Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 6

Missing Supercentenarians

These supercentenarians either used to be on the page, or never. Please put these indivduals atleat in the unverified list! Thank, Signed User:NickOrnstein

Unverified

Rank	Name	Sex	Birth	Age as of 21 May	Country of residence	Last known update
2	Elba Armas	F	26 June 1897	126 years, 330 days	Nicaragua	4 April 2009
3	Marianna Ostrowska	F	5 August 1897	126 years, 290 days	Poland	3 December 2008
4	Elena Bordeian	F	13 April 1898	126 years, 38 days	Moldova	11 April 2008
5	Florence Baker	F	19 November 1898	125 years, 184 days	Saint Kitts and Nevis	11 April 2008
6	Violet Joseph	F	28 January 1899	125 years, 114 days	Dominica	28 January 2009
7	Aksēnija Mitušova	F	10 February 1899	125 years, 101 days	Latvia	2 March 2009
8	Lu Pan Zhen	F	31 March 1899	125 years, 51 days	China	2007

Exaggerated

Rank	Name	Sex	Birth	Age as of 21 May	Country of residence	Last known update
1	Sudhakar Chaturvedi	M	20 April 1897	127 years, 31 days	India	28 June 2009
2	Saro Dursun	F	1 June 1899	124 years, 355 days	Sweden	20 February 2009

References

Nr 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 does not come from "high income economy" as defined by the World Bank. Nr 4 was confirmed not 112 by the grg. Nr 9 does not have a reference and is in reality probably dead abroad since long. So none of these people fits the criteria for this page. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the "high income economy" argument it good when we are in the section under 113 years. We had claims on the list from poland, for example; we also have persons from countries like poland on the list because they are emigrated cases (the personsn from Ukraine) so I think we can put the not-emigrated cases on the list, too - I don't see what an emigrat makes better then a person how didn't emigrated. The age of Ruby Mohammed is clearly exaggerated, Nr. 9 named also, so we sould list on the page Nr 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8.
--Statistician (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) One point more: Katerina Heyman will be 113 years next month - so she would be soon a case for the "Claim"-page, so I didn't added her. I also didn't added the indian case because we have a lot of highly exaggerated cases from india. --Statistician (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make an argument, I told why they shouldn't be added, as of now. There was a long and avid discussion here which lead to the current "high income economy"-criteria. That is simply a seperate debate, which in that case will have to be reopened and taken to consensus. As of now though, the high-income-economy criteria is here. I personally agree that it is dubious to have emigrants listed, again, that is also a seperate debate. We only had claims from Poland because those adding them did not adhere to the current standard. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If the "high income economy" counts, why there are listed Teresa Hsu Chih (born in China, living in Singapore), Juanita Alejandro (born in Mexico), Alwine Werner (born in today Ukraine), Fannie Buten (born in the austrian part of Austria-Hungary) Elizabeth Buhler (born in today Ukraine), Pearl Lutzko (born in today Ukraine) and Apolonia Malate (born in Philippines)?
--87.165.238.213 (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Because right now it is the living countries and not the birth countries that decide. I personally agree that is a bit illogical, but it is current standard nonetheless. Again, this might of course be a talk page issue. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

From decided this criteria? For example: Alwine Werner came with the claimed age of 89 to germany... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.220.238 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, this should be by "country of birth" NOT "country of residence"...however, Austria IS a high income country, so the Fannie Buten issue does not apply here.

Personally, here is the flattest/fairest system: include ANYONE from ANY country, around the world, IF there is:

A. a claimed date of birth (inc. birth year and month)

B. a claim to age 110-112

C. the claim has not been publicly refuted

Claims 113+ are already on the "longevity claims" page, so need for duplication.76.105.99.176 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop editing Rosa Reins country of birth

It keeps going back and forth. One day shes born in Poland, and the other she was born in Germany, ENOUGH!!!!! Signed User:NickOrnstein

This would easily be solved if the country of birth column was removed (and replaced by footnotes). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Maria Pruner-Pogonowska (Israel) now dead

Unfortunately, this brilliant woman passed away. Can anyone who has editing access delete her from the list? Source: http://sf.tapuz.co.il/forum-941--.htm Eli Bar-Yahalom, Haifa, Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.36.250 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there are lots of people that can't speak hebrew, I asked for help to make sure of it. The answer is here. Japf (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

After all there is still some doubt about Dr. Pogonowaska's death. Below is a reproduction of my effort for solving this question:

Hello Mo-Al

I am a contributor in the List of living supercentenarians article. It happens that someone found this report [1], where it seems a kind of tribute to Maria Pogonowska the oldest israelian person. None of the regular editors of this article speaks hebrew, so we don't know if this is a death report or not. I don't want a full translation of the text, I only need to know if Maria Pogonowska is dead or alive. Best regardsJapf (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've realized that there are many news on that page. The important one refers Pogonowska's birth year 1897. So look for the number 1897.Japf (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That link seems to be the forum dedicated to Polish culture on www.tapuz.co.il, accessible in an easier-to-navigate form here. Assuming the Pogonowska is the same one referred to here as "Doctor Maria Pruner Pogonowska (and which says she was born in Warsaw in 1897), she died at the age of 112. Mo-Al (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your precious help. Japf (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Japf (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You could have just copied the text, and then paste it on google translator, its not that hard. Another person isnt required for that, LOL! But, great job anyway for translating it. Signed- User:NickOrnstein

That's exactly what I have done, but didn't work. Try to be 100% sure about the meaning of the following sentence, which is the automatic translation of the first sentence of the report.

"Dr. Maria Fronr - gone Fogonovska world is 112 years of age (born in Warsaw, 1897)."

The rest of the text is only the history of her life, so it could be a kind of commemoration of her 112th birthday.Japf (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some news tend to round up ages. Based on her birthdate of Oct 30 1897, she was 111 when she died July 15, 2009.Ryoung122 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Hsu Chih

there has been no report on her 112th birthday but no report on her dying either, do you think maybe she should be considered a limbo case since there were no updates on her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.134.148 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mariam Amash

Should probably be mentioned here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam_Amash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.15.132 (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No. This article is for "verified supercentenarians" or "unverified living claimed supercentenarians under the age of 113, who have been recognized by international media from a World Bank high income economy country". Mariam Amash is neither. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Doris Nash

There has been absolutely no report on Doris Nashs death; not even a news report. Whoever took her off should have added her on the recent deaths page, under the people that deceased on the page List of British supercentenarians. The big cheese (GRG) hasn't even tooken her off of their main list of living supercentenarians. She should be back on the list until otherwise. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The GRG hasn't been updated because Steve Coles is away 2. Her death was reported on WOP, but not in a news report (like Bea Riley). That doesn't mean she's still alive. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep a civil tone

I understand everyone's frustration with edits from people who don't understand the purpose or parameters this page operates under. But I've noted a very angry tone of late in both edit summaries and the talk page over any changes that don't meet the description. It is definitely important that things be kept in order. It is also important that we keep the discourse relatively civil, even if the erroneous edits are gross vandalism, which most of them aren't. I'm not trying to be the niceness police here, just trying to simmer the tension before it boils over. aremisasling (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Koto Uemura

Any reference reported on her death please? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any (reasonably findable) online at least (in any language), so whoever keeps removing her must have read it in Japanese papers or some such. More likely it's speculation or vandalism. In any case, we'll know within a month when Japan starts to give reports on their oldest.Yubiquitoyama (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yuuki Sawa

There is a Japanese man named Yuuki Sawa who was born 17 April 1899. shouldn't he be in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.167.98 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be very delighted if you found a confirmation that he is still alive. I expect one come early September, but as of now I know of nothing since September of last year. I do hope he made it to 110 though. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, hes dead. 74.226.167.116 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Kama Chinen

what does it take for her to have an article,shes 114, shes Japan's oldest woman.Kingcouey (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some information. She's basically anonymous, so there are no references to use. It is conceivable she will be presented in the official publication on the oldest in Japan that will be released around September 15, which possibly could give some information to use. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope your right, i hope someday we do get information about her.Kingcouey (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gertrude Baines died so now we should get information on Kama Chinen.She has an article now.65.0.53.6 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary Kincheon Edwards, Age 127, photographed during the WPA

198.209.203.229 (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Please note the following website http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mesnbib:@field(NUMBER+@band(mesnp+162015)) regarding a former slave, Mary Kincheon Edwards, Age 127, who was photographed during the WPA.

