Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 4

Post-Addition Maintenance

I have added Tsuji Takano of Japan, as he has just been added to the GRG list. XZT (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also added Masatake Kinoshita of Japan, who was also validated today. As well as this, I will remove Tama Higuchi, Yukino Matsuoka, Kane Akazawa and Katsuno Mizuno, all of Japan, as they have not been heard of from over one year and have been removed from the GRG List. XZT (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiffy, and I'm going to add Julia Fournier Cuadros to the unverified list. By the way, you should remove Tsuji Takano of Japan from your list above, since he's been validated. Cheers, CP 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note de Cazenave died today. I have removed him from the list. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. A small postnote is that de Cazenave's obit mentioned that Ponticelli made it to 110, so I added him to the table and he can be removed from XZT's list above. Cheers, CP 22:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A minor point - with the split tables, is a reference to the GRG list necessary for every entry in the top table? If there's a GWR-verified entry at any stage in the future, a separate reference for that person might be an idea, but I think it's safe to just have one reference to the GRG list at the top of the table. Tevildo (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Chikao Beppu of Japan, as she is on the GRG List. XZT (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Yoshie Hattori of Japan - she, too, has been added.XZT (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And Nellie Jones of the USA. XZT (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Natsuyo Abe of Japan and Mildred Chrissie Martinstein of the USA. XZT (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as all of those, I've also added Annie Butler of the UK, as she has been verified and included on the GRG list today.XZT (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Today I have added Alta Moore of the USA to the unverified supercentenarians list, as I have found a news report of her 110th birthday and she is from the US, one of the 34 countries in the MEDC list.XZT (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also included Dr. Leila Denmark of the US, who turned 110 yesterday and has appeared in the news. XZT (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Haya Kurogi of Japan has died and I have removed her from the list accordingly. XZT (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

By the standards of this list, shouldn't Ruby Muhammad also be on the unverified table? There's just as much "evidence" supporting (or not supporting) her case as some of the others on that table... 71.42.216.100 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is the caveat that if a reliable site debunks the claim, it should not be included. I don't know if there is such a site though. Let's be honest. According to the research of Robert Young she's probably only 100, but I suppose that would be original research. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Harvey Hite

The GRG has verifiedhim as authentic. Plz change the citation.74.140.136.51 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hite was cited with a GRG reference hours before this comment was made. Cheers, CP 07:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Leila Denmark

Renowned American pediatrician, scientist, author, Leila Alice Denmark, MD, birthdate 02/01/1898, will be 110 years old tomorrow. I'm assuming? that she will be in the process of being verified for inclusion? She would certainly be one of the most accomplished supercentenarians to date. TFBCT

As soon as there is a reliable source confirming that she made it to 110, she may be added to the unverified case list. I suspect that she will be verified rather quickly - Sir Young has been following her for some time now. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found a report and put her on the list. XZT (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Myrtle Jones

I am a little confused by the requirement to be on the unverified list. Myrtle Jones was on the verified list before we introduced the new criteria. Can someone explain why she should not be entered on the unverified list? Many thanks. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the source quoted. I have now used another source. There are several online. There is a photo on her 110th birthday at http://www.newsphotos.com.au/SearchResults.asp?PageAction=SimpleSearch&QueryText=myrtle+jonesAlan Davidson (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mariam Amash

someone add this to the unverified section, thanks... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7247679.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.245.47 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added this to this link to her entry in Longevity Claims but removed once I realised that none of web-sites referring to Mrs Amash cites a date of birth.DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Subjectively speaking, obviously a false claim. Within the confines of the "objectivity" of this article, however, Israel is one of the 34 countries, which therefore means that she should be on the "unverified section". Without a birthdate though, there's no rush. Contrasting opinions? 71.42.216.100 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Frieda Tessmer

Is this enough to put her to the unverified section? [1] --217.87.170.166 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, especially if the objective is to be as inclusive as possible. Does anyone know the birthdate? 71.42.216.100 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is August 5, 1897. She is the second oldest person in Germany. --217.87.170.166 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Marjorie Macgowan

