but not on the verified oldest people of all time list. If she is not verified shouldn't she be listed in the claimed page? Not trying too cause a debate, jut looking for clarification.Bbonds775 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, this is a list for adequately referenced oldest living people, not validated or verified oldest living people. So, this argument is the same for Magdalena Oliver Gabarro as it is for Quesada. Magdalena should remain on this page until she either dies or becomes older than the oldest verified person. JasonPhelps (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the difference? Georgia guy (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I have faith that Gabarro one day will be proven to have actually been this age. But it's a shame that we have a Wikipedia article with clearly inaccurate information here regarding a couple of other less reliable cases. Lowenan (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not a verified page. If this were a verified page then it would make sense to only include cases verified/validated by modern means. However, the title of this page is "Oldest Living People" not "Oldest Verified Living People" JasonPhelps (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)