Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 9

Font Sizes

I don't see any reason too use the 100% font sizes for the tables. It makes the font sizes bigger than the rest of the standard text. The 90% font size is more appropriate. It is closer to size of the regular text and also makes the tables smaller which therefore makes the page shorter. And that's definitely a GOOD thing!Tim198 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

90% is unnecessary. The only reason to reduce the font size would be if the table would not fit on the page or too many cells would not fit on single lines. At 100% everything fits comfortably. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On a Mac, it fits. On Windows, it doesn't. Take List of people with the longest marriages for instance on Windows. All pages should be taken into consideration while using both Softwares? I think "software" is the correct term? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We're only talking about this article. I use 3 different computers with Windows and this article always fits at 100%. Btw Windows and Mac are Operating Systems. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's down to your display resolution not your operating system. Nearly all screens will support 1024*768 or better. Even my 13" Macbook supports 1280*800. A standard desktop screen should support 1280*1024. It's up to you to choose the setting on your computer, not for us to change the article to suit the settings you use. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Marcelle Narbonne

Why all the hissy-fit over March 24 or 25? I've seen both dates being bandied about; I don't think going with one or the other is "vandalism."Ryoung122 22:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As the citation does not even mention a date of birth she should actually be removed unless a another citation can be found. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

cant you people let the grg do their job, they let you do yours. 74.226.189.26 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Louis proves that the Epstein list is little more than HIS opinion. While I don't doubt Madame Narbonne's claim to age 112, proof of birth has NOT actually been located yet.Ryoung122 17:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Peggy Straton

How do we know that Peggy Straton was born on March 3rd, 1900? Just because she was featured on the show on March 3rd doesn't mean that's her birthdate. (and as we saw with Elizabeth Howell last year people aren't always featured on their birthday). I'm removing her until another source can be found. Tim198 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone find any census info about her? Or even her name and age popping up in a telephone book? She resides in Logan, Ohio. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending Cases

This is an uneducated suggestion on my part, but do you think we should indicate next to each name how many documents they have submitted so far - one or two documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanology (talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The GRG keeps track of this, Wikipedia is just a "mirror" site on this matter.

In any case, the pending ages listed are not "claimed" ages but partially documented ages. For example, Melinda Harris claims to be born in 1896, but the 1910 census lists her as age 12, making 1898 a "documented" age rather than "claimed" age.Ryoung122 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable sources for unverified claims (Other cases)

At present theree is a wide variety of citations being used for these, some of which are unacceptable and actually violate WP:Reliability. These include:

• Blogs, Twitter - Clearly unacceptable ("Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.")
• Online newpaper/tv/other media - Generally acceptable, although the reliability of some is certainly questionable
• WOP - Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the majority of these are via GRG researchers. If that is in fact the case then I don't think they should be used here (see the quote above). If they are taken from other media sources then those sources should be used here.

Comments? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There being no other input I have removed the following as they have no citation other than twitter/blogs for a claimed 110th birthday or for a claim more than a year old since the last adequate citation.

• Maria Rita dos Prazeres
• Pearl Lutzko
• Cora Hansen

If no-one can justify the use of WOP as a source then I'll remove those in another week. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the idea is to have a reliable source substantiating their claim? We should keep any claims on here if we know they are still alive. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the idea is to follow wiki policy. In this case it appears that WOP is not deemed to be a reliable source as it contravenes the section I've linked above. As I haven't looked at WOP because it requires joining (which I thought I read somewhere was not recommended for citations, although I can no longer find it) and no-one has explained what the sources WOP uses are (if they aren't experts providing unpublished research then there is no problem) then it appears using it as a source is against wiki policy. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But it's not Wiki policy to have to have a reliable source every year to prove someone is still alive. We should have a reliable source to have the claim here in the first place, but we should make use of WOP when considering if they are still alive or not. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Siameseturtle. Longevitydude (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But you would expect that, as with someone reaching super-c status, reaching 111 or 112 would also be notable enough to be reported in the media? And if they are being reported on WOP by GRG researchers then you would expect that they would be added to the GRG pending list, if not then surely the claim isn't reliable enough to be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The pending list is not a list of cases being considered, it's a list of cases where documentation has been provided. There are many reasons why a report might not come out. Some don't like the attention; some might be ill; some might be quarantined because of others being ill; some might feel that they were in the paper just a year ago and that there's little point in making a huge fuss every year; some have a poor press service in the local area. There are many validated supercentenarians who were (seemingly) never in the press. It's not as simple as every supercentenarian being reported on each year. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. However, including information without a reliable third-party citation is still OR (even if it's true). You can't pick and choose which wiki guidelines to use in particular circumstances because they might seem unfair! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign supercentenarians - time

For example, if it's 8:00 pm in the East Coast, USA, and the UK is 4 hours ahead of us, meaning that it would be midnight there (a new day), wouldn't it seem necessary to add them? Another example, Claude Choules had had a 109th birthday report on March 2, 2010 in the US, which would be considered the 3rd in Australia, which is his birthday. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/last-ww1-vet-in-australia-claude-choules-turning-109/story-e6frg13u-1225836139288

It seems bias not to apply that concept here? Wouldn't you guys concur? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A birthday should be celebrated in the place the person is. A person who was born in Hawaii, wouldn't celebrate it in the local previous day only because started to live in Kiribati, which is in a time zone about 24 hours ahead. We are limited by our convention of time. Claude Choules was born in England and now lives in Australia, so he can celebrate his birthday 12 hours earlier (thinking in universal time), but for him it will always be March 3rd, inspite of being March 2nd elsewhere in the world.

Should be considered supercentenarian a person which dies during his/her 110th birthday? Or even in the opinion of same people, due to changes of time zones and irregularities of calendar, the question can be also asked to cases which the person dies in the previous day or the day after the 110th birthday.Japf (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are a supercenterian if it is past midnight in the time zone you live in. If your born May 30, 1900 and it is 12:01 A.M May 30 2010 your a supercentarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And hypothetically speaking, what if an Australian was born 30 May 1900 and died on 29 May 2010 when it was well into the 30th May 2010 in Australia? Someone born 30 May 1900 in Australia and died 30 May 2010 in Australia would be considered a supercentenarian. Even if you know the times of birth and actually know that they lived for 110 years (not 109 years, 364 days and 20 hours), they could still have died one day before their official birthday. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

These questions are why we have a source to determine date of birth/date of death. In the case of unverified claims, we simply list those people who have claimed to have celebrated a 110+ birthday, with their claimed date of birth. The time of day is not a relevant factor as, by the time the claim is published, the person will be several days beyond 110 (at least).

If and when a claim is verified, GRG or whomever assesses the claim and fixes the verified date of birth. And presumably later, the date of death. Two years ago, there was a question whether Astrid Zachrison had died in the early evening before her birthday, or had actually lived beyond midnight, and whether she in fact passed the time of day she was born. GRG established the dates, and those are the dates we go. GRG currently considers the date of birth/death the relevant factors. It doesn't consider the time of day to be a relevant factor, perhaps they will in the future. Canada Jack (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Siamese, the same argument applies for every person who dies before the time of their birth. So to be "accurate," we'd have to note that probably half the people here "only lived to x years x days instead of the official x years x+1 days owing to not having died after the time of day they were born." Which in the end gets trivial and extremely silly. But, if we want to get REALLY technical, we should note the tropical year as our calendar year does not reflect the true single rotation of the earth around the sun. And a tropical year, measured from equinox to equinox, is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 30 seconds. At least the most recent one. They vary. As do the tropical years as measured along any particualr point along the ecliptic. So we'd have to know person x's precise moment of birth, chart it on the ecliptic, then mark the time from then to the moment of death along the ecliptic. But wait! The equinoxes precess, so perhaps we should go by the sidereal year instead, the year as measured by the background stars! This is about 20 minutes longer.

So, if we want to get "scientific," we'd have to dispense with what we define here as "years" as they are wholly inaccurate. Maybe we should simply count days instead (hmm.... sounds like an old argument...). But we aren't going down that road because a) the sources go by years and days, not by days, and b) the sources go by calendar years and not tropical or sidereal years, and c) GRG etc currently note the dates of birth and death, they do not note the times of birth and death. In the end, take solace in the fact that the margin of error via year/day counts is about equal to the differences in the various calander computations, so people who lived to one or two days of each other by year/day can't really with confidence be sorted out in terms of rank, even though we do so here. As Robert Young said before, fussing over one or two days misses the bigger picture in this field - where the range of the extremely old proven centenarians lie is the issue of real scientific relevance and interest. Canada Jack (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Should we wait until a supercentenarian gets an update from a reliable source on their 110+ birthday? Some (eg. Albert Plummer) are in articles a week prior to their 110th birthday celebration. We don't know if they are alive. Should we remove them for now until further notice? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is the general policy. We have to wait until confirmation of the 110th birthday. If there is no confirmation, the claim should be in future supercentenarians listJapf (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And ofcourse, the time in their country is considered. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

criteria for unverified list

I hate to have to bring up this subject again but I'm just not satisfied with the current criteria for the unverified list. What specifically caused me to bring up this subject again is the case of Choe Pu Yong. It's interesting how Choe Pu Yong has changed her age claimed from 112 to 113. When a person changes their age like that it's usually a sign of exageration. Also, I think it's highly unlikely that she'd still be able to garden if she were really 113. But of course, since North Korea is a LIE country with no reliable recordkeeping system we can't determine how old she really is. Now I know that some HIE countries (such as the United States) still produce false cases but at least we can usually weed those out with census records (eg Frances Street). The bottom line is that I just don't see the point of likely false cases from LIE's being listed on this page. I believe that all LIE cases should be moved to the longevity claims page while this page should be reserved for those BORN in HIE countries. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that since the current criteria was put in place (which is about 4 months now) NONE of the LIE cases have been validated nor are there any pending cases from LIE's on the GRG page. I think this proves that it's extremly difficult to obtain documentation for these cases and that these cases don't belong on this page.Tim198 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are wright, a 113-year-old can't work in the garden. This is only our opinion, there is no reference telling that, which we could use. Assuming that a person from a LIE country is automaticaly lying or impossible to verify is consildered a prejudice and a mere point of view. And what arbritary criterium could we use? A claim from Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabia, two HIE countries are more realistic than a claim from Poland (a LIE country)? A claim from Colombia which had already had a verified claim is more valid that a claim from its neighbour Venezuela which hasn't?

Some of the claims below 113 can be true, and maybe most of them are. If you are a liar, why do you bother to claim to be 110 years old, if you can be the oldest person in the world, just for adding 5 years to your lie?

Anyway, if that lady claims to 113, we can eliminate her from the list.Japf (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't believe everyone who comes from a LIE country is lieing. I'm sure that a great number of these cases are true. And It's a FACT NOT AN OPINION that MOST people born in a LIE country don't end up being verified. I don't have an exact number on how many LIE cases are known by researchers but I'd venture to guess that's it's at least 200. I do know that only about 10 LIE cases have been validated by GRG. That's only 5% of known cases that have been verified. These are hard facts that can't be argued. On the other end of the spectrum nearly all HIE cases end up getting validated these days. For example, I recommend you scroll through the archives of this page and take a look at the unverified list from 2 years ago today. That list included only HIE cases of-course. I counted only 3 out of 25 cases under age 113 that are still not validated at this time. The bottom line is that most HIE cases do end up getting validated within 2 years.

I'm not going to pretend that this criteria is perfect but I just can't think of anything better to seperate the likely to be validated cases from the unlikely to be validated cases (which is what the goal of the unverified list on this page should be).Tim198 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A "hard fact" is something that is based on hard evidence, not a guess (your words, not mine).

It usually takes 3 or 4 months for any case to be added to the GRG. Making sweeping statements about non-HIE countries based on a single North Korean woman is ridiculous. It's obvious to me that some countries are good at tracking their eldest, and some are not, but this is not simply divided by GNI per capita. Wikipedia is not the place for publishing prejudices against people from certain countries. You may be interested to know that Soledad Mexia was born in a non-HIE country.

The HIE criterion is against Wikipedia policy. We should not pre-judge people based on their country. The HIE criteria does not take into account population. For example, Poland narrowly misses out on being a HIE, but has a large population. Compare that to a country like Luxembourg - a very rich economy, but very small population. It doesn't take into account whether there are records available in the country or not. The list is already two years out of date. Since then, Poland's economy went over the HIE threshold and we've also had the recent economic collapse. The World Bank does not include all countries on their list. The standard of living in many non-HIE countries today exceeds historical standards of living in places like Western Europe and the USA. The HIE criterion is irrelevant for this article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute! In certain countries, they add an extra year. North Korea might be one of those countries. Umeno Arai had worked in a garden at 110. Scroll 2/3 of the way down on this page here to find the photo of her: http://www.grg.org/Calment7.html

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

At present the only criteria for the unverified section of this article is a reliable source and the claimant has not reached a claimed 113th birthday. Personally I don't think that makes this a particularly good article but it seems unlikely there will be any other agreed criteria. As for Choe Pu Yong I wouldn't regard a news report from North Korea as particularly reliable. And furthermore I would suggest that the chances of her being verified are, if not nil, then infinitesimally small. I can't see too many GRG researchers queuing up to go to North Korea lat alone being allowed in. And I can't actually see the point of including highly unlikely and unverifiable claims in this article (what's more important, sticking rigidly to one wiki guideline or creating a better article?).

The suggestion that some claims (under LIE or some other criteria) might be better included in the Longevity claims article would only make that article even more unwieldy (it should probably be split into separate articles for Living and Deceased claims). Again, I'd be surprised if such a move gained consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We should just make a WikiProject page for those "unfit" for the list. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Last living people from the 1800s

I'm not sure how we would present this information, but as the number of people still living from the 1800s is dwindling down, it is becoming perhaps a more notable subject. Per the list right now, there are 70 verified supercentenarians and 43 unverified supercentenrians who were born in the 1800s, which is a total of 113 people. Now, 4 of these are men, 2 verified, and 2 unverified. Walter Breuning and Jiroemon Kimura are verifired, while Orildes Camargo and Marco Atehortua are unverified. Thoughts? -— AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 04:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Too many, too soon. Not even sure this is the appropriate article to mention this as it is only incidental to supercentarians. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a year from now, when the first supercentenarians from the XXth century start to appear.Japf (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as Japf notes, the big milestone is the end of the 19th century, which was December 31, 1900. Another big milestone, shortly after, is the death of Queen Victoria on January 22, 1901. Canada Jack (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

UK

There are four countries that consist of the United Kingdom: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Saying the UK isn't specific enough. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The UK is a unitary state so while it is, technically, composed of several countries, the "countries" we see on this page are more specifically sovereign states. Therefore the United Kingdom belongs here, not England, Scotland etc. The same distinction could have been made for the former republics of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union as, for example, Slovenia and Georgia were considered "countries" within the larger sovereign states. Kurdistan is also, by some definitions, a "country" although it straddles several states: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. In the end, we fall back on the sources who compile the lists. Those compilers treat the term "country" in the "sovereign state" sense and list claimants from Yugoslavia and from the UK rather than the constituent countries. Canada Jack (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

111 year old dead in Japan?

I find this article from the Kochi shinbun saying that 111 year old woman has died but I can't say who it is. It mentions something about Takaoka in the translation so I think it might be Tome Takaoka that died. Can someone here who understands Japanese translate the article fully?

http://www.kochinews.co.jp/?&nwSrl=259744&nwIW=1&nwVt=knd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.149.180 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's Tome Takaoka. I think it says that the person died at Tsuno-gun, Takaoka, Kochi Prefecture. I think Google translates the name as Tsuruki Yamasaki, so it may be someone who we weren't aware of. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Living Britons

This site does not necessarily confirm that a person has celebrated their claimed 110th birthday and should not be used here unless there is a report specifically to that effect. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But it does list those who have died, and it is compiled by one of GRG's British correspondents. And casual Wikipedians can view the citation, unlike WOP. Quite a good source then, if not perfect. GRG still has Tomasa Mendez even though she died nearly a year ago. That doesn't make it a bad list. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine if they are confirmed to have reached a claimed 110th birthday as they are then assumed to be living until information is received to the contrary or there is no specific mention of reaching a 111th or 112th birthday. But if the last report from OLB is from a 109th birthday and there is no report of a 110th then there is no confirmation that they have reached claimed super-c status and are therefore eligible for inclusion in this article (the same requirement as used for any other person claiming to be a super-c). Some on the OLB list are immediately updated, but those that are not really should not be included until the latest report confirms they are alive. Not being listed as having died is not the same as being confirmed to be living. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

At present the article says:

Worldwide there are estimated to be 300–450 living supercentenarians.[1] This page lists both verified and unverified cases. Currently there are 76 verified living supercentenarians and 74 unverified living supercentenarians.

Maybe this could be clarified because at present it doesn't seem to make sense. If there are 300-450 living supercentenarians, of whom 76 are verified, then the other 224-374 must be unverified supercentenarians. Or does the above mean 74 unverified living supercentenarians on our list?Ordinary Person (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The are estimated to be 300-450. This article lists only those individuals that have been specifically identified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Albert Plummer

Okay, I've noticed, but did not comment, on the unexplained removal of Albert Plummer from the list of unverified super-cs. I've noticed that he has now been restored. Can anyone offer an explanation for this?

In addition, I've noticed that the citation provided for Plummer is one from 5 days before his claimed 110th birthday. It's a WOP message that I've already seen, and it seems credible, but I've noticed multiple recent edits removing super-cs with pre-birthday citations. So can anyone offer another explanation for Albert Plummer's citation?Brendanology^ContriB 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

He shouldn't be on the page until he has been reported to have celebrated his 110th birthday. Canada Jack (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed him as the criteria for inclusion is that the citation be on or after their claimed birthday confirming they are still alive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I originally wanted to remove him, but decided to ask first. Turns out I was right after all. Brendanology^ContriB 11:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Maria Carmela Arena

I get a "link not found" error when trying to access the citation. Before I remove her maybe someone else has better luck? And btw, the name used here should be the same as the citation even if the Italian preference is different. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A cached page translates as "Tindara Maria Carmela Arena was born in Messina on July 6 1900, 110 years and today makes them sente.In good health and clarity, the old old, one of the "greats" of Italy, suffers only a little a slight sordità..." [1] SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Onie/Onezima Ponder?

I am commenting on a recent change from Onie Ponder's listed name from "Onie Ponder" to "Onezima Ponder", and then back to "Onie Ponder" again. I would like to know if her first name really should be listed as Onezima, or stay as Onie.

Louis Epstein's list clearly states that "Onie" is a nickname of some sort, not her proper first name.

Personally, I would suggest changing it back to "Onezima". When Bernardina Van Dommelen was still on this list, there was a revert at some point on this page in the past, undoing a change that someone had made to her line (naming her as Berthe Van Dommelen), with the edit summary commenting that "Berthe" was only a nickname for Van Dommelen, and not her actual first name.

Thoughts? Brendanology^ContriB 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The name should be as per the source. For verified cases that means whatever the GRG or Epstein uses. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We need a standard of some sort. Epstein gives Onezima Cecilia "Onie" (Chazal) Ponder as her name. GRG's Table E uses Onie. Brendanology^ContriB 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Go by what the media calls her by (Either 'Oni' or 'Onie'). The GRG and Epstein lists are not always accurate representations of the name someone is known by. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really not the place of wiki editors to second guess the cited source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

Supercentenarians have their "long form" name and their "short form" name. There's "Eunice Allen (Lyons) Orchin Garrett Sanborn" and then there's "Eunice Sanborn."

I believe that while an actual article on the person should list the full name, the "article title" or the link should be the name the person goes by.

"Onie Ponder" is the name that was selected by the family for her listing on the GRG list. If they decide to change it, it's up to them.Ryoung122 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

US public records index

Does anyone know where this site gets it's information from? I've been searching through the site and while some of the ages given for some people seem realistic, some seem to be very odd. For example, Eunice Sanborn is listed as being 120 years old and of course we all know that's not true. I don't think someone like Gertrude Weaver should be removed just based on the info on this site alone.Tim198 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Gertrude Weaver should be taken off. Although the site may not be (at most) reliable, Robert said she may have inflated her age some. The U.S. Public Records Index showed her full birth date, which is more reliable than a U.S. Person Search site, which only shows a person's age.

Just by Mrs. Weaver's family saying that they have a 1900 census of her doesn't mean all that much until someone discovers it.

Where is the U.S. Public Records Index site by the way please? Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that the site Robert used as well as the U.S. person search sites all use the public records index as there source, don't you? It's just that on certain sites you have to order a subscrpition to obtain more detalied info. The site I used is http://www.ussearch.com/consumer/index.jsp on that site all you can access for free is the persons name and age. The rest you have to pay for.

As far as Gertrude Weaver is concerned, we don't know when the birth record from the public records index is from. It could be from when she was in her 30's or 40's or even later. It's possible that she wanted to inflate her age so she could appear younger. Alot of middle aged women used to do that.

The bottom line is that we just don't have enough information to say how old Ms. Weaver really is. We don't know if she got married, had kids, what her maiden name might be, what her parents names are etc. We need to know these things so we can attempt to find the census matches for ourselves. I agree that we shouldn't just accept the families word on that. It would be nice if we had full access to the article from the Camden news. That might give us the information we need.Tim198 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nellie Vallery

Greetings,

For UNverified claims, I'd prefer to give them two years. The point of them being on the list is a sort of addendum, an alternate listing with lower standards. COULD Nellie Vallery still be alive? Certainly.Ryoung122 04:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oldest man in Tokyo

There was, I believe, a UPI article couple days ago about how they finally tracked down the oldest 'living' man in Tokyo according to records and found a mummified body of a man who had been dead for 30 years. Apparently his family had kept his death secret and claimed his old age pension benefits for all that time... Williamb (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason he wasn't on this list: there was no media report with a name and age. This was an "anonymous" case. While not all "anonymous" cases are fraudulent, it's a lot easier to hide behind anonymity in order to commit pension fraud.Ryoung122 00:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The German article [2] mentions this fraud and the oldest (presumably) living woman in Tokyo, a Fusa Furuya of age 113. Should she be added to the article? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because she's another 'missing' Japanese person who was probably deceased a long time ago. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Behind all this mess, I personally believe that Haru Hayakawa (born 15 February 1899) is Tokyo's oldest living resident. Her last update was on 15 February 2010. 2 photos of her included. See: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/14684

Limbo cases

I wonder if we should have a listing for Limbo cases? I'm concerned that there are a lot of cases being deleted just for having outdated references. I think we should have an addendum list for anyone who "may" be between 110 and 113 and has been featured in a citable source.Ryoung122 03:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why. The chances of an actual (as opposed to claimed) superc survivng till their next birthday is less than 50%. As a basic criteria for inclusion in this article relies on the probability (it being virtually impossible to prove conclusively from day to day) that they are still alive, anyone without a reported birthday is more than likely not alive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cora Hansen

At one point I was searching through the 1900 U.S. Census for anyone with the first name Cora (most people use their married name, and she was married at some point), and found one Cora M. Clausen/Clauson, with listed birth of March 1899, in Beltrami Co., MN. Now there is a newspaper clipping here --> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CPtXDMLVHi4/S-jG_nVCuVI/AAAAAAAABEI/qUblJ6j9jAM/s1600/IMG.jpg claiming Cora Hansen moved with her family from Minnesota to Jenner, Alberta in 1912. Cora Clausen's father has the slightly rarer name of Elling Clausen. Interestingly enough, Cora Clausen is living with her father Elling Clausen in Alberta in the 1916 Canadian Census. According to 1900 U.S. Census information, Cora Clausen's parents, Elling and Eliza Mary (Else Marie) married in Drangedal Sogn, Telemark fylke, Norway in June 1878 and immigrated to the U.S. in July 1882. I hope this information helps. I don't know how often people move from Norway to Minnesota to Alberta, but I don't think it is very common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.207.57 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

John Red Hawk Indian Scout for U.S. calvary

I have heard of this man who served as an Indian Scout for the United states Calvary. He is the last living veteran of the Punitive Expedition that fought for the United States .The Punitive Expedition was a war we had with Pancho Villa from 1916 to 1917 in northern Mexico. He was born in the Arizona territory on January 12,1898 . He is now 112 years old. After he was released by the U.S calvary in 1917 he went back to Northern Mexico and has been their ever since. If this is true and may people have told me that it is, he is the third oldest man alive in the world . The oldest living veteran in the world. The last man do do a calvary charge with the U.S army in war time. Please if anyone has this mans location please post it.24.14.70.179 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are full of it :D. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DO you have information proving or disproving? Or are you showing just your own stupidity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

John Red Hawk was incorrectly typed, whatever. Anyway, there is a John Red-Hawk and John Redhawk on Ancestry. You are correct. It says that a John Red-Hawk lived in South Dakota during the 1910s in an Indian census. (See here: http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2&gsfn=John&gsln=Redhawk&_81004010=1898&msbpn__ftp=Arizona%2C+USA) Ive seen this message every day, and I just wanted to say something. You are certainly correct IP. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good there is proof then in the records. I need his address or location in Mexico to track him down and interview him. He is 112 years old and probably has little time left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How do we know it's the same person as the person alive today? Canada Jack (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the purpose of the interview . To find out all information on this man possible before he dies. Track down discharge papers from U.S calvary units involved in the war. To see if he as any items used in war. To talk to persons in the area of Mexico he lives at. TO track his life as much as possible. The key thing is to find where he lives in Mexico. When I have an address or location then the rest can happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ive heard of that IP before. I think it's in Illinois? Anyway, are you really going to travel from Illinois to Mexico to interview him? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I know where he lives now in Mexico. My research assistant Is going home to Arizona for spring break .He will cross into Mexico and go to the city of Aconchi Mexico . John Red hawk lives close to this town but has no phone or address . He must live like they did 80 years ago. He was very hard to track down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Does he work for a newspaper service? If he is tracked down, will your research assistant make an article on him? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No he does not work for a newspaper. He works for me to track down people who claim to be 110 years old . This is research he is doing for me to get his degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

John Redhawk may be the last living link to the Mexican Revolutionary War. Juan Carlos Vega, the last recognized survivor, died March 30th 2010, he was 109. Very sad.

• http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/669742.html (in Spanish) Just use Google translate.

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Information has been collected and is in the process of being verified. Waiting on records from the United States Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! Thats excellent. I cant wait until he is in an article! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Notified by United States Army that Army records for the Punitive expedition were destroyed by fire in St Louis on July 12, 1973 . They are going to forward the information on to other sources in attempt to verify information I sent to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.173.71 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reply once you obtain the records. Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Can John Redhawk's status be updated regularly? Like once a year or so? Has your assistant been visiting him years prior? he doesn't always travel to Mexico for Spring break does he? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place, it's neither a blog nor a forum. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Waiting on a reply back from the National Archive Washington D.C on a discharge paper and 3 pictures presented. When I find out if they match units with government records that were in the Punitive Expedition. I can post for the general public. I also have sent a baptism record from 1931 when he became a Christian that states his age was 33 years old to the Catholic Church for verification. When I have reply's from both you will be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.192.24 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you have your own website? Can the photos, documents etc. be posted there? Great work! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Point to Consider: Spanish "anonymous" validated cases

Greetings,

According to the International Database on Longevity, two Spanish anonymous 114-year-olds have been verified, both of whom would be old enough to be on this list.

http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm

Ryoung122 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Gertrude Weaver

Greetings,

Although the U.S. Public Records Index match for Gertrude Weaver fits, I'd like to mention that the ages cited often are understated, because women tended to lie about their age in the past.

For example, Beatrice Farve is listed as born in 1905...but that's not possible if she were listed as 5 years old in the 1900 census.

I don't mind someone putting her on the "likely younger than claimed" lists but I have a feeling that as more information comes to light, her final age and year of birth may be different.Ryoung122 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you (and Nick Orstein as well) both think that she shouldn't be included because of what the public records index says then I guess I have no choice but to accept your opinions and move on.

We'll also need to remove the following people as well, based on the information in the index.

Annie Leverett/Leverette is said to be only 99 years old.

In the citation for Leverett it says she first saw a plane as a "child" as "World War I was fixing to start". This could be 1914, or 1917 if referring to the US entry into the war. Which means that if she was she actually born in 1898 she would havew been 16 or 19, which is hardly a "child". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ivory Ross-Lambert said to be 108 years old.

Naomi Conner said to be 119 years old. (this seems absolutely ridiculous, but it does mean that she doesn't meet the criteria for the page)Tim198 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of claims that have evidence (equally or more credible than the claimed source) that the claimed age is incorrect. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What site did you use? US Search? If you did, it says Frank Buckles is 99 years old and Nellie Vallery is 106. The US Search screwed both their ages because if Nellie Vallery's age had changed in July, she would probably be 107. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop it with the original research. While a census match would be an important indicator of age, search indexes such as US Search are not...they are often not updated for years or contain incorrect information. They are little more than mailing lists.

(Later edit by CalvinTy: The sentence above me was already present; i.e. it is not signed so it looks like I could have written the above, but not the case, just a FYI.) I was looking for Annie Leverett(e)'s entry and now see that Tim198 removed her on 20 August 2010 [removal of entries)]. Since it was agreed that the U.S. Public Records Index is not a reliable source, why were those entries not restored? CalvinTy (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gertrude Weaver should be on this page, as her claim to 112 has NOT been shown to be false by a reliable counter document. As for 119, that's above the 113+ cutoff and would go to longevity claims. Ryoung122 04:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, before July 15 on Nellie Vallery's birthday, US Search displayed her age as being 105, and now it says that she is 106. See photo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nellie_vallery10493.png

I think a gap of 2 years is okay, but over 2 like Annie Leverette, Vallery, Weaver, are exaggerating. Their birth dates on their need to be looked at. SiameseTurtle said that 2 census matches were found for Ivory Lambert. One saying that she is 108, and another saying 110. In my opinion, Lambert should be the only added.

Robert, you said you found Weaver's DOB was to be in 1904. I think US Search updates her age regularly. Did you purchase money to find her records on there? You should check a few other "disputed" cases on there.

Of course, on Ancestry, a census had Fannie Butens birth year as 1901. But an older census said 1899. US Search is just sticking with one census. Similar to Lambert. Has anyone found census matches for Conner and/or Vallery? Even Leverette?

Also, Conner is claiming to be 110 in her most recent article. I don't know why her age is recorded as 119. Is it common for the site to make type-os? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Nick regarding Ross-Lambert. We should definately consider the 1920 census match on her to be more reliable than the 1930 match (since it's closer to the time of birth). I do hope that somebody will eventually be able to locate the 1900 and 1910 census matches on her though. Without those, it's not really possible to say anything definitive about her real age.

Regarding Naomi Conner, if you go to message #14691 on the WOP yahoo group you'll find that Filipe Prista Lucas found a POSSIBLE match on Naomi Conner in the 1920 census indcating that she was 18 years old at the time (and thus if true would make her only 108 years old at this time and NOT a supercentenarian) This evidence is admittedly a little thin, though.Tim198 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim,

I think we should add Naomi Conner back. A census said she was 108. That's pretty close, and it's not even the 1900 census. Leverette should only be removed in my opinion. I think Vallery as well because US Search has her as age 106. Im not sure about her yet, although thanks to that site, Nellie's maiden name or either middle name is Wallace. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we please keep in mind that this article is about living people. If we are to remove someone then there should be hard evidence. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would generally consider a census match "hard" evidence (however, the earlier the census, the closer to the birth event, and not all censuses are correct) and something like the US Public Records Index "soft" evidence.Ryoung122 05:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Saro Dursun

One of the Swedish correspondants said she moved to Sweden not too long ago. Her name appears in the Swedish National Register here: It even includes exactly where she lives (e.g. address). http://www.ratsit.se/BC/ReportSmall.aspx?ID=qEQWdEbn2DOKjdDtknCxSpTL76FroMz0ht50iQNqjKE

But could this be similar to Japan's National Register? According to a recent article (posted on WOP here [3]), there were tons of Japanese claimed centenarians who appear in National Registers (some aged 150-200 years old at max) and just rot. Luckily, Japanese authorities removed the tons of cases that have been dead for a long time.

Angele DeFreine of Belgium, who's family "claims" to be updating her status to Peter Vermaelen (aka makila) via phone, but her name doens't appear in the Belgium National Register. Sort of the opposite of Saro Dursun.

I believe that Dursun is dead, as well as the 4th and 5th oldest (Juana Hernandez, born 24 June 1900 & Jwani Yaukhan, born 1 July 1900, respectively) in Sweden who are (probably) immigrants. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There has never been even a photo of Saro Dursun or an individual story about her, only citations from the national register which are often outdated (the person may have died a long time ago).Ryoung122 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the swedish GRG-correspondent in contact with the family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.203.34 (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is likely an example somewhat like the japanese ones, although slightly different. The most common reason for a ghost name in the Swedish registry is a foreigner who moved out of the country without the authorities being aware of it. I suppose there might be pension fraud and other reasons as well, but that seems less common (at least for the most extreme ages). Likely the third oldest Swede is 108-year-old Ester Johansson in Tingsryd. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitsuko Miyake

Is there any reason that she was never added to the list?

110th birthday report here > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/14618

Her DOB is not certain. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Longevity claims article

As there is occasionally some cross-over between the above article and this one regular editors may like to provide some input into the former as this has, again, been edited in a somewhat POV fashion which may not be consistent with that of the vast majority of users. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Maria Carmela Arena (again)

A user on the Italian Wikipedia with the name of 'Pascar' quoted "Arena falso caso". Which translates to Arena case false (or veisverse).

Is there any proof that her age is false? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I should think this is proof enough. "Pascar" is the short form of the name of one of the Italian GRG validators. Brendanology^ContriB 04:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I confirm you it was a "false case", no Maria Carmela Arena aged 110 exists in Italy.--Pascar (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Supercentenarians by country; oldest by place & adding (e.g. cities) dispute

Hello,

I have been adding the oldest person by (province, state etc.) in several country supercentenarian articles. I have been trying to add the oldest person born in a certain place in the country. And Paolo S. (aka Pascar) from the Italian wikipedia has a different perspective; he adds the oldest person to live in a particular place.

And on the Italian supercentenarian article, Paolo agrees with adding cities. I think that cities is being too precise; too much information. I know that the Nordic countries have municipalities because they don't have anything bigger than that, Italy has regions.

• • Now, some other articles have kept it as oldest born in place. It has always been kept that way here on the English wiki (e.g. Canadian supercentenarians/Australian supercentenarians). Also, British and American supercentenarians have 2 sections in "Oldest per place"; Oldest living people per "X" and oldest ever born in "X".

• My view: Oldest born in particular place in country=recordholder and no cities!
• Paolo S.'s view: Oldest to live in particular place in country=recordholder and cities be included!

What is your opinion on this. I'd like to hear everyone's view. Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

According to me supercentenarians are not just numbers, so if you report their provenience (city) it is a good thing. If you don't have data for supercentenarians of some countries you cannot cancel data from the others of other countries, it isn't a good reason. Then a record of a region is the oldest person in that region. An example: Rosa Rein, born in German Empire (now Poland), was doyenne of Switzerland. Lazzaro Ponticelli left Italy when he was 9 and was the oldest living man in France, a record in France. So Serafina Naccarato, born in Calabria, was a record (the oldest person, the doyenne) in Marche Region, not in Calabria. Finally I'm not from Italian Wikipedia (that doesn't exist, Wikipedia in Italian exists), I'm from Wikipedia. --Pascar (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think that oldest person by city would be too specific, bordering on trivia. Oldest person by region would depend on the official staus of that region. In the US oldest person by state is obviously perfectly reasonable, but oldest by region (ie groups of states, if they could even be agreed upon) would not. In other countries I expect it would be extremely difficult to identify the oldest person in even a majority of regions (counties in the UK for instance) and such a list would be too incomplete, and too frequently out of date, to be worthwhile. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the difference between State of the U.S. and Region of Italy or of France. A Region in Italy is an administrative entity with borders, so if you know where a person was born or died... where is the difficulty???--Pascar (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see now that Region is the actual term for the recognised political subdivisions of Italy, more or less equivalent to the States of the United States. I'm still rather dubious as to the encyclopedic (as opposed to minority user interest) usefulness of an article on the oldest persons by region in Italy. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've modified the table about the Italian regions, tell me if it is better in this way. --Pascar (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

On the page of the german supercentenarians you made the list of the oldest people born in the Bundesländer according to the actual borders without including people aged less than 110 years. In most cases that could be useful, but we have Ottilie Aleith who died in Thuringia aged 109 years 347 days. So she seems to be the oldest person ever who died in Thuringia as no thuringian became a supercentanarian and it is nearly unbelievable that a second person should have died in Thuringia less than 18 days before his/her 110th birthday. Does anyone knows if she was born in Thuringia? If so, we should add her as oldest known person ever born in Thuringia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.185.132 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea Paolo; this could be the idea for all country supercentenarian pages. I just removed the flagicon. Of course, his idea about having a good idea is my opinion. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Paolo, we probably shouldn't have made it "out of or in" with the emigrant/immigrant/indigenous supercentenarians; we are, as Robert calls it "dumbing down the language"; this isn't simple wikipedia, which is for children. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Forget my previous comment, it just needs to be oldest born in region. It is like having an immigrant section of oldest per region if immigrants were included in section; similar to US supercentenarians page. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NickOrnstein#Please_don.27t_.22dumb_down.22_the_language What do you think?--Pascar (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Addition/Keeping/Removal of supercentenarians

There needs to be a few things discussed. In my opinion, people should be removed if they are exaggerating their age, especially if a gerontologist/professional (e.g. Robert Young) brings it up. We already removed one "supercentenarians" due to what we (Wikipedians) thought she was exaggerating (Hsu Chih).

• Kashi Ram Rai: Keep off; Robert Young said that he has a "rounded-off birthdate".
• Teresa Hsu Chih: Remain off; too "physically active" to be a supercentenarian.
• Andrew Hatch: Remain off; too "young" to be a supercent, but most of all, census found an Andrew Hatch born in his home town in 1922.
• Michael Tsyunyak: Keep; has a document (2nd photo from the left seen here: [4]) indicating his birth date. His age has been doubted. But I am having trouble trying to read his name on it. For some reason, the certificate he received (in the 3rd photo from the left) has the correct translated name via Google Translate, but on his passport the name looks sort of different, yes?
• Maria Carmela Arena: Remain off; Italian GRG correspondent Paolo S. (aka Pascar) said that she was a "false case" and also said that "no Maria Carmela Arena aged 110 exists in Italy". (I have one thing to say about that: Who in the right mind would make a birthday article on her when she NEVER existed in the first place, shouldn't that person get in trouble? Was she a paper error?)
• Mansoor Pazargad (longevity claimant): Robert Young said that he "comes from Iran, and it's possible there was some confusion converting Islamic dates to "Western" dates".
• Albert Plummer: Keep (when status at age 110 is reported); Marc Muir (aka CalvinTy) found a 1945 Florida State Census having Albert's age as 45 (supports 1900). With much experience from (past) supercentenarian claimant cases, Robert stated that "Cases like this often sound suspect (working-class jobs; little or no education; moved around alot).

People shouldn't be removed if they receive conformation (e.g. one day prior to their 111th birthday), and be removed one month later. It doesn't make any sense.

Clara Schonholzer (for example) hasn't had an update on her status since December 2009 and she is still on the list, and DerbyCountyinNZ says (in accordance with the rules above in an earlier discussion) that a supercentenarian must be removed if they don't get an update within 1 month on their most recent birthday.

In other words, I believe Gertrude Weaver should remain on the list because on her last update, she was already a (claimed) supercentenarian. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for inclusion in the first place is a report that the person has actually celebrated their 110th birthday (the day before is not good enough as people have died on their actuall birthday). While there are users who keep track of these things it seems excessively complicated to keep track of how long it is since the last report that someone is alive. Deaths can go unreported for many months. It makes more sense to have a criteria that the most recent birthday must be reported and if it isn't within 1 or 2 months then they should be removed. Given that to be included here someone must in fact be "living" and that we can't confirm that anyone is still living day by day a simple time limit is the best option. As the majority of people here do not have there own article we are not restricted by WP:BLP in deciding whether someone should be removed because there is insufficient proof that they are in fact still alive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the criteria should be if an unverified supercentenarian doesn't get update within 1 year and 2 weeks, they should be removed. 2 weeks extension from their birthday to await a report, sometimes birthday reports aren't always immediately on their birthday. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of this. It doesn't matter if a case is suspect; that's not our job here. It matters if the case meets the definition for inclusion on this list. For the "unvalidated" list, that is a report claiming an age of 110-112 with a claimed date of birth. This shouldn't be Nick Ornstein's opinion. Personally I think the Michael Tsyunyak case is junk, but he should be listed unless/until evidence emerges that he is not the age claimed.131.96.194.45 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am 100% opposed to this nonsense. An update NEED NOT be a story about a birthday to confirm that someone was alive within a reasonable amount of time. If that is an issue, how easy would it be to add a "last updated" column along with the source?

So the Gertrude Weaver article precedes her birthday by two days?

http://www.camdenarknews.com/news/localnews/2010/07/02/holiday-is-112th-birthday-for-local-woma-88.php

That's NO reason to delete unless the person hasn't reached 110 yet, and the claim here is 112.Ryoung122 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

IP user, I am entitled to my own opinion, just like anyone else. I forgot to add people's thoughts on the Tsyunyak case above that he lacks signs of "extreme age". Ok, after hearing everyone's thoughts on the Ukrainian case, I have doubt in it as well. I added the extra info above on him, my apologies. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't remove cases based on our opinions. I think we should only remove a case if there's actual evidence (such as birth certificates, census records etc...) to suggest a persons exaggerating.

What's really the main problem here is the criteria used for the unverified list (and this is something that's been discussed many times). If we went back to using the HIE criteria then many of the questionable cases could be excluded from the page. I really think we need to consider a re-vote on that.Tim198 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Hsu Chih was removed based on Wikipedians' opinions, she is going back on the list. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus. If enough editors feel that certain information should not be included then it isn't. There needs to be consensus to establish what criteria is used for inclusion/exclusion; there appears to be none for this article at the moment. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Hsu Chih

Teresa Hsu Chih was removed from the list a while back based on Wikipedians' opinions, she is going back on the list. But a problem: Some sites list her birth as 1900 (http://www.xici.net/d130514043.htm), as opposed to articles stating 1898 (Some say 1897, but that was an error). Any thoughts? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one reason she was removed in the first place! If there is no agreed year of birth then she shouldn't be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Toku Yamaguchi

The gerentology list shows Toku Yamaguchi at 49th but this page doesnt show her anywhere. Is she a new validated? Williamb (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The oldest in the prefecture where she live(d) showed that a person younger than her is now listed as the oldest. We can assume she is deceased, but not necessarily because it never sad that she actually died. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

so basically you are saying you know better than the Gerentology foundation. Williamb (talk) 07

06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically he is saying that, per consensus, people who are directly or indirectly confirmed as dead can be removed from the wikipedia list without waiting for the often slow updating of the grg. If you have another view on this, start another thread about it here on talk, but personally I don't think that should be necessary. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rose Axelrod

I've removed her, yet again, because the citation [5] states she is 106 and maybe 110. This is the entire citation:

BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) - Rose Axlerod celebrated her 106th birthday Thursday at the Weinberg Campus in Amherst.

According to Senior Services, Rose is the oldest known person in Erie County. And though 106 is definitely a special age, Rose may actually be even older.

When Rose came from Russia to the United States in 1904, documents from her birthplace had conflicting information, and she may actually be 110.

Rose is a retired history teacher from Buffalo Public School 82. Her wish for her birthday? Go to Las Vegas.

This really isn't good enough for inclusion in this article (even given the pretty slack standards that are being used). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally, cases that have a problem keeping their story straight shouldn't be kept here. That's why Flossie Carter was removed in the first place. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 06:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is similar to Gertrude Weaver, they say that she has a 1900 U.S. census record, and we are keeping her here. So why in the crap is she here and Rose Axelrod not? Axelrod should stay on until further notice. Axelrod deserves to go up here. Weaver is up here because of the same "excuse" - Proving to have a document, but no "show". --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I commented above in the discussion of Weaver that if the evidence against her claimed age was at least as credible as that for it then she should be removed. There hasn't even been a credible citation for Axelrod being 110. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Frederica Maas: raising an old issue

Yes, I know this was several months ago, but I still have an unanswered question to ask: Why is it that she is currently listed on the verified supercentenarians page as "Frederica Sagor Maas", even though she used to be listed as just "Frederica Maas" when she was still on the unverified list back in July? Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 08:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor just deceided to use her full name. Longevitydude (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since she's not famous only for being supercentenarian, the article about her was created in 2008 with her full name. Perhaps the change of name in the list was only to avoid the "[[Frederica Sagor Maas|Frederica Maas]]" thing.Japf (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

On here, sources aren't cited properly, eg. "Report on John Jones' claimed 110th birthday". Should we keep it this way with this article and others? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't John Jones dead, why would he be on this article, besides if there not verified then it is just a claim. Longevitydude (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

John Jones died over a year ago, so he shouldn't be on the "living" list.Ryoung122 22:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You guys didn't see "eg", it's an abbreviation for "example". Btw, John Jones died this year. He is just an example, it doesn't matter if he is living or deceased. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"As of" date needed due to time zone differences

Greetings,

The "as of" wording, with the date given, is needed due to the time zone difference. One can see whether the age given is as of their time, or a hypothetical time. I note that with Eugenie Blanchard living in the Caribbean but the "as of" being London time, her age is wrong 25% of the time (6 out of 24 hours).Ryoung122 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Given that validated supercentenarians listed must have been "validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research", why is the following source accepted? [6] Surely we should only be using professional, reliable sources, such as the GRG and Guinness? SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the reasons why Louis Epstein's list was accepted as a reliable source, but it apparently is one... And the cases accepted by him, but not by the GRG, are usually accepted by the GRG after all, such as Aimee Rensonnet and Adrienne Ledent. Brendan (talk, contribs) 04:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I welcome Ryoung122 to answer that question properly. Brendan (talk, contribs) 04:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead citation

The citation for Elizabeth Buhler, Pearl Lutzko, and Cora Hansen, which is a report on the oldest living Canadians, is dead. Should something be done about it? Brendan (talk, contribs) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Supercentenarians by Country & Continent articles

I have put consideration into this:

Why are pending cases in the overall verified section of all supercentenairans by place? They haven't been verified. Unlike this article, where they list the pending cases seperated from the validated list.

Shouldn't pending cases be removed? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Pending cases make it easier to sift likely cases with some documentation from "fully" unvalidated - no documents. Without the pending cases list, people aren't likely to be able to tell which cases are on their way to validation. Without that pending list, people might think Ksenjia Mitusova or Li Suqing have as much a chance of being validated as, say, Anna Lacour or Margaret Cooke. Brendan (talk, contribs) 12:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Eunice Sanborn age issue

To stop the numerous uninformed editors who insist Sanborn is 115, I am going to add invisible text next to her age template warning editors not to change her birthdate to 1895. Comment? Brendan (talk, contribs) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit history of the anonymous IP I doubt they'll take much notice. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We now have a second anonymous IP vandal, this one has done this sort of thing before. The only solution is semi-protection. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not the only solution. There's always WP:RBI, which is often effective and still allows anonymous editors to continue editing the project. It may be easy to slap protection on a page, but I don't think it's necessary here.  Frank  |  talk  18:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is quite a number of anonymous IPs. RBIing them will use up quite a lot of time. The invisible text should be a temporary solution. I recommend enforcing WP:SILVERLOCK on the page, but then again, the non-IPs still pose a bit of a problem. However, it's still better than nothing. Brendan (talk, contribs) 02:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I just did an analysis of the most recent 15 IP edits to the article. Here's what I found: 5 of them changed Sanborn's year of birth to 1895 or some obviously wrong year, like 1865 or 1891; 3 were year-neutral, removing BOLD FACED TEXT but not changing the year at all; 5 were changing the year back to 1896, and 2 were unrelated formatting and text changes elsewhere in the article. Given that as many anonymous editors are fixing the article as breaking it, I don't see how semi-protection would help. It has taken me longer to do this analysis and write it up than it would to revert 10 of these vandalism edits.  Frank  |  talk  02:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Then what do we do about it? The changing of Sanborn's birthyear to 1895 is tiring us all out. Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism, which is what the continued editing of Eunice Sanborn's age, despite multiple warnings, constitutes is better prevented than repeatedely corrected. Articles have been semi-protected for fewer disruptive edits than recently experienced in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep warning the IPs that are actually vandalizing and report them to WP:AIV when they get to final warning. And thank the IPs who are helping. And, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean it is appropriate to protect this article.  Frank  |  talk  11:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's so stupid that people didn't start making this a big issue until Eugenie Blanchard died.DHanson317 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The family didn't, either. When Sanborn became WOP, tongues wagged. I know it's a bit stupid of me too, but I kinda miss Eugenie Blanchard. I put in the invisible text warning users not to change 1896 to 1895, but they keep ignoring them. One 173 IP even undid my addition, then proceeded to change 1896 to 1895. This is becoming rampant. Brendan (talk, contribs) 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The invisible text isn't helping much. We need a longer-term solution. This is already using up a lot of Derby's precious time. Something needs to be done once and for all with these clowns. Brendan (talk, contribs) 15:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 2 weeks. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nettie Whittington, the WOP, and Twitter

I thought the agreement was never to use Twitter as citations for supercentenarians reaching their birthday?

Yet Nettie Whittington is cited by a WOP report ... whose only source is a Twitter update.

Does that count? Brendan (talk, contribs) 12:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okinawa centenarians september 2010

This site here http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/contents/attach/12406/H22roujin.pdf appears to list all those 108+ in Okinawa in september of 2010. I use a translator to translate the page but the translation does not make any sense. does anyone know the real english names of these people so they can be added to these lists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmaster25 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Must be living (again).

People on this list must have evidence that they are alive. As that cannot be determined from day to day the only obvious point to establish this is when they reach a birthday. If there is no reliable citation for their most recent birthday then it is likely they are not alive, two months for this seems more than adequate. Keeping people on the list because there is no citation for their death is unscientific: failure to prove a negative is not the same as proving a positive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles

Why is Frank Buckles on the Unverified list, his age is Verified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he shouldn't even be on the unverified list as the article linking him reports his upcoming birthday, not confirming he in fact celebrated his birthday. But as soon as he appears on the GRG list or the Epstein listas "verified" (as spelled out in the intro), his name will be inserted in the main list Canada Jack (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There are other media reports that he in fact celebrated his (claimed) 110th birthday, so someone should fix the citation... I'm too lazy... Canada Jack (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I still can't find any which looks like it was actually written on his birthday, they all look like they were written beforehand. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's something: http://www.cbs59.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=93586 Czolgolz (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that one. But "Buckles will not be conducting interviews, said DeJonge, and won't be posing for the usual portraits in front of a giant cake ablaze with 100-plus candles. He won’t be taking calls from reporters, dignitaries and other well-wishers. Buckles doesn’t do much talking on the phone these days." suggests to me that it was written before his birthday, possibly more than a few days before. You'd expect a reporter would wait to see if he made it before it was published but you can never be 100% sure... DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to actually "celebrate" your birthday to turn that age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but you have to be living to turn that age, and the old link didn't confirm he was in fact alive on his birthday. Other reports confirm that. Canada Jack (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cochabamba supercentarians

I'd like to add three media-reported supercentenarians to this list, from Cochabamba, Bolivia. These individuals and a dozen others are being honored in a public Centenarian event, have had their birth dates confirmed by the National Retirement System in Bolivia (Senasir), and are currently local media coverage including in major local newspapers. I doubt there is any contact between them and the GRG mentioned here. However, this list seems oriented to the GRG's categories. How exactly can they be added?--Carwil (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If people are less than 113 years old you can add them into the "other cases" section. You need to provide the media citation with confirmation of birth date and the person is still living.Japf (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Add them all, or list the 113+ year olds here so they can be taken care of. Also add 108/109 year olds, or just list them all!!!!!!!!!!! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we know that the serious nature of this article will end soon, when the circus in ArbCom ends, but we don't need to loose temper. So, I will try to rephrase- there is a section in this article for unverified cases of people between 110 and 113 years old. Even they are unverified, they need a proper citation, telling the birthday and that the person is still alive. If the person is than 113 (dead or alive) years old put it on Longevity claims.Japf (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that the case of Lola Ugarte viuda de Sandagorda was correctly placed in the article.Japf (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed year ban on regular editors of this article

For those that are unaware, there is a proposal here that many of the regular editors of this article, including myself, be banned from editing any longevity related articles for at least 1 year after which they may request, once every 3 months, permission to resume editing. Most are also threatened with a 1 year "behavior restriction" for making "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith". 3 guesses who is responsible for this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a nightmare!!! JJB should be banned for ever, and all the religious fanatics that spread like a cancer in the wikipedia. What pleasure does he have on destroying serious work? This is a test to wikipedia itself. Any result except forbidding JJB to rotten longevity related articles is a further step to endanger wikipedia as a reliable source.

The discussion is too large. What can I do to help wikipedia?Japf (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi

Shigechiyo Izumi should be removed from all wikipedia pages as his claim is no longer being accepted by any reliable source. Guinness dropped the case in the 2011 edition and Robert Young confirms here that GRG has as well. Epstein has also removed him from his list.Tim198 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WOP citations

As per the recent ArbCom decision, and the clarification here, WOP can no longer be used as a citation for people included in the unverified list in this article. They will therefore need to be removed. Any person with no other citation claiming to have celebrated a 110th birthday will also need to be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The forces of stupidity wun. My colaboration in articles related to longevity has ended today.Japf (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the following people who had no non-WOP citations. If a citation can be found claiming a 110th, or more recent, birthday they can be added back in. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Charlotte Flowers
• Yvonne de la Tour
• Eddye WIlliams

Now we have the start of the deletions:

Charlotte Flowers

Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.

Yvonne de la Tour

Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.

Eddye Williams

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/DC-WOMAN-TURNS-110-80662422.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113002998.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403886.html

have been deleted from the Wikipedia lists.

These are real people, notable for their longevity and other reasons.

Contrary to what has been stated beforehand, these people are now being removed from LISTS not from articles.

Now the censorship kicks in, and now the knowledge is deleted.

And now we have the rule of the idiots. Cam46136 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

No, what we have is the wkipedia policy that a reliable citation must be provided. WOP is no longer considerd to be a reliabe source. Simple. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's true. Most idiots are simple. Cam46136 (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Make sure you tell that to the people that made the decision then. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to push for more debate and a proper outcome here before jumping in with the scythe? Melissa.vp198 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an ArbCom decision, there has (presumably) been plenty of discussion already. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Question for DerbyCountyinNZ. Is it possible to place Eddye Williams back on the list?

Are references from NBC and two from the ‘Washington Post’ considered to be reliable sources? Cam46136 (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Absolutely. As long as the report mentions that she has celebrated her 110th birthday I don't know of any reason that prevents her inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)