Talk:Oldest people/Archive 18

Missing entry / contradiction

This section (Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973) is missing the most recent (current) entry. Wouldn't that be the same guy who is listed as Rank #1 in this section (Oldest living men) ... Saturnino de la Fuente? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I found this: [1]. It is from Newsweek, entitled "World's Oldest Man Bob Weighton Dies From Cancer Aged 112". It states: The title of world's oldest man has now fallen to Dumitru Comanescu, who lives in Romania at the age of 111 years and seven months. The Gerontology Research Group, a group of researchers who verify and track supercentenarians, or people who are at least 110 years old in a list of the verified oldest people, wrote in a press release: "Awarded by the Bucharest City Hall, through the Bucharest Center for Seniors within the Centennial Life Project, the Bucharest resident is currently the oldest living man on the planet, according to The Gerontology Research Group." Dumitru said he was "honored" to hold the title of world's oldest man."I feel honored and blessed to be, officially, the oldest man in the world and to represent Romania at the highest level! It's incredible! I want to thank all those who stood beside me, who have helped and supported me over the years, family, friends, and relatives", Dumitru Comanescu told the Bucharest Center for Seniors. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

As such, would it not be a contradiction to list as Rank #1 in this section (Oldest living men) ... Saturnino de la Fuente? I don't follow this stuff too closely ... so I have no idea about the "ins and outs" of all this minutiae. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I now see this in the intro: Since the death of 111-year-old Dumitru Comănescu of Romania on 27 June 2020, fellow 111-year-old Saturnino de la Fuente of Spain, born 8 February 1909, is the world's oldest known living man. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Oldest man

This is ridiculous. And some editor is accusing me of edit warring. The introduction to the article says Since the death of 111-year-old Dumitru Comănescu of Romania on 27 June 2020, fellow 111-year-old Saturnino de la Fuente of Spain, born 8 February 1909, is the world's oldest known living man. Then -- at the bottom of the article -- there is a table entitled "Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973". And it states: This table lists the sequence of the world's oldest known living men from 1973 to present. However, the table "stops" at May 28, 2020, with Robert Weighton. (So, that is not "up until the present"). I tried adding in the names of the oldest men after May 28, 2020. And some editor keeps removing it. And then accuses me of edit-wars. The very same information is listed at the top of the article. Why can't the same exact information also be listed at the bottom of the article? The editor's edit summary says Table is Only for men identified as WOM by GWR. Removing original research and will give editor a warning. First of all, it's not OR by me. It is sourced by RS's who the oldest man is. Second of all, the same exact info is listed in the intro/lead of the article. It can be listed at the top of the article, but not at the bottom? Third of all, where is this "rule" listed that the chart can only come from GWR citations? The Chart does not say that at all ... or am I missing something? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't want to go through the bullshit of this editor accusing me of edit wars ... which they already did on my Talk Page. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, this editor (User:TFBCT1) "advises" me to use the Talk Page (to discuss this edit). I did use the Talk Page ... see the above section, dated July 8. Ten days ago. Today is July 18. That editor -- again -- advises me to use this Talk Page. However, I don't see them engaging in the section of the Talk Page above, which I started ten days ago. Yet, they reverted all my edits. And, yet they had no problem going to MY talk page. And they had no problem accusing me of edit warring. Wow. Really? Is this how it works? How do I get that "universally sourced" info added to the article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The table in question goes up until May 28, 2020. It is sourced with Footnote Number 40. Footnote Number 40 is dated Apr. 10, 2018 ... more than 2 years ago. So, something is not right here. Footnote 40 is this: [2] Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Usually, multiple editors are required for an edit war to happen. The request above mixes content and conduct concerns. If you are concerned about edit warring behavior, a purely behavioral report can be made at WP:ANEW, possibly leading to a block from editing for both edit warriors. Alternatively, the content discussion can be resolved here on the article talk page, without anyone reverting further before a consensus is reached, and without complaints about behavior. Focus on the content; see WP:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss for advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I did bring the content here, ten or eleven days ago. You don't see that, above? On July 8th. No one ever replied to my concerns. Some one made a bunch of edits / reverts ... said nothing here ... and goes to my Talk Page to accuse me of edit warring. Just asking. Is that the proper way that Wikipedia works? Or is that other user just an xxxxxxx nice person? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It clearly shows in the prior edit history that all attempts to add these individuals to the table were reverted and why. The dilemma occurred when Gustav Gerneth was removed from the table because he was never declared World’s Oldest Man by Guinness Worlds Records and there was opposition to him being listed. At that time, it was decided that in that this is a “verified” table in longevity terms that only those who have been officially designated as Worlds Oldest Men would be listed. Nobody has been declared with this title since Robert Weighton. As for the paragraph at the opening of this page indicating the oldest “known” living man with a valid source, it does not have the same criteria requirement as for this table. Lastly, if it were determined that by consensus we were going to re-add Gustav Gerneth and other individuals who have not been officially designated as Worlds Oldest Men by Guinness, we would actually add them to the list and not put some sub text note at the bottom of the page for somebody else to do it.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: "Clearly"? I don't think so. Your own advice was for me to come to this Talk Page ... correct? Which I did 10-11 days ago. (See above.) Since you know so much about the "background" of this page, why not have the -- ummm -- common courtesy to say something here at the Talk Page? When I brought the issue up. You know, exactly what Talk Pages are for. No ... you just make a lot of edits / reverts, without a peep ... then go to my Talk Page ... and accuse me of edit-warring. Very polite and so very WP:AGF of you. You still never came to this Talk Page, until I got an admin involved. Also, why would we have one criteria to list "oldest man" at the top of the article ... and a totally different criteria to list "oldest man" at the bottom of the article? Common sense tells you that that make no sense. Or -- at the very least -- in the "oldest man" chart ... add some notation that this chart only refers to GWR or such. And where did that "rule" come from, anyway? I am very sorry that I even came to this page at all. God forbid someone try to improve a page that contains non-nonsensical and contradictory info. And does so, the right way -- by Wikipedia use of the Talk Page. And then gets blamed for an edit war. Unreal. Can't make this shit up, even if you tried. Hope you are happy with your edits and your behavior. I think you're an xxxxxxx nice person. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you said it best above “I don't follow this stuff too closely ... so I have no idea about the "ins and outs" of all this minutiae.” (When you were trying to add Dumitru Comănescu back to the table when he was already deceased.). Your knowledge is limited and your opinions are strong and hostile. If you don’t like the criteria that has been set by consensus, offer ideas for modifications if you have enough knowledge, not endless senseless complaints which solve nothing. And for the record, I find your behavior on Wikipedia to be reprehensible, and from a look at your talk page, I’m not alone in this assessment. Your rhetorical commentary used for personal attacks is not going to be tolerated.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: Yeah, exactly. I don't know the "ins and outs" of this minutiae. As I clearly indicated. (And neither would the average reader, by the way.) So, I came to this Talk Page to find out and to ask. That is, exactly what these Talk Pages are for. (Or am I mistaken?) Your response? Completely ignore the valid questions I posed above ... make a bunch of edits and reverts ... and accuse me of edit-warring. Classy. Also, I asked ... where was this consensus? A valid question. Also ... the average reader is also not going to know the minutiae of such "ins and outs". And it would appear to any reasonable (literate) person (i.e., the average reader of this encyclopedia page) that the article is wrong, or contradictory, or incomplete, or some such. I don't think that putting an explanation of this "extra criteria" (that you claim) in the table is asking for a lot. I think your behavior speaks for itself. (That is, ignore someone who is trying to improve the article; not assume good faith; act like you own the article; and then have the cojones to accuse me of edit-warring.) Wow. Of course, God forbid someone tries to "improve" your article. I regret coming here at all, to be treated with such nastiness. Yeah ... Keep the article as it is ... so that the average reader has no clue what it's trying to say ... but some select elite group of editors understands the minutiae and the distinctions (not explained at all). Good strategy! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You should have read and understood the yellow section on this talk page before making any attempts at bold edits. It clearly states that the longevity pages have their own set of guidelines and conditions and where to go to become more knowledge about them. It also admonishes that you can be banned from editing the longevity pages if you don’t abide by these guidelines. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I "should have"? OK, thanks for telling me what I should do. I am not talking about this Talk Page. I am talking about the actual article. How is the average reader supposed to make heads or tails out of any of this? They are supposed to "magically know" that there is one criteria to state a fact in the intro paragraph ... and there is a totally separate (and contradictory) criteria to state a fact at the bottom of the article? The average reader is supposed to "magically know" this? Great strategy! God forbid we explain it in the article, right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I can "copy and paste", too!!! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't, you lucky bastard!!! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am done with this issue. The article will remain as is. You did not improve the article; you left it out-of-order, out of the context of group consensus, and with frivolous sub text notes instructing somebody else to update the table(I’m assuming because you didn’t know how). No edits like that would ever be allowed to stand. Unless any other editor has an opinion or recommendation, the article will stand as is under the current group consensus guidelines.TFBCT1 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Translation: I refuse to answer any of your valid questions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

