Talk:List of the verified oldest people

Addendum

Why was ranking removed? Also why was Lucy d'Abreu added? I thought it was agreed that although Martha Graham was footnoted, she would not be considered an unproven case, and hence only a need for "six" in the addendum. Please explain. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this too. It seems that Mitsu Fujisawa's case has been questioned, there are question marks there now, but the source (from the history of this page) is to a GRG page which seems to only indicate a question here via an italicized entry, the manner in which questioned claims there are indicated. But, to be consistent, we should have something a bit more substantive I'd say, some note which can be linked which explicitly raises questions about this claim. I've supplied links to all questioned claims, save for Beard's which I could not find, but in that case we know the dispute. Graham's dispute is different as it is a question of a grandfathered case accepted by some but not all authorities.

I would remove the "?" from Fujisawa's case until there is a substantive link, and I would remove the seventh claim in the addendum. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and do that for consistency especially in that Fujisawa's case has not been "?" on the List of the verified oldest women, nor any addition for her to that addendum. TFBCT1 (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to question the source we use, which is why the question mark is needed. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of questioning the source, it's a matter of whether we should declare a case "disputed" when all we have is a name in italics. We need more than that. Canada Jack (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I quote from the tables: "cases in italics are questionable as validated cases". We have to go with our source. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, what happend to Carrie C. White's footnote? Is it now considered original research? TFBCT1 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the White citation and put it back. As for the case in question, it seems a bit lame to me to simply say "GRG indicates this is a questionable case," without saying why it is a questionable case, as we have done for all the others. However, I will concede that this is sufficient, even without a description of the nature of the dispute. To be consistent, we should insert a note that GRG calls it questionable. Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. My problem remains now that we are not being consistent with information on List of the verified oldest women page which is what caused my confusion initially. We need to be consistent throughout Wikipedia. Since the corrections have not been made, I'll go ahead and make them on that page as well. TFBCT1 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on Mitsu Fujisawa, which is a difficult case. There seems little doubt that the Japanese authorities "took back" this case after the fact, when it was revealed that it was a mistake. The lists of oldest in Japan which can be found rather easily in Japanese do not include her anymore. Unfortunately though, this story is so old that it wasn't widely available on the web when it broke, and therefore it is more or less only available as a Japanese wikipedia footnote on the 109-year-old man who was posthumously upgraded to "oldest in Japan", for the period Mitsu Fujisawa had previously been. For this reason there are even in Japanese no really good refs as to why Mitsu Fujisawa is questionable. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not checking the previous archives, but as a rookie contributor who rarely uses the discussion section, I wanted to know why Besse Cooper and Walter Breuning are in the Addendum section when they are "validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group". Never mind me, doofus mistake on my part, they have not even reached top 100 yet. However, Besse Cooper are only 4 days away from entering the top 100? Would she be automatically placed on the top 100 or remain in the Addendum section?

Also, I think my confusion comes from the first sentence after the word "Addendum" saying: "Several claims are disputed; accordingly, an addendum of proven claims is included." Then, immediately afterwards, the table showing #101-#107 oldest is displayed. It implies that everyone currently listed are disputed. CalvinTy (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The list is updated manually for position, automatically for current age of living persons. People watch the page and edits typically happen near 00:00 GMT. Regarding the addendum, none of them are listed as disputed. There are as many in the addendum section as are listed as disputed in the section above.  Frank  |  talk  16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Frank (I had to identify you via the history tab). I see 7 disputed entries inside the Top 100, so am I to infer that that's how there are an equal number of 7 entries in the Addendum? Like I said before, I'm quite confused because, as you said, none of the "Addendum" entries are disputed. So why do we even have this section if they are now integrated into the Top 100? Might as well nuke the section as it serves no purpose other than "apparently attempting to rank" #101 through #107 oldest persons right now? CalvinTy (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Those individuals do not appear in the list above.  Frank  |  talk  17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is actually quite clear and the addendum is obviously necessary. The top 100 are verified and not disproven, however there are 7 cases which are now disputed. This is because although they were validated under the rules in use, and with the information available, at the time they would probably not be validated under the present criteria (also, some information has been lost). They cannot be removed however as there is no proof that the listed age is incorrect. Therefore they are "disputed" (and notes explaining why in each case added) and 7 undisputed claims have been included to top up the 100. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand about the disputed cases being validated at the time, DerbyCountyinNZ, but you and Frank appear to be missing my point. The sentence, ""Several claims are disputed; accordingly, an addendum of proven claims is included." is right above the table showing #101 through #107. It implies that the 7 names below (Besse Cooper et al) are disputed. Do you follow? The disputed cases are already within the top 100 so the disputed cases are (understandably) not listed *separately* in the table below showing #101 - #107. I hope this helps clarify my original confusion. CalvinTy (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

'Several claims are disputed' refers to the disputed cases in the main table. Then the addendum of proven cases is listed below. I don't see where it implies that disputed cases are in the addendum. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After further review, I belatedly see what the point of the Addendum table. We are only adding an EQUAL number of proven claims (I was dense last week...) since we had included the disputed claims in the main table. If we had discounted the disputed claims, then those in the separate table would have been in the MAIN table. Gotcha. Thanks to all for your patience. CalvinTy (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Martha Graham and Moses Hardy

I think Martha Graham should be removed from this list. We don't know exactly when she was born and I think in order to be included on this list each case must have an exact birth and death date. (I also understand that this is the reason she is no longer on the GRG lists)

In regards to Moses Hardy, I noticed that Louis Epstein changed his birthdate to 1894 recently on his list. GRG on the other hand is still sticking with the 1893 birthdate. So now we have two reliable sources saying two different things. I would recommend that we go with the 1894 birthdate because when a case is doubted such as this researchers usually go with the more conservative birthday. (Maggie Barnes, for example could have been either 115, 116, or 117 at death but researchers decided to go with the more conservative estimate of 115).Tim198 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then how do you handle Izumi? Go with 105? Canada Jack (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Izumi, while I think most agree that he was only 105 I don't think we can change his age on Wikipedia because none of the reliable sources has "officially" debunked his claim. As such, if we did change it on Wikipedia it would be considered original research (which is a violation of the rules).Tim198 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Has Epstein specifically "debunked" Hardy? Or has he merely chosen to accept the younger age? This makes a difference as to how he should be treated for this article if the GRG still uses the older age. In any case, I think there should be consensus before any changes are made.DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I disagree with the use of the term "debunked" here, which basically means:

de·bunk (d-bngk) tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

If someone claims to be 114 but turns out to be only 92 (and their mother, if still living, would be only 113), then it's appropriate to use the term "debunked." When a case is only off by one year and there are multiple documents on both points, that is something else.

If Louis had "debunked" Moses Hardy, then why is he on Louis's "validated" list? Louis goes with "1894" but also notes 1893:

Moses Hardy 112 335 January 6,1894 December 7,2006 [some records say born 1893]

While this isn't the place for original research, the original claim to 1893 was backed up by an ID card, 1930 census, and 1910 census match (which qualified, under the 20-year-rule, as proxy proof of birth). Thus, the case was accepted by both Guinness and the GRG. Later, his WWI draft registration and the 1900 census emerged (which I found) listing him as born in 1894. That makes this case problematic, as both dates have some support. In reality, quite a few cases are problematic. Due to Wiki-pedi-holic-ism, some people are so obsessed that they forget the rule for significant digits. Mr. Hardy's social security record listed 1893 (and a second account listed 1892) and the 1920 census supported an even older age (1891).Ryoung122 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is one of consistency. As I mentioned above, I liken the Hardy case to the Maggie Barnes case. Maggie Barnes could have been 116 (based on the 1900 census record) or 115 (based on family bible record). GRG chose to go the conservative route (as they seem to do with all cases that have conflicting evidence) and validated her at age 115. But with Moses Hardy you did the exact opposite and continue to go with 113 versus 112. Also, with the 1900 census being the record closest to Hardy's birth it's more likely to be correct. Based on these facts, I see little reason not to change his age at this point.Tim198 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the point, you STILL don't get, is that the "tail shouldn't wag the dog." Wikipedia is supposed to be reflective of OUTSIDE sources, not ORIGINAL research. However, I can see that that mantra is failing due to the hypotism of the power of "anyone can edit". But the result is that Wikipedia becomes a LESS reliable place, not a more reliable place.

As for Martha Graham: there should at least be a footnote, as she is included in Louis's lists and was once in the Guinness Book (mid-1980s). I don't list her because there isn't an exact date of birth, and the "proof of age" is the 1900 census (which lists her was born Dec 1844), which is far outside the birth event.Ryoung122 05:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Moses Hardy. He is not confirmed to be 113, he may only be 112, but Martha Graham is for sure 114. She may be a few days younger or older than what is said but she should be on the list. We know she is supposed to be one of the top 100 oldest people. So why was she removed? Jdisnard

Re Martha Graham: If Beatrice Farve with even the birth month not known for sure is on the list, Martha Graham should be too. --Leob (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different. There is a recorded date for Farve, even though it is only one. This has been sufficient for GRG. There has never been an exact date for Graham, merely a month. We can only go by the source. If the GRG decides that there is insufficient evidence to list an exact date for Farve THEN she would either be listed as disputed or removed from the list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for the Farve's birthdate? If it's her ID with a fake year 1905 for the sake of the DMV computer, there is no way to trust the day of the month either. It is convenient to point to it as a recorded date, but it is as good as presuming that Graham was born on Dec. 31 1844 to compute her guaranteed minimum age.

Speaking of Graham, comparing http://www.grg.org/Adams/B.HTM and http://www.grg.org/Adams/BB200.HTM the only conclusion I can draw is that excluding her from the "public" table had been done for aesthetic reasons so that all age numbers look "exact", as there is no dispute note next to Graham in B.HTM. I don't see a convincing reason why Wikipedia should slavishly follow the "public" GRG table instead of listing all GRG-verified oldest people with or without known exact age by compiling the two tables.

Also, I think Hardy should get a footnote similar to Fujisawa's. Having a disputed case without an explanation looks strange. (It is curious that between B.HTM and BB200.HTM Kott (some records say 1 year younger) went down a year and became verified, and a Hardy (some records say 1 year older) went up a year and became disputed.) --Leob (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus needed

Greetings,

I'd like a consensus as to whether we should remove Martha Graham (and other incomplete cases) from these lists. I should note that Robert Young from GRG has recommended that we not include incomplete cases on the lists and, in fact, Martha Graham is no longer listed on GRG's top 200 oldest list.

I'd also like a vote as to whether we should go with the 1894 birthdate for Moses Hardy (as is now listed on Epstein's page)

I support making both of the above changes.Tim198 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A week has now passed, and since no else has responded I'm going to make the changed I suggestedTim198 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew I should have responded to this earlier, but I've been too busy. I don't support accepting the 1894 date for Hardy. His age has NOT been "debunked". There are 2 equally acceptable sources for his age. If the GRG still accepts the 1893 date then I think that is good enough for this article. If the GRG changes to 1894 then he should be listed with that date, and removedfrom here. If Graham is to be removedfrom the list I would like to see her added as a footnote. Although her claim has no exact birthdate her age is otherwise verified and it would probably improve the article to include someone who would otherwise be included in the list and would be some 20 years earlier than anyone else on the list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Making the changes on Wikipedia is like "the tail wagging the dog." Yes, going with 1894 would result in "undisputed" but at the same time, there was quite a bit of evidence going for 1893 and even earlier (1910 census, 1930 census, drivers' ID card, social security records, obituaries).Ryoung122 22:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Derby, I disagree with you about Moses Hardy not being debunked. His claim has been debunked (at least by Louis Epstein). The definition of the word debunk courtesy dictionary.com is

verb (used with object)

to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

By changing his official birthdate to 1894 Louis is debunking the claim. He's exposing the claim of birth to 1893 as being exaggerated. Why should we go with GRG over Epstein and not vice versa? Again, as I stated in another section above with two of the three earliest records supporting an 1894 birth it makes more sense to go with 1894 over 1893. Derby, you need to provide evidence on why you believe we should stick with 1893. Just saying because GRG said so doesn't cut it my view.Tim198 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To Robert Young, I read what you said about the new evidence being discovered after Hardy had already been accepted by Guinness. But I want to ask you this: IF you had all the evidence before Hardy had been accepted would you go with 1893 or 1894?Tim198 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb should be to list the possible older age, if there is evidence to suggest that age might be accurate. Otherwise, the person disappears from the list and one is unaware of a possible bona fide claimant. Canada Jack (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion about Moses Hardy should go to Talk:Moses Hardy if any valid consensus to be formed, and this entire problem about his being removed from every article would have been made much simpler if that's where it had been in the first place. As to the question itself, "Why should we go with GRG over Epstein and not vice versa?", well if we have two reliable sources that have conflicting claims, we should list those conflicting claims, rather than deciding on either of them. Epstein has made his choice, other reliable sources (the GRG) have not (unless they have, someone fill me in, a source?). There's absolutely no reason to remove 1893 unless it has been conclusively proven (as opposed to just, one person thinks this) or there is consensus among all relevant sources. Canadian Paul 02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems the consensus is to retain the 1893 birthdate, I'll reinstate Hardy (even though I strongly disagree with this)Tim198 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Martial Arts Master Lu Zijian - 116 years old

Today I worked on the table and added the chinese martial arts master Lu Zijian on the 7-th place. Currently he is 116 years old and 176 days. He was born on the 15 October 1893. So my question is why that information was removed by someone when there are solid facts about his age? Also why, if he is not the oldest living man on the planet right now (I posted this information in the first section), his information was removed in the table? I expect answer or I'll continue to edit this table in the name of solid truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.134.62.50 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To be included in this table the person must be verified. To quote from the opening paragraph of this article: "A supercentenarian is considered verified if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group." Lu Zijian has not been verified by such a body, therefore there are in fact no "solid facts" as you have asserted. And if you do continue to re-add anyone that does not meet this requirement it will more than likely be considered WP:Vandalism. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He is to be found on the "recent claims" section of Longevity claims. Canada Jack (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And... he ranks only 19th of claims of people who have unverified dates of birth, six of whom are men, and if we include claims from those who have not updated in the past two years, then we must add another 20 people, at least five of whom are men. Canada Jack (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Extension

Should we extend this list (and the two related lists) to 125 people? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No. 100 is a reasonable number to include in such a list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest not to limit the list by a number of people but rather by some age. On a long term one might get a kind of exponential distribution of the cases with a random cut-off (in this case 100). Many interesting features of the distribution might get lost and many interesting cases might also get lost. To give an example: The number of male people on the list will decrease dramatically in the future.I would suggest to set the cut off to 113 years or even lower, but not below 110. A way to avoid the mentioned complications and to maintain the list as it is, one might set up another list with a cut off of 113 or lower on which all the cases above a certain age are kept. 79.216.173.61 (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anitica Butariu (again)

I'm not pointing fingers, but the first paragraph clearly states:

"A supercentenarian is considered verified if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group."

However, Anitica Butariu's footnote states:

"Aniţica Butariu's claim was accepted by Romanian authorities, but supporting documentation for the claim has never been produced for inspection by international gerontology organizations. However, nothing has been published to dispute the claim."

So which one is it? We need to decide whether or not Butariu really ought to be on this list. These are two conflicting pieces of info about the validation by international gerontology organisations. Should we rephrase Butariu's footnote or remove her altogether? I don't claim to know a lot about her case, so I'd appreciate the help of you guys. Brendanology^ContriB 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

She's still on the GRG list, which would be surprising if they hadn't seen the documents. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why they would let that claim slip through the cracks onto the GRG website's validated lists. This is a MAJOR error. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally with you, Nick Ornstein.

And yes, I'm also wondering why Butariu is still on the GRG's lists. Even Epstein concedes that her "certification (is) apparently only by Romanian authorities". If we include her here, we might as well also include Maria Olivia da Silva as she has been "validated" exclusively by Brazilian authorities. I don't know what she's even doing on this list if the GRG hasn't actually seen her documents. Given that the oldest living Romanian right now is a woman who celebrated her 106th birthday yesterday, I personally find Butariu's claim to 115 very suspicious. This issue is definitely worth discussing some more. --Brendanology^ContriB 12:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Title and/or list is misleading

The article is entitled 'verified' and then goes on to list a number of 'disputed' claimants. So which is it? Are the disputed names verified or not? If verified then they need to be listed as such and not as disputed. If they are indeed disputed then they need to be removed from the list - because they are not verified. The article should lose the 'verified' bit or the list should lose those people who have not in fact been 'verified'. As it stands the article is misleading. Wembwandt (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's both. Some cases were, and still are considered verified, but recent findings have cast some doubt on the authenticity of the validation. The article has to keep the "verified" part, or it opens the floodgates for all claims to be added. This page is only for cases of longevity that are accepted by reliable international sources dealing specifically with extreme longevity, such as Guinness World Records or the GRG. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that ST. But shouldnt we remove the disputed claims? They are no longer verified - if once they were. Wembwandt (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they are still verified until the source (ie GRG) removes them. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New Spanish anonymous cases (M.A.C.C., and M.C.L.L.)

I really do think they should probably on this list. If they are in the article "List of Spanish supercentenarians", then they should be everywhere else on wikipedia. They have been validated with a valid source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.204.87 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not if they're anonymous. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That shouldn't be an issue. They've been validated by an international organisation and the findings have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Due to data privacy, they do not show names of their validated supercentenarians. [1] SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly consensus has been against the inclusion of anonymous individuals on pages such as this one. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is that? Kama Chinen was about as anonymous as most people get. Anonymous or not, they have reached the Top 100 list, and they are validated. I don't know why there's an issue.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word anonymous. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

