This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Longevity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Lists List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Annual readership

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Number 43- Maggie Kidd was born in 1904, not 1905. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/oldest-living-georgia-resident-turns-113/85-498115083 23.91.152.103 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Security Administration is not the "end all" of authorities for age verification. As I have addressed previously, several supercentenarians, have altering Social Security records and celebrated birth years. Maggie Barnes and Maggie Renfro, just to name the Maggies. Maggie Kidd is pending verification with a clearer indication of a birth year of 1905.TFBCT1 (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to a source supporting the birth year of 1905? 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:6C5A:FC:508C:1E91 (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only link I can find is http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Maggie_Kidd which will be argued as not reliable although it is most definitely accurate. As a side note, over 10% of supercentenarins claim and celebrate alternate birth years which are not accurate. I've already named (2). You can add Susie Gibson, Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, Eunice Sanborn, Grace Clawson, and Delma Kollar. It's not a matter of hearsay and speculation.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently one reliable source which give the year as 1904. Only if other reliable sources are provided which provide a different year then the person is removed. Hearsay and speculation are not justifiable reasons for either removal or altering the year that is provided by the reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above link provided from wiki with valid information arguing for a 1905 birth year. Why have you decided to change this after Maggie Kidd has been listed for one year as 12/08/1905 with the source listed? You have now set up a conflict in that if/when Lessie Brown dies, Maggie Kidd will not be the oldest living American. You changed Maggie Kidd on this list, but left her unchanged on List of supercentenarians from the United States creating a conflict in the longevity pages. I'm not here to clean-up your sloppy work.@DerbyCountyinNZ:TFBCT1 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerontology Wikia is not a reliable source. I didn't know that this entry had been added incorrectly, I'm not in the habit of checking every entry to make sure it has not been deliberately added incorrectly. There is no edit conflict. And I'm not here to edit ALL your fanfluff misinformation (but I will when I become aware of it). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent tone and demeanor of your response is as per usual uncompromising and asinine. I personally did not add Maggie Kidd to this list, but I see nothing deliberate on the part of the person who did to do it incorrectly. I believe you've been admonished in the past for your contrary nature. And, yes, there is a conflict if Lessie Brown (the current oldest American) dies, because you have Maggie Kidd as next in line to take that title and she is NOT the next oldest living American. And lastly, nothing here is personally mine as you appear to think. If you make a change to one of the longevity pages, it is your responsibility to see that the changes follow through to all corresponding pages, if not your work is incomplete and sloppy as yours was here.@DerbyCountyinNZ:TFBCT1 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And wrong again, as usual. I never said you added Maggie Kidd. SPA IP longevity editors are just as prone to GRG bias as long-term editors. However if you were aware of it you could/should have fixed. There is no "conflict", there is just the usual disagreement between sources as to who is the oldest American: is it even currently Lessie Brown? What about Dorrisile Dervis? A clear case of WP:CRYSTAL, a "problem" which can be resolved if/when it happens and is not justification for ignoring consensus. I've "been admonished in the past for your contrary nature"? Really? You mean trying to see that consensus is followed? Would you like to point to anyone else reading this page where I've been warned officially (It may have happened but you can waste your time looking through my talk page archives, I've got better things to do)? Or do you mean the time I got taken to Arbcom, which resulted in the petitioner getting a 1-year wiki ban and Robert Young getting indeffed from Longevity, while I did not even get a warning? And there's no need to ping me every time you want to reply to me, I'm watching this page and will respond when necessary (and as my currently intermittent internet connection allows) . DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for the late response, but I just got around to reading this. I think you were confused, I was not interested in your personal details of your sordid wiki interactions. But as per usual with individuals with egotistical personality disorders this is what you focused on in great detail and disparaging others. My main concern is your lack of ability to follow through and complete work on corresponding pages of Wikipedia which leaves the pages in conflict and relegates your work as incomplete and sloppy. This you did not address at all.@DerbyCountyinNZ:TFBCT1 (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source states George Feldman ever reached 110 years of age nor has he been reported alive in well over a year by a reliable source. He should be immediately removed from all oldest people lists in which he appears because he does not and has never met the criteria for inclusion. Hearsay from a claimed relative that he was alive a few months ago is not a reliable source for inclusion in any Wikipedia article.

Kameo Oya has not been reported alive by a reliable source in well over a year and therefore no longer meets the criteria of inclusion on these oldest people lists. He should be removed immediately from all oldest people lists in which he appears, unless a recent reliable source states he was alive in the past year. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kameo's last living confirmation was this report from September, less than a year ago. https://mainichi.jp/articles/20170919/ddl/k44/040/178000c And Newhunter12, you really shouldn't say claimed relative, it's quite disrespectful if they really are related.--Dorglorg (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone had a problem with George Feldman or Kameo Oya being listed, they should have made a contention on 04/20/2018 back when they were re-added. George Feldman was re-added because his grandson protested that he was removed and confirmed that he was alive (04/2018). Kameo Oya has a valid source from 02/2017 less than 18 months ago and there have been no reports that he is deceased. The 12-month guideline is just that, "a guideline." not a stringent rule. And once a person has been established on the list, there is criteria for deletion. Newshunter12 only had a problem with these two after I deleted (2)of their new entries on another list.TFBCT1 (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping properly apply Wikipedia policy consistently to these pages, DerbyCountyinNZ. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the only thing that matters here is policy, not personal sensibilities. The policies are against you in this instance, TFBCT1, so please do not claim I have a vendetta against you as an excuse to try to prop up your failed policy arguments. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long-standing consensus of the criteria for inclusion in this article. That one editor continually fails to abide by that consensus continually undermines the concept ofr co-operative editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new reliable source provided above by Dorglorg demonstrates that Kameo Oya was alive less then a year ago, so as long as it is added to the articles he is present in, by policy he should stay now. George Feldman still needs to be removed and if a reliable source ever becomes available in the future, he can be re-added then. Any information a relative, real or pretend, provides to Wikipedia from themselves is original research and invalid for our use. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a temporary source for George Feldman showing that he reached his 111th birthday and indicating a better source is needed on all pages where he is listed. Similar to the case of Fusa Tatsumi, where there is significant evidence that the person is living, but the source may not quite meet criteria. Just to clarify, I am the one who initially removed George Feldman from this list 03/2018 and then added him back 04/2018 when his grandson protested and confirmed he was still living. There was no contention at that time. Also George Feldman will in all likelihood, if still living, be verified within 4 months and there is no benefit to this list to keep adding him and removing him. I hope this resolves all concerns.TFBCT1 (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not a reliable source, so you should not have added that citation to this article. As has been explained, by policy, George Feldman has never qualified to be on these lists, so you should not have re-added him. The whims, well intentioned or not, of the man claiming to be George Feldman's son have no bearing on Wikipedia policy. He needs to be removed from all lists he is present on unless a reliable source is provided. We have no way of knowing if a reliable source, such as a GRG verification, will surface if he lives to his alleged 112 birthday. In the past, such cases have been removed until a reliable source is found because that is our policy. DerbyCountyinNZ agreed with the need to remove George Feldman and Dorglorg raised no objections to his policy based removal, so the consensus is he needs to be removed, which I will do shortly. I will also add the new source for Oya to the appropriate articles. Please do not re-add Feldman unless you have a reliable source. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus has been reached. And obviously you cannot read or understand my comparison to his being added with a temporary source like Fusa Tatsumi with "youtube" and indication of a "better source needed." George Feldman has been listed on Wikipedia on this list, List of supercentenarians from the United States, and even the List of the verified oldest men, until I removed all unverified candidates from that list. All those lists used the 11/23/2016 source without contention or dispute because of his considerable exposure and celebrity and consistent updates from his relatives of his well-being. He already has been listed at various times for 1 year, 8 months on these lists without contention. It is not unreasonable to list him for an additional 4 months, until most plausibly verified with the temporary source as I've proposed.