198.209.203.229 (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only is she NOT living, the age claim isn't verified, either...just reported. Take this to longevity claims.Ryoung122 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unverified living supercentenarians - again

The agreed criteria for inclusion on this list has been:

"The following table presents a list of unverified living claimed supercentenarians under the age of 113, but have been recognized by international media from a World Bank high income economy, and who are awaiting validation or debunking."

It would help if everybody actually took some notice of this. If people disagree with the criteria then it should be brought to the talk page first, not just ignored. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Derby, did you notice that someone actually changed the "criteria" first. —This is part of a comment by Ryoung122 , which was interrupted by the following: Yes, obviously. It was changed without discussion let alone consensus. That's not the way wikipedia works. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that we should drop the "high-income economy" nonsense. The main point of this list is to have a list of claims of persons who recently turned 110 and are awaiting validation or debunking--in other words, cases that appear to have a chance at validation. After three years, if a case is neither accepted as validated or refuted, then at 113 it goes to "longevity claims." I see no need whatsoever to have criteria such as "high income economy." Someone like Saro Dursun comes from a nation (Turkey) with unreliable records...just because she now lives in Sweden doesn't make it reliable. However, it IS an "unverified" list...and after three years, if still living she would be moved on to the longevity claims page. In short, we have tried many different ways, and they all have issues. Having a simple age cutoff treats everyone equally.

Therefore, I'm proposing that the unverified list include:

1. All unverified claims to age 110-112 that have a citation within the past two years, and have not been publicly debunked/refuted.

2. At least a claimed year, month, and date of birth.

Those two rules are all it takes to have a fair system that treats everyone equally.

Note that most outlandish claims start at far higher ages: for example, Uzbekistan put out the claim that Tuti Yusupova was born July 1, 1880 in early 2009. So, having claims 113+ on the longevity claims page takes care of that.

The real point here is that there are two kinds of unverified cases: those where the records exist, but have not yet been collected; and those where the records do not exist. In most cases (over 90%) the GRG or other entity manages to get the records within 3 years. And of the remaining times, very very rarely is a case over 113 found that is then verified (Maria Capovilla, Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan are exceptions). In those instances, it is far easier to move those rare exceptions from the longevity claims to the validated pages.

Now, let's be honest: a claim such as Elena Bordeian is unlikely to be validated. On the other hand, the age claim is not extreme and we've had her being "109" in the press, then 110, then 111. So it's a little more likely the claim 'may' be true and if it gets outlandish (113+) then it gets moved to the grey-zone (longevity claims).Ryoung122 08:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted edits made to the unverified list, and the criteria for inclusion, that were made without consensus. If people want it changed they should achieve consensus first. Personally I feel the high economy country criteria will keep out the majority of unlikely and unverifiable cases. I also think that the criteria should be based on country of birth not country of residence as it is reasonable to expect that a country which is not high economy now would not have had reliable birth/census records 110+ years ago. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'll give you an example why that doesn't work. Julia Dougherty was born in Peru in 1893 (not a high-income country) but was born to a Swiss family. They moved to New York in 1899 and were recorded in the 1900 census. Therefore, her age claim to 110 in 2003 was able to be validated.

Here's another example: Lucy D'Abreu was born in India in 1892...a "low-income" country. However, being from a family of doctors and distantly related to the royal family of England, there were records available to validate her age. She moved to Ireland and later to Scotland, dying at age 113 in 2005. So, while true that recordkeeping is more likely among the higher class, in some "third-world" nations there IS a higher class. Maria Capovilla of Ecuador is another example: her father was a colonel in the military, and there were records for her.

So, my proposal is simple: anyone with a cited news claim to 110-112, within the past two years, that has not been verified or debunked, should be included in the "unverified" list. I don't care if some man in India is included. The main point is to give the reader some idea of what else is out there; they can form their own judgments.Ryoung122 09:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement of course. That criteria was put in place specifically because the "unverified" list was becoming a place for people to subjectively decided who was and who wasn't a "real" supercentenarian, so precise guidelines were put in place as a compromise. Sadly, the problem has been creeping back in slowly. I notice that Ruby Muhammad is missing... was there ever a reliable source published discrediting her claim? If not, she should be put back on the list. Cheers, CP 22:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the following citation from Listing of Incomplete, Exaggerated, or Fraudulent Cases:

"However, research by the GRG strongly indicates that she is not the age claimed, but a decade younger! In June 2007, GRG Researcher Filipe Prista Lucas identified her in the US Census for 1910 as being age three, contrary to the story cited below. Therefore, Ruby would only be 102, not 112. Subsequent research by others in 2008 has corroborated the initial findings. Ruby's Mother was born in 1889, and would have given birth at eight years old if Ruby were born in 1897. This strongly indicates that 1907, not 1897, is the correct year of birth."

So, Ruby Mohammad's claim shouldn't be in the list because it was proved that she is lying.Remeber that "unverified" doesn't mean "false".Japf (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Robert's proposal. I believe the current system does more harm than good: it doesn't exclude many exaggerated claims because they will tend to be higher than 113. What it does do is exclude unverified supercentenarians who are probably genuine, such as the Polish claimants and Ida Stewart, for whom documents of her parents' marriage and her birth have been located. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Eva Ellison

The list is missing this case:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10635105/COMMUNITY-NEWS-Community.html

BRIDGETON Woman celebrates 110th birthday - Eva Ellison, a resident of the Mark Twain Manor nursing home in Bridgeton since 2005, recently celebrated her 110th birthday at a party attended by family and friends. Ellison was born April 8, 1899. Her sister and brother were 99 and 100, respectively, when they died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.65.125.124 (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New supercentenarian

I was looking on the Social Security Death Index page until I come across Foo Chiem C Chih Teng. Her Security Number 572-19-1143. It says that he/she was born 21 August 1888 and died on 8 October 1998, aged 110. Would she belong on a supercentenarian related list of any sort?--Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh puh-leeze. The SSDI is not proof that someone made it to 110. It's not even a claim that someone made 110. We've had cases where the person died in 1971 and the death wasn't reported until 1998. We've had typos, where someone died at 21 and became "121." Also, based on the name, this person was probably from China, where records usually don't exist. Finally, this article is a list of "living" supercentenarians...someone with a death date is not living.76.17.118.157 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

October 21 2009 2 updates that I would like to make but I'm too lazy.

1. Our oldest Canadian Margaret Fitzgerald has died. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jPI7pwVooh8RmltaDnxOQ49-MjXg Can someone update this list.

2. While travelling in the US last week, I happened to have the Today Show on in the hotel room. As usual they had Willard Scott doing his "Smucker's" segment where they mentioned a 110 year old's birthday. Unfortunately I didn't have a pen handy so all I know was here name was "Jewell" (2 l's). Not exactly encyclopedic and/or verified, but I thought I would mention it. I can't find any other reference to her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Peebles (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Standard for unverified list

This has been discussed repeatedly, most recently here, and the consensus has been to use high income economy countries as the standard. This list was (if I recall correctly) about 32 countries when first used here but now numbers 67 countries. Some users have argued above that no criteria for inclusion is necessary and any claim should be allowed. So:

1. Should there be a criteria for the inclusion of unverified supercentenarians?
2. If so, should the criteria be that they reside in a high income economy country?

I think that there should most certainly be some sort of criteria otherwise the unverified list will end up containing too many claims which never get verified (and were never likely to be). That there have been occasional verified supercentenarians from non-HIE countries does not justify removing any minimum requirement, for one thing this devalues the legitimate claims. And in any case exceptions could be made for any non-HIE claimants included on the GRG Validation Pending list. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is: calculate the ratio (validated claims)/(total claims) and exclude the ones where the ratio is smaller than a threshold number a and total claims is larger that a minimum number b. Lets give an example: Portugal (my own country) has a ratio of 0.75, I think its resonable to agree that the claims are likely true and probable. For other countries, like Russia or China the ratio is zero (at least I think it is), since it is very difficult to prove a high longevity in these countries. The minimum number b serves to guarantee a minimum sample to know the behaviour of each country regarding false or unproven claims, i.e., we shouldn't exclude the first claim of a specific country, since we don't know the age claiming history of that country.Japf (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See the section above. Most people agree that people shouldn't be excluded because of the country they live in. clearly there ARE people from countries that are not high economy countries. The system is flawed and it is excluding cases that are very likely to be true. Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether a case is true or not - it is a place to show all claims and leave it up to the user to decide. The problem with Japf's suggestion is that it's completely arbitrary as to what number we assign to certain countries. Even within countries it is not necessarily relevant - Ida Stewart's birth record has been located, but other Jamaican claims may well be extreme (but excluded by the 113 cut-off date). Once again I repeat: Wikipedia should not refrain from listing supercentenarian claims just because the GRG lacks the correspondents to validate those claims. Table EE of the GRG has only been updated once since its existence. The consensus above is that the high income economy list is not working properly - it excludes people who are likely to be true supercentenarians based on their country of residence which is complete wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial resource and the 'high income economy' idea does not agree with that, and neither does it tie in with the idea that all supercentenarians are from high income economy countries. I have made a bold edit, which was within consensus (see discussion above), so therefore I am reverting recent edits to the page. SiameseTurtle (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted (again) as there is still NO consensus.

1. "Most people agree that people shouldn't be excluded because of the country they live in."? As far as I can see in the previous discussion only you and RobertYoung think that, CanadianPaul and I disagree and Japf did not give a clear indication of a preference. There is no "most" there, there isn't even a bare majority.
2. "clearly there ARE people from countries that are not high economy countries." Of course there are people from non-HIE countries. Occasionally some will be claimed to be supercentenarians. And when was the last time one was actually confirmed? And out of how many claimants was that? Even more importantly when was the last time one was confirmed without making it to the pending GRG list? (I have suggested that being on the pending GRG list would override not being from a HIE).
3. "Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial resource and the 'high income economy' idea does not agree with that, and neither does it tie in with the idea that all supercentenarians are from high income economy countries." If we are going to start quoting wiki policy what about WP:PROVEIT? This article is for living supercentenarians and persons who are not verified are only claimants and therefore not actual supercentenarians. Why even bother having a list of unverified claimants? After all if they are not proven to be supercentenarians then they never belonged in the article in the first place. Perhaps have a separate article List of unverified supercentenarians. And just in case a List of unverified not quite supercentenarians as people seem to be using this talk page for such an article! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When was the last one from non-HIE? Well in the recent past we've had Maria Capovilla and Daniel Guzman-Garcia. Using the pending list is not a solution - it has never been updated since its creation. Your notion that someone becomes a supercentenarian when they are validated is completely wrong. They become supercentenarians when they reach the age of 110. That is why unverified claims need to be listed. The system being used is conflicting with WP:NPOV. People from certain countries are assumed to be false cases, which I'm sure is something Wikipedia should not be associated with. As for WP:PROVEIT, all claims are cited. Claims do not have to be verified by the GRG - that's why they're still claims. The talk page is here to help improve the article. People who are nearly 110 are listed so we can quickly add them to the article if they do reach 110. Some articles do not stay around for long and to find some of them you might have to search specifically using their name. The bottom line is that the system we have in place is keeping genuine cases from being listed and is having a detrimental effect on the article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected, only Capovilla and Guzman. That's 2 in 5 years. Out of how many? 100?? But you're claiming that even if they're not verified they are still supercentenarians? That's not even logical! Even for HIE countries not all claimants get vereified and some are specifically debunked. You seem to be claiming that it is unfair to exclude some people who might be supercentenarians whereas I think it is unfair on the actual (ie vereified) supercentenarians to include those that are in all likelihood NOT supercentenarians (past evidence indicating a 90%+ chance they aren't). All of which is going round in circles and brings us no closer to a consensus on whether to have a criteria for unverified supercentenarians or not, unless more users wish to express an opinion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone doesn't become a supercentenarian when they are validated, they become a supercentenarian when they turn 110. For example, Rosa Rein was only validated recently, but she's still been a supercentenarian for 2 years. It's not Wikipedia's policy to decide that people who live in certain areas of the world are frauds and it's also in total violation of WP:NPOV. Validations are achieved by GRG correspondents and not all claimants (HIE or not) will be validated. In fact even the GRG states that there are likely 300-400 cases in the world, yet only 70-odd are validated. A list of living supercentenarians has to encompass the entire world, which the GRG cannot because of limitations with having few correspondents and the time it takes to process cases. Therefore it's extremely important to have a list of claimants to give a global perspective of the whole subject. As the validated are separated from the claims, it's a fair way to list them - it's not one list. I don't understand your notion that if someone is never validated they must have been false. Even if only 2 were validated out of 100 (which is a completely arbitrary figure you've picked), that does not mean to say that only 2 of those claims were true.

Countries are improving all the time with reporting true cases, so it's simply not sensible to base your assumptions on old information or to arbitrarily pluck a percentage out of thin air. Ireland for example was notorious for wild longevity claims during the 20th century, but nowadays it does not happen. How many claims from Latvia or St Kitts and Nevis do you know that have turned out to be false? You seem to be lumping together all the false cases, which is a complete generalisation. The USA has a high rate of false cases too. A high income economy does not have a great bearing on the likelihood of false cases. It takes into account the average income per person. It does not take into account the population of the country. Violet Joseph and Aksenija Mitusova have been reported in the press since their early 100s. Ida Stewart has a birth certificate to back up her claim. Florence Baker has a 91/92 year old daughter. Elena Bordeian has been reported in the press for a number of years and has a passport. None of these are consistent with false claims, of which many fall through because they might have had to give birth at 60. Poland is a large country with a big population (its economy is only just below what classifies as HIE). It's perfectly reasonable to expect that they will have some supercentenarians. They're probably more likely to have supercentenarians than a small HIE country. Some of these countries have in the past had poor reporting - Jamaica is one of those. However the wild claims were 120+, which will not qualify to be added here anyway. In fact, Ida Stewart claimed 122, but her birth certificate states she was born in 1896. The media in Eastern European countries now keep track of their oldest citizens. The Latvian and Czech governments for example release the numbers of people living in the country born in each year. I suggest you take a step back for a while and think this over properly. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So anyone and everyone who claims (or it is claimed on their behalf) to be a supercentenaraian actually IS one until it's proven they're not (even if they never really were)? Hardly scientific! And besides this discussion is not (or at least is not supposed to be) about whether anyone is or isn't a supercentenarian but whether or not enough usres can agree to have a criteria for listing unverified supercentenarians.So far, 1 for, 1 against. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SiameseTurtle. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No that's not what I'm saying and that's why I'm suggesting you take a step back and take some more time to reply. What I'm saying is that (as I said), a person becomes a supercentenarian when they turn 110. Of the claims that are true (the overwhelming majority), they will already be 110 and will already be supercentenarians. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Derby. We should be only including those claimants who are from HIE countries. But I think, Siamese, that Derby or others are NOT suggesting those non-HIE claims are "false", they are saying those claims from non-HIE countries are not likely to be verifiable. And that's the distinction for appearing on this page - claims are either "verified" or are from a country where claims can more or less be verified or falsified. Limiting the claims to 113 means that after three years, it is not likely the claim can be verified or falsified. Some claims are verified later, some non-NIE claims are also verified. But a huge percentage of the ultimately VERIFIED claims - probably 95 per cent - would initially appear on the unverified part of the page if not already proven before their 110th birthday using the present NIE criteria. And that's the point. Almost NONE of the non-HIE claims will ever be verified, they therefore do not warrant inclusion.

Currently, claims from non-NIE countries, whether true or not, are nearly impossible to verify. But once claims ARE readily verified in some of these countries, then it will be time to revisit the policy on this page. But not before, as it suggests a possibilty of being verified.

To do otherwise would be to undermine a main function of the page - to underline verifiability verses unverifiabilty. It suggests NOTHING about the truth of the claim, only that for less-developed countries, generally, records aren't there to establish claims. Yet. I mean, it sure sucks if you high jump 10 feet with no one to see it, but it aint a record if it can't be verified!Canada Jack (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As I think I said above, I don't understand the notion that we should only be including claims that are likely to be verified in the future. Less than a quarter of all supercentenarians will be validated. How do you propose we have a list of living supercentenarians without listing unvalidated claims? Claims from non-HIE countries are NOT impossible to verify, it's more that the GRG lacks the correspondents and resources to do that. It does not undermine WP:V to list claimants as they are listed under a separate claims section and cited with one of more news sources. Many of these countries are ex-colonies and have records available - the problem is being able to search them as most of the time it means being in the country because the information is not available online. We shouldn't be making prejudiced comments on whether or not people from non-HIE countries will be validated in the future. It's not Wikipedia's job to judge, it's Wikipedia's job to report. They are claims just as any. And as I have stressed, the 113 cut-off will remove extreme cases. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But there already is a mechanism in place to omit unverified claims from HIE countries - if the claim is not verified by the age of 113, it is omitted as experience suggests few if any claims beyond that age are verifiable if they've been known since their 110th birthday.

As for the lack of correspondents etc., the only question we need to ask is: Are claims from non-NIE countries being readily verified? I'd think you'd agree that the answer is no. Whether there are sufficient records to assess claims, whether this is simply a matter of lack of researchers willing to put in the legwork misses the point: Claims from these countries are not being verified. Once the claims do start getting verified, then that would warrant a change in the policy.

So, to include them on the page means we are employing a double-standard. And that is claims from NIE countries which could possibly be verified can stay here for three years, but are removed at that point because after three years they are not likely verifiable. The premise being that being on the list means there is a process of verification. But in the case of non-NIE claimants, as long as the claim exists, that's a ticket for staying on the page for three years, as very few of these claims - TWO in five years? - can either be verified or debunked. IOW, the entire premise of excising NIE claims after three years is the presumed lack of verifiability, yet you insist we include claims from countries which, history shows, lack the ability to verify their claims!

As I said before, when that situation changes, as claims do get verified in those countries, the policy can be revisited. But not until then. Canada Jack (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a generalisation by lumping all non-HIE countries together. History has not shown that cases from Latvia or St Kitts and Nevis are unverifiable, or many of the other countries. When you say claims from these countries are not being verified, you're talking about past, often wildly exaggerated claims of 120+. It's not possible to predict the future, and it's certainly not accurate to assume that because people from places like China and Mexico were never validated, that someone from Latvia will not be. Ella Rentel was recently validated - a woman from what is now Lithuania. Once again I repeat that we are not to judge who we think it's likely to be validated and who is not. I don't believe we shouldn't wait until mistakes are made and then rectify the error. We should rectify the errors to prevent mistakes. The 113 cut-off date is primarily there to remove 'problem' cases and exaggerated claims. Often we find American cases with conflicting dates of birth which can take a while to be validated. Right up at the top of the list we see just that. With cases from HIE countries it's likely they have been investigated, but the research has hit snags along the way. Claimants from non-HIE countries should be allowed to stay under the same guidelines as those from HIE countries.

As I mentioned, the current system is discriminating against people from other countries - a violation of WP:NPOV, so we need to work towards a way to change that. We are not here to judge whether or not someone is likely to be verified, or if they're likely to be true or not. Let's not forget that there have been many supercentenarians in the past who were validated from developing countries. A new reader to this article might assume that supercentenarians only exist in high income economy countries. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ella Rentel is not a good example, since by the current criteria, she would have been listed. There are also probably no criteria that will ensure only validatable SC:s, but that isn't an argument for not having some criteria. If too many unverifiable cases get listed, the page gets cluttered up, so the question is what criteria can be used to prevent that. If there is some better one, not excluding non-HIE, I'm happy to use that, but there doesn't even seem to be any suggestions. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that neither Russia nor Lithuania are HIE countries even nearly 50 years later, I don't see how she would still have been listed. The 113 cut-off will remove the bulk of claims. Even more could be removed if people with multiple date of birth claims are rejected. From what I recall, I was actually the one who suggested and made the switch from the CIA list to the HIE list, because the CIA list was even more restrictive. However the HIE list is also too restrictive. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because she died in West Germany and the current criteria go by place of residence, not place of birth. The number of cases of people validated in non-HIE-countries who did not reside in a HIE-country the last few years are very very few. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes no difference. What we're talking about [in this brief discussion, not the whole section] is whether or not cases from non-HIE are validatable. It makes no difference where they die as the validation procedure is carried out in the country of origin where the marriage and birth records are located. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it does make a difference. The question is whether those excluded from this list are likely to be validated or not, so the whole criteria matters, and part of it is that those residing in HIE-countries are listed. So Ella Rentel is not one of those excluded. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Siamese, how many claims from non-HIE countries in fact have been validated over the past 10 years or so? Canada Jack (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the GRG: [2] SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Not surprised you didn't want to do this yourself. That's because a check of the 1068 verified superc's to 2007 and a check of the subsequent deaths and current verified living superc's reveals a grand total of FOUR people who hailed from and died in non-HIE countries. And this is for all cases going back, effectively, to the 1960s, FORTY YEARS of cases. An additional seven were born in non-HIE countries, but died in HIE countries, however those people under the current rules would be listed here, for example the two Canadians who were born in Ukraine.

The four I found, in chronological order - 1 - Johanna Booyson, 1857-1968, born and died in South Africa; 2 - Aniticia Butariu, 1882-1997, born and died in Romania; 3 - Maria Esther de Capovilla, 1889-2006, born and died in Ecuador; 4 - Daniel Guzman Garcia, 1897-2008 born and died in Columbia. And, I hasten to add, Butariu's case is disputed, so only THREE undisputed cases in some 40 years.

So, to re-iterate, omitting non-HIE countries from the unverified list does not unfairly omit people who may in fact be bona-fide superc's, as to this point less than half one per cent of verified supercs have come from these countries. If this changes in the future, then we should re-visit the policy. 159.33.10.92 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What counts as a non-HIE country nowadays does not mean it did in the past, so you're missing plenty of old cases. Secondly, you didn't include those who emigrated but were validated from documents located in their birth country. So yes, good job at fiddling the stats. Once again you assume that anyone not validated was lying about their age. It is unfair to decide that someone's claim is not valid because of where they are from. History has shown that supercentenarians DO come from non-HIE countries, even the world's oldest person was from one. We are not here to arbitrarily decide who will be validated in the future - that breaks WP:BALL. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Siamese: Time to admit you are wrong. You refused to answer a simple question - how many non-HIE people would appear on the list - so I answered it for you. FOUR. And you STILL want to pretend that we are denying a large pool of potential verified people? And I DID include those who moved from non-HIE countries - there were seven additional people. However, I also pointed out that those people would be listed, even mentioning two Canadians who appear now on the unverified list.

Once again you assume that anyone not validated was lying about their age. It is unfair to decide that someone's claim is not valid because of where they are from. Sorry, Siamese, wheredid I say or imply that these claims are false? Since you clearly can't be bothered to read what I have written, I will repeat once more the underlying premise here: There may be 100s, there could even be 1000s of supercents living in non-HIE countries. But that is not our concern if they can't be verified. And, as I have shown, in the past 40 years, a grand total of FOUR people have had their claims verified in those countries. None of your "fiddling with the stats" changes that fundamental reality. Personally, I think it is quite amazing that the HIE-only criteria in place means that only a mere FOUR people would have been missed. And that is out of something like 1,400 verified supercents!

It is unfair to decide that someone's claim is not valid because of where they are from. WHo is denying a claim is valid? We are simply saying valid claims aren't readily validated in those countries! Not sure why you can't see this distinction.

History has shown that supercentenarians DO come from non-HIE countries, even the world's oldest person was from one. Now I am completely confused. Validated claims from non-HIE countries make it to the list, Siamese. No one is suggesting otherwise. We are talking only about unvalidated claims. Problem is, there are so few validated claims from those countries that there is little point in listing them until they are validated. And how many times has that happened in the past 10 years? TWICE. A grand total of TWO claims.

We are not here to arbitrarily decide who will be validated in the future - that breaks WP:BALL. You seem to insist on making strawman arguments. People validated in the future make the list, period. If, say, Jamaica or the West Indies started to validate piles of claims, then we'd revisit the policy. But that simply isn't happening. And as long as claims from non-HIE have a minimal chance of being validatedm there is simply no point in listing them until these countries show an abilty via documentary evidence and people on the ground towards validation. You keep repeating that people ARE validated from these countries in emigrant cases. Yes, but only seven more I count, and those people make the list anyway. SO your point is moot. Canada Jack (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned some that I am aware of. I would've counted them if it wasn't for the GRG's BB list being replaced by the top 200 list. Now when I point out that people from non-HIE countries have been validated, you say it's fine because they're true cases and should be listed anyway. You're completely missing the point. That's all evidence showing that people from non-HIE countries do get validated and yet you choose to ignore it. That those people make the list is irrelevant - it shows that people in these countries can be, and are, validated. If someone moves abroad aged 60 and lives for another 50 years then the records necessary for validation are kept in the original country. The country of residence has no bearing.

This policy on excluding people by country is against WP:NPOV and I do not want to be associated with inherent discrimination on Wikipedia. The policy teeters on assumptions that these people will not be validated in the future, a violation of WP:BALL. You're refusing to address any of the issues and ignoring them instead.

You implied that those unverified for ages were lying when you said that "omitting non-HIE countries from the unverified list does not unfairly omit people who may in fact be bona-fide superc's". Clearly it is going to unfairly omit people who had a valid claim, but were never validated. Once again I'll say that's not our place to point the finger and say someone is unlikely to be validated - we cannot predict the future. Many American cases are never validated and some inevitably die waiting. Maybe I need to repeat that a supercentenarian becomes one when they reach 110 years of age, not when they are validated. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say here, Siamese. Clearly you are choosing not to read what I am saying, or have some sort of mental block whereby you repeatedly insist I am denying non-HIE countries ever have validated claims. Yes, they have. But FOUR. That's it. Four cases. Twice in the past decade. That alone should settle the debate. If cases from there were being validated, then that would be a different story. But that's simply not happening, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

So what does that mean? If we had this list going back ten years, a grand total of TWO cases which ended up being validated would not have been on the "unvalidated" list.

You're completely missing the point. That's all evidence showing that people from non-HIE countries do get validated and yet you choose to ignore it. The only person in denial here is you, Siamese. I've shown you how many people get validated from non-HIE countries. TWO IN TEN YEARS. Those who move to another country which is HIE ALREADY APPEAR ON THE NON-VALIDATED LISTS. So I fail to see your problem with that, or how this suggests we should therefore list non-HIE countries. The "point" which you seem utterly incapable of grasping is that those claims which emerge from non-HIE countries VIRTUALLY NEVER GET VALIDATED. So there is no point in listing them UNTIL THOSE COUNTRIES SHOW A HISTORY OF VALIDATION. This does NOT suggest that these aren't bona fide claims. It merely suggests that for whatever reasons it is hard to validate the claims within the countries in question.

This policy on excluding people by country is against WP:NPOV and I do not want to be associated with inherent discrimination on Wikipedia. This policy has thus far omitted a grand total of TWO cases in the past ten years, cases which ended up on the validated list anyway. It's therefore a complete waste of time to include these cases as they virtually never get validated. It's as simple as that.

You implied that those unverified for ages were lying when you said that "omitting non-HIE countries from the unverified list does not unfairly omit people who may in fact be bona-fide superc's".

I am getting sick and tired of you saying I am calling these claims "lies." THEY ARE NOT "LIES" THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT EASILY VALIDATED. SO STOP SUGGESTING I AM CALLING THEM FRAUDS. I don't know how more fucking clear I can be on this point, a point I have repeated numerous times - MANY NO DOUBT TRUE CLAIMS CAN'T BE VALIDATED IN THESE COUNTRIES BECAUSE THEY LACK THE RESOURCES OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO DO SO. How could I possibly say they are "frauds"? WE ARE IN NO POSITION TO ASSESS THESE CLAIMS WITHOUT THE SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE!!!! THAT'S why it's a complete waste of time to list these claims as they will remain so until they die or get lopped off the list at 113. UNTIL THAT SITUATION CHANGES, THE POLICY SHOULD STAND.

Maybe I need to repeat that a supercentenarian becomes one when they reach 110 years of age, not when they are validated. Sure. Absolutely. But this is a page of "validated" superc's. And a list of unverified claims those from countries with a history of validation. It's not a page for everyone alive who claims to have turned 110! It's a page of "validated" or "may be validated" claims. Canada Jack (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Once again I have to come back to WP:BALL. Why are we deciding that in the future certain claims won't be verified and should not be listed? Another Wikipedia rule broken! Secondly, currently it's a list of claims FROM RICH COUNTRIES, not necessarily those with a history of validation. When was the last supercentenarian from United Arab Emirates I wonder? And yet we disclude cases who have already had records located for them and/or have records available because of the country they are from.

Yet again you choose to ignore people born in non-HIE countries who were validated with information from there. Yet again you choose to ignore that the policy being used discriminates against people from certain countries. Just because only 2 people living in non-HIE countries in the last 10 years (of course, conveniently excluding those born in non-HIE countries who were validated using information from their countries of birth), it does not mean it is ok to discriminate against people in their situation just because they are outnumbered by those in more Western countries. You cannot just say that it's ok to break Wikipedia rules because you're only discriminating against a few people. Rules don't work like that.

"WE ARE IN NO POSITION TO ASSESS THESE CLAIMS WITHOUT THE SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE" - Exactly, which is why we should list all claims rather than decide that some not worthwhile claims because they are from a less rich country. And yet currently the claims are being assessed before the evidence - eat your own words. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is ABSOLUTE RUBBISH to assert that everyone IS a supercentenarian merely because they have claimed to have had a 110th birthday (which is what allowing every claim to be included would imply). A person IS a supercentenarian when it is proved that they did IN FACT have a 110th birthday. There have been several cases of HIE claimants who turned out to be absolutely NOT supercentenarians. That some non-HIE claimants may actually be supercents even though they are never verified is just bad luck. Life's like that. Allowing a plethora of unlikely claims to make sure that a few possible claims aren't ignored is neither scientific not encyclopedic and wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a messageboard forum, user group or blog. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I never said anything of the sort about supercentenarians. I have said over and over again that someone becomes a supercentenarian when they become 110 years old (feel free to look up the definition). When it comes to listing supercentenarian claims none of them are proven cases - that's why they're claims! "Allowing a plethora of unlikely claims to make sure that a few possible claims aren't ignored is neither scientific not encyclopedic and wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia" I have already explained that this can be greatly minimised, as per Robert's original suggestion, by the 113 cut off date and the removal of cases which don't have a claimed date of birth (eg. only a year). There would also have to be a recent citation to allow them to stay on the page (as it is currently). You assume that there will be a "plethora of unlikely claims", which is completely unfounded. It's completely scientific and encyclopaedic to list claims regardless of their country. What is scientific is to show a proper representation of claims rather than bias towards rich countries. What is encylopaedic is to be unbiased and yet the criteria at the moment are doing the opposite. And still the article and views contradict WP:NPOV and WP:BALL. We're not to judge and we're not to be biased. SiameseTurtle (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just saying that I agree with Derby and CJ on this one. There needs to be some criteria to filter out those unlikely to be verified (and in many cases plain unlikely). I am not particularly happy with the HIE-criteria, but until someone finds a better one, I think it is good enough. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Or we have a criterium to exclude some claims, or we haven't, this is the main question. If we decide to addopt some criteria, we are condemned to judge a person from the group that person belongs, which is a prejudice. Personally I think the rich country criteria the worst prejudice of all. In principle, if you belong to a rich country doesn't mean you are telling the truth. That's why I suggested a criterium based on the history of claims of each country. There are countries which are famous to be rich on disparate claims, due to the village's elder myth. So, exclude every country that have longevity claims higher than 130 years in the last 10 years. Exclude every country that as a proportion of unproven claims 2 times larger than Japan, which is the country with largest life expectancy, therefore the first candidate to have the larger proportion of supercentenarians. Other criterium not base on history, is exclude every country that doesn't have birth records on census data, since it is almost impossible to prove a claim in this situation. Maybe, if we apply these criteria we will end with the same countries that are included now, but it is better to say that a claim is not on the list because it belongs to a country without records, than saying it belongs to a poor country.

The cutoff of 113 years old is efficient too, since if a claim is not proved in three years, probably will never do.Japf (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, any person who is really 110 years old is a supercentenarian, proved or not. Japf (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't see that work. For one thing, I'm sure USA would have to be excluded pretty much regardless of which one of such "unprejudiced" criteria we actually choose, and I think that would not serve any positive purpose for this page. For another thing, I can't see there ever being consensus over such a judgment, because that is what it would be. If there is to be a criteria, it has to be simple, and the criteria suggested here is far from that. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to step back somewhat and remember what the funvtion of this page truly is: to list living people who have been proven to have celebrated their 110th birthday. The section we are debating over is and should be a list of those people who presumably may have their claims authenticated or proven wrong.

So, the question then becomes: Do we list any and every claim in the world of someone who reaches 110? Or do we recognize that, as pointed out earlier, by the current criteria, some 1,300 or so individuals would have appeared on the "unverified" list before verification (if it had existed for decades) and a grand total of 4 people would not have as they lived in countries not covered by the criteria? Personally, those numbers for me settles it.

But in the spirit of compromise, and with the recognition that HIE/non-HIE as a criteria is somewhat arbritary (even if it covers verifiable claims quite well), I hereby suggest a NEW criteria, one which has the advantage of not being weighed down by some complex formula and has the beauty of including non-HIE claimants, if they qualify.

1) Keep the 113-year-old cut-off. If, after three years there is no verification, there likely won't be.

2) List records from claimants from countries WHICH HAVE VERIFIED PREVIOUS CLAIMS. It seems utterly reasonable to me to demand from those countries with claims they establish that they can VERIFY those claims. Ecuador and Columbia have both in recent years verified claims, thus establishing for the satisfaction of GRG and others their ability to reach the international standards of verification.

In this way, no one can claim "POV" in omitting claims from, say, Thailand, as they have yet to establish an ability to verify the claims made for their citizens. Once they have, they make the list of countries whose claims can appear in the "unverified" section.

Comments? Canada Jack (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is more fair, but the question is if we keep the HIE-criteria? As I understand it you mean that the HIE-criteria should go, and that might make such a criteria worse. There are several small countries with excellent record-keeping like Iceland, whose claims could probably be considered verified as soon as they appear, but that can't be listed since they haven't had previous cases. I haven't checked the actual implications of this though, so this is just my initial reaction. Another thought: What about those countries that have proved to have verifiable data by having emigrants verified (like Lithuania). While it seems reasonable to accept such countries, that opens up a whole other issue: The country with the same name back in the late 1800-s and early 1900-s might be very different from the country with the same name today, which would introduce a new aspect of the problem we have had here with listing birth countries. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the underlying point is no one is in any position to be able to assess a claim on its face, no matter where the source. So, to suggest that a 110-year-old claim from Iceland should be "probably considered verified" is not anything we are in a position to do, the level of record-keeping there notwithstanding. Each claim must be assessed on its own merits, not the merits of the country. But if claims haven't been ever verified in a given country, there is little hope in verifiying individual claims from the given country, which is my underlying argument. For the purposes of our page, if we are to exclude claims, we should not be applying some formula to do so, as past claims do not inform present claims. However, I am suggesting that if we only include claims from countries with a history of verification - which is all we are interested in here, not whether any claim is "true" per se - then we avoid the thorny issue of dismissing claims which may be true out of hand. Many claims from countries which have no way to verify them may in fact be true, but that is not our concern. Our only concern for this page is whether these claims stand a chance of being verified. And the simplist way to determine that is to see if ANY claims have been verified from said country. If the answer is "yes," then we should list as there seems to be a reasonable chance of either verification or debunking. If no, we should not list as the country likely has not yet managed the wherewithall to assess claims.

As for countries like Ukraine with emigrant cases, I'd say we not list those countries as we are not sure of the circumstances of the verification. If someone moved to another country as a child, most of the supporting documentation may be from the emigrant country, not the birth country. And each circumstance might be different. IOW, verified claims from birth countries may not establish said country's ability to assess these sorts of claims. They may, but an easier rule of thumb would be birth/death country being the same. Canada Jack (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"if claims haven't been ever verified in a given country, there is little hope in verifiying individual claims from the given country" - Not necessarily. It could be a small country (eg. Iceland as already suggested). I also think it's quite restrictive: life expectancy is on the rise globally and supercentenarians are bound to arise in countries where they haven't existed before, and some of those are bound to be validated at some point. It relies on a 'mistake' being made first. This method 'predicts' that those from countries with a history of validation are more likely to be validated. Yet we see the top 3/4/5 are unlikely to be validated any time soon. That said, at least it's a different and less biased suggestion. However I think this would be even more of an exclusive club.

I don't fully understand the concept that the list of unvalidated people should only include those likely to be validated in the future. Firstly, we cannot predict that. Secondly, if we could then what would be the point of having another list in the first place? SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the concept that the list of unvalidated people should only include those likely to be validated in the future. Because this is mainly a page for validated claims, therefore the addendum list of unvalidated claims should have some reasonable chance to be validated. All I am saying is that claims from countries which have validated claims in the past have a much higher chance of validating than the same from countries which have never validated claims. And if we say that explicitly in the lede, then we underline the fact that though there may be several hundred living 110+ people, the list is concerned only with those which can be verified. IOW, the onus should be on the validating coluntry to establsih an ability to perform that basic task rather than an us to disprove the possibilty a particular claim may be true. The beauty here is that once, say, Jamaica validates a claim, then the door is open to list other claims from said country. Canada Jack (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a thorny question. I don't at all agree with Siamese to list everyone. But the rule discussed above will make for a certain big-country-bias. The reason why some small countries don't have verified supercentenarians is that they are small and haven't had any SC:s, not that they have any trouble verifying them if there was one. Maybe it is the correct thing to do, but in practice I think it only makes the current criteria more restrictive, nothing else. I can't see the upside. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"this is mainly a page for validated claims" - that's ridiculous. While I agree that the validated list is the focus of the page, this page is split into 2 sections: validated, and unvalidated. It's not validated and 'probably true/validatable because they are from certain countries but who are still currently unvalidated'. All unvalidated claims are unvalidated. This verges on WP:BALL - attempting to predict which currently unvalidated claims are going to be validated in the future. Wikipedia is meant to be impartial. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a "big country" bias here at all. There are numerous small countries - such as Norway and Finland, each with 5 million people - represented here, and many very large countries - like China, India, Russia - who (I believe) lack verified 110+-year-olds who are not listed. But, recall, that once a country verifies a claim, then it makes the page. This may be an issue soon when a Slovene turns a claimed age of 110 October 30. By the criteria I suggest, this person would not make the list, but if Katarina Marinič's claim is verified, then she makes the verified list - which is, after all, the main part of the page - and subsequent claims from Slovenia are listed. So, "in practice," the effect will only be to omit the first verified claim from a country (before it is verified, of course), and will in future list claims which end up verified, debunked or unresolved. Canada Jack (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We could just do the opposite. If a country (Slovenia as example) never had a claim (verified or not) we could accept the first, and wait until the claim is verified or not. Until this first claim is not verified we don't accept any other.Japf (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The presumption should be that a particular country lacks the wherewithal to verify a claim until they show the wherewithal to verify a claim. Not the reverse. We could make a list of countries which have verified claims, and add to these countries as new countries verify claims. So, by my reading of this, Columbia would have been added along with Ecuador in recent years. Recall, this is not about suggesting in any way that claims from country "x" are fraudulent, it is about the ability of countries to verify those claims which do emerge. It's a waste of time to continually "cry wolf" with candidates from some countries with numerous claims but no verification. Once the basic threshold of verification has been reached, then we can start to list subsequent unverified claims as these claims now have a better theoretical chance to be verified or debunked. Canada Jack (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would still say there is a big country bias in the way I described it. But the cutoff is rather at around 500000-1000000 citizens, so neither Norway nor Finland is small in that respect. Maybe that is so small that it won't make a problem in reality. What I meant though was that for small countries it is their size rather than their verification possibilities that decide whether a new case is listed. For the big countries, such as China as you mention, it is really the fact that there aren't any verification in those countries. I still think it will be more restrictive than the current criteria, and having more eventually verified cases not listed, but maybe the fairness of the criteria makes that worth it. I don't know. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So we only accept claims from countries with at least one verified claim. Once the first first verified claim appears, every claims between 110 and 113 become probably verifiable and should be on the list. It is a simple and effective idea. I agree with it.Japf (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This goes even further than the HIE country criterion in excluding more claims and more countries. That a country has not had a supercentenarian validated, it does not mean that there are not or will not be supercentenarians in that country in the future. How can we have a meaningful list of living supercentenarians if we cannot even give a global perspective? I don't agree with blacklisting countries, and I certainly do not agree with blacklisting them based on a single case. Hypothetically speaking someone could die aged 110 years and 5 days and never be validated. Sometimes family are only interested in sending documentation while their relative is still alive - to give official recognition. Once deceased it becomes trivial. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seem to deviate from your earlier arguments that seemed to claim a fairness issue. Apparently you will only accept all-or-nothing. It seems clear no consensus will be reached in this issue at all. I don't know what the next step is then. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not obliged to accept the first suggestion that is put on the table. Even you said it is worse than the current situation. As I have evidenced time and time again, the current method does not comply with Wikipedia's rules. So the next step is to change this so this page complies. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Siamese, to implement what you suggest, we'd have to include every claim in the world. My suggestion at least improves on the current situation by listing countries with claims that are non-HIE if they have previously verified claims. So, Ecuador and Colombia, both non-HIE countries, now would be on the list. Not sure how any country here is "blacklisted" - there is simply a basic common-sense criteria here - to be listed in unverified, a country must have previously verified claims. Again, this does not pre-judge the veracity of a claim, it does pre-judge the ability of the country to verify it which is what in the end the page is about - verified claims.

The new criteria also addresses a good point of yours - that allowing only HIE countries is arbitrary, even if it does a good job of covering most of the countries which verify claims in the end. If a non-HIE country started to verify a lot of claims, they'd be left off the list by the old criteria. By my criteria, they'd be listed after the first verified claim. I'd say that is an improvement.

And what do you mean "blacklisted based on a single case"??? There is no suggestion to remove countries or claims because of a disproved case, there is only the suggestion to require a single, proved case to make the "unverified" list. Quite the reverse of "blacklist" I'd say.

As for your hypothetical case, you are talking about someone who would not likely make the page anyway, or would do so for one or two days. And I'm not sure if said person's family would be so put off by not making wikipedia to not make an effort to verify. Besides if the person was from a country with no verified cases (which would mean they are not on the page), surely the prestige of being the oldest verified person ever from that country would be sufficient incentive to prove the claim? Canada Jack (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it improve it though? It replaces the bias against less rich countries with a bias against small countries (therefore still against WP:NPOV). And no, you completely misunderstand this page again. This is not a list of living verified supercentenarians, it's a list of living supercentenarians. The GRG estimates there are 300-400 living supercentenarians in the world, 70-80 of whom have been validated. Therefore it's very important to list the claims globally. When I was talking about 'blacklisting' I was referring to Japf's similar idea. For my hypothetical case, please think outside the box. I said 110 years and 5 days because it's a simple example, but someone could live for 111 years and 178 days and not be validated. Even Rosa Rein wasn't validated until she was past 112. To implement what I suggest (well it was actually Robert Young), you would not have to include every claim in the world, you would list claims from age 110-113 with a reported name and date of birth from a reliable source. I count less than 10 cases that would be added with such a change. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted about the WP:NPOV violations by the criteria currently used and those suggested to see what admins think. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You've failed to indentify how it is biased against small countries, Siamese. I've replaced an income requirement with a verification requirement. While I can see - and have acknowledged - the arbritrary nature of an income requirement, I fail to see anywhere any suggestion that somehow small countries will have a "bias" against them.

As for "misunderstanding" the page, as it stands, you are the one off in the wilderness here. We have a) high-income country claims and b) a 113-year cut-off. Why, prey tell? Because the unverified claims therein listed are presumed to be verifiable or debunkable. Once they hit 113, the presumption is they won't be either verified or debunked, so they are removed. And for one who talks about thinking out of the box, it seems from within the box you are in you can't recognize that this current criteria has missed a grand total of TWO people who were verified in the past decade.

Because if one wants to talk about the page being "scientific," then one must impose the slightest bit of scientific rigour to the page. And that means opening the door to countries with a proven history of verifying claims, since that is the presumed function of the "unverified" section.

But, I can see your point about the arbritrary nature of the income requirement, notwithstanding its inclusiveness. So, I offered an improvement. This is if we decide to keep the premise of possible verification/debunking in the "unverified" section. If we choose to simply list any claim from anywhere, then the doors are flung open and, frankly, I see no need to keep the 113-year-old limit. Why? Because if we remove the premise of verifiabilty, then who here can say these claims are false? Isn't 113 an arbritrary limit, given that some 150 or so people have proven to have lived that long? BTW, when I say "verify," I mean prove that a person is indeed 110+, not whether a claim has been made. Canada Jack (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I should explain what I mean by a small country bias. I did not mean it would necessarily be a violation of WP-policy. However, statistically, a country of about 500000 is on average expected to ever have had about one supercentenarian. Therefore it is a high probability that when a country not larger than say 1 million people, have a SC-claim, it could actually be the first SC they ever had. So, even if the country had been able to validate cases for 500 years, they simply didn't have any cases. So for small countries, it is not their ability to verify cases, but their sheer size that could be the reason their claims can't be listed here. Now, this might not be a problem, but it is still a reality. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If one is to suggest there is a bias against a group then, logically, there must be a reverse bias for a group, in this case large countries. But are large countries generally included over small? Of the 10 largest countries in the world by population, only two meet the criteria I have suggested.

I therefore submit that the only "bias" here is against countries with no history of verifying a claim. Especially given that "small" countries - Ireland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and Puerto Rico are all "small" as they are in the bottom half of ranking by population - are in fact represented. PR has numerous confirmed cases and this entity of under 4 million makes the list, but China and India, both with populations 250 times bigger do not. And while the Slovene who will turn 110 on 30 Oct would not make the list, if confirmed, each and every future claimant will. And, it is not necessarily true that small countries have few claims - Iceland, while without a 110-year-old, has had two 109-year-olds, and the population there is under 320,000. Prince Edward Island, though not a country, has nevertheless produced a proven 110+-year-old, and the population there is a mere 140,000. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Lucy d'Abreu? Born and married in India, moved to Ireland, and then to the UK.

If one is to suggest there is a bias against a group then, logically, there must be a reverse bias for a group... Of the 10 largest countries in the world by population, only two meet the criteria I have suggested. - That doesn't really make sense. If I have a bunch of numbers: 13, 13, 12, 12, 10, 9, 9, 9, 7, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1..... and I exclude every number 3 or below, then there is a bias towards those above 3. However that's different from saying there is a bias towards numbers above 12. If there is a bias against small countries, it does not mean there is a bias against a small subset of larger countries, it means there is a bias towards countries that were not classified as small.

Regarding small countries you miss the point: On the whole they will be excluded. Of course there will be some countries that buck the trend - that's completely expected. If you're going to splitting hairs then the chance the specific care home where Walter Breuning lives having a supercentenarian was extremely minute. Probably a population of just 100, but of course it has to occur somewhere. It's quite obvious that small countries are less likely to have supercentenarians and this idea will bias the page against the inclusion of people from smaller countries. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My proposal was to exclude emigrant cases from the criteria, so d'Abreu would have been listed. As for excluding countries that are small, no, the criteria would exclude countries without verified candidates. It matters not one whit whether a country has 100 or a billion people. All we need is a previous verified case. Quite simple, actually. All this means that, as in the past with all other countries, the first verified claim would not make the unverified list, but all subsequent ones would. Sure it's "unfair" that small countries won't have a lot of candidates, but it's also "unfair" that Olympic relay races favour large countries who have a pool of fast runners. But that doesn't make the requirement capricious or arbritrary. I'd agree the HIE requirement does, so this makes the criteria directly related to the claim being made.

Regarding small countries you miss the point: On the whole they will be excluded. On the whole, you miss the bigger point - there will be very, very few claims from these countries.(!)Canada Jack (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My estimate is about one per year. That's not much. However, as opposed to most claims from non-HIE-countries that never gets validated, that one per year is a probably validatable case. That is the difference. In that regard this criteria will exclude more eventually verified cases than the HIE-criteria. Whether this is acceptable collateral damage or not I don't know. I personally prefer the HIE-criteria for being less exclusionary. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I will have to revise my opinion on this. One a year might even be a bit high, but more importantly, it seems it is more likely those possible verifications will be from countries already excluded by the old HIE-country. Verification from new HIE-countries seems very rare, so it will be a very small problem. Therefore I accept the criteria of countries with previous verifications, although I probably would prefer if the criteria would also include countries with a sufficiently extensive population statistics, but that is probably hard to get any information about. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental reason I suggested the previously verified criteria is because Siamese has a valid point about the HIE criteria being arbritrary and biased. It really doesn't matter if validated claims are covered by the old criteria, as the criteria was not related to verification per se and I am forced to admit that. Besides, numerous WP issues are raised by this. So my suggested criteria addresses that by directly addressing verification. In the end we may have to ditch the list or list all claims, but it's the best I could think of while keeping it simple. It's not perfect as we can't anticipate future verified claims from new countries, but I feel it is as close as one can reasonably get. Though I don't agree with it, we might consider emigrant cases as qualifying birth countries too. I don't think Siamese would be mollified by that, but that's the best we can get I believe without simply allowing all claims.Canada Jack (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Options for the Unverified list

1. Allow all supercentenarian claims. This violates WP:Verifiability. Could only be accepted if there were no objections (mere consensus would be insufficient). That's not going to happen.

It does not violate WP:V though. If you're going to set up a vote then at least do it in an unbiased way. ALL claims are unverified by the GRG, but all claims are backed up by a media report. You can't say that listing all people goes against WP:V but listing those from only specific countries meets it. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Do not allow any unverified claims. This fulfils WP:Verifiability but means that essentially the article would be a copy of the GRG list with occasional entries from the Epstein list. This would make the article redundant which no doubt lead to a nomination for deletion. (It already violates WP:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people)
3. Have some sort of criteria for unverified claims. The criteria could be:

i High Income Economy countries only.

ii Only countries that have previously had a verified supercentenarian.

iii A combiantion of the 2 previous criteria.

iv Something else?

It also needs to be decided whether the criteria should apply to the country of birth or the country of residence.

I favour 3 ii for country of birth. I'm not sure if there should be some sort of age limit for immigrants. Someone who immigrated at 10 is far more likely to be verifiable than at 50 let alone 80. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Option 3 - Criteria for unverified claims. And the criteria should be ii - only countries with a previously verified claim. As for emigrant claims, since it is not obvious prima facie whether the substantive verifications came from the birth country or the country of residence, for simplicity's sake we should consider a country to make the list if they have a verified birth/death claim. In the case of people born in a town in, say, Austria-Hungary which no longer exists but which is in now in present-day Croatia, we would add "Croatia" to the list if they also died there. Canada Jack (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with option 3iiJapf (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was drawn here by a note at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#List of living supercentenarians - I find myself surprised this article has survived in this form. If there is a generally wp:reliable source for an item, WP accepts it. I should think that GRG and Guinness should have a mention, but using them as the ONLY reliable sources for the age of persons over 110, and restricting based on nation doesn't fit well with the basic ideas of what Wikipedia is. It might be that taking this the the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and arguing that only these 2 sources should be considered reliable for ages over 110, but I would expect that to find very little support. The restriction to nations based on typical national income simply has no place I can see in WP. - Sinneed 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The intro states 'SUCH AS grg or Guinness'. There is no suggestion that it is limited to those two. And further inspection reveals that Louis Epstein's The Oldest Human Beings list is currently the citation for two cases. Indeed, it has been a source on this page for over eight months unbroken. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So... you agree their should be one list? Or? I fear your point eludes me.- Sinneed 18:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is completely obvious. You said that GRG and Guinness were being used as "the ONLY reliable sources" and I stated that you were wrong, since The World's Oldest People is too. You would have known that if you had taken more than a cursory glance at the article, or my contribution above. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here over what a "reliable source" is - for proven claims, GRG is one of the recognized authorites in longevity research and are cited for "proven" claims. When it comes to unproven claims the "reliable sources" are simply reputable media outlets who are almost never in a position to assess whether claims are true or not. Canada Jack (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any "confusion". I do see that there is disagreement. WP defines what wp:reliable sources are. It seems clear to me that there needs to be 1 list. If the sources are important, then perhaps a column with "GRG" "Guinness" or "Press" or whatever.- - Sinneed 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Sineed, you do seem to be a bit confused here. "Verifiability" is indeed defined as you correctly point out, per: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. - Canada Jack (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Remove your focus from me and focus on the content. You are stating that my disagreement indicates confusion. Please stop now. We disagree. We may both be right, both be wrong, or some combination so complex as to be incomprehensible. We disagree about what wp:reliable sources are in the case of this article.- Sinneed 19:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

By that definition, there are recognized authorities for a list comprising verified claims. And those recognized as being "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" are GRG, Guinness, Epstein etc. However, when it comes to listing unverified claims, there is no "recognized authority" per se, there are merely media reporting claims and as long as they are reputable media outlets - not authorities in the field of gerontology - then we publish their claims. By perusing the sources for the verified claims and the unverified claims, you can see the distinction here with the "reliable sources" used on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the difference. I accept that you value that difference. I don't. I don't think the WP community at large will.- Sinneed 19:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the content if you want to make a relevant contribution to this discussion, Sinneed. We are talking about UNVERIFIED claims. You are focusing on VERIFIED claims. Please familiarize yourself with the debate at hand before making irrelevant side arguments. Canada Jack (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I've read over most of this and I think that there's something that's being missed: the HIE criteria for the unverified list was not originally meant to exclude but to include. The problem that I brought up a very long time ago was that certain people were arbitrarily deciding which claims were valid and which were not. The criteria was set up as a way to protect against "I think so and so is very unlikely to be this age" or "she doesn't look 110" or "I looked up a census record with no understanding of its meaning and concluded that she was born in a different year." I wasn't particularly happy with the solution, but I was very happy with the result; since then, there have been strict rules on who is included and who is excluded. I understand that this causes problems and a better solution is needed, but no one from a HIE has been excluded yet unless there has been a reliable source disputing the claim, which is a step in the right direction for this article. Everyone has made good points: Siamese is correct in that any system is likely to exclude someone who really is 110, Derby and Jack are correct in that including everyone who hasn't been outright refuted in a reliable source would be a Herculean task and that HIE is a solution that has very little "collateral damage" and Sinneed is correct in that any exclusionary system is going to have a problematic bias as what the GRG accepts as 110 and what Wikipedia accepts as 110 are different things (and Sinneed, if you want a list of problematic pages on longevity, I've got a long one and they're almost all worse than this one. Check out some of the links in the template like Longevity claims and Longevity myths.)

To the point: I agree with suggestion 3ii, as I believe that it includes less bias than the HIE solution, even if it's not perfect. We do need some criteria in place not for exclusionary purposes, but for inclusionary ones - I for one wouldn't mind if EVERY claim were included (although I'm not doing all that work myself) so long as we don't return to the "I arbitrarily decided that this person isn't 110" system. Cheers, CP 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with 3ii, with countries of residence rather than countries of birth. The only change to the current list would be tghe removal of Teresa Tsu Chih. And possibly the inclusion of some South Africans if we know of any with birthdays who are said to be between 110 and 113.Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: My suggestion was more straightforward:

1. The unverified case must have a claimed year, month, and date of birth 2. The unverified case must have a news citation within the past two years 3. The case must be between 110 and 112 years old (claims 113+ are listed on "longevity claims"). The SSA study showed that the likelihood of a claim being false increases substantially above age 112. 4. The case must not have any counterevidence that publicly suggests it is false/incorrect

No need to bring nationality into this. If someone is from Barbados, claims to be 110, and there is a citation, a claimed year, month, and birthdate, and there is no counterevidence, they should be listed. The list should serve two purposes: it should provide a list of candidates for future validation (i.e., letting the reader know what cases are out there) and it should include as many potential 110+ cases as possible, validated or not, so long as the claim appears to be reasonable. Requiring a claimed year, month, and date of birth guards against junk such as this:

http://www.punemirror.in/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=2&contentid=200910162009101601082596826cee37b&sectxslt=

In the above story, the family claims "120," while local authorities toned it down to 110. But given a lack of even a date of birth, it's clear that this case is questionable at best. Moreover, this is a self-dividing system that applies equally to every country.

I don't care about "high economy" or what country. We've had verified cases from Colombia and Ecuador (yet these nations have many unreliable claims). We may soon have a verified case from Mexico (yet many extreme claims still come from Mexico). We are still having false/exaggerated claims from the USA. For example, Ruth Galmon is not even born yet in the 1900 census, so she shoud not be included under #4. In another example, Mattie Caldwell claimed to be 111, but turned out to be 108. Louisiana Hines is a third problem: records indicate she is likely 110, but the claim is 111.

Ryoung122 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You could have just said you agree with Siameseturtle... Anyway, it is a thorny issue... Yubiquitoyama (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What you say, Robert, is entirely reasonable and acceptable, save for the part about "counterevidence" which suggests a claim is false. I don't accept it is up to us to in any way assess a claim based on some questions which may exist. Those questions may be wrong and since we are talking about unverified claims, the mere existence of the claim means it has not been debunked. Once some authority has debunked a claim, well that's another story. But wikipedia is not that authority. For example, your example at the bottom of the page. By your criteria, we should have omitted the claim of Ruth Galmon for the mere reason some questioned her claim. I say we should list the claim until some authority has proven the claim false, as you seemingly now have done. But not before.

So, while 1, 2 and 3 are reasonable limitations on who should be listed, 4 is not. As for listing all nations, as I have argued, if we are to limit claims in any way, it should be via omitting claims from countries with no verifications. If we are not to do that and open the doors to all countries, and that is the consensus, then we are going to list claims with no likely chance of verification or debunking. I don't feel we should do that, but whatever the consensus is, I agree that going by the high income criteria should go. Canada Jack (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)