Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 18
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Major issues with Japanese supercentenarians
While going through this article after removing two Spanish supercentenarians I discovered had sources over a year old and updated sources could not be found, I made an unpleasant discovery. Eight Japanese entries have sources over a year old, the sources no longer exist (sometimes with no idea what date they were even from), or outright fake. If google translate is to be believed, one persons source is over two years old, and another is explicitly nearly four. How many of these people are even still alive? I have no knowledge of Japanese so I am unable to research new sources, but I can unequivocally say these peoples sources are junk: Natsu Kotsuka, Seki Inagaki, Tsunahei Ogawa, Kaoru Ueda, Sumie Yabune, Sanae Uchiyama, and Tame Yamaguchi. Sumire Hishikawa's "source" is a photographers blog post.
I am going to remove all eight entries right now and please do not add any of them back without each having a reliable up to date source. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
There is currently an editing dispute on three different pages about this change, the others being List of Japanese supercentenarians and Oldest people. Could any of you please provide your own analysis on this issue to reach a consensus since TFBCT1 is refusing to abide by policy or discuss the issue. @CommanderLinx, @The Blade of the Northern Lights, @DerbyCountyinNZ, @JFG Newshunter12 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I can read Japanese. I checked the source for Kaoru Ueda, which was published on 1 September 2017, stating her name as the oldest woman in the Osaka prefecture as of that date. I found a more recent announcement, dated 1 September 2018.[1] It lists Katsuko Nakajima (中嶋 勝子), born 8 April 1907 (明治40年4月8日), as the oldest living woman in the Osaka prefecture; I will add her to the table. I did not find an obituary for Ms. Ueda, so I don't think she should be removed from the list just yet. I would suggest adding a {{ 02:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- On second thought, I have removed Ueda. If she were still alive, she would be listed in the prefectoral report instead of Nakajima. If an editor finds proof of life, it will be easy to restore her entry from article history. — JFG talk 02:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- For Nagasaki Prefecture, Ogawa and Uchiyama are unchanged and confirmed living in the September 2018 report. Updated source accordingly. There was a reading error on Uchiyama's first name: it's Masae, not Sanae. I also filled in and translated the source for Kagoshima Prefecture. — JFG talk 03:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@TFBCT1 It is the policy on these pages that individuals are removed if their source is over a year old, non-existent or fake, and yet you want all three of these gross policy violations to stay in place. All eight entries violate these policies and should be removed immediately as I did. You also re-added Sumire Hishikawa and her fake source each time you reverted and you lied in your edit summaries on each page that I reverted you three times. I reverted you only twice each. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is a guideline, not a policy that all "reliable sources" be updated every 12 months. It is a policy that in order to remove individuals from these lists, you need to show proof of death, especially in reference to Prefecture reports which are not "fabled" as you contrive and are updated regularly. It is haphazard and reckless to remove 25% of all Japanese from these lists clearly because you are ignorant as to how to update their sources. You have a habit of demolition and dismantling rather than rectifying and fixing and that will not be tolerated here. I'm not going to respond to your infantile bickering and quibbling per above.TFBCT1 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Rubbish. It is long-standing consensus, which you repeatedly choose to ignore, that any person without proof that they are alive within the last year, can be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Says the person throwing personal insults at the person following long established policy that you yourself use when it suits you. I never said prefecture reports themselves were fabled, but unless they are presented here for review they might as well be. Facts need proof, not assertions that oh it exits in exactly the way I say it does. It's not my fault you have a failure of comprehension. I was also not canvassing above, but trying to resolve this dispute as quickly as possible since you were refusing to use the talk page to discuss this. Those editors have a long standing interest in these pages, I didn't just summon some group of personal friends who would automatically take my side. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is a guideline, not a policy that all "reliable sources" be updated every 12 months. It is a policy that in order to remove individuals from these lists, you need to show proof of death, especially in reference to Prefecture reports which are not "fabled" as you contrive and are updated regularly. It is haphazard and reckless to remove 25% of all Japanese from these lists clearly because you are ignorant as to how to update their sources. You have a habit of demolition and dismantling rather than rectifying and fixing and that will not be tolerated here. I'm not going to respond to your infantile bickering and quibbling per above.TFBCT1 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is no "long-standing consensus" for this guideline and I can go through the history and point out several cases where it was overlooked. Point in case, 10 of the current 100 did not meet this stringent guideline, yet nothing was done about it until 2 days ago. @Newshunter12 , you have said twice now that I refused to discuss this matter on the talk page which is false. I responded in less than 2 hours- we're not all as manic and infantile as you are; I'm assuming you are about 12 years old. And yes you did canvass and ping several like-minded editors to help your cause which is a serious violation which I am prepared to take action against you. I will be going on vacation and will not re-visit this matter until I return 11/24.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Once again your refusal to accept that there is a consensus shows your lack of comprehension when it comes to Wikipedia, as does the fact that it is not a guideline, it is merely the established WP:CONSENSUS for this article. I can show you multiple occasions where such consensus was defined, a look at the last time you were taken to ARBCOM should be sufficient. Perhaps next time we'll find an admin with a better comprehension of the facts than yours. I look forward to your detailing of the "several cases where it was overlooked" along with your justification for why this overrules consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Once again your refusal to accept that there is a consensus shows your lack of comprehension when it comes to Wikipedia, as does the fact that it is not a guideline, it is merely the established
- Think twice before "taking action" against your fellow editors, as your behaviour would also be scrutinized if that happened. Calling people "ignorant", "manic", "infantile", und so weiter, falls afoul of the encyclopedia's WP:No personal attacks policy. — JFG talk 14:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Feel free to report me for whatever you like, but please notify me on my talk page so I get a notification as is policy, and not on my user page like you did the last time you frivolously reported me. I'm a little too old for finding Easter eggs. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is no "long-standing consensus" for this guideline and I can go through the history and point out several cases where it was overlooked. Point in case, 10 of the current 100 did not meet this stringent guideline, yet nothing was done about it until 2 days ago. @Newshunter12 , you have said twice now that I refused to discuss this matter on the talk page which is false. I responded in less than 2 hours- we're not all as manic and infantile as you are; I'm assuming you are about 12 years old. And yes you did canvass and ping several like-minded editors to help your cause which is a serious violation which I am prepared to take action against you. I will be going on vacation and will not re-visit this matter until I return 11/24.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely missing the point here. Change of focus. My contention is that you removed several Japanese from this list who had valid "reliable resources" from September 2018, many have already been found by JFG and will be updated and others are surely to follow. Address why you removed several valid entries of Japanese supercentenarians. In your reverts you state it's because "Prefecture reports are fabled." That is not a valid reason. So was it because you were lazy, ignorant, or purposely trying to sabotage the Japanese entries on this list? DebryCountyNZ- regardless of your personal feelings- try to stay on point here if you wish to contribute through your canvassing.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your lack of comprehension grows exponentially! Where have I canvassed anyone? And I am sticking to the point, which is: There IS a consensus, which you have chosen to ignore, again, by, edit warring, again, and then incorrectly claiming that because the consensus (which you claim doesn't exist) is not being followed to the letter, it is invalid. So exactly how is it possible for a consensus which, according to you, doesn't exist in the first place, to be invalidated by inaction? To be invalidated it must exist in the first place. QED! And if there was failure to follow the consensus then that is down to the editors who most actively follow the article, the most active of which is you! So therefore any supposed failure to follow the consensus is your fault, proving yet again that you have no intention of actually following consensus which must seriously call into question, again, whether you are actually interested in editing Wikipedia cooperatively at all. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- None of the entries met policy to be included in this article when I removed them, which is the only relevant point here. Someone else finding and adding recent sources for a few individuals who are later re-added to the list is what should have happened, since there is no policy to wait and see if a citation comes at some future point. I've already explained the prefecture report issue and by the way, all eight people removed were replaced by reliably sourced entries I researched and put together, so how am I lazy or ignorant? Newshunter12 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely missing the point here. Change of focus. My contention is that you removed several Japanese from this list who had valid "reliable resources" from September 2018, many have already been found by JFG and will be updated and others are surely to follow. Address why you removed several valid entries of Japanese supercentenarians. In your reverts you state it's because "Prefecture reports are fabled." That is not a valid reason. So was it because you were lazy, ignorant, or purposely trying to sabotage the Japanese entries on this list? DebryCountyNZ- regardless of your personal feelings- try to stay on point here if you wish to contribute through your canvassing.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- After the updates JFG did and that I did on behalf of the IP editor below, the only outstanding issues with Japanese entries on this list are with Seki Inagaki and Tame Yamaguchi. There is a recent reliable source for Inagaki below, but it does not state her date of birth. Yamaguchi's source no longer exists and while the entry was added 30 December 2017 by TFBCT1, they didn't fill out the citation properly, so we don't even know how old the source was.
- According to gerontology wikia, the following individuals are supposedly still alive and included in the recent round of Japanese prefecture reports. If anyone wants to research 2018 reports so they can be added to the article, here are their names and prefectures: Michiko Yamazaki, 113, Nagano Prefecture; Maki Miura, 112, Miyagi Prefecture; Kesa Yamada, 111, Gunma Prefecture; Yoshi Baba, 111, Yamanashi Prefecture; Tsurue Furuno, 111, Kumamoto Prefecture; Chiyako Iwamoto, 111 (would have been 110), Gunma Prefecture. Based on the 2017 Fukuoka report, the 2018 report for that prefecture may have a few individuals that could be added as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work, Newshunter12.
- Here is some more information:
- Mrs. Tame Yamaguchi (20 March 1907) and Mrs. Chiyako Iwamoto (20 November 1907), 15 September:
- http://www.yukan-daily.co.jp/news.php?id=75064 (Enlarged image: http://www.yukan-daily.co.jp/news.php?id=75064&mode=pic&pic=3)
- Mrs. Kano Ebara (30 March 1907), 18 September: http://www.sanyonews.jp/article/790267/1/
- Date of birth reported in August: http://www.pref.okayama.jp/uploaded/life/572886_4659484_misc.pdf
- I understand if you don’t add Mrs. Chiyo Nagaki (10 November 1907). While she was confirmed alive on 20 September (https://www.oita-press.co.jp/1010000000/2018/09/20/JD0057332103), the source requires a newspaper subscription.
- Her date of birth is supplemented in this document (she’s the 109-year-old on the top right): http://www.city.kunisaki.oita.jp/uploaded/attachment/9661.pdf
- Mrs. Tsurue Furuno (25 August 1907), 10 September: http://tanasoko.amakusa-web.jp/Diary/Pub/Shosai.aspx?AUNo=64939&KjNo=60
- The above source looks like a blog, though, so I understand if you don’t take it.
- Her date of birth can be found on page 21 of this document from January: https://www.pref.kumamoto.jp/common/UploadFileOutput.ashx?c_id=3&id=24896&sub_id=1&flid=161138
- This is probably a stretch, but Mrs. Fusa Tatsumi (25 April 1907), who was removed several months ago due to insufficient sources, was confirmed alive last month (2 October: https://m.facebook.com/masaya.shibatani/posts/1833657126753829). The only issue is that it’s a Facebook post. I also don’t know of any sources besides the YouTube video (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfters16vuQ) that was used earlier this year.
- I still don’t have a source for Mrs. Seki Inagaki (4 November 1906). She is indeed still alive (112th birthday: https://mobile.twitter.com/black_ssaki5296/status/1059432803106877443), but besides that Tweet I’ve found nothing official for her date of birth. We may have to remove her if nothing reliable can be found.
- Lastly, the Fukuoka Prefecture report from this year (http://www.pref.fukuoka.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/45087.pdf) only lists the number of people at a certain age, and not names or dates of birth. Not sufficient for us.
- As for the others you mentioned:
- Michiko Yamazaki, 113: Confirmed alive in September; however, she was not explicitly named. Reports merely indicated that a 113-year-old woman was alive, leaving the assumption that it was indeed Mrs. Yamazaki.
- As for her date of birth (28 July 1905): that’s also conjecture, if I’m not mistaken. It could actually be anywhere between 28 July and 1 September, 1905; 28 July seems most likely, however. As a result, there’s no solid source for her date of birth.
- Maki Miura, 112: Another case where she was confirmed alive, but not explicitly. The oldest person in her city was 112, leaving the assumption that it was her. Source is last page of http://www.city.tome.miyagi.jp/koho/shisejoho/machizukuri/sinotorikumi-top/documents/201809gatsubuchotoukaigishiryou.pdf
- Her date of birth is from a Facebook post six years ago. This obviously doesn’t meet our criteria, but here it is: https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=357980674281414&set=a.341217359291079&type=3
- Yoshi Baba, 111: I don’t have any sources for Mrs. Baba.
- Again, thank you for your time. 108.206.39.136 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was able to successfully add Chiyako Iwamoto, Kano Ebara, and Chiyo Nagaki to the list, and update Tame Yamaguchi's entry. I was unable to add Tsurue Furuno and Fusa Tatsumi or use the birthdate for Seki Inagaki because the sources were a blog, Facebook, and Twitter respectively. None of these sources are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, even if the information were true, so you don't need to worry about using blogs, forums, or social media. We aren't able to use any of them. You explained it perfectly as to why the other cases you mentioned could not be added. Articles with paywalls are tricky, but there was enough "poking out" from behind the paywall that I was still able to add Chiyo Nagaki. As long as we are able to tell that the information is there (which for us was just her name and that she is alive as the other source had her date of birth), it's good enough. This discussion has been going on for five days and no one has produced a reliable source with a birthdate for Seki Inagaki, so I will remove her. Any editor is free to add her back if they find a reliable source. Thank you again for your help with this project. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018
![]() | This List of the oldest living people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the tags that keep the list within the page from rendering in a browser. 209.17.40.42 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Done I reverted the edit that broke the list, since I am not sure how to fix it. Also, it looks like no source was provided for removing the person, as required. RudolfRed (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2018
![]() | This List of the oldest living people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rudy de Luca is 118 years old. 173.54.17.7 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please provide ) 18:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, she is not verified. So no no no, we are NOT going to add Rudy de Luca. Thank You!
Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019
![]() | This List of the oldest living people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sri Sri Shivakumara Swamiji of Siddaganga Mutt was orn on APRIL 1 1907. He should e included in the above list Source wikipedia 106.51.136.78 (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- He died. Moot request. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Elisabeth Frenoy
Elisabeth Frenoy from France (born Feb. 7, 1907) celebrated her 112th birthday a couple days ago. Here is the confirmation. http://abonne.lunion.fr/id38836/article/2019-02-09/la-doyenne-du-departement-est-chalonnaise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 02:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Fusa Tatsumi
Hello,
The December 2018 town issue from Kashiwara, Osaka Prefecture, Japan confirms Mrs. Fusa Tatsumi (born 25 April 1907) to be alive. She was previously on our list, but no source for her other than a YouTube video was able to be found.
The confirmation, along with her birth date, can be found on Page 25. It’s a pretty large PDF, so it may take a while to load.
http://www.city.kashiwara.osaka.jp/_files/00177412/201812kouhou.pdf
Thank you.
108.206.39.136 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Could I talk with me now 2/20/2019
I noticed that on 12/2017 there were supercentenarians removed from the top 100 oldest living people list because they were not confirmed alive with in the past 12 months; but I also notice that too is that all of those supercentenarians removed from the top 100 oldest living people list were still alive during that time.
Also to is that I think gerontolgy wikia is much more accurate than wikipedia. They accept supercentenarians from
Also since Wikipedia's policy is so strict they are making the list false I think. So maybe, you should remove the policy that the supercentenarians may not be on the list of they were not confirmed alive with in the past 12 months.
So talk to me to see what you think about what I just talked about.Born in Decade X (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
According the the
So since maybe we could do is maybe list Maria Kononovich, Antonia Valderrama Ocampo, Katerina Kornarou, and Arcadia Aguilar Noyol as Disputed and get there color code in; and also let us and an addendum to the list of the 100 oldest living people.Born in Decade X (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- You're wasting your, and our, time. This is Wikipedia not the GRG or it's fansite gerontology wikia. Longevity on Wikipedia has been brought into line with Wiki policies, guidelines and the consensus of largely uninvolved editors. Longevity won't be reverting to its former fan-based excesses. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I knew you were the one that was going to talk about what I just typed about this yesterday (on 2/20/2019) DerbyCountyinNZ.Born in Decade X (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
But also to is that why do you consider gerontolgy wikia as an unreliable source? Also to is that did you know that to is that other wikipedias in different languages takes gerontolgy wikia as a reliable source like Russian wikipedia I think. So maybe what we should do is that make all of the wikipedias have the same policy and the list too; and so then the language is different to; but it shares the same website to do now this is weird so why English wikipedia is not similar to all of the other Wikipedias; Why? So then this is your decision
Decision A: Is to keep the list the same.
Decision B: Make the list similar to other wikipedias.
Decision C: Remove supercentenarians that are not validated by the gerontolgy research group when they are 115 or 116.
Decision D:Remove the policy that all supercentenarians that have to have a source comfirming them alive with in the past year
Decision E:Add a new column in which is what country was the supercentenarian born in.
Decision F:Extend the oldest living people list from top 100 to list of supercentenarians ages 110+.
These are all of my decisions I came up with. So decide which decision you want accept; do you want to keep the list the same or change it; that is your choice.Born in Decade X (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @ 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding your proposals:
- A. No action needed
- B. We do not use other-language Wikipedias as sources. We can use them as inspiration, but whatever we do here must be compatible with general policies and guidelinesof the English-language Wikipedia. Policies may differ on other Wikipedias, so that they may accept sources that we do not. There's nothing wrong with that, as consistency between language versions of the encyclopedia is not an explicit goal of the project.
- C. Claims of extreme longevity are already under extra scrutiny, and most of those above 115 are indeed listed by the GRG, so that I see nothing to change here. However, the GRG is one validation source among several others; we consider its pros and cons like we would consider any other reliable source. With the historical exception of Jeanne Calment (currently under diapute), no reported age above 120 is considered valid; some of the relevant people are listed in our article Longevity claims.
- D. This is actually not a "policy", but a convention among maintainers of our various lists of supercentenarians, so that we do not keep potentially false or misleading information for too long. That one is certainly up for debate. I would personally support a proposal to note such "limbo" people with a different color after one year without news, and only exclude them completely if no report of their life or death can be found after two years. Note that such a proposal would need to go through an WP:RfCto be enforceable.
- E. If a person's birth country is different from his/her death country, the foreign country is already included in the "Birthplace" or "Place of death or residence" column; there is nothing to change.
- F. There is consensus against making the various supercentenarian lists longer than they already are. If anything, there have been some requests to reduce some of the longest ones, or to remove individual lists for small countries. The main reason is that listing all people over 110 would include several thousand people, which would provide no significant encyclopedic information to readers, be extremely tedious to maintain, and violate our WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATEpolicy.
- Bear in mind that "decisions" here are governed first by our 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I also got more decisons. Decision G:We when we thought this was the oldest living person but it was someone older like when we originally thought that when Eugénie Blanchard died on 4 November 2010 thought that Eunice Sanborn became the oldest living person at 114 but it was someone older it was Maria Gomes Valentim that who was 11 days older than Eunice Sanborn or maybe it was someone older than her that was Ana Nogueira de Lucas who was 3 weeks older than Maria Gomes Valentim and they were both from Brazil ;so maybe what we could do is that add supercentenarians older than Kane Tanaka and they have to be younger than the oldest undisputed person ever.
Decision H:We could see a column in which shows the references which we already have an artice that does have it that which is called longevity claims.
Decision I:Also this is a new decision I got from another Page called Longevity claims and it is let us add a column which show that when the supercentenarians when they were last confirmed alive.
So now I added 3 more decision for you; which of all of these decisions you would decide what I came up with.Born in Decade X (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Briefly:
- G. Irrelevant: longevity is not a horse race.
- H. I don't understand the proposal.
- I. Typically the date of "last confirmed alive" is already included in the journalistic source cited. A column would be duplicate.
- Again, thank you for your engagement. — JFG talk 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
So now what we should do now ,someone just mentioned Icie Clark on 2/23/2019 about someone removed her back in November of 2018 and also had a supercentenarians Anne Braz-Later who is now 112 and last year someone said add her back to the list and we did not and she was alive at that time and then we found a reliable source about her reaching 112. I think she is still alive and would be on rank 58 on the list and this was mentioned on the talk page of [[list of American supercentenarians]]. So maybe we should remove the policy that all supercentenarian have to have a reliable source confirms my them alive with in the past year; and maybe also I think we should raise it up from 1 year to 2 year; and also to is that the talk page is not a verified page so you might not accept it and add Icie Clark to this page. My opinion is that she is still alive you might not take it seriously but so is that also maybe we could come up with more decisions.
Decision J: Raise it up from 1 to 2 years when the last time a supercentenarian was comfirmed alive by a reliable source.
Decision K:Make a new article called the List of the oldest living men.
Also write about your opinion and also talk about what I just talked about; and also I have come up with two new decisions.Born in Decade X (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- You proposed lots of decisions. How will you (User:Born in Decade X) start designating them when the number exceeds 25?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
So could I tell you this; why do I have to start designating my decisions when the number exceeds 25?Born in Decade X (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- The key is that you use letters of the alphabet to designate them; and you'll be out altogether then. Georgia guy (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
So then after I use the letter Z I would use for my letters of my decisions I would use AA, AB, AC, AD, and AE, and then so on.Born in Decade X (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
We are constantly adding new people to this list. Tari Chiba is considered the 22nd oldest living person so that means we are missing lots of people like Icie Clark and 8 other Japanese supercentenarians. We should remove the policy that all supercentenarians have a reliable source comfirming them alive in a year. Lately, I see former oldest living person that dose not have an artice; Why?Born in Decade X (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
my life .com
Is my life .com considered a reliable source.Born in Decade X (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Need someone who reads Japanese for source review
According to an IP editor above months ago who could read Japanese, this source on Fumio Rikiishi does not state his date of birth, and yet he was later added to this article by TFBCT1 anyway with the same source. Can someone who understands Japanese please review this source to see if Rikiishi's date of birth is explicitly stated. I suspect he was added with birth information from gerontology wikia. Thank you.
Also, does anyone know why the bot seems to have stopped archiving discussions on this page? Newshunter12 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- The bot stopped archiving because at some point the title of the article got changed from "List of oldest living people" to "List of the oldest living people". I've fixed the bot so it should archive properly again within 24 hours from now. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Correct: the document from Hokkaido Prefecture only states the years of birth of individuals listed: Meiji 40 = 1907 for Fumio Rikiishi.
I'll correct the typo on first name.Perhaps we can find another source that gives his exact birthday? — JFG talk 07:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)- The document also states that the list was compiled as of 1 September 2018 (and published on the 15th), and Rikiishi is listed as 110 years old, which means he was born some time between September and December 1907. — JFG talk 07:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- A search for his name on Japanese Google finds several press clippings since 2009, writing about his woodcarving skills or his dancing on stage, aged 101, 102, 105. None of those I saw gave his exact date of birth, unfortunately. I could not find a report of his 100th birthday either. — JFG talk 08:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good work, JFG. I think it seems clear he needs to be removed at this point since we don't have a WP:RS stating his exact date of birth. He can always be re-added later if one is found. I will do it now, unless it's already been done. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think it is justified to add Fumio Rikiishi with a range of dates based on the Hokkaido Prefecture report. No matter his exact birth date, he is in the top 100 oldest humans alive. Several independent sources have confirmed his age over several years. — JFG talk 00:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, previous consensus (IIRC) is that exact date of birth must be specified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think it is justified to add Fumio Rikiishi with a range of dates based on the Hokkaido Prefecture report. No matter his exact birth date, he is in the top 100 oldest humans alive. Several independent sources have confirmed his age over several years. — JFG talk 00:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good work, JFG. I think it seems clear he needs to be removed at this point since we don't have a
Clarification/reminder
The consensus for inclusion in this article in the first instance is that there MUST be a report that the person has celebrated their 110th. A report from before their 110th birthday, even 1 day before, is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Correct. The edit has been reverted again by TFBCT1, who has a long history of refusing to abide by the policies of this page and trying to sneak in entries that violate policy. We've dealt with this issue multiple times before with TFBCT1 just in this one article, but here is a dif from the List of American supercentenarians that puts what he is doing in the proper perspective. He removed other editors' additions of a woman confirmed alive at age 109 years and 363 days over this same issue five times and still wasn't done reverting, and yet now says a much larger margin before a woman's 110th birthday is fine. This is classic TFBCT1 - he has no fixed principles, he just does whatever he feels like on these pages and then demands others follow him and edit wars when he doesn't get his way. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- And for good mesure, here's a dif of him saying there is no discussion to be had over removing entries like this - they must go. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Correct. The edit has been reverted again by TFBCT1, who has a long history of refusing to abide by the policies of this page and trying to sneak in entries that violate policy. We've dealt with this issue multiple times before with TFBCT1 just in this one article, but here is a dif from the List of American supercentenarians that puts what he is doing in the proper perspective. He removed other editors' additions of a woman confirmed alive at age 109 years and 363 days over this same issue five times and still wasn't done reverting, and yet now says a much larger margin before a woman's 110th birthday is fine. This is classic TFBCT1 - he has no fixed principles, he just does whatever he feels like on these pages and then demands others follow him and edit wars when he doesn't get his way. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Birthday sources over 1 year old
Following this edit] by Newshunter12, I'd like to discuss whether we should immediately remove people whose last-cited proof of life (typically a birthday article) is over one year old. Let's face it: most reporting about supercentenarians takes place on their birthdays or within a few days, and upon their death. Removing their entries just after one year of "no news" risks losing correct information. I would advocate removal only if no news appear within two years of the latest RS report. Sometimes the local press skips a birthday, but they rarely skip a death. People who die within a year or two of their last "proof of life" report will be duly noted at the right time; those with no news after a second skipped birthday can be removed. What do you think? — JFG talk 20:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG Your statement is highly misleading. I removed those four individuals because their most recent sources are from before they turned 110, which is obviously a completely different policy then removing them after one year proof of life or not. I can see what you're doing - it's the ole "never let a crises go to waste" strategy and your trying to exploit my action for your own ends. Also, while sources on SC's are primarily birthday or death notices, their is a fair amount of occasional other feature coverage at any time of the year. Your focus on birthdays is very shortsighted, which undermines your credibility to reshape this page from how it has always been run. I am strongly against this change, which will allow many dead people to fill up the list and necessitate getting information from garbage sources like Facebook, blogs, and fan sites to deal with entries, not to mention the much more likely edit warring over individuals gerontology wiki or Facebook say died, but reliable sources don't. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, Newshunter, chill! I have nothing against your edit; in fact I did not revert it. Can we just discuss the issue under mutual AGF?
- So, first let's take the immediate cases at hand: newspapers ran articles about people who were about to turn 110 (within a day or a week at most), then we heard no further news: what does that mean in real life? Is it more likely that the interviewed person dropped dead before reaching the supercentenarian milestone, or that s/he just went along and nothing special happened, in which case we'll next hear about them around their next birthday? I'd argue that if such a person died within days of their 110th birthday, the newspaper would immediately amend the story; in fact I've seen that happen a number of times: just check people who died on their birthday, or a couple days later, due to the extra emotional stress, and read local media coverage thereof. For these reasons, I would not dismiss such reports automatically, but rather evaluate them on a case by case basis, typically by double-checking other sources.
- Second, my broader point: I have come to understand the practice of erasing entries older than one year, and when I notice them I try to find more recent sources (and I'm sure you do the same). Sometimes I find journalistic reports, sometimes I find family reports, sometimes I find obituaries, sometimes I find nothing. When there's something, we must assess the credibility of the source and act accordingly. When there's nothing, we are faced with the "limbo" problem of GRG fame, and we should have a convention about how to deal with such cases. The current practice is to remove people when no RS is found within a year, and that's a fine rule. I am just pointing out that we are likely excluding several people who do not seek publicity, or who have not attracted recent press attention. Does that mean they're dead? Hardly. Nowadays, in the countries that have good press coverage of their oldest citizens, deaths rarely go unnoticed. Therefore, with our current practice, it is more likely that we remove living people prematurely than likely that we miss the death of a previously-listed supercentenarian. There are several ways we could update this practice, and those should be debated openly towards a WP:LONGEVITY guideline. For example, we could give people a "grace period" of two years as I suggested above. Or we could mark people with a certain code if there have been no news for over a year since their last documented birthday (for example, a question mark after the "Living" mention, plus a standardized footnote explaining the lack of news). Or we could list "limbo" people in a separate table (I don't like this solution, it just kicks the can down the road, and damages the readability of our lists). Or perhaps editors will come up with another suggestion. We could also just keep the current practice as is. My point is that we should debate this issue and agree on some rules, because it comes up several times a month, and the same arguments are made all the time by various editors, with no general consensus on how to deal with them. — JFG talk03:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG Your statement is highly misleading. I removed those four individuals because their most recent sources are from before they turned 110, which is obviously a completely different policy then removing them after one year proof of life or not. I can see what you're doing - it's the ole "never let a crises go to waste" strategy and your trying to exploit my action for your own ends. Also, while sources on SC's are primarily birthday or death notices, their is a fair amount of occasional other feature coverage at any time of the year. Your focus on birthdays is very shortsighted, which undermines your credibility to reshape this page from how it has always been run. I am strongly against this change, which will allow many dead people to fill up the list and necessitate getting information from garbage sources like Facebook, blogs, and fan sites to deal with entries, not to mention the much more likely edit warring over individuals gerontology wiki or Facebook say died, but reliable sources don't. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Related article
Just for reading, a related article: "Many of the 'Oldest' People in the World May Not Be as Old as We Think", https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/08/12/1714238/many-of-the-oldest-people-in-the-world-may-not-be-as-old-as-we-think Teixant (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
SCs from the Philippines
I wanna add some SCs from the Philippines. Here’s the thing though: All of them come from social media sites such as Facebook, but not A SINGLE one of them have a news report (Except for Francisca Susano - who claims to be older than Kane Tanaka). Still, I want to add them, and that is the reason why I am asking (to whoever is gonna answer me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterheint (talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- If there is no reliable source they can't be included. Claims older than the oldest person, according to Guinness, belong in longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 12:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
New part of HTML comment at top of list
Lately it has been common for a GRG-validated person to die and for GRG's list to have them on their list for a few days after their death. For this reason, I want to know if anyone can add the following information to the HTML comment:
Having a reliable source revealing the person died is sufficient for a person to be removed from the list; there is NO requirement that the person has been removed from GRG's list.
Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Correct. If someone on the list has been reported to have died by a reliable source then they should be removed. Whether or not they have been reported by the GRG as deceased is irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Gustav Gerneth
It seems that Gustav Gerneth passed away: https://www.volksstimme.de/sachsen-anhalt/todesfall-114-jaehriger-aus-havelberg-gestorben Xakepxakep (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
100?
why 100 oldest living people? why not limit on 110 year?--83.242.224.234 (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- The GRG estimates there's between 150 and 600 living 110+ year olds. Do we really need a list of roughly 600 people on it? That'd be a maintenance hassle. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Sourcing issues
I have just removed seven individuals for various sourcing issues (sources are fan websites, no date of birth, not about them, etc.) Many of these individuals have been added by @TFBCT1. TFBCT1, do not add individuals who do not have actual reliable sources that are dated within one year and have a reliably sourced date of birth. Also, when adding an individual, you must fill out the whole citation, never just slap in a url and call it a day. All such contributions do more harm then good and need to stop. If such conduct continues, any editor may be taken to ANI. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- The HTML comment at the top of the list already says that the Gerontology Wiki at Wikia and the 110 Club are not reliable sources. Any other un-reliable sources that it's important for the HTML comment to emphasize?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Georgia guy Thank you for the support. Not sure if it will do any good to add them, but the additional fan websites used here were: supercentenariditalia.it and najstarsipolacy.pl The more fundamental problem, unfortunately, is TFBCT1's longstanding refusal to follow the policies of this and other related pages and just adding people based on what Gerontology Wiki says about them. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- This website as well ( http://centenaires-francais.forumactif.org/ ) which was used as recently as October 15 to declare someone deceased. The above two are similar to the oldestinBritain website as they're clearly self published. And my one is a forum which is not even close to a reliable source. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- One thing to know is that unlike most Wikia wikis it stayed at Wikia rather than going to Fandom. If I were to guess a reason, I would guess it's because it's about a formal subject. Georgia guy (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Georgia guy Thank you for the support. Not sure if it will do any good to add them, but the additional fan websites used here were: supercentenariditalia.it and najstarsipolacy.pl The more fundamental problem, unfortunately, is TFBCT1's longstanding refusal to follow the policies of this and other related pages and just adding people based on what Gerontology Wiki says about them. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your support and appreciation for the time and effort I put into trying to keep pages updated and current when other editors go on sabbatical for weeks and contribute nothing. Also, thank you to Newshunter12 for his keen eye, if only he could contribute more consistently instead of popping up every once in awhile to push his agenda. For the record, I have never used Gerentology Wiki as a source, and nowhere does it state that using a sole url is inadequate. Newshunter12 has a habit of making up his own rules as part of his OCD nature,TFBCT1 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I just reviewed the individuals removed by Newshunter12. Four of the seven were added by me of the recent near 25 I have added to this list to keep it updated. I am in disagreement with two that were removed, but will not contest do to the editor’s uncompromising nature. I will here admonish Newshunter12 not to threaten me on public talk pages for “good faith” errors or I will be forced to take action against him. It appears by the page history that your edits have not been well accepted by all.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Mitsu Toshima or Toyoshima?
This September 2019 press release [2] from the city of Yokohama states that her name is Mitsu Toyoshima (とよしま みつ) instead of Toshima as in the GRG source. Is this mistaken or not? Yiosie 2356 03:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019
![]() | This List of the oldest living people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |