Jump to content

Talk:Lists of centenarians: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Hastings Banda: new section
Small fix
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 363: Line 363:
== [[Oscar Brodney]] ==
== [[Oscar Brodney]] ==


I'm not sure that the source given for his death, SSDI, is reliable enough to use as a citation on this page. Can anyone provide me with a source maybe for his 100th birthday, something [[WP:RS|reliable]]? I can't seem to find anything that we could cite on this page... Cheers, [[User:Canadian Paul|CP]]
I'm not sure that the source given for his death, SSDI, is reliable enough to use as a citation on this page. Can anyone provide me with a source maybe for his 100th birthday, something [[WP:RS|reliable]]? I can't seem to find anything that we could cite on this page... Cheers, [[User:Canadian Paul|CP]] 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


== [[Hastings Banda]] ==
== [[Hastings Banda]] ==

Revision as of 16:01, 21 July 2008

WikiProject iconLongevity B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Talk:List of centenarians/Archive 1


Proposal for this List

Greetings to those who put working into adding and maintaining this list. Recently I worked on List of Married... with Children episodes and brought it up from a disorganized mess to a decent list. With the recent promotion of Surviving veterans of World War I to FLC, I think it's time that some attention was devoted to this very disorganized list. My proposal is as follows:

  1. Organize the data into wikitable format. I was thinking of five columns: Name, lifespan, age at death/current age, nationality and a brief claim to fame. I'm not sure how well all of these columns would work, or if more should be added, but that's why I'm bringing it up here.
  2. Remove red links. I don't quite see the purpose of adding people without Wikipedia articles - it's a dangerously slippery slope. I'll leave that open to discussion and, if I get started on this project, I won't remove the ones that are there right away.
  3. Citations! Everything on the list would need proper citations, which can be incorporated either with their age claim or both.
  4. Expand the lead, perhaps explaining what a centenarian is, why reaching 100 is so important and why it's worth having a list of centenarians.

Normally I would just be bold and do these things, but I have some uncertainties and I feel that this list is not abandoned (like the MWC one) and that it is the product of many contributors, who may have some good ideas for the list. I'll leave this open for a day or two to see what kind of response I get before I do anything. Cheers, CP 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it`s more than one or two days ... anyway ... I agree with you, that there must be spent some time to work on this article. Many other, quite similar aricles have become very clear and very comprehensible. But should the people stay to be listed after the different categories (Artists, Sportspeople etc.)? They could also be listed alphabetical or by age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.203.241 (talkcontribs) 19:10, 28 September 2007
I think alphabetical rather than by age. Comparing ages would have little meaning in such diverse lists. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... on one hand, keeping them in different categories makes for a series of smaller, more readable tables, but one large alphabetical table could work too for flow. I did say one or two days, shoulda said one or two weeks. But I will get on this soon, and ponder the merits of both formats. Cheers, CP 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've thought it over and will do a sample at least within a few days. Cheers, CP 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under Construction

Well, I've started working on the list! I hope that my edit summary was clear enough but, just in case, I'll briefly explain. To express it simply, a featured list should contain no red links and should be a synthesis of pre-existing articles (not always but, given the type of list that this is, it applies in this case). Since that is our ultimate goal, might as well get rid of them now. The people removed can be re-added if and only if an article exists about them. For a more detailed explanation, see WP:SAL. Anyhow, removing the red links may seem silly now (because what harm does it do to have them there, right?), but it will make more sense once I start actually giving proper substance and form to the list. The next step is to do a "test table," which I will do tomorrow. Also, I thought of another idea – perhaps pictures to illustrate the list for those that have free images available? Cheers, CP 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a section at the bottom. Comments or concerns before I continue? For now, I've bolded living people and used only years (rather than dates and years) for the columns. Also, as a reminder to myself, I need to find that "incomplete list" template, since this list can technically never be complete. Also, I realized that "Nationality" may be controversial, so I left it out for now. As for linking professions and countries, I think the first instance of each should be wikilinked, so for now I've left it blank since I've started from the bottom. Some of the more unique concepts should be wikified though (I usually went with what was already in the summary). I also have a some qualms about including Saadi on the list, but left him for the moment, since I didn't want to appear sneaky in removing him. Cheers, CP 01:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're doing a good job for the most part so far, but I do have a gripe in how you have a color pattern for the table. I think it'd be better if you stuck to one color, as opposed to a gray and white sequence. I say this because it'd be much easier to add or remove a name if you stuck with only one color. --RandomOrca2 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, it would make it difficult to add more names. I'll fix that up today. Cheers, CP 15:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the colours and added sportspeople. I also removed James Stillman Rockefeller from business, as he was listed twice. If anyone would prefer that he be in business, that move is fine with me. Still trying to decide whether I want to do one a day or go for it all in one shot for the remainder... Cheers, CP 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kept Elsa Countess Bernadotte in the royalty section to flesh it out a bit, in addition to the fact that she's probably inherently notable, but if anyone disagrees, I have no qualms with her being removed. Also, as a question, has anyone gone through the Nisba Centenarians categories (ie. Japanese Centenarians, American Centenarians etc.) and seen if there are more people who are notable for things other than their age to add to this list? Cheers, CP 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Up

I wasted an hour of my time today doing the list for Authors only to have my computer crash when I was up to "Edward Upward." There's no way in hell I'm going to spend another hour doing that again, so unless someone else wants to do that section, I'm going to stop working on this list. Cheers, CP 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major props to RandomOrca2 for doing one of the sections and many thanks. I'll add this back to my project list, starting tomorrow, now that my frustration has somewhat dissipated. Cheers, CP 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Work

As a regular contibutor to this list for the past few years, I will certainly agree that more condensed/readable tables are the best way to go. Cheers to whomever decided to rid the list of the red links, as they were far to numerous to count. A few months back I tried to do the same, but was bitched at for trying to "remove" information. I recollect when this list was a part of the centenarian article itself and had just a few names, and it is cool to know that there are other persons out there who share in the interest of the notebly aged. Continue the good work! Cheers, Longevitymonger

Death of Sam Dana

What about Sam Dana, could he be added to the list? Here is a little text about him ...

Sam Dana (104) oldest living former National Football League player who once played football alongside Lou Gehrig at Columbia. A running back, Dana broke into the then-fledgling league in 1926 with the Hartford Blues. He played one game with the Blues, then played a full season in 1928 with the New York Yankees, finishing with three catches for 66 yards and one touchdown. The Yankees football team folded before the next season, and Dana later worked as a special agent for the Internal Revenue Service before retiring in 1969. He died in his sleep of complications from an infection, in Buffalo, New York on October 29, 2007.

http://www.lifeinlegacy.com/display.php?weekof=2007-10-31#D7101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.253.200 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He needs a Wikipedia page first. If he gets one, then absolutely he can be added. Cheers, CP 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patken4 added an article on Dana, so I added him to the list. --RandomOrca2 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you. Cheers, CP 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New centenarians

I added Walton to the list, but you need to create articles for the other two before they can be added. --RandomOrca2 15:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added Vale-Onslow as of today. Cheers, CP 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List for FL Status!

Please add anything else you see fit to this list!

I object #9. This article is 70KB and can be 100KB if it is done. Georgia guy 20:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty fair point. I'd never noticed how large the article has gotten. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria says that "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status." Maybe one really good picture to illustrate the point of the list would be better? Cheers, CP 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have an idea of who the one or "main" picture should be? Obviously a free one, but who do we choose to represent "centenarians?" Cheers, CP 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When doing the professions, I tried to strike a balance between over and underlinking, not certain how well that turned out. In any case, if anyone has any suggestions on how to improve this, I hope that they'll enact them! Cheers, CP 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #8

Here's a list of people that I've found in the "Centenarians from country X" categories that are not on the list. I've excluded anyone who has no other claim to fame other than being old (war veterans, world's oldest golfer etc. etc.), since this list is supposed to consist of notable centenarians. I also did not include any individuals from earlier centuries if there were valid reasons to disbelieve their age (example, other texts saying they only lived to be 77). There were nine names remaining after I added everyone else, listed with the reason that I haven't added them to the list:

  1. Leonard Blumenthal – I could find no evidence that he reached 100, let alone is still alive. SSDI indicates at least one individual who died long before reaching his centenary who might be the above person.
  2. David Davies (clergyman) – Not certain if he is notable
  3. Gilbert of Sempringham – Many different dates of birth and death, and there's one possible combination that would make him less than 100 years old
  4. Godric of Finchale – Some sources state that he was born in 1070, which means he may not have reached 100 years
  5. Ramon A. Estella – Could not find any evidence that he reached 100, let alone is still alive.
  6. Alexis – No concrete source for birth and death dates that I could find; most seem to claim that he was "around" 100-106
  7. Wayan Limbak – Not certain if he is notable
  8. Malatesta da Verucchio – While the birth and death years span a century (1212-1312), I could not find a source that said that he actually lived 100 years (ie. he may have been only 99 when he died).
  9. Ahmet Kayhan Dede – I have no idea where the 1891 birth date comes from, but the citation says that 1897 or 1898. The official birth date says 1903. Not remotely sure what to believe, but there's a fair enough chance that he wasn't a centenarian to leave him off for now.

If anyone finds some better sources or believes that Davies and Limbak are notable, I hope that they will add them to the list. Otherwise, they will remain on the talk page as possibilities. Cheers, CP 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #6

If no one objects, I'm going to remove the five names listed in the "to-do" list under Criteria 6 in about a week. Saadi's age is suspect, the Countess has no article and the other three don't particularly seem notable aside from their age. That's just my opinion, and I'd really like to hear others! Cheers, CP 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, since no one objected in about a week. Cheers, CP 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ellaline, close but no cigar

I've removed English actress Ellaline Terriss from the above list due to the fact taht she was 99 years old when she died. Although the Wiki article states thae she was 100 (1871-1971), I'm afraid its actually 1872-1971. If anyone needs (or desires) confirmation of this, I suggest you do a Yahoo search or view this site (one of many that states her real age) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0855909/

Well spotted, thank you! Cheers, CP 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Addendum to the above

I've added Rosenblatt, MacArthur, Oranmore and Browne, Dorothy Burr Thompson, Luther Gulick and Louis Maurer. I'll remove them from the list above. I've also removed Arthur George Gaston who's on the list already. As for the rest, there are a lot of war veterans who could go on the last survivors list (I think Woolson, Crump and Fraske are on there already.) The others could probably be thrown on at leisure. Cheers, Longevitymonger

Thanks for the adds! I agree and have removed all the veterans (I think). By the way, and this is directed to whoever moved the page and the community at large, I'm not so sure that I agree with the page change, since "notable" is a very subjective definition. Perhaps something better would be "List of centenarians notable before their centenary," even though that's a bit long. Cheers, CP 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to just mention the overall notability in the opening. --RandomOrca2 22:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially since a closer scrutiny of WP:MOSLIST reveals that list should not use the world "notable" in their titles. Cheers, CP 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly new candidate

What about Lady Gertrude "Trudy" Bliss, born April 02, 1904. She was born as Gertrude Hoffmann in the USA and married british composer Sir Arthur Bliss (1891 - 1975) in 1925. He was Master of the Queen`s Music from 1953 until his death. See also his wikipedia-article. Lady Bliss is the President of "The Arthur Bliss Society", even at age 103. She would be a candidate for the table "relative of someone well-known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.191.238 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Addendum (sorry Eleanor)

I'm afraid Eleanor Robson Belmont falls into the same category as Ellaline Terris, as she did NOT make it to 100. I remember seeing in a "Who Was Who in America" book that Belmont missed it by just a little under two months, and was proven correct by the Social Security death index and a few other sources as well. She was born December 10th of 1879, not 1878, and was 99 when she died. I've removed her from this above list. Here's what I mean....(http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi) Methinks Wikipedia isn't as reliable as it used to be! -- Longevitymonger (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted again! Keep up the good work, it's a valuable asset to this list. Oh, and I responded to your question on Talk:Louis-Mathias Auger. Cheers, CP 18:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to know with 100% certainty that Louis-Mathias Auger is alive, but until a source comes along that lists him as deceased, I don't see any reason to remove him from the list...(his life is pretty intresting to say the least!) and much obliged for the above comment. Cheers, -- Longevitymonger (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New

Blackman has no claim aside from being a "last surviving veteran," so he's not appropriate for this list. I'll check out the other four later. Cheers, CP 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other four seem to be notable enough at first glance, so I'll add them to the above pool. Cheers, CP 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A living (and noteworthy) individual

I just stumbled across a person that seems pretty listworthy and is still alive as of this writing. As of now, this person doesn't have an article on Wikipedia and I wanted to get a bit of feedback from the list contributors before I add her, and hopefully write an article. Here are a few links:

http://www.tampatheatre.org/Rosa.php

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/07/Hillsborough/The_queen_of_soaps_co.shtml

http://www.stummfilm.info/stars/index_en.html#RioRosa

-- Longevitymonger (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found about her roughly a month or two ago via the last URL you posted. She has both the notability and information for an article, although I think an article should be written BEFORE she gets added. ---- RandomOrca2 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but what about Pietro Spiggia then: a hoax, or not? -- Extremely sexy (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Breitzke emailed me about this and I nominated Spiggia for deletion after he presented me with some convincing evidence that Spiggia may be a hoax. You can view the evidence here. As for Rio, she seems like a notable person, but I wonder if she's actually the age she claims to be. I mean, I would have been surprised if you told me that she was as old as 80 (I know she can't be that young given her work, I just meant if you showed me only a picture). She's probably notable enough and it would be really great if she looked that good at 105. Cheers, CP 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and wow: he actually still does send mails to you, does he (he is ignoring me since several months), but what about Jean-Frédéric Waldeck? Extremely sexy (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's definitely a real person, so I removed the hoax tag. I can't attest to his age, but I suspect that it was exaggerated. We can, however, only go with what's verifiable. Cheers, CP 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well: it's definitely not verifiable that he died at age 109, and Laurent Toussaint, the French supercentenarian expert, sent me this via e-mail:

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:04:45 +0000 (GMT) From: "Laurent Toussaint" <ltoussaint_super@yahoo.fr> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.fr. Learn more Subject: Re : Décès de Marie Rouch Portet le 27 octobre 2007 à 110 ans et 151 jours To: "Bart Versieck" <yvohofmans@yahoo.com>

   He is an unpostor, a very know fake in France!

Message d'origine ----

De : Bart Versieck <yvohofmans@yahoo.com> À : Laurent Toussaint <ltoussaint_super@yahoo.fr>; amarilis.espinoza@guinnessworldrecords.com; bertrand.desjardins@umontreal.ca; robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com; Felipe Prista <fprista@hotmail.com>; Giovanni Alunni <agiox@libero.it>; John Dederer <profjohnd@yahoo.com>; José <cerceda05@yahoo.com>; Louis Epstein <le@main.put.com>; Robert Young <ryoung122@yahoo.com> Envoyé le : Mardi, 6 Novembre 2007, 21h38mn 23s Objet : Décès de Marie Rouch Portet le 27 octobre 2007 à 110 ans et 151 jours

Pity, but what exactly do you think about this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Waldeck, dear Laurent?

So is this not enough to dismiss him, or what? Extremely sexy (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... this is tricky. MAYBE it should be nominated for deletion, but I suggest checking to make very sure that it is a hoax. A proposed deletion might be better than an AfD too. Cheers, CP 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: will you PROD it, please, dear Paul? Extremely sexy (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check it out in detail to make sure that I'm not making a mistake tomorrow and, if it's appropriate, I will. Cheers, CP 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Myrick

I found Information that might contradict the age that is Written in her Article. I found information through Social Security Death Index that shows her being older than 102 and being closer to 107. Her Birthday is Given as August 31 1866 and dying in October 1973. [1]

Social Security Death Index Search Results


The most full-featured SSDI search engine on the internet

Field Value Records Results Last Name MYRICK 4298 4298 First Name HANNAH 28162 2

Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record HANNAH MYRICK 31 Aug 1866 Oct 1973 02115 (Boston, Suffolk, MA) (none specified) 033-34-0341 Massachusetts SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record Viewing 1-2 of 2

(V)=(Verified) Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member. (P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed.

--Thomas (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that qualifies as original research. Since it doesn't affect her centenarian status either way, it's probably just best to go with what we can cite on the table. Cheers, CP 17:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that I took the supposedly living Zheng Ji (biochemist) off the list. I found out that he does in fact exist (so my edit summary is satisfied), but I couldn't find any sources to show that he was still alive, or even made it to 100 years old. If someone can find such sources, I hope that he will be re-added. Cheers, CP 20:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are actually several links, but unfortunately I don't speak chinese. For example, this text seems to me, using translation software, almost certainly talk about Zheng Ji's 108th birthday party, and include citations from Zheng Ji himself. Without someone actually reading chinese though, I wouldn't guarantuee I'm right. http://www.yangtse.com/jspd/jssh/200805/t20080507_442417.htm (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Here is a slightly older one (October 2007) with a picture (Zheng Ji said to be the guy in the middle): http://hnljd.njgl.gov.cn/art/2007/10/22/art_2586_61553.html (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
That second one looks good - I'll add him back to the article with that as a citation. Cheers, CP 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed Nilakantha Somayaji || 1444-1544 || 100 || Indian mathematician as I couldn't find any evidence that he actually made it to 100 years (the lifespan means he could have been 99 or 100 at the time of his death). Again, his sourced re-adding would be more than welcome. Cheers, CP 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again just now, and I've seen 1444-1545 and also 1455-1545, so it's probably better to leave him off. Cheers, CP 06:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Louis-Mathias Auger, as there's no proof that he made it to 100 he is very dead. Cheers, CP 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just inquired to the user who moved Charles Howard (cricketer) from "living" to "possibly living people." It may be that, like with Horace Wass, the source is not entirely reliable. For now I'll leave him on the list, but he may need to be removed soon. Cheers, CP 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No response within a weak, so I restored him as "living". Cheers, CP 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born in 1908, still alive

Here's a list of people born in 1908, with Wikipedia articles, and still alive who will needed to be added to the list if they make their 100th birthday this year and IF an appropriate reference is included. This does NOT include those listed at http://www.genarians.com/1908.html (since I did this to bring attention to those names that may be missed), although if someone wanted to add those names too, it would certainly be appreciated. I pulled this list mainly from User talk:RandomOrca2. If I missed any names (and surely I have), please let me know/add them to this list. Once the person turns 100 and an appropriate reference is found, it should just be a matter of adding the reference, then copying and pasting.

Name Lifespan Age Notability
Rica Erickson 1908 – 115 Australian naturalist
Orlando Cole 1908 – 115 American cellist and cello teacher
Hannah Frank 1908 – 115 Scottish painter and sculptor
Reginald C. Fuller 1908 – 115 British Catholic priest
Jane Bernigau 1908 – 115 German Schutzstaffel Oberaufseherin
Pola Illéry 1908 – 115 Romanian actress
Muriel Duckworth 1908 – 115 Canadian feminist and peace activist
Sœur Emmanuelle 1908 – 115 Belgian-born French nun
Claude Lévi-Strauss 1908 – 115 French social anthropologist
Thomas Hoyt "Slim" Bryant 1908 – 115 American country music singer and songwriter
Elliott Carter 1908 – 115 American classical music composer
Manoel de Oliveira 1908 – 115 Portuguese film director

Special case:

  1. When adding Hannah Frank, delink Scotland for Naomi Mitchison.
  2. When adding Thomas Hoyt "Slim" Bryant, delink country music for Wade Mainer.
  3. When adding Manoel de Oliveira, delink Portugal for Fernando Pessa.

Cheers, CP 22:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NN&C names to the list. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Freakin' fantastic! If I hadn't already given you a barnstar, I would! Haha. Cheers, CP 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by any chance Nguyen Ngoc Tho were still alive, he'd be hitting his 100th birthday on May 26, 1908. I doubt he's alive though, or that he'd get media attention if he were, but you never know. Cheers, CP 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Olin Stephens was just added, this may be a good time for me to mention that, while I'm pretty sure I saw evidence that Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak was alive at 99, I still have yet to see anything proving that he made it to 100. I'll continue to keep an eye out. Cheers, CP 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This link shows that Tullio Pinelli made it to 100, but I don't think it is a stable reference and the "CLICCA QUI" link I'm not sure says that he made it to 100... Cheers, CP 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comment would have made more sense if I had included the fact that there is no other source that claimed that he made it too 100. So he's fine for the Italian Centenarians category, but we need a better cite for this list. Cheers, CP 00:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a decent link now. Added. Cheers, CP 03:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More possible additions

I've found another person who should be considered for the list. Jane Richardson Hanks (August 2, 1908- ), an influential American anthropologist. After extensive research, all indications point to her being alive, and her name wasn't listed on the Social Security death index. Here's more info. http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/hanks.html Also, another name I found was economist Raymond J. Saulnier, who, if alive, will turn 100 in September. There's scant info on the net, but one site had mention of him giving a lecture in 2001 (unless it's a different Saulnier.) He also isn't listed on the Social Security index. If someone has info on him dying, please let me know. Longevitymonger —Preceding comment was added at 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found argentinian photographer Horacio Coppola who was born 1906 and where a film from his 100th birthday is available on youtube. I'm still contemplating whether he is notable enough to create an article for though. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If you can find a few reliable, third party sources that discuss him, I say be bold and go for it. I tend to be a bit biased on centenarians though, since often I wonder if I would have considered some of these people as notable at age 80 as I do at age 100. Cheers, CP 15:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did they make it?

If anyone is good at research or has resources that I don't, the following people may have lived to be 100 (or may still be alive), but I can't find any evidence either way:

  1. Luisa Acuna (born 1899) (already been deleted three times for notability - I'm considering nominating it permanently)
  2. Roy Oxley (born c. 1899)
  3. Alan Watt (born April 13, 1901)
  4. Leonard Blumenthal (born 1901) (see my note above - may have died in 1984, but I can't confirm that the SSDI Leonard Blumenthal is this one)
  5. John F.C. Westerman (born 1901)
  6. Thomas Müller (SS officer) (born February 2, 1902)
  7. Tom Watson (footballer born 1902) (born October 4, 1902) (Dan Keating was Ireland's oldest man when he died, so if we can find out who Ireland's oldest man is currently, it may eliminate Watson as being alive)
  8. Hector Allard (born c. 1902) (Like Blumenthal, a Google search reveals a few deceased Hector Allards around this age, but none that I can conclusively connect to this one)
  9. Horace Wass (born August 26, 1903) (Cricinfo lists him as alive - is that good enough to add to the page? Or is it just an oversight/mistake?)
  10. Giuseppe Galluzzi (born November 10, 1903)
  11. Ramon A. Estella (born 1903)
  12. George Anderson (footballer born 1904) (born October 29, 1904)
  13. Alfred Chalkley (born 1904)
  14. Eddie McGrath (born January 31, 1906) (article and sources hint that he is deceased)
  15. Ellen Brockhöft (born 1906)
  16. Kristian Johansson (born December 25, 1907)
  17. Dan O'Keefe (born 1907)
  18. Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak (born April 5, 1908) (moved to possibly living, as three months have gone by with no confirmation of his 100th birthday)
  19. János Aknai (born 1908) (no exact date of birth, so may not be eligible just yet)

I've assumed that if someone reached 110, we would have certainly heard about it, so no one pre-1899 was included. Cheers, CP 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosta Werner

Another possible addition to the list could be Gosta Werner a Swedish Director and writer who made it to 100 on May 15. Here is a link dedicated to his birthday(Swedish Site) [2]

--Thomas (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some new names

These ones seem uncontentious:

-- JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de Boissiere and Partridge seem to definitely be notable enough, however I doubt Campbell(seems like a WWI veteran pretty much) and no to Calment, as she's only famous for her extreme age. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RandomOrca2 and have clarified the intro a bit to explain why Campbell and Calment should not be added although, as per the "to do" list, I still needs work. I have added de Boissiere and Partridge as well. In the former case, I'm not certain if the "de" should be counted in alphabetical order, so someone please correct me if I did that wrong. Also, if someone can find a better site for him (it's an official blog, but still a blog), please do replace the one used.
As a side note, I think the "living people" highlighting should be removed (too much of a size increase for too little of an effect), or at least changed to a colour that isn't the same as the table heading. Cheers, CP 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the highlight should just be removed - the bolding and italicizing of the text is enough to signify a name being alive. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure why we arbitrarily decide that people who've become notable purely because of their longevity are excluded. The first person I'd expect to find in a "List of centenarians" is the oldest person who ever lived. I'm not saying that everyone who reaches 100 and has had some media attention should be listed, but Jeanne Calment in particular was world-famous, much more so than many of the others we list, including most of the people in the "Relatives of well-known people" section. She started getting media attention when she surpassed Shigechiyo Izumi's longevity in mid-1995, and kept on hitting the news regularly until she died in 1997, and then there was a veritable flood of information about her.
On the topic of relatives, since all the relatives we list became notable in their own right (as measured by Wikipedia having articles on all of them), and not just because they happened to be related to some other notable person, surely they should be put into their respective categories and not lumped together as "relatives". It just seems odd to exclude Calment on what seems an arbitrary basis, but in the same breath include people who at first glance are only there because they were related to someone else. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some fair points raised here, so here's my take on them. As far as I understand it, I would say there's three reasons why people who are notable for their age only are excluded. First of all, in practical terms, adding everyone on Wikipedia who is 100+ years old would triple an already bloated list - I'm even starting to become of the opinion that somehow this list should be split up into different pages. If we have to draw a line somewhere, to me it makes sense to draw that line at people who are notable based on their longevity alone. Otherwise I worry about a situation where individual editors are trying to decide who is "important enough" to be on this list. Secondly, I feel like adding people who are notable only for their longevity is double dipping - not only is there an article on them based solely on their age, but then they get a mention on a page solely dedicated to their age. I feel like the purpose of this list is to highlight people who are notable despite their age - of course this gets very thinly defined at some points, like the Delaney Sisters - after all, they may not have been notable if they hadn't reached the age of 100, but they're also notable for because of their works. Finally, people who are notable solely for extreme age (supercentenarians, last surviving veterans etc.) already have a dozen or so lists dedicated to them (see Template:Longevity), so it's not like they're being entirely left out. Having said all that, I see no reason not to mention Jeanne Calment in the intro, it certainly could add to the article.

As for the relatives, I would say that the key difference between those three individuals and people notable solely for their age would be that the former group would have passed the notability test if they had only lived half as long as they did, while the latter likely would not have. While they probably didn't get as much global coverage or name-recognition, they do have a claim to notability outside of their age, even if it's a weak one.

A lot of this is fairly subjective and, since I've been doing the bulk of the work, it's been my subjective judgment. So I'm always open to debate on particular individuals, or even groups of individuals. I wouldn't cry if the relatives were taken off, I can say that much, and I would be happy to see Jeanne Calment mentioned in the intro - maybe the article's picture can even be of her, since it's a free one. Cheers, CP 06:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support re Jeanne Calment. Maybe a way to not get it crowded with every centenarian under the sun would be to permit the inclusion of the current world longevity record-holder, whoever it happens to be, but nobody else who's notable only because of their age. Not sure how we'd specify that rule. Calment isn't likely to be surpassed for a long time, but we're talking about a principle here.
On relatives, I'm not sure which three people you're talking about. There are 11, not 3, relatives of someone well-known in the category. I wasn’t arguing to remove any of these names, but to allocate them to the relevant groups, e.g. Brooke Astor was a philanthropist et al, so she’d belong with the Philanthropists; Anthony De Palma was an orthopedic surgeon and humanitarian, so he’d belong either with the Scientists and Mathematicians, or in Miscellaneous. Et cetera. It sends the wrong message to have a category called “Relative of someone well-known”, given that Wikipedia’s rules prevent the creation of articles on people where this is the sole basis of their notability. Indeed, some scrape in by the skin of their teeth – e.g. Jean MacArthur only has an article because she was awarded the Medal of Freedom. Had that not happened, I doubt we could justify having an article on her in her own right. Questions have been raised about Jolie Gabor and others having their own articles. But since they currently have articles, I suppose it’s fair enough to have them in this list, but in a place that reflects the reason for their notability; if all else fails, they belong in Miscellaneous. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I confused Royalty with Relatives with the numbering, sorry. In any case, I agree with what is being said here about the relatives - if no one else minds, I don't have a problem with moving them all into different categories (including misc for any that may not fit somewhere else). So give it a few days, and if no one makes an argument to the contrary, whoever's up to it can move them. Cheers, CP 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Okay, it seems that no one disagrees with either removing the gold "living" highlighting, nor splitting up the "relatives" section, and it's been a week, so I say that we do both. I will take care of the highlighting right now, but the relative job will take longer than I have time for at the moment - so either I can do it on the weekend or someone else can but, please, when moving them around, let's kill two birds with one stone and find citations for all of them.

Also, here's an interesting one Yardley Chittick, should he be added? He's sort of on the borderline of "famous for longevity only." I have no particular preference. Cheers, CP 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be ok to add him, considering the same argument could be said for Philip Rabinowitz, yet Rabinowitz is listed. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... but I'd argue that Rabinowitz is famous for something that he did when he was old (such as The Delaney Sisters), not just being old. I think Fyodor Uglov should stay, though, since he did win the Lenin Prize for his activities that were unrelated to longevity. Cheers, CP 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll just see if anybody else has a viewpoint. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I wonder where Longevitymonger has gone to? Cheers, CP 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the source given for his death, SSDI, is reliable enough to use as a citation on this page. Can anyone provide me with a source maybe for his 100th birthday, something reliable? I can't seem to find anything that we could cite on this page... Cheers, CP 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per his wikipedia page and the cited sources, there appear to be serious doubts regarding the fact that he attained the age of 100. I believe that he should be removed but, as this will likely be more controversial than most removals, I'll give a week for discussion to see if there is a consensus in the opposite direction. Cheers, CP 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]