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is an ad hoc argument not grounded in policy. Just because you and others failed to adhere to policy in the past does not mean we get to ignore it now. There was indeed consensus to remove; just because you don't like it doesn't mean it hasn't been reached. YouTube is not a reliable source either. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that you have been consistently updating the longevity pages and have done nothing about Feldman, so it is you, not me, who has failed to adhere or ignored policy. I addressed this issue in 03/2018 and 04/2018. I received no input or contention from you nor anyone else.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything on Wikipedia is "black and white" there are some grey areas. Some guidelines are just that, methodology put in place in order to "guide." I've already given a thorough history that George Feldman has been listed on Wikipedia lists for the past 20 months in some respect without contention(execpt for my own in March 2018). To remove him arbitrarily at this point would be haphazard. My means of resolution is sensible, list him temporarily with "inadequate source" and wait 4 months and see if he's verified. If not, re-visit the issue. And to clarify, you did not reach consensus, in fact, some users appear to be offended in the manner in which you went about attempting to remove George Feldman.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My contention wasn't with him removing George Feldman, but with the wording that he used.--Dorglorg (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clarification, Dorglorg. To be clear, I am looking at things from a cold, policy based perspective, not intending to be rude to anyone. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently consensus has been reached. I personally have a problem with the inconsistency of "looking the other way" for 20 months, then deciding to a strict interpretation of "guidelines" at whim at some point in the future. This will be more inflammatory if George Feldman only becomes verified within the next 4 months. I will be removing George Feldman. This would have been a lot smoother if it was contested when I re-added him 04/20/2018 after having removed him in March 2018. I will also be removing Fusa Tatsumi in that we can't show leniency in interpretation in one case and not in another when both are compelling. Consistency is the key.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorglorg:You are quite savy at finding sources. Does a better source exist for Fusa Tatsumi?TFBCT1 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't reported last September so she's probably dead.--Dorglorg (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted Miyako's removal. Not only is the GRG putting someone into limbo NOT the same as the person having a reliable source stating they have died, the criteria for inclusion in this article are that the person is not known to have died and there is a report that they were alive within the last year, which is true for Miyako. Note that there is an apparent contradiction in my statements here which is highlighted by this situation. Point 2 should be: where the only source that a supercentenarian was alive within the last year is the GRG living list and that person is moved into limbo, then they can be removed from this list which is implied by the statement in the paragraph above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she's been put in limbo it means there hasn't been a confirmation of her being alive in over a year, so she can be removed.--Dorglorg (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Multiple reports from this year indicate she is still alive., Just because the GRG says that there are no reports is not good enough for Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's clearly not correct that [1] 'No other "reliable" sources trump "GRG."'. However my problem is that I'm not seeing these sources in our article. For example in both the previous edit, and this edit [2], the only source for Chiyo Miyako is the GRG. As long as we are using the GRG for her, we would have to follow their latest opinion. If other sources are added, then we can discuss the problem and any claims that the GRG trumps any other source should rightfully be dismissed. If there is dispute over that, I suggest it is brought to WP:RSN. But we can't discuss how other sources compare to GRG if those sources haven't been provided. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one thing we should definitely avoid is something like this [3]. It makes absolutely no sense to say

Upon the death of Nabi Tajima of Japan on 21 April 2018, Chiyo Miyako, also of Japan, became the world's oldest living person. Upon Chiyo Miyako going into limbo on 24 July 2018, Kane Tanaka of Japan became the world's oldest living person.[3]

Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the casual reader coming across the page might think that Chiyo Miyako going into limbo indicates she is on the edge of hell and eternal damnation, might be an idea to explain what that means in terms of tracking superc's. Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]