Talk:Oldest people#rfctag

I noticed that Izabel Rosa Pereira is listed in the oldest living people table but her validation by the Gerontology Research Group is still pending. So, why is she listed? And in what way is Longeviquest more reliable than the GRG? Spectritus (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{reply|Spectritus}} Does it have to be more reliable than the GRG to be eligible, with an exception being made for GRG itself? I don't get that impression. Really it's down to two things:

:* Is LongeviQuest an "international body dealing in longevity research"? It would seem so going by the article here, but of course I'm no expert and I haven't taken the time to verify the claims made here.

:* What exactly does "otherwise been reliably sourced" mean? How can we assess the reliability of sources for this?

: I see that she was added in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=next&oldid=1253890239 this edit]. {{ping|Avengingbandit}} can you shed light? — Smjg (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. Izabel Rosa Pereira was added because she has been validated by LongeviQuest (LQ), a longevity research organization with many former GRG members. Over time, LQ has established itself as having higher validation standards than GRG. GRG has seen a decline in credibility, partly due to its current leadership's lack of rigorous validation practices. Because of this, LQ's independent validations are considered highly reliable and do not require GRG endorsement. For more information on LongeviQuest, you can check out their website [https://longeviquest.com/ here.] Avengingbandit 02:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::"LQ's independent validations are considered highly reliable", by who? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'd like to know what DerbyCounty's qualifications are to come to all these wiki age sites and decide what qualifies and what doesn't? She seems rather overbearing. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Avengingbandit Okay. Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Oldest people|answered=yes}}

The section of this article that says "Oldest people (all women)" should be changed to "Oldest women" AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}} to change it from {{tq|Oldest people (all women)}} to {{!tq|Oldest women}} would lose context. The ten oldest people were/are all women. If instead we have "Oldest women" & "Oldest men", that could imply some of the latter are in the Oldest people top ten. Better to make things explicit & not make readers carefully read everything when we can just summarize it in the section heading. Peaceray (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

: The point of the table is to list the ten oldest people. At the moment, these happen to be all women in both all-time and living lists. As such, the title is "Oldest people (all women)" to indicate that the scope of the table is the oldest human beings regardless of gender, and at the same noting that the top ten are all women at the moment and thereby explaining why there isn't a separate "Oldest women" table. Whenever there is at least one man in the top ten, the expectation is that there will be separate "Oldest people", "Oldest men" and "Oldest women" tables. (At least assuming the top ten don't become all men....) — Smjg (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)