Due to the fact Marjorie Macgowan is in the living national longevity recordholders page[2], she should also be included in the unverified section of living supercentenarians. so i did just that! Webbmyster (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The source given on that page is from the Yahoo site which is not considered sufficiently reliable to justify inclusion on this page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense to use different sources on pages which cover the same topic! Webbmyster (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it shouldn't be used on that page either. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unverified and examined

The paragraph before the second table states in part: "The majority of these cases will in time be validated." However, I understand that some will never be validated - as they have been examined, and whilst not refuted, cannot be proved. I would like to know to which people this applies. If I am mistaken, please let me know. Can this be done? Alan Davidson (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Guzman with wrong flag

Daniel Guzman, # 7 of the not yet verified living SC lives in Colombia/South America, not in Spain. So the flag must be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.220.96 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unverified claims wording

The current wording in one section of the explanation of the unverified criteria reads "The following table presents a list of unverified living supercentenarians, who have not yet been officially recognized by an international body of gerontology, but have been recognized by international media from one of the 34 CIA recognised MEDC countries and who are awaiting validation." By this interpretation, the place of birth/residence of the individual is irrelevant so long as the media that reports it is from one of the 34 countries. It also excludes any claim from one of those 34 countries if they are not reported in international media (which would exclude a lot of the American cases listed in local newspapers). I think that it be reworded to read something like "The following table presents a list of unverified living supercentenarians, who have not yet been officially recognized by an international body of gerontology. These individuals reside in one of the 34 CIA recognised MEDC countries and have been reported on by local or national media agencies." Something like that, which emphasizes that it's the place that they live (and therefore meet the data-quality control requirement that is the spirit of this) rather than the reporting of news agencies. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Lazare Ponticelli just passed away and this article was already updated. It's amazingly fast. This article has become everything I imagined when I created it and more. Useight (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delayed GRG death reports

How to handle the fact that the GRG list is not immediately updated for recent deaths? A current case is Tatsuno Ioda who was found to have died some time ago and who was then removed, but since she was still on the GRG list she was reinstated. While this without a doubt eventually will be resolved when the GRG list is updated, it seems it can produce some unnecessary updates in the meantime. Should a person be taken off the list when he/she has died, or not until the GRG list is updated? It seems to me that a person who has died simply shouldn't be on the list, even if those responsible at GRG have a vacation, but I also realise that it is not always possible to link to a death notice when doing the change (which is often true for the Japanese cases). (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Good point, but dead is dead regardless. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the whole point of revamping this list was to (theoretically, at least) avoid slavishly copying the GRG list, we should remove any deceased individual so long as there is a reliable source noting their death. Cheers, CP 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly second CP's comment. If this list is to maintain the currency that wikipedia claims it has, it needs to take into account any reliable source. Since the talk page has hammered out a way to decide on what sources can be considered canonical, I say we use that yardstick for all changes, not just verification of age. aremisasling (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CP too. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Next oldest in Japan

Here's an interesting case for this list. The next oldest person in Japan is an anonymous woman from Okinawa Prefecture. Through GRG original research, we know that she was born on May 10, 1895. The question is, do we add her to the "unverified living supercentenarians" list? We've skipped cases in the past because there was no claimed date of birth, should we do the same for no name? My inclination is to leave her off the list for now, since the DOB is technically original research, but I'm very open to being converted. Cheers, CP 05:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes: a conversion. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe she should be added in some manner, especially in that she is now the doyenne of Japan. I believe they did something similar for those who wished to remain anonymous on the Surviving veterans of World War I page before they were all deceased. TFBCT1 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

An anon user added somebody to the unverified list. I deleted it because it was an anon and had no references. After I deleted it I realized the person they added was a female from Japan with the birthdate May 10, 1895 so it must be this claim. Anyway, I thought I would let you know. If the rest of you feel this person should be added to the unverified list It's fine with me. I could go either way. --Npnunda (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would add her. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Habib Miyan

What is this?!? I won't delete or edit it but 138? c'mon. I suppose it is posible. --Npnunda (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I edited my previous comment to take out the sarcasm. I didnt want to offend anybody. I'm not going to take the name off the list because I don't "own" the article. WP:OWN regards--Npnunda (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

His claim can best be described as rubbish. He is lucky to still be on the Longevity claims list rather than being categorized as a Longevity myth. As it states at the top of the unverified list the person must be on the MEDC list to be included here. India is not so out he goes! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Next german case

German woman Franziska Maier turned 110 on April 23, 2008. Following a link with an article about her birthday: http://www.volksstimme.de/vsm/nachrichten/sachsen_anhalt/?&em_cnt=906821 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.65.62 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hulda Karlsson

Hulda Karlsson has died, and once again the problem with sources come up. Since the yahoo-group of oldest people isn't considered a reliable source, there is no way to get a confirmation. She does no longer show up at birthday.se , which means she is no longer alive as far as official Swedish records are concerned, but even that is hardly a "reliable link" to pursue. Is really the only way to get this page up-to-date to wait until www.grg.org is updated? I understand why the yahoo-group can't always be considered reliable, but can't help but think that in a case such as this, where a death is reported by the same person who validated the inclusion in grg, there should be some way to use it anyway. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

This page isn't supposed to be a clone of the grg. I say, as long as their is a reliable source, go ahead and make the change. When someone dies, they die. --Npnunda (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What is birthday.se, does it list everyone in Sweden, or just those above a certain age? I was wondering if I'll be able to check whether or not Signe Johansson-Engdahl makes it to her 103rd birthday later this month or not. Cheers, CP 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Birthday.se is a site to find birthdays and addresses of Swedish citizens, and it has been around for years. For the last few years they use data received from official records, which means that everyone over a certain age (I think 18, probably so no one could track and find small children) who hasn't requested secrecy are listed. In practice that means pretty much every Swedish citizen. I am not exactly sure how often it is updated, but for the cases I know of, people who has died has disappeared within a week. It is not possible to just find anyone born a particular year for example, but if one knows a name, or part of a name, it's easy to use. I couldn't find Hulda Karlsson on the 27th, but I hadn't checked since before 22nd. The oldest living Olympian is listed as Signe Dagmar Charlotta Engdahl.(Yubiquitoyama (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Maria de la O Soria

Maria de la O Soria has been validated. Here is the information:

BIRTH RECORD Issued in Úbeda on Apr. 12, 1898 Name: María de la O Soria Berbel Born: Apr. 09, 1898 at 4:00 pm Parents: Ignacio Soria Sánchez (30) and María Francisca Berbel Ortiz (25) Grandparents: Francisco Soria & María de la O Sánchez and Francisco Berbel & Juana Ortiz.

MARRIAGE RECORD Issued in Úbeda on Sep. 29, 1924 Names: Gaspar Ráez Martínez (27) and María de la O Soria Berbel (26) Married: Church of San Isidoro, Úbeda, Sep. 28, 1924 Parents: Luis Ráez Campos & Luisa Martínez Soler and Ignacio Soria Sánchez and Francisca Berbel Ortiz Margin note: They received a family book on Feb. 11, 1959

Therefore, we have: - Birth record. She was born on Apr. 09, 1898. - Marriage record. She was 26 on Sep. 1924 - Marriage record note. She was alive and married as of Feb. 1959. - Asociacion Cultural Ubetense. Interview in early 2000 stating she was 101 and expected to be 101 on Apr. 05. This interview provided me all the info (birth, marriage, etc.) which was confirmed by the official documents. This is the link

 http://www.vbeda.com/Ibiut/v/centrale2.php?es=00001771&b=10

- Several articles at ages 103, 107, 108, 109 and 110. All of them stating that she was born on Apr. 05, 1898. She will be added to the GRG list shortly.

Names I added back on

3 people I believe are still alive were deleted by an anon. I added them back. If I was wrong please correct. Thank you --Npnunda (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

German Cases

Two cases are missing in the unverified section section:
-Frieda Borchert, born 05.01.1897 http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9525
-Lina von Veh, born 23.02.1898 http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9985
--Statistician (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, they need to have reliable sources reporting them, and WOP is not one. Cheers, CP 06:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Please do not re-add them unless you have a reliable source covering their death - and seeing as how Robert Young's group was removed en masse from Wikipedia as spam, it does not count. Cheers, CP 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted them again. One of the sources was in regards to a 107th birthday which would be over 3 years old. --Npnunda (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First it's isn't Robert Young's group - we are hundreds on the list. And what ist for you a reliable source? I phoned with the doughter of Lina von Veh last week and she's still alive but we have problems to get all documents because she was born in St. Petersburg and was expelt after the Oktober Revolution...
Frieda Borchert was confirm alive as of 5.1.2008 via phone by an other german researcher.
--Statistician (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It IS Robert Young's group because he has complete control over a) What material gets posted on his site and b) Who is allowed to access it. Secondly, all material on Wikipedia must be verified and no one can verify original research. How the heck do I know whether or a German researcher called all of these people? How can anyone confirm that? Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; it would fall apart if we just started taking every (or any) user at their word. So if von Veh's documents were lost or destroyed, I'm sorry for her, but she doesn't belong here if not so much as a news report on her can be provided to place her in the "unverified" column. Cheers, CP 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's so weird about wikipedia. False articels in the internet are prove enough, but only printed articels and a group about validating aren't...
Btw.: The grg-page with the reseacher Robert Young ist a resource for you, but not the mailingliste in which the must cases are valided... inconsequent.
--Statistician (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Age in Days

The Age in days column is unnecessary. It is regarded as necessary on the List of Oldest Persons page because (for example) two people might be listed next to each other, but they may have been born in completely different years and have lived a different number of leap years, which (marginally) impacts the number of days when compared. (So A born 1 February 1896 died 20 January 2007 has lived one day longer than B born 1 February 1897 died 20 January 2008. This cannot happen on this page, as everyone is listed together and will be born in the same year or immediately the year before or after. There can be no anomaly. The age in days column adds nothing to this site and I suggest it be removed for that reason. Quite some time ago I suggested footnoting the differences, which I did to the List of Oldest People site (it has now been changed to a full column) - but as I found no such problems on this site, I proposed no footnotes. It was not necessary. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Alan Davidson - my vote goes for the Age in Days column to go. Subjectively speaking, in addition to what had already been pointed out above, it rather uglified the table on my size screen, for no good purpose. I say toast it at the end of the month if there's a consensus for it. On a side note, I think the listing of the state/provinces on the chart is an additional uglifying factor, doesn't tell the average reader anything relevant about the individual (being 110 in Colombia vs. the United States is meaningful, I'm not so sure that Alabama vs. Minnesota is) and is useless to non-Americans/Canadians/Australians who don't know what the abbreviations stand for. Having said that, I don't really care and I wouldn't fight to remove it, but if I end up being the one to remove the Age in Days column (should we get that far), I'll probably remove the states/provinces as well, so speak now if you care. Cheers, CP 06:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I think it's necessary on the table of the oldest ever people because there can be discrepancies. However the ranks are not affected. I don't feel it adds anything to the article. However with states and provinces, I feel they should be kept because I think they add a little more information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though I love trivia, the age in days and specific state should probably go. Useight (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough to fight over this but my 2 cents would be to lose the Age in Days. I would say keep the States/Provinces. Having said that, whatever you guys/gals decide is fine with me. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In that I am the person who set-up the column, let me point out that all three of the above users are wrong in saying that there are no disparities. And it is quite disheartening for one person to state something untrue and then for two others to agree to it. It makes it seem like the material wasn't reviewed at all. Please reference entries 72) Epsie Rike Wilson and 73) Catharina Peters-Keultjes, there is an 18 vs. 17 day difference; reference entries 40) Maria-Elisa Moro-Lucchini and 41) Bessie Roffey there is a 20 vs 21 day disparity. And these small differences occurred during a leap year 2008, there will be many more disparities during non-leap years 2009, 2010 etc. I'm not going to sit here and explain the mathematics behind it. I certainly feel the column should stay for its statistical value and to point out subtle disparities. As for the State/Province issue, this is in accordance with the GRG. It is also where all information is being obtained. It is "Country of Birth" and where (2) locations are listed, both "Country of Birth" and "Place of Immigration". This information is very valuable especially now that a lot of these supercentanarians no longer have individual pages. I am in favor of including this information purely for its demographic worth and perhaps renaming the column. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bold the entry. The day difference is noted and I took it into account in my intial statement. The impact of the 17 or 18 day difference does not and cannot impact the order on the site. Whether there is a one day difference over 110 years is minor. On the "Oldest person" site the difference actually impacts the order (sometimes) - for example see position 33 where they both lived 114 years 218 days; but one lived 41,856 days and the orther 41,855 see also positions 52 and 53, where they lived the same by years and days, but a different length by days alone. Let me repeat, the difference on the Oldest Living Person site can never change the order - but it can on the Oldest Person site (because the birth dates start at different times). Alan Davidson (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

...and it's still Original Research! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not significant differences. The 'age in days' has been disputed on the list of 100 verified oldest people because ordering by days rather than years and days would actually change the order of the list. Here we see no such thing. If one person is 110 and 70 days and another is 110 and 40 days, it doesn't make any difference to put a new 'days' column in to show that one is actually 31 days older than the other. As the order doesn't change there is no purpose for the column; it just clutters the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To Alan, you clearly state above that showing "Age in days" is unecessary on this page because there are no disparities unlike the 100 list. I have now shown you that there are disparities. You can spin this however you'd like but I did not misinterpret what you wrote. Therefore it is valid documentation. The column, once again, in no way deviates from the original ranking or research by the GRG. And this is NOT original research- it is expressing the same data using a different statistical modology. Thanks much. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly putting in accurate information from a calendar is not original research - but I agree with "Siamese Turtle" - "If one person is 110 and 70 days and another is 110 and 40 days, it doesn't make any difference to put a new 'days' column in to show that one is actually 31 days older than the other" It is unnecessary and unsightly. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed - as the views expressed were 5 to 1 (6 to 1 if you include the comment about OR). Alan Davidson (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To state the column was unsightly seems to be a personal target, please watch those types of comments as per Wikpedia guidelines. I am satisfied with the outcome. When I added the column, I said if there was a consensus against, please remove. Thank you. TFBCT1 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a fair comment on the contribution, not the contributor. And it's not the first time or the first person either. Cheers, CP 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Wiktionary, definition of unsightly: utterly displeasing to the eye, ugly, disgusting. I do not feel this comment was appropriate to this contribution, or any contribution I have ever made in good faith. Perhaps I have a better understanding of the subtleties of the English language than most, but I do not yield on this point, the wording is at best combative, pejorative, and certainly not civil. TFBCT1 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to let this go, because it is a trivial matter. In the words of Canadian Paul it was meant as "fair comment on the contribution, not the contributor". I would not bother with attacking a contributor - BUT you are misquoting Wiktionary - Why? The sole meaning given to "unsightly" is "1. displeasing to the eye". The word "utterly" does not appear. Secondly the definition does not include "ugly" or "disgusting" - these are given as "synonyms" not definitions. I thought the additional column was "displeasing to the eye" - but that is just one opinion. If you are going to use quotes, please be accurate. I do not know your motivation for changing the meaning by adding in "utterly". But please let's leave this alone - I meant no offence.Alan Davidson (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)