Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 5

Unverified list

The paragraph before the second table states in part: "The following table presents a list of unverified living supercentenarians, who have not yet been officially recognized by an international body of gerontology, ... and who are awaiting validation." However, I understand that some will never be validated - as they have been examined, and while not refuted, cannot be proved. In other words, some people have been examined and remain unvalidated; and other people have not been exmined yet. I would like to know to which people this applies. Can this !be done? Alan Davidson (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say it can't be done. Only those refuted or validated can be said to be done. Clear refutations seem to be rare or unreferencable and all others are continually under investigation. A family could well send in documents years after the death of the potential supercentenarian. A census record not previously found can suddenly be found in a re-investigation. When would we say the investigation is finished in such cases? (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps I am assuming that the people at the top of the table have been considered and rejected, but the newer entries have not even been assessed. There is the implcation that all entries have been considered and rejected - that's all. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

New candidate

Mme Aline Beslay of France turned 110 on June 17, 2008. See the following link (in french!) http://www.intensite.net/news.php?lng=fr&pg=20699 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.64.181 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry Patch

There sure are alot of sources for this English WWI vet. Has anybody checked the citations on his wiki page. I was wondering if we have enough to add him to the verified list. Regards. --Npnunda (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While it is a moot point now (since the GRG has added him) he had previously had his age verified by Guinness, which means that he could have gone on the "verified" list on the day of his 110th birthday with a proper citation. Cheers, CP 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hermina Dunz dead

The oldest living person in Austria, 110-year-old woman Hermina Dunz, died June 14, 2008.

http://www.oe-journal.at/Aktuelles/!2008/0608/W3/41806graz.htm (in German) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.122.40 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bessie Roffey oldest living Canadian

Bessie died on June 22, 2008. Funeral to be held June 28, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.14.38 (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source? I've looked online and I can't find anything about this. --Npnunda (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well only that I live here and that I am on town council here and the anouncment was made there. Will have to see if our local paper puts the obit online next week. Other then that I have nothing no, but she is gone. I am not trying to cause a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.25.255 (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not causing a problem. --Npnunda (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the WOP group (which, as has been discussed, is not reliable) she is deceased. Looks like the site will be updated soon enough, so we can remove her then (or earlier if a report pops up in the meantime) Cheers, CP 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was she ill? Extremely sexy (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. The National hasn't covered it (yet). Cheers, CP 03:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Limbo cases

I deleted the limbo cases. They were the same three they list on the GRG page. I feel they should not be listed. Because they havent been verified over a year the grg put them in limbo and are no longer verified. I'm only going to delete them once. If sombody adds them back on, I'm going to let it go. How do the rest of you feel about it? --Npnunda (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I say there's no need to keep them on. If the sources that we use (GRG, Guinness etc.) do not have enough information to publish them as alive, then they do not fit the title of this page as "living supercentenarians" If it were "possibly living supercentenarians", then that would be another case. Cheers, CP 02:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I can say that all these three are now dead by implication. Oldest in their respective prefectures have been announced who are younger than they would be. This is of course "originial research", but as long as these are the limbo cases grg has, I think it's still not unimportant. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

That's right, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not really original research even, because you don't have to discover unpublished material or create a synthesis to come to the conclusion. For example, we know that Charles Lavaivre is deceased because reliable sources indicate that Signe Johansson-Engdahl is the oldest living Olympian. Cheers, CP 02:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know. Even so, in this particular case, they COULD of course still be alive and have moved to a different prefecture, although I would say it is highly unlikely. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Impossible, since Canada is not like Japan. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that the 8th oldest person in the world Manuela Fernandez Fojaca has been removed from the verified list with a notation that she has been placed in Limbo. She also has her own individual page? Should that now be removed? I do see that GRG also placed her in Limbo, so this is probably appropriate. TFBCT1 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Hagel

I was wondering if it was time to give Catherine Hagel her own article. I contacted Star Tribune and I have permission for a photo. I wanted to see what other people felt. Also, I have no clue how to delink from list of supercentenarians from the United States. --Npnunda (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had permission for a photo but it got speedy deleted. The administrator was correct in doing so. I only asked for permission on wikipedia and you need a free license. Live and learn. --Npnunda (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Have started the page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can find anything else to add. --Npnunda (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you send me that picture though? Extremely sexy (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Myrtle Jones

Can anyone find a report of her 111th birthday? 89.242.32.64 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Doreen Washington is apparently the 4th oldest person in Australia, with a 112 year old woman from Victoria the oldest and Beatrice Riley and Myrtle Jones presumably in between. Or perhaps they were mistaken and Riley is the Victoria woman and we're missing someone else. But there is no citation for Jones' 111th birthday, so she's got to go. 84.13.47.181 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

She's verified now, and it appears someone has already added her back on. Good show. Cheers, CP 17:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Still on Italian family names

I already posed the question (see archive). It is known that Italians don't have two family names. In case of women, since 1975 they legally hold their maiden name. No dash is needed between names or surnames (unlike in French). Then, Maria-Elisa Moro-Lucchini is probably just Maria Elisa Moro. I don't know where the odd usage adopted here comes from. If sources are needed and the linked article [1] doesn't seem sufficient, I don't know where to find them. Anyway, since these people are fortunately still alive, you can find them on Italian White Pages. Search Lauria Lucia, and you will find a woman from Pietrapertosa. Search Grotta Lina, and you will find a woman from Ardenza near Leghorn. Search Lauria Vigna Lucia or Grotta-Marinozzi Lina and you will find... nothing at all. I'm going to correct these two names, at least, hoping the same handling will be adopted for the others, 'cause there's nothing to prove... it's a well-known fact (look at any Wikipedia article about married Italian women). --Erinaceus Italicus (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, and go ahead. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will only adjust the third name available here (Venere Pizzinato-Papo), clearly appearing as the result of a marriage. As for the others, there's an outside chance of surnames indicating either a noble descent or an adoption. I wouldn't bet on it, :-) but the source is actually missing. I also remove the dashes. Best regards. --Erinaceus Italicus (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but I even thought that Lauria was the second name of Lucia Vigna (so not another surname of hers), hence no dash at all in it. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lauria is an Italian place name (near Pietrapertosa, by the way), and many of them have became surnames. You maybe mistook it for Laura.  :-)

I finally recovered the list making clear they're all surnames (by putting the maiden name in brackets, compare Edna (Scott) Parker), from Vigna to Ferro, then I correct the remaining. See you. --Erinaceus Italicus (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's a place in Italy as well, but I thought in fact that Lauria, apart from the well-known Laura (like my niece), was a famale Italian first name too, hence, my dear fellow. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Delpha Johnson is died

... [2] M.M.S. (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Teresa Hsu Chih

Could someone who is more experienced in this topic please check if Teresa Hsu Chih can be listed as an "unverified" supercentenarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandstorm6299 (talk • contribs)

The Teresa Hsu Chih is a GA article and has some nice sources. I would support adding as "unverified". I want to note that the above unsigned comment was left by someone called Sandstorm6299 and was not left by me. I am responding to it.--Npnunda (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to use ~~~~ 리지강.wa.au _talk 09:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment you can't add her because Singapore's on the IMF list but not the CIA list. Unless there's a good reason, I would support changing to the IMF list since it's international rather than American, and conveniently there's only a 7 country difference.

Pragmatically it would prevent the addition of many dubious South African cases, which we're currently spared merely because only the most outlandish cases are citable. In recent years we could have listed Nicholas Kao and not Yakup Satar, and I think Turkey has the greater calendar conversion problem. Satar and now Mustafa Birgol have had years added to their age because of this.

South Korea would be more reliable than their northern neighbours and likewise Hong Kong and Taiwan better than the mainland. We'd also lose Malta so no big deal there. However the second source on Hsu's article has her 91 in 2003, and, although I know we could say this for a lot of cases, she REALLY doesn't look 111. 78.145.36.160 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

My two cents is that I don't care what criteria we use, as long as we stick to a relatively objective criteria, proclaim it clearly, and make zero exceptions to it, no matter how legit/unlikely we think that a claim is. Cheers, CP 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is one possible solution:

The unvalidated list should include every claim from around the world that meets the following minimum criteria:

A. A claimed date of birth (including day, month, and year) that would make them 110 years 0 days or older; B. Not otherwise listed on the GRG (validated) list; C. At least one reliable source update within the past two years, and no information that indicates that they are deceased; D. The age claim should be less than the official world's oldest person titleholder or, alternately, less than age 115. Note that currently, the longevity claims article begins listing at age 114+ for the living (but 115+ for the deceased). This could be standardized to 115+ for living and deceased on the "longevity claims" article and use this article for ages 110-114. By far, most of the validated cases are verified at ages 110-112. If a case is known for several years and still not verified by age 115, it's very unlikely to be accepted (and those that were, like Maggie Barnes and Maria Capovilla, weren't really noted outside their localities until death or recognition...that is way different than having someone listed, known to all, for years). By definition, if someone claims to be older than the world's oldest person, but is not recognized, they are a claimant. Also, the extreme age claimants are less likely to choose an age of just 110 or 112, so there won't be a huge number of "third-world" claims. The need for a birthdate would eliminate the frivilous claims from places like Pakistan or Nigeria but allow some of the grey-area claimants to be listed.

Sincerely Ryoung122 14:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Birgol had been stated as being 105 and 110, but 105 was said to be true in the end, Satar however is nowhere mentioned as having been five years younger too, so explain? Extremely sexy (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that Satar wasn't 110, but some reports had him 115, with others stating 112 and 110 from a few years ago. Good to know that Birgol's definitely not 110. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Okay: thanks for clarifying this to me. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Double surnames

After the discussion on italian surnames someone removed every double name here. I see no obvious reason to do that, since it is fully possible someones official name include more than one surname (in Sweden at least it is optional in some circumstances). However, the goal here must be, as far as I can see, to list the people with the full name they use on a day-to-day basis (or something like that). So, if anyone have information that the current names are not correct, please state so here in talk (as in the case of the italian names) before just removing names. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Classification

Are we sure this should be a B-Class? It seems more along the lines of list class to me. Elephantissimo (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it accordingly. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But that class doesn't exist in this project. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne Colas 1897-2008

Greetings,

Marcel-Jeanne Colas died March 11, 2008:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/10497

Please stop trying to insert her...there's a reason she's not on the "living" list.

Ryoung122 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cecelia Ruppert has died

Gidday

Cecelia Ruppert passed away 31 August 2008, see Southern Ill. woman dies at 110

Kiwipat

Kama Chinen 113

can someone find any information about this woman anywhere? Her age of 113 years 5 months is beginning to get really noticeable and still no information or birthday reports about her. Soon she will enter the top 100 oldest people ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.235.67 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not really uncommon for japanese cases, but in this case it's even worse, since she is technically anonymous. Therefore her name never comes up around September, when the japanese have their respect-the-elders day. Instead she is just "113-year-old woman in Okinawa". Yubiquitoyama (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah reached age 117 as "anonymous." Actually the Japan media did provide a little information: for example, that she is in a wheelchair. However, I don't think we need to create articles on people that don't want to be bothered with media attention. She is more a placeholder, so that people know where Tomoji Tanabe ranks (3rd-oldest in Japan, 12th in the world)Ryoung122 03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Italian Names

Why are the Italian names shortened on this list? And if the rational is being used which I believe is probably the case, why is it not being done similiarly to Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch names? TFBCT1 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel they should be on the list.Ryoung122 07:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Guadeloupe is "Part of France"

Just as Hawaii is "part of the United States" (legally..but Puerto Rico is not), "Guadeloupe is part of France." It is part of the EU and has representation in French parliament. Further, Eugenie Blanchard is a "French" woman and the doyenne de France, not just the island.Ryoung122 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Krichevsky, Mikhail Efimovich

This gentleman is listed on the "Surviving WW1 Veterans" page and is listed as being 111 (with a birthday of 25 February 1897). He is not, however, listed on either the verified or unverified list of supercentenarians. Should he be?

(Mekozak (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Yes. My opinion. Unverified. WP:Bold Go ahead and add him. It will at least start discussion. --Npnunda (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. Ukraine isn't on the MEDC list. This looks like a reasonable case, but if we start making exceptions then this page will degenerate. 212.183.134.65 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Captain Celery is right. I didn't know it was a Ukraine case. It has to be a MEDC country so we can't add it. --Npnunda (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Unconfirmed death of Jozef Piotrowski

There are 'rumors' that Mr. Piotrowski died in late 2005, but no article citations or even a death date. Please, provide a rationale for the death info. Thanks. R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here [3] on the 7th link link from the top, in the description says: 1889-2006 María Capovilla; 1887-2005 Józef Piotrowski, prawdopodobnie w 2005 roku zmarł. That is the only info sar far on his probable death. But the link takes you to their home page, good luck finding it on that page!!! Signed User:NickOrnstein

Lillian Brown LeBlanc

Born Dec 26 1898, according to http://www.dailyworld.com/article/20081231/NEWS01/812310305/1002 Ryoung122 15:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosa Rein, born 24 March 1897, born in Silesia, Germany, living in Switzerland, should be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Rein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

She is on the unverified list. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MEDC

Which MEDC list is considered official for this page? Star Garnet (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the CIA advanced economy list, which has 35 entries. SiameseTurtle (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's incorrect. I think its actually the developed country list, because otherwise Teresa Hsu Chih would be on, and Katerina Heyman off. That might not be a bad thing given South Africa's track record. 213.190.165.49 (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Yes sorry I got that mixed up. I meant the list with 34 (as it says on the article). SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unverified list

The real purpose of the "unverified" list on THIS page is to list cases that may be true but are not yet validated. Cases like Olympe Pidancet, Rosa Rhein, etc. all come from nations where the system of record-keeping is good, and there is a good chance the age claimed is accurate.

Cases like Virginia Call should be excluded because there has already been significant press mention that her age may not be the age claimed. In short, she belongs on the longevity claims page...where she is.

Ryoung122 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On this same topic. Is there still the need to list Maria Dia Cortes, Rebecca Lanier, and Richard Washington? They already appear on the Longevity Claims page. They seem to overshadow the "verified" cases. Or do they need to be listed in both places because they have not been debunked? TFBCT1 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful. The same might have been said for Maria Capovilla, especially considering she was not from a MEDC country. I think cases should be removed if there is considerable conflicting information. However I do not think someone should be removed just because they seem too old. I often think that this list should include more countries. For example there are Eastern European countries which I think are likely to have genuine cases of supercentenarians, such as Poland. However I've never mentioned this before because they're unverified claims anyway (and likely to stay unverified even if they are true). SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't believe that removing a person from this page's unverified list discredits them; I would say that once a claimant reaches the claimed age of 113, the should be limited to the longevity claims page until verified. I don't believe it would do any harm, and there are several cases younger than Cortés, Lanier, and Wahington already on the claims page but not this one. Star Garnet (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are probably valid cases from other parts of the world, such as, China, India, or Brazil- even Indonesia, Pakistan, or Bangladesh based on their size (48.3% of the world) alone, but I don't think they will end up on either list because of either a history of false claims or no means of substantiation. On the unverified list I do feel that once individuals are 115+ there is less likelihood of the claim being valid. Not saying that there isn't the possibility that it is true. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We start listing longevity claims at 113, because at age 110, they would be too numerous. Here, with a slightly higher standard (must be a MEDC country), the purpose seems to be to list potential future verified cases that are too young for the longevity claims list but not yet verified. If a case like Maria Capovilla is on the longevity claims list and documents are sent in, then the case would still be accepted. Right now, we have an overlap with a minimum boundary on longevity claims (113 for living, 115 for deceased) and a minimum boundary on validated (110 for living, top 100 for deceased list, which is currently 113-something). For those that fall in the grey area of 110-112, not yet validated, but likely true, this list here solves that issue. For example, Rosa Rhein is probably a true case, and we are waiting on documents to arrive. Rarely does a validated case above age 112 emerge from an MEDC country, and almost never above 113. So I agree with a cutoff of 113. A compromise would be a cutoff of "not older than the oldest living person." A third choice? Not older than Jeanne Calment.Ryoung122 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly contest the arbitrary removal of potential supercentenarians from the "unverified" list; we had a nice system here that was relatively objective compared to the rest of the "oldest people" pages and I believe that it should remain that way. The criteria was: younger than Jeanne C. and from one of the MEDC countries. That presents a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria that is based off of a solid reason. Once we start saying "well it's unlikely that any case is older than the current oldest living person", we're entering our own subjectivity to the issue. To answer all the comments above, in order:

1. I agree, cases like Virgina Call should be excluded if they have received coverage in third party, reliable sources that their claimed age my not be true.
2. Yes, there is still the need to list the older people on the list for the pursuit of objectivity. They do need to be listed in both places because they have not been debunked. They're not harming anyone and they contribute to the objectivity of this page; we allow for the possibility that someone might pop up as older (as Siamese Turtle has pointed out, it has happened before). I don't understand what you mean about three or four names "overshadowing" a list of 90 people.
3. The longevity claims/myths pages are very problematic pages for reasons that I won't get into here, but comparing this page, which has some very well-reasoned (although imperfect and still somewhat problematic on a larger scale) standards to those isn't useful.

Bottom line, let's keep it is; there's no good reason to sully what this page has accomplished in terms of its (relative) objectivity because the top 3 or 4 unverified cases are likely false. Cheers, CP 06:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Were you speaking to me? I merely had a question over 3 weeks ago and haven't updated again, or made any changes? In my opinion, it will cause confusion either way and I'm fine with it either way. My main concern was that we were not doing one thing in the case of Virginia Call and something entirely different for others. The other confusing element is having multiple cases older than the "oldest person in the world." I think my questions have been answered. Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking to everyone, actually. If you had a specific question there, it might have been answered in the process. Cheers, CP 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Star Garnet and do not agree with CP. If the purpose of the unvalidated list (but cases only from 'reliable' countries) is to list cases that will likely be validated in the future, it makes no sense to continue keeping cases above 113 (after three years, it's not very likely that they will be validated), especially when there is a longevity claims list for living claims 113 or older.

If the purpose of the list is to show that unvalidated claims are less reliable than validated claims, then it should be open worldwide...the problem with that is not rationale but actual circumstances...it would open a whole "can of worms" with too many potential cases...or would it? If the requirement is to have a citation, then it's not that big a problem, is it?

So, what we have now is a silly and unlogical mix, whereby we exclude some cases from unreliable countries but include unreliable cases from mostly reliable countries. Personally, one solution for me would be to open the "unverified" list to list any claim, worldwide, with at least a claimed date of birth, a citation to age 110 or older, but less than 113 years old. Since the 113+ longevity list on the longevity claims page is open worldwide, that would thus give a fair chance to everyone.Ryoung122 01:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unverified List

It seems to me that a standard should be set for the maximum age in which a person can be on the unverified list. And as 113 is the minimum for the longevity claims list, it seems logical to be a maximum for this page, whose purpose is not focused on claims, but rather accepted cases. I think that once a person reaches the age of 113, they should be removed from this list and put on the other, with a direct link to that list at the top of this page's unverified list. There are eight under Cortés, that are unlisted on this page, but, while six of them are from non-MEDC countries, two are Americans. Star Garnet (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Virginia Call has now died. She wasn't on due to her case being debunked to 111. But on that basis she should perhaps have been on anyway. Either way, its irrelevant now. The other case is Elizabeth Johnson who was in limbo. But an article about Gertrude Baines contains a messageboard posting that she was alive on Christmas Day, which it says was her 115th birthday, although it would have been her 116th.

So the source really isn't good enough for this page and possibly not for the claims page, although there is another posting by a 'Robert of GA', presumably Mr Young. But I wouldn't disagree with your proposal. However, consider that the sub-113 cases can also be disputed. Ruby Muhammad is not the age she claims. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Comment: there are several issues here, but two main ones:

1. Unvalidated cases are often listed to show the difference between poor-quality data (unvalidated) and high-quality data (validated data). This was done, for example, in academic papers such as this one: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/demography/v040/40.4rosenwaike.html

when the goal is to show the difference between verified and unverified, it makes sense to allow in all the bad cases. However, the current system fails this goal, as it concentrates cases from high-quality areas (MEDC nations).

2. Some cases come from regions/areas where the case is most likely true, based on past history/track record. However, many cases, especially those that just turned 110, have not yet been verified. It seems the purpose of this second list here is to list those "just over 110" cases from regions with a good track record of verification. If that's the purpose of the MEDC list, then the goal is not to allow in all cases but just those that appear LIKELY to be verified but have not yet been due mainly to their having just turned 110, waiting on documents to arrive, etc. If that's the goal, then surely if a case is not accepted by age 113, then the likelihood of acceptance decreases substantially. True, there are exceptions such as Maria Capovilla. However, the point of the longevity claims article is to provide the grey area between the most-likely true (110-112) and almost certainly false (130+), or longevity myths. Based on these goals, it makes sense to move cases that have not been verified by age 113 to longevity claims. It does not make sense to keep them here, as it mixes two incongruous goals.

Therefore, I have suggested two ways to fix this: if the main goal is #1, allow in all cases worldwide 110+ to the "unverified" list (that would be a mess). Given the longevity claims and longevity myths pages, this is also unncecessary. Logically, then, the goal here is goal #2: include likely-true but not yet verified cases, especially those that have just been discovered. Having a cutoff at 113 seems fair; it applies the same standard to EVERYONE. That is, even if Rosa Rhein isn't verified by 113, her case moves to "longevity claims." How can a "same for everyone" standard be less fair than a mixed-message bureaucratic jumble?

Ryoung122 03:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Robert that cases from MEDC which are first noticed on, or shortly after, a 110th birthday but have not been verified by the 113th birthday should be moved to the unverified claims page.

"list" not "page".Ryoung122 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the unlikely, but not impossible, event that a case is first identified after a 113th birthday it could perhaps be given 3 years here and if still not verified/debunked, then moved to the claims page.

I'm saying that the 113+ case can start out on longevity claims (presumption of guilt) but be moved to the verified list if verified.Ryoung122 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC:::I have no problem with that. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-MEDC cases of 113+ should go on the claims page. That still leaves cases between 110-113 from non-MEDC countries. Where is the best place for them (if anywhere)? DerbyCountyinNZ 06:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The argument is that unverified claims from less-reputable nations are too numerous to bother with until at least age 113. Since age inflation is common throughout history, it is only in the more-advanced nations where the systems of recordkeeping have been in place for more than a century that the highest claimed age comes down to a reasonable level (I suggest reading the Odense Monograph on "Exceptional Longevity from Prehistory to Present").Ryoung122 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought there might be too many! DerbyCountyinNZ 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is MEDC inclusive enough though? As we've seen in the past, there have been many validated claims from other countries such as Columbia, Ecuador. I bet people living in Slovenia or Puerto Rico today are living longer lives than people did in the UK 40 years ago and you can only expect countries like this to have a supercentenarian every now and then despite their relatively low population. Also, the CIA list that we are using has not been updated since 1999. I think perhaps we should move towards the World Bank high-income economies list (or something similar) as it encapsulates many of these smaller countries that otherwise go unnoticed on this list. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New super-cs

Where's Maude Buckley of Texas, born Feb 8 1899?

Ryoung122 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Hsu Chih

Why is Teresa Hsu Chih of China, supposedly 111 not on the unverified list? --Jkaharper (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this list be deleted?

I think so. All this list is a collection of names, most of which are not notable enough to carry their own Wikipedia pages. Essentially, the top part is just a copy of http://grg.org/Adams/E.HTM and, while I think that it would be a little disingenuous to refer to it as a copy violation, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information or an archive of web pages. Before it had utility as a (somewhat) objective collection of potential supercentenarians there were not recognized by the GRG... now it's just "this is my opinion on who is really the age that they claim and who is a liar". That's a violation of WP:BLP in my eyes. So can anyone give me a reason why I shouldn't nominate this for deletion? And please, use Wikipedia policy, not personal opinions or feelings, because I've always thought that this list might be useful, so I don't need to be convinced of its utility, but that doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 16:04, 19 February 2009 of (UTC)

Comment: You are wrong on multiple counts, and your threats to delete sound like little more than sour grapes. To wit:

A. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information": the information on this page is NOT indiscriminate: rather, it's the other way around: you are upset BECAUSE it is a discriminate collection of information.

B. "Wikipedia is not an archive of web page." Since the list is dynamic and deletes cases once they die, it is NOT an archive. So that point doesn't pass muster, either. Of course, the GRG list DOES include an archive (who died in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, etc). But this list does not.

C. Claiming that this list was "somewhat" objective before is just flat-out wrong. As I clearly pointed out in my arguments, the part B section of the list suffered from a mixed-message approach: clearly, the goal of those who added part B was to include cases likely to be verified and added to the GRG list in the future. In the literature, the goal of "unverified lists" is to show the UNreliablity of unverified data. Here, we had a mixed-message approach: including only those cases from "developed" or "advanced" countries was an attempt to include cases likely to be true. However, as anyone knows the US is a large nation and, given that compulsory birth registration for everyone here began only in 1933, it's simply too much to assume that American cases are likely to be true.

D. The "longevity claims" page was designed to care for those claims in the gray area (not likely to be true, but still possible to be true).

E. Age cutoffs/limits made sense. Someone came up with the idea that cases above 113 are already listed on the longevity claims list, but not those under 113, so why not cut off the part B section at 113? This made sense because if the parameter of the list was to show "probably true" cases, or at least those that haven't been judged yet, then there is a big difference between someone who just turned 110 and their case hasn't been reviewed yet and someone whose case has been sitting for 3 years, 6 years, 7 years, etc.

F. If someone on the longevity claims lists has their case eventually verified, such as Maria Capovilla, then the case would be added to the "section A" part of the list. Thus, no one is excluded.

Now, I don't see how a "standard for everyone" is unfair. The cutoff at 113 is more fair than the cutoff by nation, which is more subjective.

I'm really disappointed in you, CP. I don't see why you insist on being on the wrong side of history. Comments like this one:

"this is my opinion on who is really the age that they claim and who is a liar". That's a violation of WP:BLP in my eyes.

seem to violate what you are accusing others of.

Excuse me? Let's review:

A. We left Ruby Muhammad on this list, even though the case is already questioned in reliable, third-party sources.

B. Someone developed the system that "if they are MEDC, then they are listed." Now, in my opinion, the 111-year-old man from the Ukraine was "probably" a true case. But we didn't go with opinion. We went with the standard that existed before the case was considered.

C. All cases listed are cited in the media, and therefore are based on public information. Thus, BLP is being respected. In fact, let's consider this: Rebecca Lanier was probably born in 1905, based on census research. So, even listing her on the longevity claims page is giving her the benefit of the doubt. Listing her as born in 1892, as claimed, is giving her the benefit of the doubt. Thus, claiming that this page violates BLP is simply a not so.

