Talk:List of male supercentenarians/@comment-33034960-20191214092132/@comment-33034960-20191215195707

I thought we closed the issues surrounding this case (in another thread) but this reply from today is something I have to answer.

1. "There's actually a legitimiate explanation for why it says "officially" turned 107."

I don't know what that legitimate explanation is, and it doesn't even matter at the moment. Especially if it is a private issue that cannot be discussed publicly. Gerontology Wiki is not about private issues but a public encyclopedia and all the information in the articles should base on mentioned references. It is also not a place for speculations and "behind is the reason" claims in the articles.

2. Please do not call me "ignorant" because of not knowing "a lot of things about this case". Please keep in mind that this is: a) Gerontology Wiki, which is not a place for original research, and b) There is a publicIy available source that contains some information which should not be ignored. Especially where the word "officially" is used in the source.

3. "How do you know? Have you seen his documents If not, then don't come to conclusions so quickly. Let the GRG decide." As you know, I have not seen Mr. Villa Avicencio's documents. I do not know why the documents would be discussed on Gerontology Wiki at all. Gerontology Wiki is not a place for original research. Can you understand it, please? I respect the hard work of all those who have collected the documents in this case, but that is not the point of this discussion

Gerontology Wiki is also not GRG. The current form of articles on the Gerontology Wiki has nothing to do with what GRG will decide in the future. For now, publicly available sources are and should be the only references and they should be considered objectively and comprehensively. When GRG announces the formal decision on the case (and we should not speculate about what-will-GRG-say-before-that) it will be considered as the main and most relevant source.

4. "His earliest report was from 2012, actually. Do you know what the age claim was then? You make this sound like the original/earliest claim was to 1910 (when it was not)." All I can say is that this report is not mentioned in the References in the article on Mr. Villa Avicencio on Gerontology Wiki. When it will be added, it must be taken into account on an equal level with other references.

At this point I will stop the discussion form my side. As I have already said in another thread, I would like to see that other Gerontology Wiki contributors give their opinion on this.

this will only become relevant after the GRG decision is upheld. Until then, though