| Revision as of 00:41, 18 April 2016 editSailor Haumea (talk | contribs)107 edits →Reverted back to GRG-associated← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:23, 18 April 2016 edit undoSailor Haumea (talk | contribs)107 edits →Reverted back to GRG-associatedNext edit → | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
| :::::No we are not going to have separate GRG verified only tables. This has been discussed and rejected. You should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in place in this topic area. ] (]) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC) | :::::No we are not going to have separate GRG verified only tables. This has been discussed and rejected. You should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in place in this topic area. ] (]) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :From what I can tell, the cases you just listed have articles published by experts that debunk their age claims. Said articles are considered ], which is why they aren't featured on the various other "oldest" lists here. However, none of the folks you removed from this article in that mass removal of yours have been debunked by experts. What you did is vandalism. ] (]) 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | :From what I can tell, the cases you just listed have articles published by experts that debunk their age claims. Said articles are considered ], which is why they aren't featured on the various other "oldest" lists here. However, none of the folks you removed from this article in that mass removal of yours have been debunked by experts. What you did is vandalism. ] (]) 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| As seen here: | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Verified_vs_Verified_by_GRG | |||
| The arguments used in favor of using non-GRG sources have been thoroughly debunked. Thus, I'm reverting again, and reporting the people pushing an anti-GRG view to the Wikimedia Foundation. It's been ten years of this nonsense, which has resulted in correspondents for the GRG being blocked from editing. ] (]) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:23, 18 April 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of oldest living people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of oldest living people was copied or moved into Oldest people with this edit on 2015 December 23. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Talk:List of oldest living people/Archives
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Alberta Lyles
Please do not add Alberta Lyles. Research conducted suggests she was born in 1909.
Here are the census records for her:
United States Census, 1910 Name: Alberta Flowers Residence: Gulledge, Anson County, North Carolina Gender: Female Age: 0 Marital Status: Single Race: Mulatto Relationship to Head of Household: Daughter Birthplace: North Carolina Father's Birthplace: North Carolina Mother's Birthplace: North Carolina Father: Janeco W Flowers (26) Mother: Effie B Flowers (20)
United States Census, 1920 Name: Alberta Flowers Residence: Gulledge, Anson County, North Carolina Gender: Female Age: 10 Marital Status: Single Race: Mulatto Relationship to Head of Household: Daughter Birthplace: North Carolina Father's Birthplace: North Carolina Mother's Birthplace: North Carolina Father: James W Flowers (36) Mother: Effie Flowers (30) Brother: Hubert Flowers (8) Sister: Rena Flowers (6) Sister: Othella Flowers (4) Sister: Arlene Flowers (3) Sister: Ola Flowers (0)
United States Census, 1930 Name: Dallertia Flowers Residence: Gulledge, Anson County, North Carolina, United States Gender: Female Age: 20 Marital Status: Single Race: Negro Relationship to Head of Household (Original): Daughter Birthplace: North Carolina Father's Birthplace: North Carolina Mother's Birthplace: North Carolina Father:James W Flowers (46) Mother: Effie B Flowers (40) Brother: Walter H Flowers (18) Sister: Runa B Flowers (16) Sister: Othella Flowers (14) Brother: Arlan Flowers (12) Sister: Leola Flowers (10) Sister: Jestene Flowers (8) Brother: James Flowers Jr. (5) Sister: Effie Flowers Jr. (3)
United States Census, 1940 Name: Alberta Liles Residence: Gulledge Township, Anson County, North Carolina Gender: Female Age: 28 Marital Status: Married Race: Negro Relationship to Head of Household: Daughter-in-law Birthplace: North Carolina Last Place of Residence: Same House Mother-in-Law: Catherine Liles (58) Brother-in-Law: Vernon Liles (17) Husband: James Liles (27) Son or Nephew: Edgar Liles (8) Son or Nephew: Benjamin Liles (4)
The evidence suggests she is 106, NOT 111, and including her is promoting age exaggeration. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, this is the reason a GRG-only approach is needed - otherwise, frauds like Alberta Lyles creep in. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH has no place on Misplaced Pages. Find a reliable source that disputes/disproves her age and she can be removed. Census matches aren't allowed as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. And in case you hadn't noticed, this is Misplaced Pages not the GRG. Consensus above was to use sources other than GRG tables. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, consensus was to use GRG Tables A and E as well as other sources. However, I agree with you that original research has no place on Misplaced Pages; therefore, we should keep Alberta Lyles listed. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH has no place on Misplaced Pages. Find a reliable source that disputes/disproves her age and she can be removed. Census matches aren't allowed as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. And in case you hadn't noticed, this is Misplaced Pages not the GRG. Consensus above was to use sources other than GRG tables. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Reverted back to GRG-associated
Greetings,