D. You had ample time to comment on this, but when someone (Star Garnet) chose to make a change, you threaten to delete this. This seems like a violation of WP:OWN. As for me, I didn't create this article, and in truth if this is deleted, it will simply make people have to turn to the GRG list even more, so from a cynical point of view I should favor this article's deletion. However, from a practical standpoint my goal has always been to educate people as to how long humans live, and this page helps people to understand how long humans live, not just maximally but also in a demographic sense. Just looking at the data, one can see that with a sort of "top 100" approach, the population pyramid quickly folds from about 100 at age 110 to 50 at 111, 25 at 112, maybe 10 at 113...just one verified person at 114. This helps to disabuse both underestimates of age (is my 108-year-old grandma the oldest person in place X?) and overestimates of age "my grandma is 135!".Ryoung122 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The top part sometimes includes names which are on the Epstein list but not GRG. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Okay, so occasionally Epstein verifies a case before the GRG, at which point the list reverts to using the GRG as a source. So occasionally, it's slightly (but inconsequentially) different for a week. Cheers, CP 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to find policy that instructs us as to why an article should be kept, policies almost exclusively instruct us in what is not permitted. I would like to mention, though, WP:NOTPAPER. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can include more topics than Britannica can. Useight (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, the section B, as listed, is quite valuable. It organizes into one listing a lot of cases from around the world that are featured in newspapers and other quotable sources. It includes a lot of "just turned 110" cases and so, ironically, may be help the section A list be more demographically balanced (since most of the missing cases are those that just turned 110). In short, this helps to close a loophole and, while not solving every issue, makes the picture of human longevity more complete. That alone is an encyclopedic task. Also, using the "110th birthday" test, most very-extreme claims start at a hard-to-believe age. For example, Tuti Yusupova's claim gained international attention at age "128". Where was this claim at 110? That's what I thought. Places like Uzbekistan are so behind, they are not even aware that a claim to 110 is significant. In fact, the most-recent claim sounded like it came from a first-ever government attempt to list all of the centenarian claims in the country. So, that's progress. But the "demographic transition" generally takes 100 years (as cited in the literature). So, by the year 2109, Uzbekistan may begin to produce quality data on supercentenarians.

Ryoung122 10:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

CP is absolutely correct. This page could be replaced with a link, so it is superfluous as expressed by CP. We should ignore the emotional outpouring of Ryoung, it makes no sense. Is there anyone else, otherwise we should delete this. Is this an improvement on the source site? Orderofthehouse (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that this account did not exist before today, and could be viewed as a "meatpuppet."Ryoung122 06:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The unverified list on this page could easily be moved to the Longevity claims page, and indeed it would make sense for it to be there rather than here. Such a move, along with the fact that the top 10 women and men (or 110+ if <10) are on the Oldest people page, would make this page redundant. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Derby, you are missing the point. Throw the emotions out the window and let's consider the facts:

Validated Supercentenarian Cases (Data Analysis) as of June 15, 2007 *data below does not include living cases mortality rate age number surviving deaths yearly Cumulative 123 0 122 1 -1 100.00% 100.00% 121 1 0 0.00% 99.90% 120 2 -1 50.00% 99.90% 119 3 -1 33.33% 99.80% 118 3 0 0.00% 99.70% 117 5 -2 40.00% 99.70% 116 10 -5 50.00% 99.50% 115 23 -13 56.52% 98.99% 114 62 -39 62.90% 97.69% 113 126 -64 50.79% 93.76% 112 264 -138 52.27% 87.32% 111 508 -244 48.03% 73.44% 110 994 -486 48.89% 48.89%

Age 110 is not "extremely rare" (perhaps very rare) but age 115 certainly is.

The whole point of the "longevity claims" article and list are that there are quite a number of claims to extreme age that cannot be verified AND range from somewhat to highly unlikely to be true. Many of the cases on the "List B" on this page are, in fact, LIKELY to be true, based on evidence already existing.

Secondly, there is the issue of the claim in context: if someone claims to be 110, even 111, that is not claiming to be the world's oldest person, and therefore less controversial. If someone claims to be 115, 117, 122, 125, 132, etc we are going from "oldest living person" to ages never reached. Where do we draw the lines? To me, drawing lines at ages is more fair than by nations. Having age 110-112 as a sort of "waiting list" to see if the case will be verified makes sense. If a claim gets to 113 and is still not verified, it makes sense that we can begin with a value judgment: less likely to be true. If a claim gets to 131, virtually impossible to be true.

The bottom line is that CP claims that "BLP" must be respected...let's be fair here. We begin at age 110 with giving a sort of "neutral" perspective for cases in List B. Especially if the case gets to a point where they are older than the current oldest living person AND not accepted, then there is a reason to consider the case in a "grey area." The problem with "older than the oldest living person" cutoff is that, sometimes, a Jeanne Calment will come along. Should we then think that 119 is true, simply because it's less than Calment? A cutoff of 113, or 115 if you want to be generous, seems like a reasonable compromise.

Thirdly, the GRG list, or any list that has criteria for applications, is going to be somewhat exclusionary. When the field of age verification research began in the 1870s with William Thoms, he compared the UNVALIDATED claims from folklore with the VALIDATED claims from life insurance policy holders. The result? True, every extreme case from folklore proved false or unvalidatab (with a woman aged 106 mentioned as the oldest possibly-true case he reviewed), but based on life insurance policies and proven records alone, Mr Thoms could not identify anyone older than 103. Now, is that how long people lived back then? We know today that age 108 was achieved in 1837. Hence, there is also a risk of being overly skeptical.

The goal of Wikipedia is to present a pluralistic approach to discussion that employs major viewpoints. Here, we have:

A. The first list, a sort of "skeptics list" with the GRG list.

B. Cases not yet verified but "recently discovered." Note that the track and field governing body, if an apparent world record is set, calls the record "pending," often for several months, until officially accepted. Here, a list B should be in the principle of "pending."

C. The longevity claims list: let's face it, if three years have gone by an a record has not been accepted, then it's no longer "pending." When it comes to extreme age claims, it makes sense to have a level 3, "longevity claims," that are a sort of backburner case...not proven true, but still possible.

D. Finally, the longevity myths list: cases 130+ are far beyond the realm of considering them anything more than scientifically frivilous. But, just as there is a view that accepts religious beliefs, so it makes sense to report on the BELIEVED age of extreme claims, both for historical reference and also for those persons interested.

The current Wikipedia lists on verified, pending, grey area, and far-out cases is a four-viewpoint approach that allows the reader to choose which level of belief they want to go with. Thus, there is reason to keep this list. Discussions of what approach should be used are still malleable, but first the issue needs to be resolved as to why.

Now, might I also interject that the "last living veterans" lists to SOME are violations of Wiki policy: "original research" or what have you. Also note that there are levels of cases:

A. Officially accepted cases--such as Harry Patch

B. Unofficial but documentable cases--such as French veterans who served "less than 3 months"

C. WWI-era cases--possibly veterans by interpretation of service, such as Aarne Arvonen

D. Unlikely claims--the person made a claim in the media, such as William Olin or Jim Lincoln, but the case is unlikely to be true.

E. Outright frauds--cases such as Merlyn Kreuger, which have been debunked.

I realize now that for both WWI-veteran lists and "Oldest People" lists, we have the first four categories covered, but not an article on the 5th category: debunked cases. Perhaps we should be ADDING, not deleting, an article. Why? The purpose of a "debunked cases" page is to show how common it is for a case to be false, and how expert debunk it. Let's not forget that all this existed before I was even born. Walter Williams claimed to be the last Civil War veteran at 117, but his claim was debunked in 1959 by a NY Times reporter.Ryoung122 06:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The first list is an amalgamated list from 2 sources, which as a whole is not published elsewhere. The second list is certainly not a violation of WP:BLP. It does not state that these people are lying, nor does it imply that. Wikipedia has to be impartial, and articles must adhere to WP:NEU. As such, until these people are verified, they must be listed as claims. As I'm sure you know, there have been many exaggerated claims in the past and we need to be aware of that. The list itself is well cited. I have personally made this section more comprehensive, rather than being exclusive as it was under just the CIA list. I think it's very important for people reading about the oldest people to understand the demographics of the oldest living people. It's also needed to put the longevity claims, and claimed supercentenarians into context. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted cases that should be considered for listing

Alwine Werner

Germany`s oldest living woman, Alwine Werner (born 10. November 1898)should be added. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%84ltester_Mensch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no article for Alwine Werner and obviously we can't use Wikipedia as a source. Also, should we be adding Ukrainian-born cases like Werner, Buhler and Lutzko? It's not one of the listed countries, and for good reason. Or are we counting country of residence as the criterium? In which case Teresa Hsu could be added, if anyone can get a handle on how old she is claimed to be. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

I was actually going to list Hsu when I made the change, but could find no confirmation of her last birthday. Cases on here should have confirmation of that. Teresa Dosaigues may have to be removed if there's no confirmation. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I took Myrtle Jones off last year for the same reason, and she was later verified. The same could be said for Pogonowska. WOP shouldn't really be used. As for Hsu, she could be 111, 110, in her hundreds, or in her nineties. So many articles, but none specifically about her last birthday. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Melinda Harris

Melinda Overton Harris claims birth May 4, 1896, and was confirmed alive within the past year:

Melinda Overton Harris looses son Message List Reply | Forward | Delete Message #11866 of 12315 < Prev | Next >

Dear all,

Melinda Overton Harris has lost her son William McAdoo Miller Jr. aged 88 back in May 13, 2008. I remind you that she claims to be aged 112, but our research so far has only been able to confirm age 111 based on the 1910 Census match.

You can read her son's obituary here:

http://philadelphiatribune.v1.myvirtualpaper.com/ThePhiladelphiaTribune /2008051701/?page=28

Confirmation that she indeed reached her 112th birthday on May 4 could also be found in Craven County minutes:

http://www.cravencounty.com/minutes/BC2008/RG050508.pdf

Filipe Prista Lucas Ryoung122 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mildred Jamais Mildred Jamais, born in Georgia about February 15, 1899 (the story is a bit confusing), turned 110 a few days ago in Florida:

http://www.tbnweekly.com/pubs/clearwater_citizen/content_articles/021809_cit-04.\ txt Ryoung122 03:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Summaries

Not only should there be a summary, but also a "supercentenarian per capita" analysis. The summary does several things. First, it points the reader as to where the cases are coming from (geographic distribution). Second, it helps the reader gain some demographic understanding. It makes sense that the U.S., with 300+ million persons, would have more supercentenarians than Japan, with 127 million, or France, with 64 million. However, the general population is often quite misinformed. In the past, there was an assumption that "Japanese lived longer" so they should have the most. Finally, it can help give the reader some information about what is missing, what is not there. Clearly, data is mostly missing from Africa, South America, Asia...areas of the world that did not keep good records for 110+ years.Ryoung122 07:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is to be done then the section must discuss other reasons for discrepancies between countries, such as lack of documentation, poor reporting, and immigration. While the data may suggest something about countries that produce higher numbers of supercentenarians per head, it's open to debate whether that is what the data shows due to the other aforementioned factors. Secondly, the data would be changing quite frequently. Ignoring immigration and emigration, what really matters is not the population now, but the population 110+ years ago.SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why "should" there be? This article is merely a list of living people. It is not an article on the causes or implications of why some countries are represented on that list more than others nor on whether emigrants living longer than lifelong residents has any significance. Either that discussion belongs in a different article (eg Supercentenarian or Life expectancy) or the title of this article needs to be changed. At the moment this table has little more to do with this page than playing with statistics. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Derby, do you always have to be so negative?

Smiles promote WikiLove. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You are not able to "hear" what others are saying because you are not listening. I do believe there needs to be a discussion about the background of these lists. The information is remarkably demographic. Someone reading the list might get the idea that, other than chance, we all live the same length of time. Gasp! What a concept!Ryoung122 12:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking to me then it is obviously you who is having trouble understanding! Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting ideas. Claiming that the summary list provides an improved understanding for the average user (as your statement above would seem toi indicate) is disingenous, not least because there is no explanation of that in the summary! According to GRG "The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons" and "the total number of validated cases cited above is only about ten percent of the suspected real-world total" (I'm not sure how these 2 statements can be reconciled!) so the number of verified supercentenarians is somewhere between 10-33% of the actual total. Claiming that this sample size is sufficient to draw any inferences or conclusions about the worldwide distributuion of actual supercentenarians is statistically invalid. I have no idea what the differention of of indiginous/immigrant/emigrant is supposed to siginify as it is not explained. In any case this page is not concerned with such matters as it is merely a list of persons. As I have already stated above any discussion of the implications of such a summary belongs in a more relevant article, with the appropriate citations of course (unless this article is going to be changed from a list into something else). At present the summary appears to only be useful for those users who cannot count, which is not really a valid justification for inclusion/retention. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some points of response below:

1. Last I checked, Wikipedia is often the FIRST place people under 20 turn to find out about something "encyclopedic." So, yes, it is a forum for promoting ideas, so long as those ideas are "encyclopedic."

2. It is clear the summary list was an attempt by the adder to note that SOME super-cs have moved from country A to country B. This approach fits in with Wikipedia's philosophy of pluralism..present that major points of view and let the viewer decide. In other words, there are 4 super-cs in Canada (that were born in Canada), plus one born elsewhere but now lives in Canada (an immigrant) plus one born in Canada who now lives elsewhere (and emigrant). If nothing else, this helps to show how identities between nationalities are fluid. To make it clear: "indigeneous"=a person's nationality by birth; immigrant=a person's nationality after moving into a country; emigrant=a person's original nationality before leaving a country.

3. It doesn't matter if the data is only 10% or maybe its 20% (suppose the real total is 250 instead of 400, then what?). The point should be that if the data on the list is gathered in a systematic manner, then the list itself has statistical properties to it. it should also be obvious that the list is mostly missing cases "just over 110" but these can be seen in the "unvalidated" list.

4. Making something simpler is not a bad thing. Who wants to count to 32? Now, if it turns out that the table/chart is not maintained properly, then there would be a reason to discard it. But right now, the only problem seems to be that you haven't been open-minded enough.Ryoung122 11:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

100 + verified supercentenarians

I know this is jumping the gun as there are currently "only" 88 or so verified centenarians, but we might as well clarify this now. Assuming that there is a relative flood of confirmed cententarians which brings the total to over 100 in the relative close future, say the next year or so, will we be listing each and every one of them, or will we only be listing the top 100 living people? Personally, to be consistent with other pages, I say we just list the 100 oldest living. Canada Jack (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Name vandalism

This pertains to most supercentenarian pages, but I must bring it up somewhere, so this is as good as any place. Someone keeps removing names for those supercentenarians who have double first names or surnames. This can probably be defended in the cases where one KNOWS what the person is called and how the person is referred to in reality. However, many of the cases (such as Maria de la O Soria) have seen completely arbitrary removals of names. In some cases (as Maria del Carmen), the only first name has been removed, and often the wrong first name has remained. It seems that even if one knows a too long name is presented, one shouldn't remove any of it, unless it's certain what is the correct name. I (and others) have tried reverting these changes from time to time, but the vandal is persistent and keeps using different IP addresses to make the changes, and by now it has all gone out of hand.Yubiquitoyama (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually an article did call her Maria de la O. I thought it looked a bit odd, but 'de la O' seems to be a real surname, albeit short. eg. Genovevo de la O SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: her name is "Maria de la O Soria-Berbel". I don't see how her name could possibly be "de la O".Ryoung122 11:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This person has been doing this on and off for more than a year, I think mainly so that the name will "fit" in the column. They never give an edit summary. The Maria de la O seems to be the only possibly justified case. It may even be the same person who persisted in changing a date of death and removing the addendum on one page. As the ykeep changing IP blocking won't work. The only way of preveniting these changes would be to semi-protect the pages, but that might be considered excessive to avoid disruptions from a single user. DerbyCountyinNZ 19:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think we need some expert advice on what the nomenclature is in different countries. I think people should be listed as they are known. Are double-barrelled names used in regular speech/writing in The Netherlands, or Italy? (as examples)SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Frances Street claim

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903150317 Ryoung122 11:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unverified list

The real purpose of the "unverified" list on THIS page is to list cases that may be true but are not yet validated. Cases like Olympe Pidancet, Rosa Rhein, etc. all come from nations where the system of record-keeping is good, and there is a good chance the age claimed is accurate.

Cases like Virginia Call should be excluded because there has already been significant press mention that her age may not be the age claimed. In short, she belongs on the longevity claims page...where she is.

Ryoung122 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On this same topic. Is there still the need to list Maria Dia Cortes, Rebecca Lanier, and Richard Washington? They already appear on the Longevity Claims page. They seem to overshadow the "verified" cases. Or do they need to be listed in both places because they have not been debunked? TFBCT1 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful. The same might have been said for Maria Capovilla, especially considering she was not from a MEDC country. I think cases should be removed if there is considerable conflicting information. However I do not think someone should be removed just because they seem too old. I often think that this list should include more countries. For example there are Eastern European countries which I think are likely to have genuine cases of supercentenarians, such as Poland. However I've never mentioned this before because they're unverified claims anyway (and likely to stay unverified even if they are true). SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't believe that removing a person from this page's unverified list discredits them; I would say that once a claimant reaches the claimed age of 113, the should be limited to the longevity claims page until verified. I don't believe it would do any harm, and there are several cases younger than Cortés, Lanier, and Wahington already on the claims page but not this one. Star Garnet (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are probably valid cases from other parts of the world, such as, China, India, or Brazil- even Indonesia, Pakistan, or Bangladesh based on their size (48.3% of the world) alone, but I don't think they will end up on either list because of either a history of false claims or no means of substantiation. On the unverified list I do feel that once individuals are 115+ there is less likelihood of the claim being valid. Not saying that there isn't the possibility that it is true. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We start listing longevity claims at 113, because at age 110, they would be too numerous. Here, with a slightly higher standard (must be a MEDC country), the purpose seems to be to list potential future verified cases that are too young for the longevity claims list but not yet verified. If a case like Maria Capovilla is on the longevity claims list and documents are sent in, then the case would still be accepted. Right now, we have an overlap with a minimum boundary on longevity claims (113 for living, 115 for deceased) and a minimum boundary on validated (110 for living, top 100 for deceased list, which is currently 113-something). For those that fall in the grey area of 110-112, not yet validated, but likely true, this list here solves that issue. For example, Rosa Rhein is probably a true case, and we are waiting on documents to arrive. Rarely does a validated case above age 112 emerge from an MEDC country, and almost never above 113. So I agree with a cutoff of 113. A compromise would be a cutoff of "not older than the oldest living person." A third choice? Not older than Jeanne Calment.Ryoung122 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly contest the arbitrary removal of potential supercentenarians from the "unverified" list; we had a nice system here that was relatively objective compared to the rest of the "oldest people" pages and I believe that it should remain that way. The criteria was: younger than Jeanne C. and from one of the MEDC countries. That presents a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria that is based off of a solid reason. Once we start saying "well it's unlikely that any case is older than the current oldest living person", we're entering our own subjectivity to the issue. To answer all the comments above, in order:

1. I agree, cases like Virgina Call should be excluded if they have received coverage in third party, reliable sources that their claimed age my not be true.
2. Yes, there is still the need to list the older people on the list for the pursuit of objectivity. They do need to be listed in both places because they have not been debunked. They're not harming anyone and they contribute to the objectivity of this page; we allow for the possibility that someone might pop up as older (as Siamese Turtle has pointed out, it has happened before). I don't understand what you mean about three or four names "overshadowing" a list of 90 people.
3. The longevity claims/myths pages are very problematic pages for reasons that I won't get into here, but comparing this page, which has some very well-reasoned (although imperfect and still somewhat problematic on a larger scale) standards to those isn't useful.

Bottom line, let's keep it is; there's no good reason to sully what this page has accomplished in terms of its (relative) objectivity because the top 3 or 4 unverified cases are likely false. Cheers, CP 06:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Were you speaking to me? I merely had a question over 3 weeks ago and haven't updated again, or made any changes? In my opinion, it will cause confusion either way and I'm fine with it either way. My main concern was that we were not doing one thing in the case of Virginia Call and something entirely different for others. The other confusing element is having multiple cases older than the "oldest person in the world." I think my questions have been answered. Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking to everyone, actually. If you had a specific question there, it might have been answered in the process. Cheers, CP 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Star Garnet and do not agree with CP. If the purpose of the unvalidated list (but cases only from 'reliable' countries) is to list cases that will likely be validated in the future, it makes no sense to continue keeping cases above 113 (after three years, it's not very likely that they will be validated), especially when there is a longevity claims list for living claims 113 or older.

If the purpose of the list is to show that unvalidated claims are less reliable than validated claims, then it should be open worldwide...the problem with that is not rationale but actual circumstances...it would open a whole "can of worms" with too many potential cases...or would it? If the requirement is to have a citation, then it's not that big a problem, is it?

So, what we have now is a silly and unlogical mix, whereby we exclude some cases from unreliable countries but include unreliable cases from mostly reliable countries. Personally, one solution for me would be to open the "unverified" list to list any claim, worldwide, with at least a claimed date of birth, a citation to age 110 or older, but less than 113 years old. Since the 113+ longevity list on the longevity claims page is open worldwide, that would thus give a fair chance to everyone.Ryoung122 01:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unverified List

It seems to me that a standard should be set for the maximum age in which a person can be on the unverified list. And as 113 is the minimum for the longevity claims list, it seems logical to be a maximum for this page, whose purpose is not focused on claims, but rather accepted cases. I think that once a person reaches the age of 113, they should be removed from this list and put on the other, with a direct link to that list at the top of this page's unverified list. There are eight under Cortés, that are unlisted on this page, but, while six of them are from non-MEDC countries, two are Americans. Star Garnet (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Virginia Call has now died. She wasn't on due to her case being debunked to 111. But on that basis she should perhaps have been on anyway. Either way, its irrelevant now. The other case is Elizabeth Johnson who was in limbo. But an article about Gertrude Baines contains a messageboard posting that she was alive on Christmas Day, which it says was her 115th birthday, although it would have been her 116th.

So the source really isn't good enough for this page and possibly not for the claims page, although there is another posting by a 'Robert of GA', presumably Mr Young. But I wouldn't disagree with your proposal. However, consider that the sub-113 cases can also be disputed. Ruby Muhammad is not the age she claims. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Comment: there are several issues here, but two main ones:

1. Unvalidated cases are often listed to show the difference between poor-quality data (unvalidated) and high-quality data (validated data). This was done, for example, in academic papers such as this one: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/demography/v040/40.4rosenwaike.html

when the goal is to show the difference between verified and unverified, it makes sense to allow in all the bad cases. However, the current system fails this goal, as it concentrates cases from high-quality areas (MEDC nations).

2. Some cases come from regions/areas where the case is most likely true, based on past history/track record. However, many cases, especially those that just turned 110, have not yet been verified. It seems the purpose of this second list here is to list those "just over 110" cases from regions with a good track record of verification. If that's the purpose of the MEDC list, then the goal is not to allow in all cases but just those that appear LIKELY to be verified but have not yet been due mainly to their having just turned 110, waiting on documents to arrive, etc. If that's the goal, then surely if a case is not accepted by age 113, then the likelihood of acceptance decreases substantially. True, there are exceptions such as Maria Capovilla. However, the point of the longevity claims article is to provide the grey area between the most-likely true (110-112) and almost certainly false (130+), or longevity myths. Based on these goals, it makes sense to move cases that have not been verified by age 113 to longevity claims. It does not make sense to keep them here, as it mixes two incongruous goals.

Therefore, I have suggested two ways to fix this: if the main goal is #1, allow in all cases worldwide 110+ to the "unverified" list (that would be a mess). Given the longevity claims and longevity myths pages, this is also unncecessary. Logically, then, the goal here is goal #2: include likely-true but not yet verified cases, especially those that have just been discovered. Having a cutoff at 113 seems fair; it applies the same standard to EVERYONE. That is, even if Rosa Rhein isn't verified by 113, her case moves to "longevity claims." How can a "same for everyone" standard be less fair than a mixed-message bureaucratic jumble?

Ryoung122 03:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Robert that cases from MEDC which are first noticed on, or shortly after, a 110th birthday but have not been verified by the 113th birthday should be moved to the unverified claims page.

"list" not "page".Ryoung122 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the unlikely, but not impossible, event that a case is first identified after a 113th birthday it could perhaps be given 3 years here and if still not verified/debunked, then moved to the claims page.

I'm saying that the 113+ case can start out on longevity claims (presumption of guilt) but be moved to the verified list if verified.Ryoung122 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC:::I have no problem with that. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-MEDC cases of 113+ should go on the claims page. That still leaves cases between 110-113 from non-MEDC countries. Where is the best place for them (if anywhere)? DerbyCountyinNZ 06:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The argument is that unverified claims from less-reputable nations are too numerous to bother with until at least age 113. Since age inflation is common throughout history, it is only in the more-advanced nations where the systems of recordkeeping have been in place for more than a century that the highest claimed age comes down to a reasonable level (I suggest reading the Odense Monograph on "Exceptional Longevity from Prehistory to Present").Ryoung122 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought there might be too many! DerbyCountyinNZ 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is MEDC inclusive enough though? As we've seen in the past, there have been many validated claims from other countries such as Columbia, Ecuador. I bet people living in Slovenia or Puerto Rico today are living longer lives than people did in the UK 40 years ago and you can only expect countries like this to have a supercentenarian every now and then despite their relatively low population. Also, the CIA list that we are using has not been updated since 1999. I think perhaps we should move towards the World Bank high-income economies list (or something similar) as it encapsulates many of these smaller countries that otherwise go unnoticed on this list. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New super-cs

Where's Maude Buckley of Texas, born Feb 8 1899?

Ryoung122 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Hsu Chih

Why is Teresa Hsu Chih of China, supposedly 111 not on the unverified list? --Jkaharper (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this list be deleted?

I think so. All this list is a collection of names, most of which are not notable enough to carry their own Wikipedia pages. Essentially, the top part is just a copy of http://grg.org/Adams/E.HTM and, while I think that it would be a little disingenuous to refer to it as a copy violation, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information or an archive of web pages. Before it had utility as a (somewhat) objective collection of potential supercentenarians there were not recognized by the GRG... now it's just "this is my opinion on who is really the age that they claim and who is a liar". That's a violation of WP:BLP in my eyes. So can anyone give me a reason why I shouldn't nominate this for deletion? And please, use Wikipedia policy, not personal opinions or feelings, because I've always thought that this list might be useful, so I don't need to be convinced of its utility, but that doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 16:04, 19 February 2009 of (UTC)

Comment: You are wrong on multiple counts, and your threats to delete sound like little more than sour grapes. To wit:

A. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information": the information on this page is NOT indiscriminate: rather, it's the other way around: you are upset BECAUSE it is a discriminate collection of information.

B. "Wikipedia is not an archive of web page." Since the list is dynamic and deletes cases once they die, it is NOT an archive. So that point doesn't pass muster, either. Of course, the GRG list DOES include an archive (who died in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, etc). But this list does not.

C. Claiming that this list was "somewhat" objective before is just flat-out wrong. As I clearly pointed out in my arguments, the part B section of the list suffered from a mixed-message approach: clearly, the goal of those who added part B was to include cases likely to be verified and added to the GRG list in the future. In the literature, the goal of "unverified lists" is to show the UNreliablity of unverified data. Here, we had a mixed-message approach: including only those cases from "developed" or "advanced" countries was an attempt to include cases likely to be true. However, as anyone knows the US is a large nation and, given that compulsory birth registration for everyone here began only in 1933, it's simply too much to assume that American cases are likely to be true.

D. The "longevity claims" page was designed to care for those claims in the gray area (not likely to be true, but still possible to be true).

E. Age cutoffs/limits made sense. Someone came up with the idea that cases above 113 are already listed on the longevity claims list, but not those under 113, so why not cut off the part B section at 113? This made sense because if the parameter of the list was to show "probably true" cases, or at least those that haven't been judged yet, then there is a big difference between someone who just turned 110 and their case hasn't been reviewed yet and someone whose case has been sitting for 3 years, 6 years, 7 years, etc.

F. If someone on the longevity claims lists has their case eventually verified, such as Maria Capovilla, then the case would be added to the "section A" part of the list. Thus, no one is excluded.

Now, I don't see how a "standard for everyone" is unfair. The cutoff at 113 is more fair than the cutoff by nation, which is more subjective.

I'm really disappointed in you, CP. I don't see why you insist on being on the wrong side of history. Comments like this one:

"this is my opinion on who is really the age that they claim and who is a liar". That's a violation of WP:BLP in my eyes.

seem to violate what you are accusing others of.

Excuse me? Let's review:

A. We left Ruby Muhammad on this list, even though the case is already questioned in reliable, third-party sources.

B. Someone developed the system that "if they are MEDC, then they are listed." Now, in my opinion, the 111-year-old man from the Ukraine was "probably" a true case. But we didn't go with opinion. We went with the standard that existed before the case was considered.

C. All cases listed are cited in the media, and therefore are based on public information. Thus, BLP is being respected. In fact, let's consider this: Rebecca Lanier was probably born in 1905, based on census research. So, even listing her on the longevity claims page is giving her the benefit of the doubt. Listing her as born in 1892, as claimed, is giving her the benefit of the doubt. Thus, claiming that this page violates BLP is simply a not so.

D. You had ample time to comment on this, but when someone (Star Garnet) chose to make a change, you threaten to delete this. This seems like a violation of WP:OWN. As for me, I didn't create this article, and in truth if this is deleted, it will simply make people have to turn to the GRG list even more, so from a cynical point of view I should favor this article's deletion. However, from a practical standpoint my goal has always been to educate people as to how long humans live, and this page helps people to understand how long humans live, not just maximally but also in a demographic sense. Just looking at the data, one can see that with a sort of "top 100" approach, the population pyramid quickly folds from about 100 at age 110 to 50 at 111, 25 at 112, maybe 10 at 113...just one verified person at 114. This helps to disabuse both underestimates of age (is my 108-year-old grandma the oldest person in place X?) and overestimates of age "my grandma is 135!".Ryoung122 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The top part sometimes includes names which are on the Epstein list but not GRG. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Okay, so occasionally Epstein verifies a case before the GRG, at which point the list reverts to using the GRG as a source. So occasionally, it's slightly (but inconsequentially) different for a week. Cheers, CP 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to find policy that instructs us as to why an article should be kept, policies almost exclusively instruct us in what is not permitted. I would like to mention, though, WP:NOTPAPER. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can include more topics than Britannica can. Useight (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, the section B, as listed, is quite valuable. It organizes into one listing a lot of cases from around the world that are featured in newspapers and other quotable sources. It includes a lot of "just turned 110" cases and so, ironically, may be help the section A list be more demographically balanced (since most of the missing cases are those that just turned 110). In short, this helps to close a loophole and, while not solving every issue, makes the picture of human longevity more complete. That alone is an encyclopedic task. Also, using the "110th birthday" test, most very-extreme claims start at a hard-to-believe age. For example, Tuti Yusupova's claim gained international attention at age "128". Where was this claim at 110? That's what I thought. Places like Uzbekistan are so behind, they are not even aware that a claim to 110 is significant. In fact, the most-recent claim sounded like it came from a first-ever government attempt to list all of the centenarian claims in the country. So, that's progress. But the "demographic transition" generally takes 100 years (as cited in the literature). So, by the year 2109, Uzbekistan may begin to produce quality data on supercentenarians.

Ryoung122 10:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

CP is absolutely correct. This page could be replaced with a link, so it is superfluous as expressed by CP. We should ignore the emotional outpouring of Ryoung, it makes no sense. Is there anyone else, otherwise we should delete this. Is this an improvement on the source site? Orderofthehouse (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that this account did not exist before today, and could be viewed as a "meatpuppet."Ryoung122 06:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The unverified list on this page could easily be moved to the Longevity claims page, and indeed it would make sense for it to be there rather than here. Such a move, along with the fact that the top 10 women and men (or 110+ if <10) are on the Oldest people page, would make this page redundant. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Derby, you are missing the point. Throw the emotions out the window and let's consider the facts:

Validated Supercentenarian Cases (Data Analysis) as of June 15, 2007 *data below does not include living cases mortality rate age number surviving deaths yearly Cumulative 123 0 122 1 -1 100.00% 100.00% 121 1 0 0.00% 99.90% 120 2 -1 50.00% 99.90% 119 3 -1 33.33% 99.80% 118 3 0 0.00% 99.70% 117 5 -2 40.00% 99.70% 116 10 -5 50.00% 99.50% 115 23 -13 56.52% 98.99% 114 62 -39 62.90% 97.69% 113 126 -64 50.79% 93.76% 112 264 -138 52.27% 87.32% 111 508 -244 48.03% 73.44% 110 994 -486 48.89% 48.89%

Age 110 is not "extremely rare" (perhaps very rare) but age 115 certainly is.

The whole point of the "longevity claims" article and list are that there are quite a number of claims to extreme age that cannot be verified AND range from somewhat to highly unlikely to be true. Many of the cases on the "List B" on this page are, in fact, LIKELY to be true, based on evidence already existing.

Secondly, there is the issue of the claim in context: if someone claims to be 110, even 111, that is not claiming to be the world's oldest person, and therefore less controversial. If someone claims to be 115, 117, 122, 125, 132, etc we are going from "oldest living person" to ages never reached. Where do we draw the lines? To me, drawing lines at ages is more fair than by nations. Having age 110-112 as a sort of "waiting list" to see if the case will be verified makes sense. If a claim gets to 113 and is still not verified, it makes sense that we can begin with a value judgment: less likely to be true. If a claim gets to 131, virtually impossible to be true.

The bottom line is that CP claims that "BLP" must be respected...let's be fair here. We begin at age 110 with giving a sort of "neutral" perspective for cases in List B. Especially if the case gets to a point where they are older than the current oldest living person AND not accepted, then there is a reason to consider the case in a "grey area." The problem with "older than the oldest living person" cutoff is that, sometimes, a Jeanne Calment will come along. Should we then think that 119 is true, simply because it's less than Calment? A cutoff of 113, or 115 if you want to be generous, seems like a reasonable compromise.

Thirdly, the GRG list, or any list that has criteria for applications, is going to be somewhat exclusionary. When the field of age verification research began in the 1870s with William Thoms, he compared the UNVALIDATED claims from folklore with the VALIDATED claims from life insurance policy holders. The result? True, every extreme case from folklore proved false or unvalidatab (with a woman aged 106 mentioned as the oldest possibly-true case he reviewed), but based on life insurance policies and proven records alone, Mr Thoms could not identify anyone older than 103. Now, is that how long people lived back then? We know today that age 108 was achieved in 1837. Hence, there is also a risk of being overly skeptical.

The goal of Wikipedia is to present a pluralistic approach to discussion that employs major viewpoints. Here, we have:

A. The first list, a sort of "skeptics list" with the GRG list.

B. Cases not yet verified but "recently discovered." Note that the track and field governing body, if an apparent world record is set, calls the record "pending," often for several months, until officially accepted. Here, a list B should be in the principle of "pending."

C. The longevity claims list: let's face it, if three years have gone by an a record has not been accepted, then it's no longer "pending." When it comes to extreme age claims, it makes sense to have a level 3, "longevity claims," that are a sort of backburner case...not proven true, but still possible.

D. Finally, the longevity myths list: cases 130+ are far beyond the realm of considering them anything more than scientifically frivilous. But, just as there is a view that accepts religious beliefs, so it makes sense to report on the BELIEVED age of extreme claims, both for historical reference and also for those persons interested.

The current Wikipedia lists on verified, pending, grey area, and far-out cases is a four-viewpoint approach that allows the reader to choose which level of belief they want to go with. Thus, there is reason to keep this list. Discussions of what approach should be used are still malleable, but first the issue needs to be resolved as to why.

Now, might I also interject that the "last living veterans" lists to SOME are violations of Wiki policy: "original research" or what have you. Also note that there are levels of cases:

A. Officially accepted cases--such as Harry Patch

B. Unofficial but documentable cases--such as French veterans who served "less than 3 months"

C. WWI-era cases--possibly veterans by interpretation of service, such as Aarne Arvonen

D. Unlikely claims--the person made a claim in the media, such as William Olin or Jim Lincoln, but the case is unlikely to be true.

E. Outright frauds--cases such as Merlyn Kreuger, which have been debunked.

I realize now that for both WWI-veteran lists and "Oldest People" lists, we have the first four categories covered, but not an article on the 5th category: debunked cases. Perhaps we should be ADDING, not deleting, an article. Why? The purpose of a "debunked cases" page is to show how common it is for a case to be false, and how expert debunk it. Let's not forget that all this existed before I was even born. Walter Williams claimed to be the last Civil War veteran at 117, but his claim was debunked in 1959 by a NY Times reporter.Ryoung122 06:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The first list is an amalgamated list from 2 sources, which as a whole is not published elsewhere. The second list is certainly not a violation of WP:BLP. It does not state that these people are lying, nor does it imply that. Wikipedia has to be impartial, and articles must adhere to WP:NEU. As such, until these people are verified, they must be listed as claims. As I'm sure you know, there have been many exaggerated claims in the past and we need to be aware of that. The list itself is well cited. I have personally made this section more comprehensive, rather than being exclusive as it was under just the CIA list. I think it's very important for people reading about the oldest people to understand the demographics of the oldest living people. It's also needed to put the longevity claims, and claimed supercentenarians into context. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted cases that should be considered for listing

Alwine Werner

Germany`s oldest living woman, Alwine Werner (born 10. November 1898)should be added. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%84ltester_Mensch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no article for Alwine Werner and obviously we can't use Wikipedia as a source. Also, should we be adding Ukrainian-born cases like Werner, Buhler and Lutzko? It's not one of the listed countries, and for good reason. Or are we counting country of residence as the criterium? In which case Teresa Hsu could be added, if anyone can get a handle on how old she is claimed to be. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

I was actually going to list Hsu when I made the change, but could find no confirmation of her last birthday. Cases on here should have confirmation of that. Teresa Dosaigues may have to be removed if there's no confirmation. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I took Myrtle Jones off last year for the same reason, and she was later verified. The same could be said for Pogonowska. WOP shouldn't really be used. As for Hsu, she could be 111, 110, in her hundreds, or in her nineties. So many articles, but none specifically about her last birthday. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Melinda Harris

Melinda Overton Harris claims birth May 4, 1896, and was confirmed alive within the past year:

Melinda Overton Harris looses son Message List Reply | Forward | Delete Message #11866 of 12315 < Prev | Next >

Dear all,

Melinda Overton Harris has lost her son William McAdoo Miller Jr. aged 88 back in May 13, 2008. I remind you that she claims to be aged 112, but our research so far has only been able to confirm age 111 based on the 1910 Census match.

You can read her son's obituary here:

http://philadelphiatribune.v1.myvirtualpaper.com/ThePhiladelphiaTribune /2008051701/?page=28

Confirmation that she indeed reached her 112th birthday on May 4 could also be found in Craven County minutes:

http://www.cravencounty.com/minutes/BC2008/RG050508.pdf

Filipe Prista Lucas Ryoung122 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mildred Jamais Mildred Jamais, born in Georgia about February 15, 1899 (the story is a bit confusing), turned 110 a few days ago in Florida:

http://www.tbnweekly.com/pubs/clearwater_citizen/content_articles/021809_cit-04.\ txt Ryoung122 03:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Summaries

Not only should there be a summary, but also a "supercentenarian per capita" analysis. The summary does several things. First, it points the reader as to where the cases are coming from (geographic distribution). Second, it helps the reader gain some demographic understanding. It makes sense that the U.S., with 300+ million persons, would have more supercentenarians than Japan, with 127 million, or France, with 64 million. However, the general population is often quite misinformed. In the past, there was an assumption that "Japanese lived longer" so they should have the most. Finally, it can help give the reader some information about what is missing, what is not there. Clearly, data is mostly missing from Africa, South America, Asia...areas of the world that did not keep good records for 110+ years.Ryoung122 07:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is to be done then the section must discuss other reasons for discrepancies between countries, such as lack of documentation, poor reporting, and immigration. While the data may suggest something about countries that produce higher numbers of supercentenarians per head, it's open to debate whether that is what the data shows due to the other aforementioned factors. Secondly, the data would be changing quite frequently. Ignoring immigration and emigration, what really matters is not the population now, but the population 110+ years ago.SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why "should" there be? This article is merely a list of living people. It is not an article on the causes or implications of why some countries are represented on that list more than others nor on whether emigrants living longer than lifelong residents has any significance. Either that discussion belongs in a different article (eg Supercentenarian or Life expectancy) or the title of this article needs to be changed. At the moment this table has little more to do with this page than playing with statistics. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Derby, do you always have to be so negative?

Smiles promote WikiLove. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You are not able to "hear" what others are saying because you are not listening. I do believe there needs to be a discussion about the background of these lists. The information is remarkably demographic. Someone reading the list might get the idea that, other than chance, we all live the same length of time. Gasp! What a concept!Ryoung122 12:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking to me then it is obviously you who is having trouble understanding! Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting ideas. Claiming that the summary list provides an improved understanding for the average user (as your statement above would seem toi indicate) is disingenous, not least because there is no explanation of that in the summary! According to GRG "The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons" and "the total number of validated cases cited above is only about ten percent of the suspected real-world total" (I'm not sure how these 2 statements can be reconciled!) so the number of verified supercentenarians is somewhere between 10-33% of the actual total. Claiming that this sample size is sufficient to draw any inferences or conclusions about the worldwide distributuion of actual supercentenarians is statistically invalid. I have no idea what the differention of of indiginous/immigrant/emigrant is supposed to siginify as it is not explained. In any case this page is not concerned with such matters as it is merely a list of persons. As I have already stated above any discussion of the implications of such a summary belongs in a more relevant article, with the appropriate citations of course (unless this article is going to be changed from a list into something else). At present the summary appears to only be useful for those users who cannot count, which is not really a valid justification for inclusion/retention. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some points of response below:

1. Last I checked, Wikipedia is often the FIRST place people under 20 turn to find out about something "encyclopedic." So, yes, it is a forum for promoting ideas, so long as those ideas are "encyclopedic."

2. It is clear the summary list was an attempt by the adder to note that SOME super-cs have moved from country A to country B. This approach fits in with Wikipedia's philosophy of pluralism..present that major points of view and let the viewer decide. In other words, there are 4 super-cs in Canada (that were born in Canada), plus one born elsewhere but now lives in Canada (an immigrant) plus one born in Canada who now lives elsewhere (and emigrant). If nothing else, this helps to show how identities between nationalities are fluid. To make it clear: "indigeneous"=a person's nationality by birth; immigrant=a person's nationality after moving into a country; emigrant=a person's original nationality before leaving a country.

3. It doesn't matter if the data is only 10% or maybe its 20% (suppose the real total is 250 instead of 400, then what?). The point should be that if the data on the list is gathered in a systematic manner, then the list itself has statistical properties to it. it should also be obvious that the list is mostly missing cases "just over 110" but these can be seen in the "unvalidated" list.

4. Making something simpler is not a bad thing. Who wants to count to 32? Now, if it turns out that the table/chart is not maintained properly, then there would be a reason to discard it. But right now, the only problem seems to be that you haven't been open-minded enough.Ryoung122 11:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

100 + verified supercentenarians

I know this is jumping the gun as there are currently "only" 88 or so verified centenarians, but we might as well clarify this now. Assuming that there is a relative flood of confirmed cententarians which brings the total to over 100 in the relative close future, say the next year or so, will we be listing each and every one of them, or will we only be listing the top 100 living people? Personally, to be consistent with other pages, I say we just list the 100 oldest living. Canada Jack (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Name vandalism

This pertains to most supercentenarian pages, but I must bring it up somewhere, so this is as good as any place. Someone keeps removing names for those supercentenarians who have double first names or surnames. This can probably be defended in the cases where one KNOWS what the person is called and how the person is referred to in reality. However, many of the cases (such as Maria de la O Soria) have seen completely arbitrary removals of names. In some cases (as Maria del Carmen), the only first name has been removed, and often the wrong first name has remained. It seems that even if one knows a too long name is presented, one shouldn't remove any of it, unless it's certain what is the correct name. I (and others) have tried reverting these changes from time to time, but the vandal is persistent and keeps using different IP addresses to make the changes, and by now it has all gone out of hand.Yubiquitoyama (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually an article did call her Maria de la O. I thought it looked a bit odd, but 'de la O' seems to be a real surname, albeit short. eg. Genovevo de la O SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: her name is "Maria de la O Soria-Berbel". I don't see how her name could possibly be "de la O".Ryoung122 11:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This person has been doing this on and off for more than a year, I think mainly so that the name will "fit" in the column. They never give an edit summary. The Maria de la O seems to be the only possibly justified case. It may even be the same person who persisted in changing a date of death and removing the addendum on one page. As the ykeep changing IP blocking won't work. The only way of preveniting these changes would be to semi-protect the pages, but that might be considered excessive to avoid disruptions from a single user. DerbyCountyinNZ 19:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think we need some expert advice on what the nomenclature is in different countries. I think people should be listed as they are known. Are double-barrelled names used in regular speech/writing in The Netherlands, or Italy? (as examples)SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Frances Street claim

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903150317 Ryoung122 11:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

114-y.o. out of Nigeria?

Anybody else hear about this news story? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090321/oddities/nigeria_crime_drugs_cannabis_offbeat http://merle2.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/22/2583569-114-year-old-nigerian-arrested-over-bags-of-cannabis- I doubt he's actually 114 -- over there people over 90 often get exaggerated/blurred ages and dubbed as "mystical", "village elder", etc. Since CNN's website was reporting it I figured I'd mention it here. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OLDEST POLISH people

These lists are proven records

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najstarsi_ludzie

for more information please contact Wolfgang http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Wolfgang/brudnopis http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Wolfgang/brudnopis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.218 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather, if you want to contact me, please e-mail me at ryoung122@yahoo.com. I keep track of the world's oldest people for Guinness World Records.

Ryoung122 09:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Dosaigues of Spain

Can anyone find a report on her 111th birthday? If not then she should be removed as we can't confirm her alive within the past year. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and move this one to limbo (delete) as our Spanish correspondent has said that he cannot find new information on this case.Ryoung122 09:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Fitzgerald

http://www.pjdartefh.ca/obituaries/44359

1. 16. Margaret Fitzgerald died April 18, 2009. Due to complexity of table, I did not know how to edit or delete her entry. I could not find any other place to notify the author.

K-C. McCann Winnipeg, Manitoba —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmccann (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a different Margaret Fitzgerald, born in 1919. The Margaret Fitzgerald in this list was born in 1896.SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattie Caldwell claim to "111" publicly debunked

Greetings,

The Mattie Caldwell case has already been publicly debunked:

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/03/census_records_say_flint_towns.html

Therefore, it doesn't belong on this page...the "unverified list" is only for cases 110-112 from advanced nations that have neither been verified nor debunked. This case does not fit that defintion.Ryoung122 05:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbering the tables

Regarding the problem of numbering tables, I've asked in the "needed templates" for an autonumberable table. The user Pee Tern is almost finishing the task. Soon, we won't need to update the numbers by hand. Japf (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maiden names

Apparently someone has seen it fit to change names for some on this list. I haven't really figured out by which rationale, but could this be taken to talk. I think the changes are to the maiden names of the persons in question, in which case I think it is completely wrong and should be stifled quickly. Please explain here in talk what is really happening and why. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Guerri and Gallo are the real maiden names. They were reported by GRG members in the World's Oldest People Group. Dina Guerri married Riccardo Manfredini in 1920, Pasqualina Gallo married Nicola Franco in 1921.--Pascar (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That might be so, but it doesn't address the issue at hand. Why should their maiden names be on this list? It is not in the source, and I cannot see any particular reason why they should be here. The Italians on this list are as far as I know, listed with the name they would be listed in a phonebook where they live (at least that was what I came to understand when their names were shortened from the version listen in GRG). Whatever the practice in Italy, people in America and Canada (as Dina and Pasqualina) are usually NOT called by their maiden name, but their married name, which makes that one a more natural one to list here. I don't think any others, short of the unmarried SC:s, are listed by their maiden names (but I'm not sure of that). Yubiquitoyama (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All the other women in the list, including Americans and Canadians, are reported with their maiden names. You can verify in Table E and in W.O.P. Group. The 2 exceptions are Gallo and Guerri. Here we are in Wikipedia and we must use same criteria even if in the Table there are 2 exceptions.--Pascar (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Where have you gotten this from? Apart from the Italians and those with listed double-names, pretty much none are listed by maiden name. Most definitely not the americans, which you would know if you ever tried to find them with these names in old censuses. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I took them from http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/. Anyway all Americans and Canadians are reported with maiden names. Only one example? Gertrude Baines is daughter of Jordan Baines, and she married Sam Conly... (read Gertrude Baines). We are not in GRG now, but in Wikipedia, and here we have to use same criteria in a list, even if the source doesn't use them.--Pascar (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gertrude Baines uses her maiden name because her husband deserted her. The name we list should be the name they are know by and in some cases (but certainly not all) this is by their maiden name. Gertrude Baines is known by her maiden name. All the British supercentenarians are known by their married names (even Annie Turnbull who divorced her husband). SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All the japanese names are also married names. As for americans, a few examples could include Reeta Jones, born Green, Sylvia Utz, born Booker, and Onie Ponder, born Chazal. As Siameseturtle says, the most important thing is what name these people normally goes by. The two who started all of this certainly goes by their married names (Pasqualina Franco and Dina Manfredini). Yubiquitoyama (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If names listed are the names they are know by, it is ok. Even if I prefer this way: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenari_italiani#Lista_dei_20_emigranti_italiani_pi.C3.B9_longevi (section Lista dei 20 emigranti italiani più longevi)--Pascar (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I partly agree. That is, I think the maiden names sometimes is worth "saving", but it has turned out to make the lists a bit difficult to overview. There is also the fact that GRG doesn't have maiden names listed, and some would be difficult if not impossible to find (I think primarily about the japanese, but there might be others as well). Yubiquitoyama (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that, I know that GRG collects infos about marriage (date, age...) too, in order to certify and to validate every case.--Pascar (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, generally. But the japanese cases are mostly validated by the japanese government and their handling is quite opaque, so to learn maiden names for them is probably impossible. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

England vs United Kingdom

Right now, England is a part of the UK, not a sovereign nation. I favor listing "UK."

Also, individual sub-units are listed on the national pages, so no need for this level of detail here.Ryoung122 22:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think we should revert back to how it was (or simplified at the least). I find this page quite unyielding now with all the 'born in Russian Empire, now Poland and now living in Poland' thing. Flags are supposed to be helpful but it's not when they clutter the page, especially given all the birthplaces now have the old flags, even if they did not emigrate. Either way, Louisa Shephard was born in Wales, not England. And Guadeloupe is not a country, it's a region of France. See MOS:ICON for flag guidelines. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree about use of UK (the 4 parts are not sovereign nations) and I corrected. Just to explain about Wales' matter, before 1955 Wales doesn't exist, it was part of England when Louisa Shephard was born. About Guadaloupe it is a department of France now, but it was just a French colony in the past. I think you'd communicate a wrong info if you wrote Rosa Rein was born in Germany with the current German flag, because the current flag is for a less large country (not for the German Empire), without the region where she was born, that is part of Poland now. It is just an example. --Pascar (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wales has been a country for many many centuries and has been an integral part of the UK since it was formed. Wales became united with England about 700 years ago.SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I referred to Wales before 1955, to the period of the supercentenarian's birth.--Pascar (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that the page is now unyielding and even unappealing. And one bit of information that was useful (which state in the USA) are individuals residing is now missing. It is a rather large country and encompasses 40%+ of the list and should not have been removed. Was there consensus to these changes? And if not the table should be returned to its original manner. TFBCT1 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Germany is a Federal State too, so if you wanted to report the state of USA you should report the "Land" of a German supercentenarian too... and this criterion for all the other federal states... And, for example what would you report for the country of birth of Rosa Rein in order to be not in error? And for Venere Pizzinato and Theresia Staffler? I think this manner is more rigorous and avoids misunderstandings or mistakes.--Pascar (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with listing places of birth when people have emigrated, but they are also listed for the ~80% of cases who have not emigrated. Instead of one list we can easily scan through, we now see a smattering of flags that makes it hard to scan-read (and in violation of MOS:ICON). SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If in the column of "Country of birth" we report the countries at that time, we have to be coherent for all supercentenarians, so Louisa Shephard was born in "former" England.--Pascar (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Wales has been a constituent part of the UK since it was formed. Please stop this nonsense. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You continue to not understand. I mean Wales was just a part of England, I didn't mean Wales wasn't part of UK. Who did ever say that??? Have you understood now? --Pascar (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wales is not a part of England, it is a separate constituent country of the UK. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you DON'T WANT to understand. I know the current state of Wales but in that column countries at time of their birth are reported! So we MUST use the same criterion for Wales too. I don't understand why you continue to undo without explaining.--Pascar (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And at the time of birth Wales had the same status as it does not. It is now, and always has been a constituent country of the UK. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You could read something about Welsh History before writing or undoing: until 1955 Wales was just a part of England, in 1955 England became "England and Wales" (and Cardiff became a capital) and later Wales obtained more autonomy and now we can consider it an autonomous state of UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales#Nationalist_revival). So you are wrong. Same criterion used for Rosa Rein, born in Germany (now Poland).--Pascar (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added fact tags for phrases that your link doesn't talk about. Show me something that says that Wales was part of England while within the UK, and show me the evidence that Wales became a country in 1955. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Read here: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-great-britan-the-united-kingdom-and-england.htm (While its complex history with England has spanned many centuries, it has been officially considered separate from England since 1955.) and http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/History_of_Wales/ (Wales was officially de-annexed from England within the United Kingdom in 1955, with the term 'England' being replaced with England and Wales.). And Cardiff became capital. --Pascar (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Wales has always (well, since the 8th century or so) been in cultural terms a separate country or nation from England. However, in many administrative or legal terms it was part of the Kingdom of England after 1284, and has only been separate since - well, you could pick various dates in the 19th and 20th centuries either side of 1955 (which isn't that significant a date in its own right) - and is certainly a separate country within the nation state of the UK now. Louisa Shephard was born in Blaenavon, Monmouthshire, which is a further complication - although culturally very much part of Wales, and seen as part of Wales by its inhabitants, Monmouthshire was viewed legally by the UK government at the time of her birth as being within England, although by that time it was almost always treated in legal terms with Wales as part of 'Wales and Monmouthshire', within the UK. The interpretation of the historic status of both Wales and Monmouthshire is complex, and contentious, but I've attempted to summarise it here as neutrally as I can - if you need refs over and above what is in the WP article I can provide them. So far as this article is concerned, it simply depends on the definition being used, and I won't comment on that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Until the recent changes in the table only the "Country of Residence" was listed. NOT the state or political sub-region OR the former/new name of the country OR the place of birth (except where nationality had chnaged). Unless "Place" is used instead of "Country" then only the country should be used. If "Place" is used then it wouldn't surprise me if users start adding the city/town of residence as occurs in some other longevity-related articles. This article would then get as messy as those ones are. As Robert Young has mentioned further levels of geographic detail belong in national supercentenarian articles rather than this one. I can't imagine that too many non-Americans care overly much which state US supercentenarians live/were born in. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd report just names of Countries (former and current ones), without sub-regions or states of Federal Countries (too complex, we should report also states of USA, Swiss Cantons, German Lands...). About "former names of countries" I think it is useful, because it avoids mistakes (for example for Rosa Rein we cannot report Germany with modern German flag because modern Germany is a different entity which excludes the place where she was born, now in Poland, it'd be an error). In Table E of GRG there are some former names too (even if this criterion isn't used for other supercentenarians): Guadeloupe (FR) for Eugenie Blanchard (now the same place is Saint Barthélemy, a department of France) and Austria-Hungary for Theresia Staffler (now Italy).--Pascar (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This IS getting ridiculous. Germany today may not have the same land boundaries as the "German Empire" but everyone/anyone would recognize that the German state today is historically contiguous with the German empire.

Do we make sure that Gertrude Baines's US flag has only 44 stars on it?Ryoung122 23:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

By the same logic, Ruth Lincoln was not born in the USA as Oklahoma was not a state at that point in time. This whole charade is ridiculous. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern State of Oklahoma was formed in 1907 by union of Territory of Oklahoma (an organized incorporated territory of the United States) and Indian Territory (land set aside within the United States for the use of Native Americans). So for sure Ruth Lincoln was born in United States.--Pascar (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A territory of the USA is not the same as being part of the USA.SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a concession of autonomy, not a recognition of an independent state.--Pascar (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For many of the reasons given above the Nationalities table is also misleading/inaccurate. In fact its use, or at least some of the supposed reasons for its inclusion, are largely spurious and in effect make it unnecessary. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is inaccurate now? And what would you write for Rosa Rein to not be inaccurate? --Pascar (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For many people on the list the country they were born in is no longer the same country or political entity (eg was colony, now separate country). For this, and other reasons, totalling individuals by country is misleading. In fact I'd be interested to know if there are any other lists of superlative people or record holders which has a summary table of which countries those people are from. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

According to me this way isn't misleading, but precision, and avoids misunderstandings or mistakes. But you didn't answer about Rosa Rein's case.--Pascar (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's misleading! John Campbell Ross was born in Victoria before Australian federeation which menas he was technically British not Australian. Rosa Rein was born in Germany but where she was born is now Poland ands he is now a Swiss citizen so born in Germany and now Swiss, the fact that where she was born became Poland after she left is immaterial. In fact where anyone was born or lives now is only important for each individual trying to make up a table of where everyone was born/lives now implies a significance which is not justified. Longevity isn't some sort of nationalistic competition. DerbyCountyinNZ 02:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

About John Campbell Ross, you're right, Australia was a British dependency: in fact there is the British flag in the table. About Rosa Rein: the column isn't "Nationality" or "Citizenship" (in this case we could report Germany with the current flag), but "Country of birth", and German Empire isn't modern German. I repeat again: we cannot report Germany with modern German flag because modern Germany is a different entity which excludes the place where she was born, now in Poland, it'd be an error. It isn't a matter of nationalistic competition (in this case I'm Italian, so I could write Theresia Staffler was born in Italy, in Table E they reported Austria-Hungary), but a matter of precision, of reporting right details.--Pascar (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we appear to be at cross purposes. When I say "table" I am talking about the Nationalities table at the bottom of the page not the list(s). As for the list, I think it is unnecessary to have an extra column for Country of birth when for the majority of cases it is the same as the Country of residence. I think it is sufficient to identify those that have moved to a different country such as Rosa Rein, and perhaps where the country has changed such as Venere Pizzinato and Theresia Staffler. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Marie-Jean Faure Geors

Born Jan 31 1899, is reported to have died in late March or early April.

Ryoung122 20:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unverified List Time Limit

Greetings,

The verified list has a one-year time limit, but I think we can be a little looser with the unverified list...after all, isn't the point to track cases that "may" still be around? If/when they turn 113, they get promoted to the longevity claims page anyway, so there's a 3-year time limit. Thus I think it not a good idea to remove Ronnie Fairbanks simply because no one has located a 112th birthday story.

Ryoung122 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

About Ronnie Fairbanks, there is actually a notice of sorts. Food-on-foot who have had him visiting several times (there is one picture of him with Nicole Richie on a food-on-foot thanksgiving rally from last year or so) have had notices in their newsletter the last few years. They do so this year as well, although it seems they report May 29th rather than May 27: http://www.foodonfoot.org/images/footnotes_2009_06.pdf Yubiquitoyama (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

nice work

I like how this page looks. Npnunda --24.119.32.80 (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. The way it was before, whilst in good faith, had the aesthetic appeal of a power station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.200.128.58 (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

...whereas now it looks like an example of mathematical cubism. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for giving kama chinen an article

its about time kama chinen gets an article.(Kingcouey (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)) wtf is she always deleted cant she have an article thats not being deleted by some hair brained cunt.

WTF?

Just list the country of birth as the country stated on the person's passport/birth certificate as their country of birth. Just because some Americans may not have the intelligence to know what the Austrian-Hungarian empire or Yugoslavia is doesn't mean Wikipedia should be dumbed down. This is an encyclopedia and not a collection of simple facts for the world's most stupid people.--217.203.146.77 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And how many Europeans still have passports issued by the Austrian-Hungarian empire? Temper, temper. (Though for what it's worth, I agree they should be listed under their original country of orgin, even if the country no longer esists. I just don't see why you had to be so rude) Czolgolz (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (USA)

I'm confused as to how 'dumb american's' play into this at all. Stating nationality by current nation or nation on their birth certificate is not a black and white issue for reasons entirely separate from readers' historical knowledge or ability to reason. Take a look at WP:CIVIL when you have a moment as well. We're not here to insult other people's intelligence. We're here, or at least we're supposed to be here, to improve the quality of Wikipedia. For the record, I agree that it should be the nation they were born in, not the nation that currently contains their home town. That doesn't mean I think that everyone who thinks otherwise lacks intelligence. aremisasling (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One could make similar inferences about the intelligence of a user from Italy using a sock puppet to make an offensive posting without compromising their usual wiki user account. Be that as it may, this issue would be easily solved by removing the country of birth column entirely and adding footnotes where necessary. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Hatch is 110 or 119? Todays date: 20-06-2009

On This site, if you scroll down to the last biography near the bottom of the page, it lists that Andrew Hatch was born on 7 October 1889. And the link on the living supercentenarians for Andrew Hatch, says that he was born in 1898. Seems kind of odd. They may have made a type o on the 1889. Not sure. Thank you- User:Nick Ornstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2009

It's obviously a typo, the stories claim he was "110" in 2008.Ryoung122 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Violet Joseph

she is added in the Living national longevity recordholders and a news papere reading is also avilable http://www.thedominican.net/articles/newsdesk30.htm shall she be added into the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puthussery (talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, she does not meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can we have a "Recently Deceased" table, similar to the one on the Members of the House of Lords page. I find it annoying looking through the history to see who has been removed from the table as MOST of the entries that are removed are done so without the editor stating what changes they've made to the page. It would just make it far easier to keep track and save a lot of time for editors checking to see why entries have been removed. Also, it allows us a place to put the sources. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point. No-one can be added without a citation that they've have actually reached 110. It is certainly annoying when there is no reason given for removal, but I have no qualms about reverting any such edit until there is confirmation (given there are some persistently disruptive editors on the longevity pages it's better safe than sorry!). DerbyCountyinNZ 03:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point would be so I could stop trying to figure out why 'Aki Onozaki' was removed from table. There is no edit history, no updating, and does not coincide with GRG, or List of Japanese supercentenarians. I think it's an excellent idea. TFBCT1 (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is no evidence that someone has died then simply revert until there is. No-one should have to waste time chasing verification of an unsourced edit. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

But the edit will just be done again and again till someone actually does chase after the verification. It has happened before and it will happen again, especially with the IP-users who constantly mar these pages. That notwithstanding, I'm a bit hesitant to add a "recently deceased"-list since I don't think it really belongs on the page... Yubiquitoyama (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cora Hansen

Was she really born in Norway? The ref says that "she is from a family that immigrated to Canada from Norway", but it doesn't say she was herself born in Norway. In fact, "Cora", being about as far from a norwegian name that is possible, is simply not a name any Norwegians would call their daughter unless they did it to emulate their surroundings somehow. I suspect she was born to Norwegian parents, but not until after they had already come to Canada. Or does anyone know for sure she was born in Norway? Yubiquitoyama (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unverified person has been verified

Maria Pogonowska (DOB 10-30-1897) has been verified by Mr. Robert Young of the Gerontology Research Group. How do I go about having her moved to the verified list?

Liam Kelly liammkelly@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liammkelly (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read any such thing, but were it true, you woould simply edit the page by removing her from her place in the unvalidated area and adding her to the validated area. However, since the ref in question would be www.grg.org and that page has yet to acknowledge Maria Pogonowska, it would be incorrect to do so at this time. Yubiquitoyama

(talk) 14:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Some names to watch out for

IMPORTANT: Please do not add any of these to the main list without a citation of them turning 110.
Name	Birth	Sex	Age	Country of residence
Hazel Guinter	5 October 1899	F	124 years, 229 days	United States
Maria Benedetti	9 October 1899	F	124 years, 225 days	Italy
Evelyn Ralston	17 October 1899	F	124 years, 217 days	United States
Agnes Wetzel	18 October 1899	F	124 years, 216 days	United States
Jeanne Gagnard	29 October 1899	F	124 years, 205 days	France
Katarina Marinič	30 October 1899	F	124 years, 204 days	Slovenia
Nettie Whittington	31 October 1899	F	124 years, 203 days	United States
Madeleine Savoie	1 November 1899	F	124 years, 202 days	Canada
Gladys Horney	7 November 1899	F	124 years, 196 days	United States
Ingeborg Johanna Mestad	15 November 1899	F	124 years, 188 days	Norway
Adelheid Wehrle-Rieger	19 November 1899	F	124 years, 184 days	Switzerland
Catherine Carter	22 November 1899	F	124 years, 181 days	United States
Catherine Masters	23 November 1899	F	124 years, 180 days	United Kingdom
Carmela Mileo[4]	27 November 1899	F	124 years, 176 days	Italy
Emma Morano[5]	29 November 1899	F	124 years, 174 days	Italy
Takeno Fujita	1 December 1899	F	124 years, 172 days	Japan
Gail Stites	6 December 1899	F	124 years, 167 days	United States
Clara Schönholzer	8 December 1899	F	124 years, 165 days	Germany
Adrienne Ledent	13 December 1899	F	124 years, 160 days	Belgium
Frieda Schmidt	15 December 1899	F	124 years, 158 days	Germany
Mary McDonald	29 December 1899	F	124 years, 144 days	United Kingdom
Lady Mona Agnew	29 December 1899	F	124 years, 144 days	United Kingdom
Ellen Watson	1 January 1900	F	124 years, 141 days	United Kingdom
Eddye Williams	4 January 1900	F	124 years, 138 days	United States
Genovefa Grustāne	5 January 1900	F	124 years, 138 days	Latvia
Maria Antonia Lopez	14 January 1900	F	124 years, 128 days	Mexico United States
Stanley Lucas	15 January 1900	M	124 years, 127 days	United Kingdom
Aimée Rensonnet	18 January 1900	F	124 years, 124 days	Belgium
Giuseppina Deidda	25 January 1900	F	124 years, 117 days	Italy
Isabella Brown	29 January 1900	F	124 years, 113 days	United Kingdom
Rose Harris	29 January 1900	F	124 years, 113 days	United States
Carrie Pattison	30 January 1900	F	124 years, 112 days	Canada
Józef Kowalski	2 February 1900	M	124 years, 109 days	Poland
Berta Zeisler	2 February 1900	F	124 years, 109 days	Germany
Merle Opperman	3 February 1900	F	124 years, 108 days	United States
Caroline Dott	5 Feburary 1900	F	124 years, 106 days	France
Domenica Di Tomasso	11 February 1900	F	124 years, 100 days	Italy
Anna Ferris	11 February 1900	F	124 years, 100 days	United States
Tanekichi Oonishi	15 February 1900	M	124 years, 96 days	Japan
Manuela Fernandez Lopez	20 February 1900	F	124 years, 91 days	Spain
James Sisnett	22 February 1900	M	124 years, 89 days	Barbados
Ramona Francis	28 February 1900	F	124 years, 83 days	Dominican Republic United States
Maria Gravigi	3 March 1900	F	124 years, 79 days	Italy
Kosara Momirović	6 March 1900	F	124 years, 76 days	Serbia
Mersene Zohos	14 March 1900	F	124 years, 68 days	Greece United States
Violet Moss-Brown	15 March 1900	F	124 years, 67 days	Jamaica
Shike Sato	16 March 1900	F	124 years, 66 days	Japan
Patricia Gonzalez	17 March 1900	F	124 years, 65 days	Paraguay
Leona Gleed	28 March 1900	F	124 years, 54 days	United States
Maria Eriksson	28 March 1900	F	124 years, 54 days	Sweden
Carmen Vasquez Lopez	29 March 1900	F	124 years, 53 days	Spain

SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this list becoming a little too OR? DerbyCountyinNZ 11:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Derby, I added those people born in 1900 on this list, I figured tat they go to the list, since the others are all 109. I have found these people off of wikipedia. Im not just throwing it on there, it's not like its titled, Last people born in the 1800s, or 19th century. You really think that Im a nooby? Please guess again. :P XD :) :D Signed- User NickOrnstein

Which is exactly what Original research is! So on this talk page for persons at least claimed to be 110+, we have a list of people who are not 110, only 3 of whom have citations and the only one to have a wikilink is not eligible for the list anyway. While this table may be of some use my concern is whether it belongs on this talk page rather than somewhere else (a user's page perhaps). DerbyCountyinNZ 23:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What if im successful to find links, and they turn 110? If they turn 113, am i eligible to add them to the longevity claims list, IF I add a reference?

You're missing the point! Namely whether it is appropriate to list people on this talk page who are not yet 110 when this article deals with people who are aged 110 or more. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's on-topic and contributes to future value added to the article. If it were only tangentially related or not useful to the article itself, that would be a different story. So long as this is a tool for developing the article, and no entries go into the article un-cited, I find it hard to argue for it's removal. aremisasling (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's appropriate to make people aware of people approaching 110 so articles can be found to add them to the main page, though I think this list should be trimmed to within at most 6 months from turning 110. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but this is a disussion article, it doesn't need refernces at the moment. We jot them down so we don't forget to add individuals at 109 to the list. Eventually when they are near the top or so, y not just add their reference. Those people that I spent time putting them on there didnt have to be deleted. In a year they are all going to be delted, I mean, does it really have to be deleted? Its not like this is an article page. Signed User:NickOrnstein

I didn't actually delete them, I put them between tags that hides it so it doesn't get put into the table. The information is still on the page, they just need to be moved out of it when they're old enough. We can't have too many people listed because it will become difficult to manage. For the purpose of this table, only people close to 110 need to be listed. Obviously we need to get the balance right between allowing enough time to find cases and keeping the list short so it can be managed. So far practically all these people are European. If Americans were added (which they should), then the list would more than double in size. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Due to the persistent disruptive of someone using multiple IPs it is clearly time this page was semi-protected. What is the procedure for this? DerbyCountyinNZ 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for a period of one week. If it starts up again after that, leave a message on my talk page and I'll extend the protection. Cheers, CP 21:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected for another two weeks for the same vandalism. Cheers, CP 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hanna Ragel

Hanna Ragel from Molodechno, Belarus is 120 years old now. 1 (text in Belarusian), 2 --Zlobny (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You could add her to Longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Spyros Theodoridis, AGED 120

This man was born in Pontus, Greece. But, he died in December of 2008. His kids claim that he is 117 years of age, and Spyros supports that he is 120 years old. The link gives a video about him, as well as a description below the video.[6] I believe that this man should be added on the longevity claims page, on the table titled: Past Claims Signed: User:NickOrnstein

As he is dead there is no point discussing him on a page about living people! List of the oldest verified people would be more appropriate. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but Spyros hasnt been verified by the grg. Are there already people on the List of the verified oldest people that have not been verified by the grg, i mean the page is the "verified" oldest lol, not oldest people. I personally believe that he should go on longevity claims. by the way if you didnt know, i said for spyros to go on the longevity claims page, not on the page of people that are living, but the "PAST CLAIMS". The Past Claims displays supercentenarians who have deceased. Signed: User:NickOrnstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert changes to country columns?

Wikipedia is supposed to be clear and the recent changes just confound everything. Wikipedia specifically makes it clear to not make country names and flags confusing. For example, when talking about an Irish citizen who was born under UK rule, they advise not using either flag. I believe it was far clearer with just one column which pointed out the place of birth if they had emigrated. Therefore I support reverting these recent edits. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that it should go back to just country of birth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.35.142 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is now something of an edit war going on over this. I also advocate going back to a single column (with notes for those who have moved but not necessarily for those whose country has changed due to border changes etc). Can we try and get some sort of consensus by the end of the month? DerbyCountyinNZ 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I added this phrase "Countries of birth are reported in current borders for simplicity." Is it ok for you? Someone reported Rosa Rein was born in modern Germany (with modern flag), but it is an error, because Silesia in now in Poland. Modern Germany isn't German Empire. Venere Pizzinato, Theresia Staffler and Fannie Buten were born in Austrian-Hungarian Empire, in regions now part of Italy and Austria.--Pascar (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, if you report German Empire (instead of Poland) for Rosa Rein you have to report Austria-Hungary for Venere Pizzinato, Theresia Staffler and Fannie Buten (instead of Italy and Austria), and Russian Empire too (instead of Poland or Uktaine), you have to use same criterion in same table. Why do you want to consider the ancestries? So Venere Pizzinato, Theresia Staffler and Fannie Buten were of Austrian-Hungarian ancestries... "Country of birth" doesn't mean "nationality". But there is the phrase "Countries of birth are reported in current borders for simplicity.", so all countries of birth are the current ones, so Rosa Rein was born in current Poland, wasn't she? "German Empire" contradicts this phrase, so I must correct. Poland is ok, why do you change only that? Don't change again.--Pascar (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To use modern borders of place of birth is a big mistake - why do you want to do that to thios people? A lot of german people were born in today Poland and a lot of polish people in today Ukraine... Btw.: "Kogress Polen" was a part of the Russian Empire, that's right, but as a own part, sp to right "Poland" is that big problem. And I think also that we should right "Austria" for persons born in the austrian part of Austria-hungary. The grg - for which I validated together with a other person Rosa Rein, lists corrctly Rosa Rein as born in Germany and Franziska Maier as born in Austria - she was born in Bohemia, today Czechia. To please stop "Countries of birth are reported in current borders for simplicity." - that historicaly incorecct and nonsense - I tell you that as a historician.
Is it correct that only "Pascar" want this modern borders?
Isn't it the beast solution it we give the historicial correct nation and but the changes of border in the footnote?
--Statistician (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The best solution is to list the country they currently reside in (ie one column only) and have a note if that location was in a different country when they were born, or if they were born in a different country and have moved. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that that is the best solution? It's no problem to find the original country out... To list the actuel country shows a lack a education and sensitivity for historical incidents...

No, Statistician, you're wrong. The problem is another. According to me we must use the same criterion in the same table, so all current countries or all past countries. Not all current countries except for Rosa Rein, because you are German and you cannot read Poland instead of Germany. Sincerely I prefer the past countries, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we should give exact and precise informations (details in an encyclopedia are never too many). And some weeks ago I reported all past countries in the table, but some of you didn't like them, I don't know why. If you prefer to simplify, to cut infos (i.e. to report current countries), well, let's simplify, but I repeat we must use the same criterion in the same table.--Pascar (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not because I'm german. I want the same criteria for all people in the list - and the historical right on. I'm after the "Rosa Rein"- case because I helped validating this case and often saw that some used different criteria for her and that isn't OK. I also don't understand what my lack of the polish laguage has to do with that. I know some people from poland and also had the help of german friend who can speak polish. I also was two time sin poland and had a lot of contacts with polish archives.
Elisabeth Stefan - for example - always was listed born in hungary but her place of birth is in today romania. Until now nobody posted a good reason we should use the historical wrong terms...
So still: What speaks against using the correct places of birth in the historical right context with footnotes for the today countires? Can that be a concensus? This would mean this changes:
-Venere Pizzinato: Austria instead of Italy
-Rosa Rein: Germany instead of Poland
-Theresia Staffler: Austria instead of Italy
-We also must talk about Maria Pogonowska - read the articel Congress Poland to judge what we schould write.
Did I forgot one from the validated list? I would look for the right places of the unvalidated cases if this is a consensus.
--Statistician (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the historical context of birth. Some week ago I reported all past countries, but some people didn't like them. However Austria-Hungary is more correct than Austria (that was just a part of a country). --Pascar (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Listing countries as they were back then may be more historically accurate, but it is also confusing. For example, it would look like Pizzinato emigrated from Austria-Hungary, when all that happened was a boundary change. The unverified list became cluttered with cases from the Ukraine and Poland, then part of the Russian Empire. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with this format (notes can be modified)?

Rank	Name	Sex	Birth	Age as of 21 May	Country of residence
3	Mary Josephine Ray	F	17 May 1895	129 years, 4 days	United States
19	Venere Pizzinato	F	23 November 1896	127 years, 180 days	Italy
20	Rosa Rein	F	24 March 1897	127 years, 58 days	Switzerland
24	Dina Manfredini	F	4 April 1897	127 years, 47 days	United States
36	Maria Pogonowska	F	30 October 1897	126 years, 204 days	Israel
61	Theresia Staffler	F	15 November 1898	125 years, 188 days	Italy
63	Pasqualina Franco	F	2 December 1898	125 years, 171 days	Canada

No information has been left out. There is no need for people to play around with the flags of current/former countries. The table is tidier and clearer.DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that. However what I dislike about footnotes is that you cannot actually see them when looking at the table. When I added similar footnotes to Rein, Pizzinato and Staffler I added them so that they were attached to the bottom of the table (for an example see Monarchies in Europe). SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that using footnotes that appear at the bottom of each list would be better than references which appear at the bottom of the page. A sentence pointing out that changes of country are noted could be added at the beginning for additional clarity. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. I think that if we must revert to just one column we should list the country of birth column rather than the country of residence column. I know that the GRG bases nationality records on a persons place of birth and not current residence and I think wikipedia should do the same. Personally, I believe both columns should be kept and the changes suggested above by Statistician above should be implimented.Tim198 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea, too. It looks like we have a consensus, right? Who change it?
Oh, I forgot one point: We have the emigration-imigration-table on the page. What should we do about that? To look at "Rosa Rein" again: She never had a polish passport... when she fled it was still germany.
--Statistician (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in favour of getting rid of the Nationalities table entirely. It is unnecessary and inaccurate. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this new layout.Japf (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I like it the way it is now, except I think that Rosa Rein should be listed as born in Germany, with a German flag (and just add a footnote that where she was born is now in Poland). Theresia was born in Austria; the area was given to Italy in a punitive treaty after WWII. This is a bit different than the Venere case, where she was born ethnically Italian, even though northern Italy was then part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. In any case, I think it would be best to list the place of birth as it was then, and make a note about where it is now...Ryoung122 03:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment #2. Despite people wanting "consistency," I think I agree with Benedict Anderson that communities are "imagined." That said, if someone was born in the Ukraine, then the Russian Empire, and migrated to Canada, they called themselves "Ukrainians" not Russians. Rosa Rein spoke German, not Polish. But the Swiss are a collection of Germans, French, and Italians. And in India, there was an idea of multiple overlapping sovereignties. In the United States, Indian 'nations' are in some ways considered not a part of the U.S. (they don't have to pay taxes, can gamble, etc.) For the GRG, I tried to come up with a pragmatic approach to Europe. Venere Pizzinato-Papo is an Italian name, and the part of the "Austrian Empire" she was born in, was Italian. Theresia Breitenberger was born in Austria proper, which only after WWII was ceded to Italy, but still has a large "Austrian" population.

Also, there are other issues. Marcel Narbonne was born in Algeria...which was "part of France" according to the French, from 1890 to 1962. But for geography's sake, no one really buys that argument today. Therefore, I call it "Algeria (FR)" which means it was Algeria, but not sovereign at the time. Then there's India...sigh!Ryoung122 03:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't consider the ancestry, or the language, but the "country of birth". Anyway if you report Germany with modern flag you mean modern Germany that doesn't include Silesia were Rosa Rein was born. So It is more correct if you report Poland with a note. If not, it is an error: Rosa Rein wasn't born inside of borders of modern Germany. And "country of birth" doesn't mean nationality but "country were the person was born". For Nationalities there is a table below. In an encyclopaedia we must be rigorous with terms (country of birth, nationality, ancestry) and symbols (flags).--Pascar (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So why we must add her as modern Germany? Can't we use the German Empire Flag? Can somebody give a reason for the mondern bounderies given for the place of birth?

It'd be ok for me, but this criterion for all the supercentenarians in the table, not only for Rosa Rein.--Pascar (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will do that. What should we change, too? -
I think we should make a vote about changing the table in the new form. I vote for it, so 1 - 0.
--Statistician (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I vote for the table as shown above. 2-0. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• i vote for the new table as well. 3-0 Signed- User:NickOrnstein

Three votes for it, none against - so we should wait until next week an change the table if the result don'z go in a other way - one month is enough for the vote.--Statistician (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)