If any organization is allegedly hijacked and their work product compromised, they shouldn't pretend as if their output is all normal, but correct it as soon as possible. 

They have a list of unvalidated supercentenarians (who were added by this member) and there's a lot of people on that list, so they've clearly removed A LOT of the "validations", but it was obviously done at a slow process.

The GRG has definitely messed up really badly with this "validate first and then research" process because of this one member, but I always hope for the best for LQ and the GRG, but obviously a lot of members are skeptical about the latter (for valid reasons that I do know obviously). Not every organisation is 100% perfect, the GRG certainly isn't perfect.

It would appear that the GRG validation has been recently retracted (she no longer appears on the 2024 validation list).

As someone said, if the GRG retracted the validation, then they need to come out with a press release stating the reason why. They can't just silently devalidate a high-aged case like this under the radar.

They removed her validation, in the future another similar claimant will get validation status for a period and the cycle repeats.

Shame on them, as usual.

It would appear that the GRG validation has been recently retracted (she no longer appears on the 2024 validation list).

As someone said, if the GRG retracted the validation, then they need to come out with a press release stating the reason why. They can't just silently devalidate a high-aged case like this under the radar.

They removed her validation, in the future another similar claimant will get validation status for a period and the cycle repeats.

Shame on them, as usual.

Jordan has a 1900 census which support her age and a marriage record from 1898 that gives no age, so it is also a bit shaky.

By that criteria, a lot of 1880s-born US SCs also have shaky validations if they have nothing (or at least nothing which gives their age/date/month/year of birth) from before the 1900 US Census, no?

Philip Sharp's validation would also be shaky by this logic since AFAIK he and his family don't appear to be listed in the 1910 US Census for whatever reason. And of course Charles Edward Graves's validation would also be shaky because he and his family are not listed in the 1900 US Census for whatever reason, though they do have a somewhat ambiguous but still relatively clear 1896 Mississippi school census entry for them.

Yes, you're right. For Delphia, it's clear that a significantly higher age was correct relative to the age that she claimed. It was just a matter of determining just how much higher, as you said.

For Joe Willie Hollins, it's quite interesting: His WWII draft registration card and his obituary both imply a final age of 112y,35d for him, but not his two earliest records/documents, which imply a final age of 114 or 115 for him. But his siblings were not unequivocally consistent about their claimed ages during their lifetimes, so that still creates some margin of error in regards to this. It's a huge shame that an original birth record and/or baptismal record does not exist for him, at least to our own knowledge.

Similarly, for Delphia Welford, there is evidence for 117, 116, and 115 from her early-life, though with the strongest evidence for 117.

I wonder if they'll similarly decide to upgrade Joe Willie Hollins's birth year to 1904 and his final age to 114y,35d because his 1910 and 1920 US Census entries both imply that he was 2-3 years older than he claimed, and he claimed a final age of 112y,35d.