| Revision as of 17:07, 23 April 2016 editClpo13 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,651 edits →Merger proposal: re← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:16, 23 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 20) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
⚫ |
{{Old AfD multi | date = August 10, 2007 | votepage = List of living supercentenarians | date2 = 23 December 2015 | result2 = '''speedy keep''' | page2 = List of oldest living people}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=List|listas=Living Supercentenarians, List Of}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject World's Oldest People|class=List|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=List|listas=Living Supercentenarians, List Of| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
{{WP Lists|class=list}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Longevity|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Copied|from=List of oldest living people|from_oldid=696430259|to=Oldest people|to_diff=696633192|to_oldid=696444175|date=23 December 2015}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Old AfD multi | date = August 10, 2007 | votepage = List of living supercentenarians | date2 = 23 December 2015 | result2 = '''speedy keep''' | page2 = List of oldest living people}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{Copied|from=List of oldest living people|from_oldid=696430259|to=Oldest people|to_diff=696633192|to_oldid=696444175|date=2015 December 23}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 15 |
|
|counter = 20 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|archive = Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Talk:List of oldest living people/Archives}} |
|
|
{{archives |
|
|
|auto= short |
|
|
|index= /Archive index |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reverted back to GRG-associated == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 == |
|
Greetings, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|List of oldest living people|answered=yes}} |
|
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 ], ], ], ], Pierre Joubert, Damiana Sette, ], and several other cases, age validation is needed - we can't just take the claimant at their word. --] (]) 21:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There’s another woman living more than the Japanese woman Tomiko Itooka, that woman is Venezuelan, her name is Martina Pernalete, she was born in June 18, 1903 ] (]) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (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. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 23:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Consensus is to use sources as well as GRG tables ( and ). 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. ] (]) 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 ] with a ], which most newspapers are. It's not our business to doubt their statements. ]<sub>(])</sub> 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. --] (]) 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. ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 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! --] (]) 00:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
<!--::::::::(Hiding comment due to a possible ] ~~~~) A few years ago, CommanderLinx joined The 110 Club as "The Doctor", and did not identify himself. Instead, when he was exposed last year, he reacted with hostility, and was promptly banned. --](]) 01:10, 17 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. ]<sub>(])</sub> 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. ] (]) 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> --] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
As seen here: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024 == |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Verified_vs_Verified_by_GRG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|List of oldest living people|answered=yes}} |
|
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) |
|
|
|
] (]) 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agnes Boström, Sweden deceased nov 20th. |
|
==New claimant for title of World's Oldest Man== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasternorrland/agnes-bostrom-112-var-nordens-aldsta-har-avlidit |
|
The Times of India is reporting a new claimant for the title of World's Oldest Man. The Times are a reliable source, so this claim warrants inclusion. ] (]) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Highly unlikely to be true. --] (]) 17:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
:{{done}}. Thank you. ] (]) 17:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::That's only your opinion. We go by reliable sources on this page, and this reliable source claims this man is the world's oldest, at 116 years of age, his claim therefore warrants inclusion. ] (]) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Weren't you taking a GRG-only stance mere months ago? Also, this man does NOT look the age claimed. As the age claimed is greater than 115 years, 0 days, he goes in ]. --] (]) 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, I took a "verified-by-recognized-authorities-on-the-subject-of-extreme-age-only" stance several months ago. That position failed to carry the day, and it was decided that "reliable sources" would suffice. Unless you can state why we can't use this reliable source - and your '''opinion''' on what someone that age is "supposed" to look like don't rise to that level - your objections here are misplaced. ] (]) 20:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I doubt it's accuracy too but that's not the point right now. {{u|Canada Jack}}, that source relates to ] as well. He would actually beat Kimura by a number of months. Be aware that changing that will not be an easy move. I suspect we'll need further discussion on the issue. . -- ] (]) 20:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::To quote researcher Robert Young on this claim (he's in every GWR edition nowadays...):"This man doesn't look anything like 114 years old. He doesn't exhibit any signs of sarcopenia (muscle wasting) associated with extreme aging. Also, I notice that there's no exact date of birth, only a round year number (1900). This phenomenon is called "age heaping" -- picking general numbers when the actual time of birth is not known." |
|
|
::So it's very doubtful he's the age claimed, even if multiple sources are claiming he's 116. --] (]) 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Well if Robert Young's analysis is based on how people looked alone, I'd question the reliability of his theories. However, I know it's not and I'm aware that Indian sources are largely nonsense but we shall see. Is there something from the GRG that you can point to (not a discussion board comment) about it? I recall they had a page of hoaxes for a while I think. -- ] (]) 20:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Here you go: First entry. --] (]) 21:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: So we are supposed to go with the "he doesn't look that old" answer? That's also from 2014. {{u|Canada Jack}} do you recall if the GRG's fraud pages are considered reliable sources or not? -- ] (]) 23:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What's someone that age supposed to look like since we have so few examples? That GRG page just casts doubt on the claim, it doesn't disprove it. Claims of people this old are, by definition, clouded in doubt. But in this case, he has some pieces of identification which lend credence to the claim, and this reliable source quotes them, and is specific about a claimed date of birth. What is clearly gets wrong is "oldest person" - he'd be third oldest - though he would be oldest male. ] (]) 23:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merger proposal == |
|
== 129 years == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
swami sivananda from India he is 129 years old and still alive his DOB-8-august-1896] (]) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I propose that ] be merged into ]. The two lists essentially duplicate each other: the criteria for inclusion on that list are "''These notable living supercentenarian cases, in descending order of claimed age, with full birth and review dates, have been updated within the past two years, but have no publicly available early-life records to support them.''", with all persons included there being aged 115 or over. On the other hand, the criteria for inclusion in this article are that a "reliable source" (i.e. newspaper article or similar) states that a person is aged 110 or over; again, public early-life documents confirming age are not necessary for inclusion in this article.<br> In other words, both this article and ] collate a list of living persons who claim extreme longevity, but for whom early-life documents supporting their claim to longevity have not necessarily been found. I see no reason to maintain these two virtually identical lists, so propose that they be merged. ] <sup>(],]) </sup> 05:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
:He is in ] where he belongs. ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Until recently, this list only included cases with early-life documentation and which were either verified or pending according to the GRG or an associated source. A group of people has hijacked this article. Every time someone tries to restore it to its pre-hijacked state, it gets reverted. ] (]) 16:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Stop whining. Consensus is against you and the GRG-only proponents. That's not hijacking; that's the way Misplaced Pages works. The reason other GRG-proponents have been blocked or prevented from editing longevity articles is because they couldn't accept that. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In almost all fields of scientific vs nonscientific controversy (evolution vs creationism, global warming vs climate change denial), Misplaced Pages favors the scientific position. WHY, in this particular field, is a small but powerful cadre of coup leaders able to overturn 140+ years of scientific consensus and also violate Misplaced Pages's three core principles: verifiability, no original research, and reliable sources? Answer that question for me. --] (]) 16:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sorry, not seeing how those principles are being violated. There are no unsourced entries on this list. ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Verifiability is being violated in that the cases you're adding haven't been proven to be the age claimed by a validating authority. No original research is being violated in that you're using sources besides the GRG - the accepted authority on the subject. Reliable sources is being violated in that news reports ARE NOT RELIABLE AS PROOF OF AGE. --] (]) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Maybe you're reading different versions of ] and ] than I am. They don't mention GRG anywhere. Consensus is that non-GRG sources are perfectly acceptable on longevity articles. ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. Renewal6 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)