According to some editor above ... we have one criteria to list someone as the "oldest man" at the top of the article. And a totally different criteria to list someone as the "oldest man" at the bottom of the article. First of all, how does this make any sense to anybody? Second, where is this "rule" coming from? Third, isn't the intro paragraph (of any article) supposed to be a summation of the below content? Fourth, how does the "every day / average" reader know any of this, without thinking that the article is contradictory / inconsistent? This encyclopedia is to serve its readers, I thought. Not some arbitrary rules that are somehow supposed to be "magically known" to the readers. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You should have read and understood the yellow section on this talk page before making any attempts at bold edits. It clearly states that the longevity pages have their own set of guidelines and conditions and where to go to become more knowledge about them. It also admonishes that you can be banned from editing the longevity pages if you don’t abide by these guidelines. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I "should have"? OK, thanks for telling me what I should do. I am not talking about this Talk Page. I am talking about the actual article. How is the average reader supposed to make heads or tails out of any of this? They are supposed to "magically know" that there is one criteria to state a fact in the intro paragraph ... and there is a totally separate (and contradictory) criteria to state a fact at the bottom of the article? The average reader is supposed to "magically know" this? Great strategy! God forbid we explain it in the article, right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Naive and irrelevant footnote

The footnote that the dispute about Calment's age "has not been formally resolved" is naive and irrelevant. A similar statemeent is made in the introduction. Science advances by accumulating evidence and not by formal resolution. Furthermore, there is no body that could "formally resolve" the dispute. The dispute is covered at length in the Wikipedia article on Calment. The entire Calment article is linked here, but it might be helpful to link the section "Skepticism regarding age" in the Calment article when discussing the disputed evidence.C Lewison (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The title of that chart is "ten oldest verified people ever". Use of the word "verified" at least implies that the case is closed, and it is dispositive of her listed age. I think the "contradiction theory" merits a mention. Especially since we are talking about the Number One ranked woman in age ... not some other (lesser ranked) individual. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The "dispute" over Clament's age is not significant enough to merit the weight implied by including mention of it in the lede. It is in fact so trivial as to barely, if at all, justify inclusion in this article when inclusion in the Calment article is sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

She's the oldest person in the world that has ever lived, ever. And that "fact" is disputed (in RS). That doesn't bear mention in an article about "the oldest people that have ever lived"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No. The "dispute" is insignificant and has been overplayed by indiscriminating media and anti-longevity Wiki editors. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, we follow the RS's. Who says that the dispute is not significant? You just admitted that the media (i.e., the RS's) have given this a lot of attention ... "over-played it", you stated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The disputed research is given undue weight, and is contradictory of an earlier sentence in stating "More evidence of Calment's lifespan has been produced than for any other supercentenarian, such that her case serves as an archetype in the methodology for verifying the ages of the world's oldest people." Archetype cases are by definition beyond reasonable dispute.

In 1955, given continued unbelievable extreme age claims, Norris and Ross McWhirter, the editors of the Guinness Book of World Records, noted the need to validate with sufficient records the “world's oldest person.” In 1986, Norris stated: “No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity”

However, no case is immune from all possible disputes. The question is whether the alleged dispute has sufficient weight to sufficiently call into question the validity of the supposed verified status of Calment's lifespan. Given the lack of follow-up to the dispute, and long-standing acceptance of Calment's case as verified, this case should not be considered disputed to the level of calling the verified status into question. Scott Nokes 01:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, tell that to the RS's. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is the dispute against Calment the only dispute that is mentioned?

Why is the only dispute mentioned in the footnotes the one against Calment? Lucy Hannah and Nabi Tajima have also been disputed. Also the same researchers who dispute Calment (Valery Novoselov and Nikolay Zak) also dispute Sarah Knauss. Either mention all of the disputes or none of them in the footnotes. There should be consistency here. Quagga1883 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A Timeline Graph

Should we add a timeline graph for how long people have been the oldest person? If so, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:427F:F84E:9592:A4D6:697E:CD64 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't Kane Tanaka be the undisputed oldest person?

The same researchers (Novoselov and Zak) who dispute Calment's age also dispute Sarah Knauss. Wouldn't that make Kane Tanaka the undisputed oldest person ever? There should be consistency here, if you are taking disputes by Novoselov and Zak seriously. Either mention both Calment and Knauss as disputed, or don't mention the dispute at all.

And they have the same credibility, virtually none. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest removing the sentence about Sarah Knauss being undisputed.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:8978:2216:ABEA:CC6E (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jamaican claims

This newspaper article speaks of two Jamaicans with super longevity claims (115 and 117) that are not listed in the wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.93.72 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This article requires that people are reliably sourced. The article implies that this is not the case. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

8th oldest living woman (Katerina Karnarou, Greece) died 28-Oct-2020 https://www.cnn.gr/ellada/story/240453/krestena-pethane-se-ilikia-115-eton-i-giraioteri-ellinida 178.147.12.212 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Unverified cases

"Oldest living people" list the unverified cases as true. Statistics show that an high percentage of unverified cases are false. Please, the cases of Julia Amélia from Conceição, Antônia Santa Cruz and Noeme da Silveira Freitas must be removed. Their age is uncertain. The more relieble source is the world supercentenarians ranking list, by Gerontology Research Group.--EnzoEncius 08:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Timeline Graph

Should we add a timeline graph for how long people have been the oldest person? I really want one. If so, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40A:8480:1750:ACBE:EAFD:7626:3AFC (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No. We don't need any more fanfluff in longevity articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I can do it we are doing it since 1945

• Shirali Muslimov 1945-1973 lived 168 years hold record for 28 years

after that is

• Shigechiyo Izumi 1973-1985 lived 121 years record for 12 years

after that is

• Mbah Gotho 1985-2017lived for 147 years less then 32 years 31 years approx for record

• 2017-present is Swami Sivananda 124 years old.

after him will be the first women Kane Tanaka

notice how all of them are Asians even kane is. Gpshshdhe (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

All utter fanfluff with no encyclopedic merit. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

ok then sorry derby I am a idiot I just found them in Wikipedia but Shigechiyo Izumi was regoniced by genius world records until 2013. Gpshshdhe (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

you are a furry Gpshshdhe (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerneth

Our table Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973 is largely based on the GRG's Table M, but this has not been update since April 2018 so it has been completed using more recent sources. Prior to my recent edit, Gerneth was omitted, despite the fact that he is already included and referenced in our table Oldest men. Men who later became "the oldest man" (Watanabe, Weighton) had already been added to the list (even though they are not in Table M, because it is out of date). My addition of Gerneth was reverted on the basis of his absence of Table M. This does not seem logical. I've been bold and readded him, please consider all this carefully before reverting again. Ordinary Person (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection against adding Gerneth in particular (his case was not the reason why I removed the last bit of the table). I think we need one or several references that verify the table in this article, one way or another. Table M doesn't work on its own because it hasn't been updated recently. Also, the table in this Wikipedia article doesn't include the most recent (living) oldest man, presumably Saturnino de la Fuente. I suppose he has been the oldest living man since 28 May 2020 (source?). What we need are reliable sources that explicitly state the date when these people became the oldest living men, and their time of death. Individual sources for every case, if there is no suitable replacement for table M. Otherwise there is nothing that would verify the timeline (the death of person A does not automatically make person B the next entry, there could still be someone in between). The article does not meet that requirement at the moment, at least for those after Masazō Nonaka. Renerpho (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973

This list is missing the current record holder. The oldest living man is Saturnino de la Fuente. Before that it was Dumitru Comănescu. And before that, it was Robert Weighton, who is the last person on the list. Can Dumitru and Saturnino not be added? TrottieTrue (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is an appropriate citation (e.g. from Guinness World Records) stating he is the oldest living man then it is OR for Wiki to state that as fact. Note that any other citation stating that has no more merit than equivalent statements cited for living longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Update of the list: JOSE URIEL DELGADO CORRALES

According to this article: https://www.larepublica.net/noticia/el-tico-mas-longevo-de-costa-rica-ya-fue-vacunado-contra-el-covid-19?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR12Qdy8E-d4aEiq1p9TwwjqCIGk1BifAotV3fz5PknqaoH2T0-2OcNNPW4#Echobox=1611075446 the oldest Costa Rican was just vaccinated, at 120 years old. This would put him as the longest living person at the moment (according to Wikipedia). I later confirmed this at the Costa Rican National Registry (https://www.consulta.tse.go.cr/consulta_persona/consulta_nombres.aspx) where it confirms that he is 120 and still alive. It would be nice to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.134.115.7 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Already in Longevity claims where he belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Leap days?

I have had a curious question floating around my head for a while. I didn't know where to bring it up, if at all. It could be of relavance to oldest people, oldest animals, or many other records and things. When counting how old a person is (or anything else for that matter) especially in regards to world records, is any thought, consideration or explanation given to leap days, depending on which year someone was born and died, and time of year, could effect how many leap days they have lived through or missed, and would in effect make them a day or two older than you think, which might not matter if the world records are separated by months, but might matter if they are only separated by a few days. What I mean is, if two people born in 1904 died on their 123rd birthday in 2027. If one was born on 15th Jan 1904 they would live through the leap day of that year, but if the second person was born 15th March 1904 they would not live through the leap day of that year. So if both people died on their 123rd birthday, the one born in Jan would be one day older than the one born in March. When I gave this a little more thought than I should, due to missing leap days every 3 out of 4 centuries, an extreme version I could think of was... A person born on 15 June 2096 and dying on 15 June 2219 on their 123rd birthday would have lived through 28 leap days (missed the 2096, 2100 doesn't have one...so..2104, 2108, 2112, 2116, 2120, 2124, 2128, 2132, 2136, 2140, 2144, 2148, 2152, 2156, 2160, 2164, 2168, 2172, 2176, 2180, 2184, 2188, 2192, 2196, not in 2200, 2204, 2208, 2212, 2216). Another person born on 15 June 1947 and dying on 15 June 2070 on their 123rd birthday would have lived through 31 leap days. (1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036, 2040, 2044, 2048, 2052, 2056, 2060, 2066, 2070) Ignoring hours, counting only years and days, both people at first glance would appear to be exactly the same age at death, when in reality one would actually be 3 days older than the other. I am aware this was an extreme example in the future but even examples near the present could alter age by one or two days. It could hypothetically happen that one person died on their 123rd birthday, and another person died one day after their 123rd birthday and is classed as having the record by one day, but the one who died on their 123rd birthday could actually be the oldest by one day in reality. I did a very quick Google search and could not find any mention of this skim reading the results.

I know my explanation was a bit lengthy, is this ever considered or mentioned, it could hypothetically matter one day if the oldest people are ever only separated by a small number of days? (Maybe they should start counting leap days as days also, or just count age in days?? Maybe not, but I think leap days should be acknowledged as making a small but not insignificant difference.)

(I was also considering country of birth and death, if one was born in New Zealand and died in Hawaii, and another was born in Hawaii and died in New Zealand, on different sides of the international date line, it could make them appear older or younger by one day than they are also. One could also argue the time of birth and death. One born just before midnight and dying just after midnight, could appear a day older than someone else born just after midnight and dying just before midnight, when they may not actually be. But that's another headache.)

 Carlwev  06:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Age is calculated in years and days and if the year in which they died was a leap year and then that is taken into account for the number of days (if they died after the leap day). Age is not calculated by the total number of days they were alive (there are longevity fansites for this) as the number of cases where the time of birth and death is unknown (meaning that the total days could be one out anyway) makes such precision unjustifiable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks. Is it taken into account if there is a missing or present leap day in the middle of their life, not just at the end? A person living 123 years from 1947 to 2070 will have no missed leap days as 2000 was a leap year. Whereas a person living 123 years from 1790 to 1913 will have missed the 1800 and 1900 leap days (or 2090 to 2213 will miss the 2100 and 2200 leap days) and be 2 days younger than the 1947 to 2070 person.  Carlwev  11:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not take that into consideration. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This might be an issue in terms of day-counts but only if they live through two of these years, and that can't happen until at least the year 2200 (barring some miraculous discovery of a thus-far unknown someone who had lived through the years 1800 and 1900). That being said, as Derby alluded to, this has been discussed before when the argument was that day-count was "more accurate" than year and day count, as the latter can be off by a day compared to the former. But, as I pointed out then, the illusion of precision is just that if the margin of error is greater than a day - which it is. A simple (and sad) example to illustrate - who is older? A baby born one day and died the next, or a baby who lived and died on the same day? If the first baby is born shortly before midnight and dies shortly after midnight, they are obviously not older than a baby born shortly after midnight but who dies later that same day. Yet, by day-count, it would appear the first baby was older. A 10-minute baby would appear to have lived for one day, while a 23-hour baby lasted not even one. For the same reason, since day-counts and year-day counts only differ by a single day if a person has lived through an extra leap (or not), since the margin of error is close to 48 hours, quibbling over a single day is irrelevant as it is inside the margin of error. And this doesn't take into account the possibility of living and dying in different time zones, which further enlarges the margin of error. So, the potential first person to have an issue with this by being out by two days and therefore outside that margin of error by day count verses year-day count will not have been born for more than half a century from now. Canada Jack (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Phillip Sharp

Phillip Sharp is deceased as of 2 March 2021. I am waiting for a proper obituary to remove him.TFBCT1 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent sources

The source for Marcel Meys seems to be more than one year old. Are there any recent sources confirming that he is alive? I have found a new source for Lawrence Brooks: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/09/12/oldest-living-wwii-veteran-celebrates-111th-birthday/ Does it count as reliable? 93.99.12.251 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For Marcel Meys, there is this source dating from 2021-02-11: Fondouce (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have found a recent source for Dexter Kruger: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-13/australias-oldest-man-dexter-kruger-turns-111/13049192 Does that count as a reliable source? 93.99.12.251 (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

GRG links need updating

I encountered some grg.org links that do not work anymore, such as https://www.grg.org/Adams/C.HTM & https://www.grg.org/Adams/M.HTM

I am busy on other matters. Would someone kindly go through the grg.org links & update them? I know this one works, for instance:

• "Supercentenarian Data -- Table E". Gerontology Research Group Index Page. Retrieved 2021-04-30. Last Updated On:Apr 29 2021 10:28PM

Peaceray (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peaceray I updated the citation date of Table E and corrected the links to Tables C and M, so they work now. I also consolidated two existing links to Table M into one. I will go through the various country and other list articles to make sure these same problems do not exist there as well. Back in March, I went through all these same articles (still the most recent edit on List of Irish supercentenarians) to replace the many defunct links to Table E, so rest assured, those all work. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Marcel Meyes

Newshunter12 decided to revert my change with a new source for Marcel Meyes because one of the sources of the article I found wasn't up to Wikipedia's standart according to him. SO he questionned the source of the source! It's a shame he didn't 1- ask me for explanation ans advise before doing it 2- realise that the main source is the INSEE which is the National Statistics Institute of France, a source a lot more reliable than a newspaper article.

At the same time, I corrected a link to another newspaper (the title is "le dauphiné" and not le dauphin. Could he explain why he reverted this change as well even if it's clearly wrong?--Fondouce (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fondouce You added an invalid source, incorrectly at that. I reverted the mess you made and did not feel the need to investigate every minute thing you might have done. I have reverted your source addition again, as forums are not reliable and we have no way of knowing what particular information came from which sub-source. The article, in its section including Marcel Meys, says that it used a forum for some of its information, so it is not considered reliable by Wikipedia. Please find another recent source or he can be removed. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

What is suprising is that the majority of the other sources don't event mention their sources! Why making an exception for this article and this person? He will be 112 soon, it would be more logical to wait a few months before removing it! About the "mess", I added a link and corrected another one. If you call that a mess, what do people call the numerous changes you make all the time?--Fondouce (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does the list of oldest living men to the present end with someone who died in 2020?

Why does the list of oldest living men to the present end with someone who died in 2020? Obviously it is not to the present, as the currently oldest man is not listed. WordwizardW (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the French note. The note on my talk page does not make sense, since I put my suggestion for improvement (that the list needs to have a living man to be to the present) on this talk page, and not in the article. My edit of the article should not have been reverted, because it was accurate—the list goes up to the date of the last man listed's death date; it does NOT go up to the present. Reverting goes back to an inaccuracy that I tried to correct. If the person who did that wants to improve the article, they might find the oldest man living now, and add him. I tried, but was unable to get to the needed site. WordwizardW (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"My edit of the article should not have been reverted". Good point! While we can thank regular contributors on this page, I think it's time to remind some of them that they don't own the page! It doesn't make sense that the last person on this list died 1 or 2 years ago! If somone try to resolve the matter, one could use this talk-page before reverting their work!--Phil of Bristol 21:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil of Bristol (talk • contribs)

If someone on the living list has died they can be removed as long as a reliable source is linked in the edit summary. If no source is provided and none can be found then the edit will be reverted and the person remains on the list until such a source is found. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ, I was under the ilpression that WordwizardW was speaking of Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973 which is not updated. Am I right, @WordwizardW? talk--Phil of Bristol 08:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

In that case, it is because the chronological lists only contain those people recognised by the GRG/Guinness as the oldest person/man/woman. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The Chronological list of the oldest living man should only contain those people recognized by the GRG/Guinness as such, as the general media regard multiple men as the oldest in the world at any given time. Furthermore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a claim to be the worlds oldest man/person should only be recognized after rigorous fact checking by experts in the field, not random media outlets. No change is needed to the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Missing Person

I saw an article that identified Hester Ford as 115 or 116 at the time of her death in April 2021. I did not see her on the list. I included the article I read about her below.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article250764259.html 76.206.3.128 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll find her on List of the verified oldest people. Atbannett (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Change the oldest person alive from Jeanne Calment to Rehtee Begum of India. She is 124 years old and is still alive and lives in Jammu and Kashmir in Baramulla district. Please look and the news report on the following youtube link of the news channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeaWaU4N0aE Madhur1991 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Albano Andrade died

https://www.publico.pt/2021/06/30/impar/noticia/morreu-albano-andrade-metade-dupla-irmaos-velhos-mundo-1968621 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.114.62.190 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

May I edit this article Jobzaiay13 (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973

To the Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973, adjusting for time zones, please add Gustave Gerneth (source: see Oldest men list on this page), after M. Nonaka and before C. Watanabe. Afterward, please adjust C. Watanabe's data in his list entry. Thanks. Piecesnpawns (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Top 10 Oldest Men List

Gustav Gerneth was never verified and should not be included in this list. 172.85.33.146 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Japanese cases

Hello, @Legoshi02. I hope you are doing well. There are a couple of Japanese cases that could potentially be added to this article's "Oldest living men" section if sourcing were located. Shirō Moriyama of Hokkaidō Prefecture (born 6 March 1911) and Tetsuo Shinya of Kagoshima Prefecture (born March 27 1911). This appears to be a source for Shirō Moriyama, but I am unable to access the whole source. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Newshunter12, good to hear from you again. Here are the sources for these two men:

Mr. Shirō Moriyama

Born 6 March, Meiji 44 (1911). Source is Hokkaido News Link. Second paragraph:

http://web.archive.org/web/20201125154642/http://www.hokkaido-nl.jp/article/13757

100歳以上、白寿、米寿に記念品【新ひだか】

Celebrating centenarian birthdays, 99th birthdays, and 88th birthdays (Shinhidaka)

Confirmed alive on 21 September 2021. Source is Hokkaido Broadcasting Company. Fourth paragraph:

http://web.archive.org/web/20210921024051/https://www.hbc.co.jp/news/088460d6aaf710963bb42fac8a72de32.html

「敬老の日』道内の100歳以上は4160人…最高齢は112歳

“Respect for the Aged Day”: 4160 centenarians in Hokkaido, the oldest is 112 years old

Mr. Tetsuo Shinya

Born 27 March 1911. Source is Amami Shimbun, which is headquartered in Amami City, Kagoshima Prefecture. First paragraph:

https://amamishimbun.co.jp/2019/09/11/20425/

県内１００歳以上高齢者発表

Announcement of centenarians in the prefecture

Confirmed alive on 14 September 2021. No birthdate mentioned. First paragraph:

https://amamishimbun.co.jp/2021/09/14/33550/

10万人当たり１００歳以上者人口　大島地区の県内最高続く

Population of centenarians per 100,000 people remains highest in the prefecture in Oshima district

I hope these sources meet the criteria. Thank you once again for your patience and diligence. I am always happy to help.

Best wishes,

Legoshi02 (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Legoshi02 for your timely help. The reliable sources and information you provided made it easy to add both gentlemen to the list as soon as I found a little time. It's always pleasant collaborating with you to improve these articles.

All the best, Newshunter12 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't there a subsection titled "Oldest living women"? It is a bit confusing at first to understand the list when its titles include only "Oldest living people" and "Oldest living men". -¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 16:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

2601:140:8D80:6B50:A185:CA4:A10B:A422 (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC) For Antonio Urrea Hernandez can you change the date cause he was born in February 18 and 270 Days.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Current source cited is from the Gerontology Research Group, if you have a source that contradicts them, please provide it and reopen the request then Cannolis (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Somebody has changed the date of birth of Antonio Urrea Hernandez without providing a source. Should that change be reverted? 93.99.12.254 (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The table https://grg.org/Adams/B.HTM seems to support the other date of birth. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Is it possible to consider Jeanne Calment as disputed? I think Calment shall be considered as disputed - and Sarah Knauss as the oldest person in history - as long as no DNA or blood test has been made!

I don't think the Calment dispute is solved yet. Nikolay Zak considers that a DNA or blood test is required to prove if the person who died in 1997 really was 122-year-old Jeanne or her daughter Yvonne who is claimed to have died young of pneumonia but actually may have usurped her mother's identity and claimed to be her own mother. There is reason to dispute the case of Calment and do a DNA or blood test to prove her claimed age, especially because it is very unlikely or perhaps even impossible for a human to live to that great age!~

Something notable is that if excluding both Calment and Lucy Hannah (who also is debunked nowadays), there was at least one man among the ten oldest in history until January 22, 2016, when Jiroemon Kimura was beaten as the 10th oldest in history by Emma Morano; when Kimura became the oldest man in history, there were even TWO men among the ten oldest ever:

1. Sarah Knauss (119 years, 97 days)
2. Marie-Louise Meilleur (117 years, 230 days)
3. María Capovilla (died 18 days before her 117th birthday)
4. Tane Ikai (116 years, 175 days)
5. Elizabeth Bolden (116 years, 118 days)
6. Besse Cooper (116 years, 100 days)
7. Jiroemon Kimura (116 years as of April 19, 2013)
8. Maggie Barnes (115 years, 319 days)
9. Dina Manfredini (115 years, 257 days)
10. Christian Mortensen (115 years, 252 days) 213.65.211.63 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Covered in the archives of this talk page. The Calment dispute is not credible. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

Remove Ja Hyung Lee from the list of living men because his source is more than 1 year old. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Leap Year Issue

We're about to run into an interesting issue related to the slightly uneven distribution of leap years. Because Sarah Knauss was born so soon after Leap Day 1880 and died so soon before Leap Day 2000, and because 1900 wasn't a leap year, her 119+ years of life included only 28 leap days. Kane Tanaka, on the other hand, has already lived through 30 leap days. This means that the "119 years" part of Tanaka's listed age is actually two days longer than the "119 years" part of Knauss's listed age. As a result, 26 days from now, Tanaka will appear below Knauss on the list despite having actually lived for more time than Knauss. Oooooooseven (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times across numerous longevity articles and has been deemed irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it irrelevant. What if Tanaka were to die on 8 April? She would end up being listed as the third-longest-living person in history despite actually being the second-longest-living. Oooooooseven (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Even at her age, the odds of someone dying on a particular day are very slim. Let's worry about this if and when it actually happens. Ionmars10 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand that that specific scenario is unlikely to play out; it was just meant to illustrate my point. Shouldn't we strive to have the most accurate information possible? Oooooooseven (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Please change "Goncalino Norberto" to "Gonçalino Norberto" with a cedilla. There is a cedilla in the source. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"Gonçalino Norberto" Ghoshneet2022 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. 93.99.12.254 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is India?

I doubt there are Indians who lived long lives, but none of the verifying organisations has had a chance i guess. 103.170.226.54 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I can understand sir, but your comment alone, on it's own, has no value if it's not for any proof. Kichawww (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Anybody look here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kswCI3WUrq0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.45.80.227 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Channel mentioned here DD INDIA State owned media by Goverment of India

Swami Sivananda receives Padma Shri fourth-highest civilian award of the Republic of India

Wikipedia may consider these sources as reliable

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/125yearold-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-receives-padma-shri-watch-video-11647917226078.html

https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/yoga-legend-swami-sivananda-conferred-with-padma-shri-award-2022-by-president-kovind-articleshow.html

https://www.msn.com/en-in/autos/other/watch-125-year-old-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-receives-padma-shri-pm-modi-bows-down/ar-AAVkSpA

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/video-pm-modi-bows-down-before-125-yr-old-swami-sivananda-who-is-he-2941413

https://www.narendramodi.in/social-media-corner-22-march-2022--560744

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/swami-sivananda-125-years-old-receives-padma-shri-for-yoga-2834953

https://news.abplive.com/news/india/who-is-swami-sivananda-125-year-old-yoga-guru-from-kashi-receives-padma-shri-award-1520885

https://theprint.in/india/125-yr-old-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-receives-padma-shri-award/882450/

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/watch-125-year-old-yoga-guru-receives-padma-shri/article65248177.ece

https://www.pinkvilla.com/trending/india/watch-125-year-old-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-receives-padma-shri-pm-modi-bows-down-1050399

https://www.mensxp.com/health/motivation/104119-125-year-old-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-padma-shri.html

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/swami-sivananda-125-year-old-yoga-guru-receives-padma-shri-award-bows-to-pm-narendra-modi-and-president-ram-nath-kovind-watch-video-article-90362462

https://www.latestly.com/socially/india/news/swami-sivananda-125-year-old-yoga-guru-from-kashi-receives-padma-shri-award-from-president-ram-nath-kovind-3497215.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/125-year-old-yoga-guru-receives-padma-shri/articleshow/90360848.cms

https://thelogicalindian.com/trending/125-yr-old-swami-sivananda-receives-padma-shri-for-his-contribution-in-yoga-34568

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/videos/125-year-old-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-receives-padma-shri-with-heartwarming-gesture-2

https://newsable.asianetnews.com/india/who-is-swami-sivananda-the-125-year-old-padma-shri-awardee-whom-every-indian-must-know-r94nzs

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/watch-125-year-old-yoga-guru-receives-padma-shri-pm-modi-bows-in-tribute-8257431.html

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/padma-shri-recipient-yoga-guru-swami-sivanandas-age-125-yrs-triggers-big-debate-heres-truth-846826

https://www.news18.com/news/lifestyle/125-year-old-swami-sivananda-gained-nations-applause-as-he-received-padma-shri-for-his-contribution-in-yoga-4895306.html

https://www.wionews.com/india-news/watch-swami-sivananda-a-125-year-old-yoga-guru-receives-padma-shri-pm-modis-reaction-is-unmissable-464517

https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/yoga-legend-swami-sivananda-conferred-with-padma-shri-award-2022-by-president-kovind-articleshow.html

https://www.financialexpress.com/lifestyle/padma-awards-2022-125-year-old-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-receives-padma-shri-with-a-heartwarming-gesture-watch/2467483/

https://tv9telugu.com/trending/viral-video-swami-sivananda-125-year-old-yoga-guru-receives-padma-shri-667197.html

https://asianatimes.com/padma-shri-awardee-swami-sivanandas-secrets-to-long-life/

https://kolkatatoday.com/en/125-year-old-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-gets-padma-shri-pm-modi-bows-in-tribute/

https://business-journal.in/general-news/watch-125-year-old-yoga-guru-receives-padma-shri-business-journal/

https://www.news9live.com/knowledge/who-is-the-oldest-padma-shri-recipient-know-all-about-yoga-guru-swami-sivananda-160816

And many more... 157.45.140.58 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

These are all pointless. He will never meet the requirements for inclusion in this article. He is in Longevity claims where he belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You are an pointless and brainless guy. you never meet ability to add Swami Sivananda to this article.Swami Sivananda awarded PadmaShri by President of India, for his contribution towards Yoga and life style. Indian goverment awarded fourth-highest civilian award by captioning his age. Do you think Indian Government not met wikipedia requirment or goverment falsly captioned his age . If you really selflessly contribute to this article? or Do have any own agenda. If you predecided not to add Indian People? Being listing here, dosen't makes any changes to Swami Sivananda or any Indians. 157.45.140.58 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@157.45.140.58: [Personal attack removed] his age is derived from obscure temple documents and someone without any verification such as birth certificate or hospital details. He obtained passport and Aadhar based on that. Unverifiable claims are not used here. Almost all news articles you mentioned copy pastes stuff from each other ChandlerMinh (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Pérez Mora

The Guiness source for Juan Vicente Pérez Mora does not seem to say anything about Juan Vicente Pérez Mora. Should it be removed or should we wait until something appears there? 93.99.12.254 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be "Guinness".93.99.12.254 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

Kane Tanaka had died, so take her off green 71.179.12.214 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Fauja Singh

UK Supercentenarian and marathon runner Fauja Singh (DOB 1 April 1911) is now old enough to be #7 on the oldest men list, but isn't included. Is his birthdate not credibly verified? The article states: "Guinness World Records refused to include Singh in its record book because he could not produce his birth certificate to prove his age. Birth records were not kept in India in 1911. He was however able to produce a passport listing his date of birth as 1 April 1911, and a letter from Queen Elizabeth II congratulating him on his 100th birthday." Ryan Reeder (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:Fauja_Singh/Archive_1#Questionable_age his claimed age is highly dubious. There being no credible evidence for his age he should not be included in any longevity list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955

I think that Lucile Randon needs a source for this list because GRG has not updated the Table C used for other people on this list.93.99.12.254 (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A couple of additional Latin American men who might qualify for the oldest men ever list

If we're including unvalidated male case Gustav Gerneth on the oldest men ever list, how about also including Horacio Celi Mendoza (1897-2011) and Tomás Pinales Figuereo (1906-2020), both of whom are at least pending according to this organization that verifies Latin American supercentenarians?

https://www.supercentenarios.net/las-personas-m%C3%A1s-longevas

Both of these men are older than Gustav Gerneth anyway. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That would require reliable sources reporting their age. Pending status at supercentenarios.net is not sufficient for inclusion. Renewal6 (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

For Horacio Celi Mendoza, I've got this article: https://lamula.pe/2011/09/27/murio-el-hombre-mas-longevo-del-mundo/gua3.0/ Is it good enough? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Not acceptable per WP:SELFPUBLISH. I'm quoting from the website: "Esta es una plataforma abierta. Cualquier persona puede crearse un blog y escribir libremente." Renewal6 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, maybe Guinness World Records can eventually posthumously recognize him as the world's oldest living man between Walter Breuning and Jiroemon Kimura. That would work for this, right? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in this case he would meet the inclusion criteria. Renewal6 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Very well. Also, what about if this will not occur but he will become verified (rather than just pending) at supercentenarios.net? AFAIK, it's a legitimate organization for verifying Latin American supercentenarians, though I don't know if it's publicly recognized as such, at least at this specific point in time. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is some info about them (use Google Translate): https://www.supercentenarios.net/sobre-nosotros 68.4.99.100 (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Under those circumstances, additional GRG validation would be required. supercentenarios.net alone cannot be used as a reliable source, because it's user-generated (it's not a recognised scientific organisation). Renewal6 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Chronological list of the oldest living man since 1973

What are the rules for accepting people to this list? Somebody has added Gustav Gerneth to the list without discussion. Should he be kept or removed? 93.99.12.254 (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The rules are given in the second sentence of the article. Renewal6 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The rules are not specific enough. Different lists in this article use different rules - newspapers count as reliable sources for some lists but they cannot be used for other lists. I have asked about the rules for this specific list.93.99.12.254 (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

THIS list uses the criteria as specified in THIS article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean that any reliable source may be used for newer cases in this list if it does not contradict Guinness?2A02:F000:1048:4F00:3038:224B:B621:D349 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Renewal6 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Request change

André Boite deceased [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:a790:600:6931:accd:fc64:8d2b (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done He has been removed by Antigones S. Wantton. Renewal6 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

"Brañas" vs. "Branyas"

Based on consensus spelled out here on the "List of the Oldest Living People" talk page, since all credible outside sources for Maria Branyas Morera cited use "Branyas" and not "Brañas," it should be spelled "Branyas" here too. I am mentioning this here, since there has been many reverts there on this issue, and I anticipate it potentially happening here too. Damiel (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Worlds oldest living man

Padma Shri Swami Sivananda From india 126 years old 45.114.248.211 (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This article only includes claims which have been verified by an organization specifically dealing with gerontology. However, if you have a recent source for this claim which includes a full date of birth for him, you can add it to the table at Longevity claims. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please update مظفراف (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The article was already updated within the last five days. It is unclear what you want to update, plus you need to provide verification from a reliable source.. Peaceray (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

You realize that a indigous person in Alaska lived until 119 recently. 2603:80A0:1100:2662:DCF0:2499:8D5D:49A2 (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Oldest people

Case 1: Sheikh Edebali (1206-1326) Special case, he died before any gerontology-based research group was invented, but 1. scholar of Islam, Islamic scholars usually live for a long time.

Any other opinions? 202.84.42.187 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Louise Godejohann (1849-1960)

A woman named Louise Godejohann has recently been validated by LongeviQuest, and takes the place of Marie Olsen in the 'Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955".

From (7 October 1959)

Duration (267 days)

Name (Louise Godejohann)

Sex (F)

Age(s) when oldest (109-110)

Lifespan (31 December 1849 - 30 June 1960 -- 110 years, 182 days)

Country of death or residence (United States) Zackylmfao229 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

World's oldest man from Kenya

THE OLDEST MAN IN THE WORLD FROM KENYA NYERI COUNTY. Julius Wanyondu Gatonga, a 136-year-old grandfather from Mukurweini, Nyeri. The oldest man in the currently is from NYERI in kenya. Please find to follow this and get to know him. His National ID indicates that he was born in 1884 with the month and exact day not indicated due to lack of proper documentation during the time. https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/56836-nyeris-136-year-old-man-shares-secret-long-life-video?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=DK&utm_campaign=Promotion 102.212.236.183 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Too old for this article. Too old for Longevity claims. Try Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not too old for longevity claims, 136 is only 14 years more than the oldest verified person. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the upper limit for inclusion in Longevity claims is 130 years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Domingo Villa Avisencio

Would anyone here support the addition of Domingo Villa Avisencio (MEX, 1906-2019) to the WOLM list for the time being? Among currently validated males, he would have succeeded Masazo Nonaka and preceded Chitetsu Watanabe. I know he isn't GWR certified but he is fully validated by LAS (unlike Gerneth who isn't validated at all; Celi and Pinales are pending right now so I would support their re-addition once fully validated). I noticed an LQ-validated SC was recently added to the WOLP list (Ana Nogueira de Luca) which is why I ask this question. OrchestralHuman (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@OrchestralHuman I've just added him to the list; thank you for pointing this out. Softmist (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add an explanation of the use of the asterisk character

The asterisk character, '*', is used twice, without explanation, in the article. A Ctrl + f search will help you find the asterisks. 2600:4040:5208:C300:990E:3206:9B0A:BF89 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Those are used for Marias Branyas, WOLP, and Juan Pérez, WOLM, to denote that their "age when oldest" is still counting, because they're still alive. OrchestralHuman (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Guinness World Records?

I am not sure Guinness World Records counts as experts in gerontology research as described in the lead. Saikyoryu (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

they have extremely strict measures in terms of verifying who the world's oldest person/man so they are at least somewhat realablie Wwew345t (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oldest living men list could go under 110

the next oldest living man outside the top ten who is validated is primo olivieri (7 March 1914) should another man on the list die should we put Mr olivieri on the list? (perhaps as a placeholder) Wwew345t (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No. Per WP:CRYSTAL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

But it's not a prediction that he is validated Wwew345t (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I read the policy and i dont think it applies to the situation should another man die before someone older then olivieri gets validated he becomes the 10th oldest living VERIFIED man that is not a prediction that is a fact Wwew345t (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugh cant believe I misspelled "living" Wwew345t (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

ah never mind another man has been validated Wwew345t (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Brites José Arrochela Vieira de Almeida Sodré Pinto de Miranda Montenegro

Liked to be 121 but can't find much information… what should I do? V.B.Speranza (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

3rd oldest man should be Francis Zouein

https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_men_in_the_United_States 68.225.232.234 (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Gerontology wikia is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Verification and validation

When in question are living verified cases that have been given the status "Pending", they should be included in the list of living people. Below is a small explanation between verification and validation, age verification can be done by independent organizations, while validation can only be done by a scientific organization or GRG, therefore it should be include all LQ verified cases, GRG verified cases (better known as Pending) and GRG validated cases.

Verification and validation (also abbreviated as V&V) are independent procedures that are used together for checking that a product, service, or system meets requirements and specifications and that it fulfills its intended purpose. These are critical components of a quality management system such as ISO 9000. The words "verification" and "validation" are sometimes preceded with "independent", indicating that the verification and validation is to be performed by a disinterested third party. "Independent verification and validation" can be abbreviated as "IV&V". In practice, as quality management terms, the definitions of verification and validation can be inconsistent. Sometimes they are even used interchangeably.

However, the PMBOK guide, a standard adopted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), defines them as follows in its 4th edition: 

• "Validation. The assurance that a product, service, or system meets the needs of the customer and other identified stakeholders. It often involves acceptance and suitability with external customers. Contrast with verification."
• "Verification. The evaluation of whether or not a product, service, or system complies with a regulation, requirement, specification, or imposed condition. It is often an internal process. Contrast with validation."

When it comes to supercentenarians...

"Verification" would include things such as checking whether the documents exist to prove/disprove the case and making the report. "Validation" includes Approving the Report and incorporating the case into the database.

Source: Gerontology Research Group on WSF (LINK)

Дејан2021 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The first definition you provide is plagiarized from Wikipedia and has nothing to do with the supercentenarian validation process. Anyway, from the WSRL itself, Ciocan is listed in the table with the following description: Pending cases – cases with partial or complete documentation suggesting the age claim may be validatable in the future. As such:

• Ciocan's case, until he is completely validated, is a claim.
• Ciocan's case will probably be validated in the future. I have no issue with including him once that is the case.

But again, including him at this point contradicts the criteria for this article: To avoid including false or unconfirmed claims of old age, names here are restricted to those people whose ages have been validated by an international body dealing in longevity research[.] Softmist (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Softmist, Most of the 110-year-old live cases listed as "Pending" on the WSRL are fully documented, but they are still too young to be on the WSRL because they are only 110, and that inclusion in the WSRL is required 111.5. Validated and Pending cases have a common name, which is verified. If you are going to use the term "Validated", then change the subtitle "Ten oldest verified people ever" to "Ten oldest validated people ever", because Pending=Verified and Verified≠Validated. The term "verified" is wrong in this article, because no other significant verified cases are listed, only validated cases are listed and not pending, then remove the word "verified" from the subtitle because it would mean that the list also includes verified cases, but since it includes only validated, then it should be written that way. Дејан2021 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Дејан2021: This whole debate seems rather pedantic to me, especially since the GRG itself seems to use the terms interchangeably... compare these two versions of Table A or these two versions of Table B. There is really no need to change "verified" to "validated" on this article or on List of the verified oldest people, which has had the same name for over ten years. Softmist (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Softmist, I didn't mean changing the title of the other page, but the subtitle of this page. It is not wrong to say verified, but on the other hand, the word verified has two significant meanings, so that meant that the list includes all verified supercentenarians, even though they are not validated. 99% of pending cases end with validation after some time. Дејан2021 (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

its worth noting this guy is a grg member so of course he would say something like this Wwew345t (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

He is biased in his opinion on the grg because he is in the grg Wwew345t (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

plus the gerontology wiki is currently being monopolized by the grg where they have silenced every critic of them so its extremely biased Wwew345t (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The oldest person in the world is a Filipino

Name is Francisca Susano, born Sept. 11, 1897 and died on Nov 22, 2021, lived up to 124 years

You've got to update this page as it is not accurate anymore.

https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Francisca_Susano

https://nypost.com/2021/11/24/francisca-susano-oldest-woman-in-the-world-dead-at-124/

http://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2021/11/22/francisca-susano-dies-124-years-old.html Icecracker (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Already in Longevity claims where unverified claims belong. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is she put in longevity claims when it's been verified by our government? Icecracker (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

As stated in the opening paragraph of the article "To avoid including false or unconfirmed claims of old age, names here are restricted to those people whose ages have been validated by an international body dealing in longevity research...". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Dude, your government's verification has zero credibility. Only very old people from Western countries are allowed to be included in the list. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:5053:7B26:406:E7BB (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Gerontology Research Group is the authority on the oldest people, & people from Japan are prominent on the list. It is inaccurate to write that Only very old people from Western countries are allowed to be included in the list. Peaceray (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's ignorant and neglects all the Japanese cases on the list Wwew345t (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)