I've reverted back to a version that is associated with the GRG. It is considered the authority and is the source Guinness uses. Please refrain from attempting to use newspaper articles as proof of age. They rely on the claimant. As seen with Shigechiyo Izumi, Kamato Hongo, Carrie C. White, Walter Williams, Pierre Joubert, Damiana Sette, Martha Graham, and several other cases, age validation is needed - we can't just take the claimant at their word. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- And I reverted you. Misplaced Pages goes off reliable sources, not just GRG only. In case you didn't notice, this is Misplaced Pages not the GRG so other sources can be included. Consensus is also to include sources outside the GRG. It's not a good idea to revert against consensus on a topic area where discretionary sanctions are in place. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, consensus was to use GRG only. I have a proposal. Unverified cases can be left on the list, but rows with unverified cases must be color-coded red, and pending cases in blue. Verified cases don't need a color coding. This way, people can tell whether a case is verified or not, and unverified cases can be included. Everybody wins. Sound fair? --Sailor Haumea (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus is to use sources as well as GRG tables (here and here). This has been discussed and rejected several times. We are NOT going to use GRG only nor will there be separate tables. If you really want GRG only then go join the rest of them over at the Gerontology Wikia otherwise read over the discussions and help with this wikiproject. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hardly. Why should Misplaced Pages be a mouthpiece for the GRG? As far as Misplaced Pages policy goes, verified means passing WP:V with a reliable source, which most newspapers are. It's not our business to doubt their statements. clpo13(talk) 23:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- The GRG is the internationally recognized authority on the subject. Age verification lets us weed out the frauds - otherwise, cases like Alberta Lyles - who is actually 106, NOT 111 - get traction and it's Carmelo Flores Laura all over again. Remember him? His family claimed he was 123, and news outlets carried the claim....but then researchers found his baptismal record which revealed he was born in 1906 and only 107. Remember Bernando LaPallo? He claimed 114, the documents said 108. There's a long list of cases featured in the media over the years that were not the ages claimed - Zaro Agha, Shigechiyo Izumi, Mitsu Fujisawa, Maria Diaz Cortes, etc. Cruz Hernandez claimed to be 128 when she died in 2007. But last year, researchers found her baptismal record, which proved she was born in 1893 and only 113 (almost 114) at her death. Age verification is needed to prevent fraudsters like Charlie Smith from getting attention for their deception. At the very least, distinguished between GRG-verified cases and cases with just a news report. The GRG is the source Guinness uses. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Several other members of the 110 Club persisted in taking this view about the GRG. They are no longer able to edit longevity-related articles on Misplaced Pages. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- So you admit you deliberately blocked users in an effort to silence those who disagree with you? I'm not proposing we have several tables, I'm proposing we color-code based on research status. Throughout history, many fraudulent longevity claims have come and gone, and it's better to have some way of distinguishing between cases we are completely certain are the ages claimed (Guinness has the documents) and Li Suqing of China who claims to be 117 and whose family has not submitted documentation. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the investigator! --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- And? When such frauds are revealed, the articles can be updated to reflect that. It's not egg on Misplaced Pages's face to have reported what reliable sources said, even if those sources ended up being wrong. I have no qualms about using GRG as a source, but excluding other reliable sources is absurd and goes against Misplaced Pages policy. clpo13(talk) 05:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- No we are not going to have separate GRG verified only tables. This has been discussed and rejected. You should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in place in this topic area. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Several other members of the 110 Club persisted in taking this view about the GRG. They are no longer able to edit longevity-related articles on Misplaced Pages. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- The GRG is the internationally recognized authority on the subject. Age verification lets us weed out the frauds - otherwise, cases like Alberta Lyles - who is actually 106, NOT 111 - get traction and it's Carmelo Flores Laura all over again. Remember him? His family claimed he was 123, and news outlets carried the claim....but then researchers found his baptismal record which revealed he was born in 1906 and only 107. Remember Bernando LaPallo? He claimed 114, the documents said 108. There's a long list of cases featured in the media over the years that were not the ages claimed - Zaro Agha, Shigechiyo Izumi, Mitsu Fujisawa, Maria Diaz Cortes, etc. Cruz Hernandez claimed to be 128 when she died in 2007. But last year, researchers found her baptismal record, which proved she was born in 1893 and only 113 (almost 114) at her death. Age verification is needed to prevent fraudsters like Charlie Smith from getting attention for their deception. At the very least, distinguished between GRG-verified cases and cases with just a news report. The GRG is the source Guinness uses. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, consensus was to use GRG only. I have a proposal. Unverified cases can be left on the list, but rows with unverified cases must be color-coded red, and pending cases in blue. Verified cases don't need a color coding. This way, people can tell whether a case is verified or not, and unverified cases can be included. Everybody wins. Sound fair? --Sailor Haumea (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, the cases you just listed have articles published by experts that debunk their age claims. Said articles are considered reliable sources, which is why they aren't featured on the various other "oldest" lists here. However, none of the folks you removed from this article in that mass removal of yours have been debunked by experts. What you did is vandalism. 66.168.191.92 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
As seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Verified_vs_Verified_by_GRG
The arguments used in favor of using non-GRG sources have been thoroughly debunked. Thus, I'm reverting again, and reporting the people pushing an anti-GRG view to the Wikimedia Foundation. It's been ten years of this nonsense, which has resulted in correspondents for the GRG being blocked from editing. Sailor Haumea (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Categories: