Talk:List of oldest living people

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.119.145.35 (talk) at 19:44, 22 July 2015 (→Say no to anonymous or N.A listings.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:44, 22 July 2015 by 208.119.145.35 (talk) (→Say no to anonymous or N.A listings.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of oldest living people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Talk:List of living supercentenarians/Archives

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. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Possible counting error

I just counted all the unverified supercentenarians, and I count 171, not 172. If I made a mistake, please correct me on my talk page? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I copy/pasted the "Other cases" list into Excel, and updated the total and female/male counts. No guarantee this number will stay accurate, though. -- Jevanyn _talk 16:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking for / working on a template to keep count of rows on this table dynamically. This would be a more permanent solution to a recurring issue, be necessitates moving the totals to below the table. Any objections? -- Jevanyn _talk 20:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Explain this

Ivy Frampton is listed in the list of british supercentenarians, but not in the list of living siupercentenarians. Why isn't she in the list of living supercentenarians? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Because this article requires that there be confirmation that the person was alive in the last year, the British supercentenarian article does not. The reference used there is inadequate for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

110 or 111??

It looks like the table has a minimum age of 111 and not 110. Georgia guy (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That is because the GRG now only lists verified supercentenarians aged 111 or more. If they, or any other appropriate organisation, publish any verified supercentenarians aged 110 then they will be included. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you bother to scroll down the page, Georgia guy, before changing all the name of the page to "111"?! There are something like 100 people on the list who are 110! Putting aside the basic requirement for a page with numerous editors and frequent updates to gain a consensus before such a fundamental change, the GRG may not currently list any verified people under 111, they most certainly list numerous people 110 who are not verified but are pending, let alone the stack of other unverified cases. Are we going to chop off everyone under 111 on those lists too?

I appreciate that Georgia Guy was operating in good faith, but next time, better to get a consensus on such a basic change (the title now contradicts the content). Who is going to change all these pages back? Canada Jack (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a list of unverified people. The list of verified people has no one 110. If you move the page back, you'll have to add the 110-year-olds. Georgia guy (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Georgia, take a look at the page and the title. "Verified" cases aren't what the page lists, it is only ONE of the lists. We list living people 110+ under three lists: the first is verified - none at the moment under 111; the second is partially verified - with a number of 110-year-olds; the third is unverified, dozens of people who are 110. So please revert your changes, or someone else will do it for you. As Derby pointed out, GRG currently does not have any verified 110-year-olds on their list, if and when one is verified, there will be 110-year-olds on the "verified" list notwithstanding the 100 or so already on the page.

This reminds me, has there been any discussion about whether this list should be split into separate articles for verified and unverified people?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I believe I suggested it at one point. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the moving of this page. As CanadaJack says it is now inappropriately named, there are many 110 year old in the pening and unverified sections. That this was done without any proper discussion let alone consensus seems to me to violate multiple wiki guidelines. That there are no current verified 110-year-olds is nothing to do with wiki editors, there is no "you'll have to add the 110-year-olds". Why"? There are none to add (at the moment). All the 111 years olds are by definition supercentenarians, just because there is currently no-one on the verified list under 110 does not make that description (and article titel) inaccurate. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPN notice

I started a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Unverified_supercentenarians regarding two issues: is GRC the only basis we consider a RS for listing here? I think that's contrary to the general policy of using reliable sources but one could argue that any other claim falls under WP:FRINGE so I don't know. However that leaves the articles that GRC has not verified: should they be listed even though there are no reliable sources that support it? Should they kept if there are other reliable sources for it which means that GRC isn't the only basis for the claims? Or we could have GRC along with ones that have other reliable sources but ones that are unverified by GRC and have no other sources should be removed. Feel free to comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As it is This article is mainly just a duplication of the GRC article, which a link would serve just as easily. Williamb (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. The List of living supercentenarians#Other cases have nothing to do with GRG. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Tou Tajiri-Limbo?

Shouldn't Tou Tajiri be removed from this list? We haven't received confirmation that she's alive since 2013.

Done Her entry has been removed - Jevanyn _talk 17:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

don't include dead people please

Anna Stoehr died months ago, so she needs to be removed from this list ASAP.74.131.251.19 (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, but for a different reason, although this is far more significant didn't see this until after she was removed). DerbyCountyinNZ 04:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Bertha Harris has been dead for five days, and thus should not be listed on this page any longer.74.131.251.19 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link which states that she has died? There must be reliable evidence that she has died, not just hearsay. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here. --Ollie231213 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why Marie Brudieux, the authentified oldest french citizen is not on the list ?

Marie Brudieux née Liguinen was authentified in 2014 by INSERM : http://fr.wikipedia.org/Marie_Brudieux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atibarai (talk • contribs) 05:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

INSERM is not "an international body that specifically deals in longevity research" as noted in the lead paragraph to this article. Therefore she does not meet the criteria for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't she still be added under Other cases? This is the reference url: http://www.europe1.fr/societe/la-doyenne-des-francais-est-morte-a-114-ans-2418655 -- Jevanyn _talk 12:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

She died in April 2015 and is already a pending case. You can find her in the List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixus Minimax (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nabi Tajima

Shouldn't Japan's Nabi Tajima have an article, now that she's Japan's oldest living person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I love old people (talk • contribs) 12:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion it should. Being the oldest person in a country (especially of a large population) should make you notable enough to have a page on Misplaced Pages. Oscar248 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2015 Willie Mae Irving passed away

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ChessMasterLF (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC) http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/commercialappeal/obituary.aspx?n=willie-mae-viola-walls-irving&pid=174422219&fhid=26491

Willie Mae Irving passed away, should be removed from table

Done thanks for the reference - Arjayay (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2015 Rosa Vazhapilly passed away

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ChessMasterLF (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Oldest-woman-in-India-dies/articleshow/46672200.cms Should be removed from table

Done although the Kunjannam / Rosa Vazhapilly names confused me initially - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Gertrude Weaver died

Jeralean Talley is the world's oldest person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.61.248 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the "Other Cases" listing, please change:

Vera Walters F 14 December 1904 110 years, 114 days United States 14 December 2014

Veta Walters F 14 December 1904 110 years, 114 days United States 14 December 2014

Ms. Walters' name is "Veta" with a "t".

The reference for the change:

<ref name="ICSNY">{{cite web|url=http://www.icsny.org/a-radiant-smile-at-110/|title=A Radiant Smile at 110|publisher=ICSNY|accessdate=7 April 2015}}</ref>

Thank you!

ChristofPierson (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Selma Tuominen has died

Selma Tuominen from Finland has passed away 12 April 2015. She should be removed from Other cases list. 85.134.25.113 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Jevanyn _talk 12:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Two supercentenarians from Suriname

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have found two supercentenarians from Suriname. Pikienmai Donoe (born 5 December 1903) and anonymous woman (born 2 January 1904). Both are mentioned at this source and they should be added to Other cases list. 85.134.25.113 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It was Feli Noi who was born 5 December 1903 and Pikienmai Donoe has born 2 January 1904. Someone should add both these cases to Other cases. Please. 85.134.25.113 (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jevanyn _talk 12:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

84.180.17.77 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 21:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

New supercentenarians

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add to Other cases this people:

Petrona Chicaiza (woman, born 26 April 1905) of El Salvador. http://www.lahora.com.ec/index.php/noticias/show/1101816261/-1/Ciento_diez_a%C3%B1os_de_alegrar__la_vida_de_su_descendencia.html#.VVRTQ_DXHcu

Imamura Miki (woman, born 4 March 1904) of Japan http://salada1101.otemo-yan.net/d2014-09-17.html

Kitsu Kobashi (woman, born 10 October 1904) of Japan http://www.city.minamisoma.lg.jp/index.cfm/20,21083,c,html/21083/1101-1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.180.220 (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jevanyn _talk 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

84.180.23.93 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

110 year old person from Cuba

Antonio Rodriguez Cruz from Cuba has celebrated 110th birthday . Could someone add his case to other cases list please? 62.72.228.251 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Why this person hasn't been added yet to other cases list? Could someone do it? 85.134.25.113 (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Needed to see the article on www.periodico26.cu to get additional data. Jevanyn _talk 12:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

217.68.186.85 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Christina Cetoute

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Christina Cetoute, woman from Saint Lucia has celebrated 112th birthday at 9 June 2015 . Could you add her case to other cases list, please? 62.72.228.251 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jevanyn _talk 16:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Chart

In the very first chart of the page, why is it that every eleventh entry has a darker underline border? This happens under entry number 11, 22, 33, 44, etc. Does that heavier-colored border signify anything at all? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Answered at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Formatting of tables and charts. This is probably a browser effect of zooming and unrelated to the specific page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Moyano

Virginia Moyano from Argentina has celebrated 111th birthday at 24 May 2015 . Could you add her case in Other cases list, please? 85.134.25.113 (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Country in tables

User:Kachelus keeps removing the country from one individual the table Verified living supercentenarian, (Eudoxie Baboul), whose article describes her as French and the verified oldest living French person. User:Kachelus is also behaving inappropriately by removing France without comment and marking the edit as minor. Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? AusLondonder (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As you are correct and User:Kachelus has failed to justify their edits in any way I have returned the information. If it is removed again without appropriate justification it can go to WP:ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, my fault. I forgot to explain, sorry. Why should be mentioned France after French Guiana, but not United States after US Virgin Islands and France after Mayotte (look at the pending and not verified cases)? I cannot understand. All the time it was a clear line, country and regions were mentioned and now this changend, but only in one and not in three cases. Why? --Kachelus (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

French Guiana is an overseas region of France, but is still considered a proper region of the country, even though it is not in Metropolitan France. It does therefore make sense to write "French Guiana, France". The same goes for Mayotte. However, the U.S. Virgin Islands is an Unincorporated territory of the United States, so not properly part of the country. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a good explanation, User:Ollie231213. French Guiana is a considered an integral part of France, not separate like a territory. No harm intended, just better to discuss and explain your reasoning User:Kachelus, as I did in my edit summaries :) AusLondonder (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Country flags in table

I added the flags and was reverted. I don't understand how this violates WP:MOSFLAG, it actually looks to me like classic usage. —Ynhockey 18:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG states that flags should only be used if the subject is representing their country (such as athletes in the Olympics). Otherwise, nationality should not be emphasised. In the case of supercentenarians, while their nationality is of interest, it's not the most important thing about them and they are not representing their country, so flags shouldn't be used. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, for lists/tables, it says: "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.". Someone decided that specifying each person's country in this list is important, which by definition means that it's "pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". If it's not pertinent, the entire country column should be removed from the table. Personally I don't see what's wrong with it. —Ynhockey 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous supercentenarian from Japan

Hello everyone,

why is the anonymous supercentenarian from Japan mentionend in the table, also in the table of 100 oldest persons ever and Supercentenarians from Japan? On the source which is mentioned in this case there is no anonymous supercentenarian... Please check and remove, thanks. --31.18.248.6 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No one able for an answer? GRG has NOT verified an anonymous case from Japan... --31.18.248.6 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes they have: "4 N.A. Japan Japan (Tokyo) 3/15/1900 115 yr, 111 days F EA MHLW, Japan/Anri Kusaku 7/1/2015 4/1/2015 Y". For some reason the GRG has used "N.A." as the identifier rather than "Anonymous". DerbyCountyinNZ 21:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely nonsense, and should be removed this entry as soon as possible. Very far from grg standards, not speaking about the fact that other organization would be totally unable to verify/confirm the age of this person. 82.144.178.122 (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above IP editors. "Verified" and "Anonymous" are mutually exclusive conditions. Either the anonymous "verified" entry should be moved to the list of unverified claims, or (my preference) claimed anonymous entries should be removed entirely. Unless there's a clear objection I will likely do the latter soon. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no justification under any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline for such an action. Removing a person, identified or anonymous, from this properly referenced list would violate WP:BLP. Any user doing so can expect an appropriate warning. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The BLP policy says that Misplaced Pages's editors should remove unverifiable information about living persons. It certainly does not say that Misplaced Pages must retain it. This has no basis in policy. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It isn't down to you to say what is verified and what is not. That would be original research. It is possible for someone to be verified while choosing to remain anonymous. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"It is possible for someone to be verified while choosing to remain anonymous." that could be also original research. Would you say this also if she would be the oldest living people in the future? There is a not so small chance for this. 91.83.2.176 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It isn't down to me alone, no. It's down to a consensus of editors, which at the moment seems to be leaning against anonymous entries. I want discussion, rather than edit-warring threats as seen above, which is why I haven't made this change yet. However, it is not true that an anonymous claim in one source "could be verified" - there's no way for others to verify it, because the claim is anonymous. Moreover, the larger reason to remove these isn't (only) that they are unverified, but that they are completely useless, conveying no information to the reader. There's no reason to obfuscate the verifiable claims with such listings. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

GRG has verified the anonymous person as having attained her claimed age. I'm not aware of any other GRG-verified claim which has been second-guessed by editors, so the concern that "there's no way for others to verify it" seems moot to me. Since when do editors here second-guess claims verified by GRG? Has someone here ran out to "verify" whether Susannah Mushatt Jones is in fact 116? Even in past circumstances where there was a question over a verified claim, like Izumi's discredited claim, the person remained on the list because GRG kept the name on the list, and was removed once GRG removed him. To do otherwise is OR, even as in that case when the claimant should have been removed earlier. So, omitting the anonymous claimant would seem to be an arbitrary act given the fact of the verification. If someone could cite a policy which would preclude inclusion of this person, let's see it. Canada Jack (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether secondary sources could verify the claim; they cannot, if it is anonymous. That's the policy issue - coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, a requirement for inclusion. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes secondary sources can verify an anonymous case. One would only need to search by date of birth and location. Of course it would be more difficult in this case without a good knowledge of Japanese, just as it is difficult to find secondary sources for named Japanese cases. But difficult is not the same as impossible. And in fact it is not required, as per WP:LIST: "If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Misplaced Pages article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided". Note that only a single citation is required, which has been met.DerbyCountyinNZ 06:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ironic that all the complaints about anonymous cases come from anonymous IP addresses (some of whom have made few other edits). Anonymous cases CAN be verified by the GRG if private contact is made between the family and researchers, but the individual may request not to be publicly named. For example, the anonymous Japanese woman (b. 15 March 1900). See here. We've also seen instances of people coming out of anonymity (such as "MACC" and "MCLL", who were Spanish supercentenarians whose names recently became publicly known). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Say no to anonymous or N.A listings.

This is a list of oldest living people. Remove any listing that says anonymous or NA. For the listing of an oldest living person a real persons name must be listed. Whats next? Are we going to accept listings for people using fake names like Santa Claus or the Easter bunny if the GRG says so? The GRG group is not God and just because they say an unidentified person is real we should not take it on faith. The person alleged in the top 10 if she really exists is GRG anonymous and she cant be verified by anyone else. Unverifiable sources are directly against Misplaced Pages rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous just means their name hasn't been released to the public, and doesn't necessarily mean it's not known by GRG researchers. There's absolutely no reason to believe that these are "fake people". It is NOT for you to speculate in such a way. If the people are listed in the GRG tables, then as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, the content in the article IS verifiable. If you want to verify that the GRG tables are correct, then you need to contact them yourself. Now stop with this absolute rubbish. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What is rubbish is a no name oldest living person. Your statement is rubbish because the GRG will not list a real persons name for the alleged oldest person #4. A complete violation of Misplaced Pages rules having an unverifiable no name as truth. I tried to contact the GRG and they refused to give the name of the alleged #4 oldest person. If they did I would verify her and post her real name on this site. We would have no Anonymous or N.A fake name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Big talk, coming from someone who just vandalized the article (this IP user changed 'anonymous' to 'Hitler'). Czolgolz (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't respond further to your comment because you are using an anonymous IP. I have no way of verifying that you are a real person so you might be fake. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because Robert Young and his drones from the GRG says its true Misplaced Pages is about verification. GRG hidden data under anonymous cannot be verified independently and should be banned. The alleged no #4 oldest person hidden under the term anonymous is a joke. If it is allowed then anything that is not verified should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.193.176 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above statement. The GRG is not the FBI and Robert Young is not J. Edgar Hoover. The GRG cannot claim National Interest to refuse to list the name of the alleged 4th oldest person. The site sourced for anonymous says N.A or Not Applicable. When did Misplaced Pages ever accept Not Applicable as a source? I agree the anonymous listing should be removed right away. Not applicable is not a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.146.69 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not applicable" isn't the source, is it? Now who's hiding behind these new anonymous (sockpuppet) IP's? Kevin? Jerry? Bill? Do tell us, it's not in the national interest for you not to. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this: The opinion of sockpuppets of blocked users from Indiana and meatpuppets from New Jersey should be removed right away? DerbyCountyinNZ 08:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be removed. Anonymous is not a persons name. N.A. is not a valid reference source.

Categories: