This topic gathers all off-topic posts about supercentenarians, moved from other topics.
If you want to know the lower bound for the number of supercentenarians, absolutely. However, e.g., the GRG has been 'wrong'* about Juans status until last week. He's unlikely to be the only one. The true number of SCs is almost certainly higher than the number of them that can provide accurate documentation.
But another reason I used it is that I couldn't find a "List of the verified oldest men" on GerontologyWikia. Would you know if it's there? I could only find the https://gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_men .
*[He was the WOLM since Saturnino. They failed to acknowledge this—for good reason. Their metric is "of how many people can we know for certain (or at least with probability 0.many9s ;p) that they are the age they claim?" Clearly, this is the least volatile metric you can think of, and is therefore greatly useful. (And even then, 'certain' claims are still sometimes disputed or even retracted afterwards (Nabi Tajima, Lucy Hannah, to name the most important ones).) But a lower bound is rarely the best estimate of the true value, obviously.. There are just different interesting viewpoints to be gained from different metrics, imo. But don't hesitate convince me otherwise!]
Today, he also enters the (by Wikipedian standards) top 25 oldest men by surpassing once-WOM Yasutaro Koide!
@josia9353 For info and statistics about Longevity, it's better to totally forget Wikipedia.
Btw, in another thread, someone assured us that Fauja Singh's claim of 111 was "confirmed on Facebook", and no one objected. No one even commented on that. So if that's the bar... Protesting against the disinformation on Wikipedia, well... You can see why I find that hard to take seriously.. :p
Using the word "wrong" implies that you do not know the facts about what age validation means.
For over 20 years, the GRG has long said in media reports and on the GRG website that "validated case data" by definition is a SUBSET of the total case data. The goal of age validation is to produce scientifically valid samples, not conduct a world supercentenarian population census. And I think it was alear to most that Juan Vicente Mora Perez was likely a true case as far back as 2019. But that doesn't make the case "validated". until it is. So let's stop trying to pretend validated case data is a census count...it isn't, and it was never intended to be.
@josia9353 Let's not use the word 'failed' when people are doing what they are supposed to be doing.
@josia9353 In that case, Facebook was being used to confirm someone is alive, not that they are the age claimed.