Jump to content

Talk:Oldest people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Primefac (talk | contribs) at 06:18, 22 May 2024 (inappropriate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ina Okazawa

Should Ina Okazawa be listed on here? She's not verified by GRG. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... her age is verified by an international body specializing in longevity research/extreme age verification. That is enough to be listed. Softmist (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Group

I think we should form a new group of editors for longevity pages the previous group isnt even active in the area anymore and when they were I see a startling agression towards articles of the subject "they were interesting in editing in" Wwew345t (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections:

Romania used the old calendar until February 1919, and Ciocan was born on 15 May 1913 according to the old style, which is 28 May 1913 according to the new calendar (source). Apparently 28 May was previously mistakenly believed to be old-style BC, however later GRG received further evidence from his family and they corrected the date of birth to keep 28 May by the Gregorian calendar, not 10 June as previously thought. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, so it should list the active date of birth according to what is the current version on GRG. Furthermore, it is not the first GRG correction, GRG has made other significant corrections to previously erroneous data, such as the dates for MARY CURLEY (1880–1994), FANNIE THOMAS (1867–1981), MARY BIDWELL (1881–1996), MYRTLE DORSEY (1885–2000), CHARLIE PHILLIPS (1869–1980), ROBERT FREEMAN (1879–1990) and others. Considering that GRG has existed since 1990, it is quite normal that they have errors, but it is very important that they have corrected those mistakes. LongeviQuest is not officially recognized by science or GWR, but still, for Wikipedia, LQ validations can be used for now because they are considered reliable and in line with modern validation standards... However, it takes time to be officially recognized by GRG and GWR, and they will probably never be recognized because they refused to be a GRG collaborator, they want to work independently, their choice and that is not a reason to attack GRG. They have various forums where they write negative comments about GRG so rudely that it is unacceptable and extremely rude. However, some of those people are not LQ members, but that Forum (The 110 Club) is controlled by LQ and they should prevent all negative comments posted by users on GRG's account. Some of the members of that forum are active here under similar usernames, and due to ignorance and being misinformed on the forums, they are trying in various ways to declare GRG as an unreliable source here on Wikipedia, which is unacceptable because GRG exists long before they some of them were born... So, LQ can be used as a source here only in cases that are their validations, without the case being confirmed by GRG, and for cases that were confirmed long ago by GRG, it is enough to cite GRG, possibly newspaper reports, and even LQ, but do not forget to cite primary source, ie GRG... Once again, it is unnecessary to comment further, it is enough to base it on what is a publicly available source...08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Дејан2021 (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is Blatant POV pushing this user happeneds to be the Balkan correspondent for the grg so blindly accepting the very convenient eveidcne on the grg would work in his favor OR is not allowed Wwew345t (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grg has also validated several cases with a convenient retroactive date that precedes the lq validation date (aka before the grg did) grg isn't reliable anymore and this users comments should be taken with a grain of salt as he IS a member of the grg Wwew345t (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wwew345t, It's not for you to decide on that, no one has written anywhere that GRG is not a reliable source. You can't push lies here, I will inform the founder of Wikipedia about your case if you don't stop removing GRG links from Articles. Дејан2021 (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your lying Wwew345t (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source that confirms that he was born on 28 May according to the old calendar, there is an archived copy that is not a reliable source because it is outdated, and corrections were made after it was archived. Archived sources are used when the original source is unavailable, here it is available and that's enough. Furthermore, this is Wikipedia, discussions related to improving articles should be discussed here, as stated in the Wiki rules. This is not the place to discuss about GRG...Дејан2021 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerbyCountyinNZ Looping you in because we have a major issue here. The GRG correspondent who validated Ilie Ciocan's case is insisting that his birthdate is thirteen days earlier than what was initially established (and had remained for six months). He claims that the GRG received "further evidence from his family" (six months after being validated? Really?) that somehow suggests his birthday is 15 May 1913 according to the Julian calendar. This is despite the fact that reports about him from Romanian news outlets, such as this one, this one, and this one, all indicate a claimed birthdate of 28 May. Converting from the Julian to Gregorian calendar, that date would be 10 June 1913, which is indeed what the GRG had initially validated. LongeviQuest also confirms that May 28 is his DOB according to the old calendar, while June 10 is according to the new one.
If anything, an unsubstantiated and circular claim from the very correspondent who validated the case smells like WP:OR and WP:COI to me... Softmist (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Softmist, You are not right, I did not investigate his case, his family submitted it to GRG. Also, LongeviQuest has not validated his age, newspaper reports state that he was born on 28 May 1913, they never claimed that it was according to the old calendar and should be moved to 10 June. Previously, it was believed to be 28 May according to the old calendar, a few months later, this was corrected after GRG received additional evidence. It's not about original research, I'm talking about what is written on the GRG site, and it says exactly what I mentioned. A publicly available primary source, that's enough.Дејан2021 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I did not investigate his case." Sure, it's just a complete coincidence that your name (Дејан/Dejan) matches the first person credited with Ciocan's validation. Don't take me for a fool. Softmist (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true, I did not find his documents. Also, Wikipedia is a guarantor of user privacy, but one is obliged to reveal their identity. Who are you in real life, I never asked. I don't know who is Wwew345t and what his real name is...Дејан2021 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You claim his family gave the documents yo you directly and I have already proved that you have been caught sending fake documentation and fired for it before Wwew345t (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are twisting my words again, his family sent the documents to GRG, not to me.Дејан2021 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) very clearly stated that you did the work on the case Wwew345t (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who worked on the case, there are several people there, not just one person with a name similar to me, I'm not obligated to reveal my name. On the link you can see what it says and that he was born on 15 May according to the old calendar, that's enough, there's no need for us to deal with it here, it's a publicly available source and it's in accordance with Wiki rules. You can undo my edits 100 times, I'll undo them 200 times, it's best to stop citing incorrect information, citing an unreliable outdated source that was updated by experts after it was archived. I don't know what to tell you, you have become an impossible person, wait for the admin to decide, not you, it is necessary for one of the admins to say what is true and what is in accordance with the Wiki rules, which is that it is based on public available source, it is not necessary to speculate when the source was published, when it was corrected and so on...Дејан2021 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just wondering why you removed Ilie Ciocan when he is validated by the GRG. He is very obviously not a fake case so should be reinstated. Lanky Lev (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see what was agreed upon directly below your message. Softmist (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As requested. Wikipedia uses the most reliable source. If there are multiple sources of similar reliability that do not agree then the person should be removed until the conflict over dates is resolved. If someone has information that a given date is wrong and there is no reliable source for that information then that should be ignored. As for this current argument there are multiple violations of Wiki policy, including WP:OUTING and WP:3RR, which are sufficient to have a user blocked or topic banned. At the very least this page is heading for full protection. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a means of resolving this matter, since there is at least the LongeviQuest source I linked above (which I would classify as "similar reliability" to the GRG) disputing the GRG birthdate, can we agree to remove Ilie Ciocan entirely, at least until LQ validates his claim? I think that's the safest option for now. If his claim is validated by LQ with the same birthdate the GRG is using, great, we'll add him back with that date. If there's a discrepancy again, we can discuss what to do from there. Softmist (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Softmist, Your suggestion to delete it completely is an even better option than to keep it with the incorrect date (June 10). Don't forget that his age is not validated by LQ, but on their profile it is listed as Unvalidated with the date 10 June 1913 N.S. (28 May 1913 O.S.) which is wrong, but I don't blame them for that mistake because the same information was used by GRG before the corrections . Their fan from The 110 Club by the name of Wwew345t (same name on Wikipedia) claims that GRG is an unreliable source because he corrected his date of birth, and as evidence he provided you with an archived GRG link that was archived before the corrections, in return about the reliability of LQ, I found exactly the same evidence that confirms that GRG corrections LQ corrections are a normal thing, because LQ also subsequently corrected its errors, as in the case of a supercentenarian named Elvira Maurno Valladao, LQ previously confirmed her date of birth as 23 December 1911, several months later, and a few weeks after the GRG validation of that case, they corrected her date of birth to 31 December 1911, about that there is the same evidence, archived links before corrections and after. Also, LQ as a for-profit non-scientific organization aims to replace GRG, they have publicly admitted this on their forum. Why didn't Wwew345t consider discussing the reliability of LQ, how come he didn't because he was sent here to humiliate GRG and try to make baseless accusations that GRG is an unreliable source, even though there is no reliable evidence for this, here is the following evidence of LQ corrections , corrections are a normal occurrence.
1): Archived link, before LQ corrections: https://web.archive.org/web/20231231082259/https://longeviquest.com/supercentenarians/elvira-maurno-valladao/
2) Original source, after LQ corrections: https://longeviquest.com/supercentenarians/elvira-maurno-valladao/
@DerbyCountyinNZ, please think about it and look at the previously mentioned sentences and links that indicate the reliability of LQ, I am not denying the GRG corrections, the same evidence of GRG corrections exists, just the same about LQ corrections. I think you have to make a final decision whether to keep Ilie Ciocan according to GRG or delete him completely, so there are only two options, delete or keep May 28 according to the new calendar, and June 10 is out of the question, because there is evidence of GRG corrections of that case, if you need it, I can provide the archived links, as I clarified with the LQ corrections...Дејан2021 (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerbyCountyinNZ, And what will you decide, will Wikipedia be a free encyclopedia based on publicly available sources or will it be under the dictatorship of LQ fans? I don't know who to contact in this matter, maybe it's stupid to contact the Wikipedia founder if the administration is not able to make an adequate decision. Instead of solving this issue, you wrote in the description of the change "Do NOT delete other users talk page comments without an extremely good reason, otherwise you will likely receive a longer block". Reason enough to delete the above and below threads is that what he says there is so childish, he talks about creating a group on Wikipedia to update the articles related to the oldest people, and what does that mean, it means completely deleting GRG and GWR from the articles, as can be seen in the contributions of the "user" Wwew345t. So, I insist on following the Wiki rules, and deleting that case is against the Wiki rules...Дејан2021 (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added him again according to Wiki rules, nowhere does it say that cases needs to be validated by LQ, when it has already been validated by GRG (and or GWR). We don't need an LQ dictatorship here. LQ fans should be grateful that Wikipedia recognizes them as a primary source at all, as they are not recognized by GRG and GWR. But it doesn't matter and that's fine because it's not written anywhere in the Wiki rules, just like it's not written anywhere that the case needs to be LQ validated to be listed. It is enough that it was confirmed by at least one of the three verification bodies, and whether it is LQ, GRG or GWR is completely irrelevant, the case is validated and that is enough...Дејан2021 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems silly to me to exclude someone from the list that obviously belongs there while there is a discrepancy of reliable sources. Cannot we put this into the list under the more recent date verified by LO & make a explanatory footnote for the GRG verification until we can finish hashing this out? Peaceray (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request

Please protect this page the grg corresponds for Romania has intentionally switched his age so he is a few days older and the 3rd oldest man there is already proof that this is false as he was born on the 10th of june the grg socure is not reliable Wwew345t (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the person who decides what is a reliable source and what is not. This page cannot be permanently protected, and I promise you that I will undo your edits 200 times because you are inserting false information without a single source or proof of it.Дејан2021 (talk) Дејан2021 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll get banned for something called "edit warring" so please stop being insist on spreading false information Wwew345t (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there is loads of proof so please stop vandalizing the page Wwew345t (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are inserting false information and have not provided any evidence to prove your claim. You started a war with changes, I will never stop, I will contact admin to lock the article for a while because you obviously do not stop inserting incorrect information for unknown reasons.Дејан2021 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one adding the false info Wwew345t (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prof that you've forged fake evidence before this is you correct? Wwew345t (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This "birth certificate" you found either doesn't exist or your forged it like you did with these others ones there is no proof he was born on the 15th so are you gonna persist with your vandalism? Wwew345t (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forums where they have a discussion against GRG are not a reliable source. Regarding Ciocan's case, I am not the one who found the documents for him, it was submitted by his family to GRG, it is not my research. Дејан2021 (talk) Дејан2021 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
incorrect you said the family gave the documents to you specifically Wwew345t (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oldest_people&oldid=1225073947"