These two cases are not anonymous, but rather "name not disclosed". Their names are presumably known to the authors of the paper as well as the name of Joan Riudavets Moll who was identified in table 4 (p. 166) as J.R.M. (Temporary) privacy of the name should not preclude Wikipedia from listing the fact. Leob (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia is concerned they are anonymous. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Says who? Where? Leob (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you see a name~on the list, or 2 groups of meaningless letters? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Any name on the list without a wiki link is a group of meaningless letters, as far as I am concerned. I don't see how "Hide Ohira" or "Yasu Akino" is better than "M.A.C.C.", or "M.C.L.L." Let's see what GRG decides. 98.207.58.100 (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see reason why anonimty would make someone be out of the list if it is validated by an inernational organisation. Can someone please point where this consensus was reached so that I can read the arguments? GMMarques (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Siamese. To me, the point of these lists is to identify individuals who have achieved the longest known life spans. If they are anonymous they can not, by definition, be identified. I think we can put a note under the main list saying several verified but unidentified people have been reported with the attendant details. Canada Jack (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I agree with DERBY, not with Siamese... d'oh! Canada Jack (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking over the situation, the first question I asked was "is this information" verifiable in a reliable source? Unless I'm mistaken (and please correct me if I am), the answer to that question is yes... even though their names are not listed, the information that they exist (and their initials) can be verified and the source in question is reliable. So I don't see any Wikipedia policy issues here. So then I asked, "What is the purpose of this list?" The purpose, I believe, would ideally to be list the 100 oldest people who ever lived... and in this case the standard we are using is verification by "an international body that specifically deals in longevity research". Does this source qualify? If so, then they should be included, if not, then they should be excluded. I don't think anonymity is an issue... it's difficult to think of a realistic analogy... but whether or not their names are made public is irrelevant to the fact that they have been verified as reaching a certain age (again, contingent on this source qualifying under the page's guidelines for verification). If Jeanne Calment's claim had all the same evidence it does now, but no research body or news agency had ever released her name, she would still be the oldest person verified to have ever lived, and her exclusion on the basis of us not knowing her name would only make the list inaccurate.

A compromise, however, might be to include a footnote, especially if there is disagreement to the validity of the verification source. Canadian Paul 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Paul: anonymity should not be an issue. There is plenty of anonymous music composers, anonymous writers, etc. and they all appear in Wikipedia. The real issue is if the source is reliable. And, I may be wrong, but I am not sure the decision whether a source is or is not reliable is entirely up to the page contributors. Indeed, there are several other pages dealing with supercentenarians, and I do not think different pages should use a different policy. Usually, Guinness and the Gerontology Research Group is considered the main reliable source. The so-called Epstein's list is also referred as a reliable one. I am happy to know there is more out there. But I would like to have a more "universal" consensus. In any case, I strongly suggest to mantain a constructive discussion. Keeping reverting and re-reverting changes is not going in the right direction. If I remember correctly, once a change has been reverted for the first time, one should bring the issue to the discussion page without re-reverting, until consensus is attained. In the meantime the new Spanish cases should not be included.Fbarioli (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, this hinges on whether our various sources for this and similar pages choose to list the anonymous cases on their main lists. Or, if the different sources have similar standards for verification that are typically used by GRG Epstein etc. However, there is one aspect here which has not been touched upon. We ALREADY don't routinely list individuals whose cases are "incomplete," despite their name and birthdate being known and verified. For example, Utaro Tamura was known to have celebrated his 111th birthday in 2003, but his date of death is unknown. For me, since this is a list of individuals verified to have been one of the 100th oldest in the various categories, having someone here who is anonymous defeats the purpose of the page - which is to identify those individuals. Take the extreme case - what if EVERY person on the list was anonymous? The list would be meaningless in terms of knowing what made these people special other than the fact of their age. The point is not to encompass every individual who makes the cutoff, an impossibility as numerous individuals no doubt would be here is their birthdate was verifiable, it is to make a list of VERIFIED and IDENTIFIED individuals. Canada Jack (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

I think these cases should be listed. If we think of credit ratings agencies (like Experian, Transunion, Equifax), the "big three" sometimes vary in their reports.

The IDL/Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research really is the most-respected age verification group in the field (however, their goal is to generate demographic data, not public records). The issue is "anonymity." The GRG/Guinness World Records focus on publicly validated cases, not anonymity.

Nonetheless, the GRG has listed "verified anonymous cases" in the past:

456 37 Japan NA Nov. 23, 1886 Dec. 19, 1996 110 26 O ? Japan

Thus, I see no reason why these cases cannot be listed. Wikipedia has a policy of "placeholder" for its list of most edits.

The point of including these cases is that it provides the best demographic data available. We know, for example, that Eugenie Blanchard has not yet surpassed Spain's oldest woman of all time.

Also, there is the possibility that the case was not anonymous but simply not reported in the media. Media report is definitely NOT the standard to determine verification.

The best choice is to include the information that is publicly available. We know the dates of birth and death, age in years and days, nation of death, and initials. We know the case was verified by arguably the most-authoritative source in the field. To me, the issue of sources should focus on whether the Epstein list counts or not. The IDL and GRG are well-established, as is Guinness World Records.Ryoung122 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A case like Utaro Tamura isn't really verified. We had a "report" that he was alive as of January 15, but no documentary confirmation of death. With these two cases, the age is unlikely to change, as we have validated dates of birth and death.

I think the real issue here is that, for some, a case with no name is like reducing us to a number; the human aspect is lost.

But I disagree. Serena Williams is #1 in the world even though she is not participating in the US Open 2010.

People can choose to be in the media spotlight, or not. There's been no news report on Lucy Hannah; the ONLY reason we know her name is the laws in the U.S. allow public access to the records. Whether a family's wish to be anonymous or not is not the legal issue. Kama Chinen's family desired anonymity, but the government of Japan had already publicly released the name. It therefore became public record. However, we don't see any photos of Kama at age 114, do we?Ryoung122 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't we add a list of incomplete and anonymous cases then? If we can't agree to add these cases to the main lists (maybe we will in the end), I can't see a reason to exclude an incomplete/anonymous list. Canada Jack (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anonymous and incomplete cases are the same. We can add a list of incomplete cases, but I think the anonymous cases should be on the main list. GMMarques (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Three points/questions.

1. Whether or not the GRG accepts unidentified/ananoymous cases is irrelevant to wikipedia. The GRG are concerned with longevity/gerontology, wikipedia is a moderated encyclopedia. The two have different purposes and requirements. I don't recall (I'm happy to be corrected) that any other person has been included in this article while still "unidentified".
2. What is the status of the International Database of Longevity? Is it equivalent to GRG, or are the standards somewhat less? It's hard to tell (at least without registering as a user), but it looks like a collection of people interested in gerontology who occasionally publish papers.
3. The 2 unidentified Spanish cases died in 1996 and 1997. Why did they not get identified/verified by the GRG, especially as they would have been the 2 oldest people ever in Spain and around the top 10 all-time when they died? Spanish cases are regularly identified by the GRG, how did these get missed for 13/14 years? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

In response to the above:

1. Yes, the GRG accepts anonymous validated cases, I already mentioned that.

2. The GRG did not begin tracking supercentenarians until 1999. Additionally, cases come from public records including news reports which are then verified through a documentation process (for example, finding birth, marriage, and ID records). The above anonymous cases were never reported in the media, thus the GRG did not know about them.

3. The International Database on Longevity uses the same document standards as the GRG, but the list is more complete because the records they gather come direct from government registries. The problem for Wikipedia is that the IDL values "anonymity" and for them, their main focus is demographic data (the complete statistical picture), not individual cases. The IDL allows information to be released for nations that allow public records access (such as the USA and the UK).

Ryoung122 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As IDL can be considered equivalent to GRG in terms of reliability, the issue seems to me to be down to if we want the list to include or not to include anonymous cases. We may decide to rename the page as "List of the verified and identified oldest people", and maybe insert a note about the existence of the two anonymous Spanish cases, or we may include the anonynous cases, and maybe insert a note that explains to first-time readers the meaning of M.A.C.C. and M.C.L.L.

In my opinion, as long as there are only 2 anonymous cases out of 100, I think that including them will enhance the completeness of the table. However, I do not think we want the table to look just like a mere list of acronyms: to my eyes, the current List of Spanish supercentenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spanish_supercentenarians looks somehow ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbarioli (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as M.A.C.C. appears nearly everywhere else she can possibly appear on Wikipedia, we really should add her and M.C.L.L. We could:

• insert a footnote about them (as has been suggested above)
• or colour their rows differently to indicate incompleteness (as is done with disputed cases and living cases)

What say you? Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 16:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now, theses cases are in the Spanish list and the European list, why not the world list?Ryoung122 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be included in the world list. We all agree that these people exist, are real and verified. Just the label (name) is not known; this should be a list of people, not names. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the majority believes these two cases should be included in the list. I would add them myself but I'm not an expert user of Wikipedia and I don't know if I would be going against any rule of the discussion. So I ask what is the procedure so that these cases can be "rightly" added to the list? GMMarques (talk) 9:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should be added to the list. The addition of M.A.C.C. and M.C.L.L. might detract from the appearance of the list for some, but they ought to be added. Unlike Utaro Tamura, the duo have complete birthdates and deathdates. M.A.C.C. has appeared on the national longevity recordholders section, of Oldest people, and no one has complained. So why shouldn't she appear here too? Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 09:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What happed to to 43.

This list currently jumps from 42 to 44 skipping 43. And no there is no tie for position number 42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.36.14 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Tie for 100

This article in the past has, when 2 or more people tie for 100 left them in. This means that the article will temporally have 101 persons until someone bumps them off. I think its fine and a lot better than only having 99 people on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.36.14 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Skewed view

Isn't this list very obviously skewed? Fifty ones of the names on it belong to US citizens. This cannot be because birth certificates or other documentation authenticating longevity claims are less available in other countries. Or can it? It seems rather more plausible that the majority of the Gerontology Research Group members are from the US themselves, and thus US claims are easier to verify. If this is the case, very few analytical conclusions may be drawn from the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.170.14 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes... And this is relevant because??? Even so, it is still a fact that it is easier to verify Americans because there is more available data. There are simply not very many countries with sufficient census data from more than 100 years ago, and the US, while far from having the best census data, is definitely the biggest country with easily available such data. Even if the relevant data could be found in quite a few countries, in one as big as the US, it would involve traveling around quite substantially to rural country churches with ancient books of births and deaths. And of course, in many countries, not even such data is available. When brazilian census data is available on the web, there will be more brazilian SC:s, completely regardless of where the correspondents are based... Yubiquitoyama (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

America is also by far the biggest of the western industrialized countries, the only larger countries population-wise are only now emerging from third-world status. Further, many of the western countries from where candidates might emerge are in Europe which experienced two catastrophic wars which killed far millions of civilians and troops, let alone destroyed many records which would corroborate claims. While the United States was not left unscathed by those wars, the demographic consequences were far less severe. Canada Jack (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Survival rate is another very important factor in determining the percentage of supercentenarians within a given population. Just think that, if, say, in country A the average age at death is 5 years less than that in country B, roughly speaking you can expect the number of supercentenarians in A to be something like 1/30 of those in B. That's indeed the reason for which male supercentenarians are a very small minority, even if males are just about half of the whole population.Fbarioli (talk) 17:47, 13 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).

Verified and Disputed????

I have been thinking about this for a while now, but every time I comer to this article, I can't help but notice the "Disputed" names on the list. If this article's title claims that the names on the list are "verified", then why are there disputed names on the list? Are these claims verified, and by what criteria are they still being disputed as to mark these names separate from the others?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Disputed" are claims which were verfied at the time but have since been called into question. As there is nothing conclusive to disprove the original verification they have been allowed to stand. If/when there is sufficient evidence that the verification should be disallowed then they will be removed (from the source ie GRG). Wiki can only go by the source, even evidence to the contrary that has no citation cannot be used as that would be OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

perhaps a clarification would help alleviate the confusion.Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi

I think that Shigechiyo Izumi should be removed. This year's Guinness book has already removed him. I thought that the only reason that he was kept on because Guinness still accepted his claim. DHanson317 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he's still there becuase he's still listed by GRG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Derby, so what you're saying is that both sources need to doubt him? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And GRG already doubts him anyways. It seems like GRG only kept him on because Guinness had him on. It only makes sense to remove him now. Why should we have to wait until GRG updates their list?DHanson317 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Complete list

DHanson and an IP do not like my attempt to make this a true "list of the verified oldest people" rather than a top-100-plus-addendum arbitrary cutoff. Fact is, in 18 months on and off with this topic, I never until last month could even tell how to find a complete list of verified supercentenarians, and that's a problem. Hanson's suggestion that it appears in the overblown template did not help me to find it there all these months, because it doesn't advert itself as a complete list, but a giant set of overlapping lists. The idea of making a list of lists (by deathdate in this case) is very old and is well-used at list of centenarians and other articles following WP:SUMMARY style.

The idea that people only want to know about the top 107 cases is completely arbitrary. The complete list (as of 2007) appears at the GRG site on one page. Since WP doesn't fit it in one page, it should be laid out as a list of lists in standard summary style. To limit this title to 107 cases rather than to include (by reference) all cases over age 110.0, the long-established cutoff, is undue WP:WEIGHT and thus WP:POV. I don't see any reason for these reverts other than preserving a status quo thoughtlessly. JJB 04:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A complete list of supercentenarians is totally impractical. It would greatly exceed the recommended article size and would just keep getting bigger. Users who are interested in lists of known verified supercentenarians can go to the Epstein or GRG sites for that information. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Derby, it seems you didn't look at my edit, because I agreed with you that WP doesn't fit it in one page. I believe the correct solution is a list of lists, not a 1000-member list as you suggest, nor a template. This is standard practice for many giant lists, like notable centenarians, Eagle Scouts, asteroids, and the like. If WP contains a set of articles that constitute a list of known verified supercentenarians, it is WP:AD and WP:COI to require them to use one or two POV sites for that list. Since your concern does not actually address my proposal, and since the reversions are contrary to NPOV, I am likely to try the balancing insertion again differently. Or perhaps you can review the edit and reinstate it yourself, thanks. JJB 16:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what would the point be of creating multiple pages just to stretch out the list of oldest people to all those 110 and over? Even given the penchant for some users to add extremely trivial longevity related articles that would hardly qualify as notable. Using every excuse to justify such articvles is not constructive editing. I repeat, anyone wanting to find all those 110+ has a choice of links to use. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about creating multiple pages, perhaps you're thinking I meant they would be sorted by age rather than, as my edits made clear, by deathdate. But if those people already have a choice of links to use, then you too should agree with my next edits that created a "see-also" for those links. JJB 07:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure the point here. If a list of 100 (not "107" - as the addendum extends the list of non-disputed claims to exactly 100) is "arbitrary," then so is a list which cuts off by age, i.e., 110. The former makes a lot more sense as it limits the achievement - in this case, one of extreme age - to a round number which is not constrained by what in one era was an almost unheard-of achievement - celebrating a 110th birthday - to one which takes no position on what age is "notable," simply listing the oldest 100. There was a similar argument on the "oldest people" page over the length of the "over 115" list. Originally, this was small, but grew to 25 or so - so it became a "10 oldest" list, taking no position on if or whether reaching the arbitrary 115 boundary was in itself of specific note. In terms of demographics, the true "achievement" is in determining where the trend is leading - rather than reaching the arbitrary notable age of 110. Canada Jack (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Too many subtle flaws in these arguments to address now, Jack, but I appreciate your not indulging in unsubtle flaws as I've seen elsewhere. JJB 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't subtlety or lack thereof, JJB, the problem is your argument is inane. Just saying in a less-subtle fashion fer ya. Canada Jack (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack, that was uncalled for, but I will state the subtle flaws anyway for those listening. First, yes, technically 110 is arbitrary also, but it's a longstanding consensus among gerontologists as to what point should be used at which we should take note (just like 65 is arbitrary for Social Security but notable anyway); also, technically even a top-107 list including disputeds (like the top-10 lists) being presented separately from the complete list is not completely arbitrary; but your exclusion of the complete "list of lists" is undue weight and contrary to the title, which should then be "the 100 undisputed verified oldest", or "oldest people at least as old as the 100th undisputed". Second, your statement about limiting the (recognition of the) "achievement" to the top-100 list places top-100 promoters (i.e., GRG) as the judge of who is recognized rather than source consensus that recognizes all supercentenarians. Third, your belief that 110th birthdays were unheard-of in certain eras is contradicted by the evidence, and if you wish to modify it to "verified" 110ths, it's only unheard-of because there was no formal definition of "verified" prior to GWR standards (that, or else it's not unheard-of because many reporters in prior centuries found these cases "verified" well enough for their own standars). Fourth, your position that the top-107 list takes no position on what age is notable is false, in that of course it sets an age, just like any list must, the age being whatever age the 100th undisputed case is today; but 110 is much simpler and better sourced and so a complete list should be included alongside, and the unthinking opposition to such an alternate list is strikingly protective of a single-POV take on this title. (On a side point, I'm glad there was at least some healthy hesitancy about the arbitrariness of 115 in that other list, but it has not spread to other arbitrary uses of 115 yet.) Finally, your last statement in combination with your prior seems to say that a list cutoff should be determined by achieving something, and that achievement should be as defined by demographers calculating trends: well, that would be fine if you could source it, but even if you did, NPOV would compel you to show all data presentations that different demographers have proposed as appropriate, and over-110 is the best and oldest presentation of this data. I may decline to reply to further subtle flaws. I was sincere about your not indulging in unsubtle flaws.

Anyway, to other editors, if you have some ideas for accommodating my concern that there is no summary list of all verified supercentenarians and no way for a reader to quickly establish how many there are, please tell me. Without a summary list, we have the problem that new editors might add a case (verified or not) in a death list, a country list, a war list, an occupation list, a claims/traditions list, or several of the above, without any agreed scope that there should be one base article for insertion and then additional insertions would be gravy. With agreed scopes, such as that the death lists plus the living list constitute the complete list of supercentenarians, people know where to look. JJB 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, JJB, but I was addressing your points with respect, while you chose to address me instead of my points, and that address seemed to me to be little more than a sneering aside. Canada Jack (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with the above argument. First, yes, technically 110 is arbitrary also, but it's a longstanding consensus among gerontologists as to what point should be used at which we should take note. It may indeed be when gerontologists now take note, but I don't believe this is as "long-standing" as you seem to think. Only a dozen cases have been more or less accepted from people who died before 1960. By 1980, that list had expanded, but to only about 45 or so new cases. Now, gerontologists can correct me if I am wrong here, but it is really only since the explosion of cases - and we are up to something in the area of 1,500 confirmed cases - that the field started focusing on the 110-year cut-off.

I would not be surprised, given the explosion of cases, if a new cut-off emerges in the next decade or so of, say, 111, 112. Because with some 77 confirmed LIVING cases (compared to the historical 77th confirmed case, ALL-TIME, having only emerged in 1983), and the possibility of greatly expanded numbers of new cases, verifying everyone becomes unwieldy and, by definition, less notable.

Why underline this point? Because it is less important WHAT the arbitrary age is that someone reaches, it matters HOW MANY people reach that age and, therefore, how notable that milestone truly is. Running the mile in 3:57 in 1958 was an extremely notable achievement, not because it was a magical number, but because only a small handful of people had done it. Today? Since that time has been run hundreds, if not more than a thousand times, it is no longer notable, but being among the fastest 10 or 100 or what have you times IS. IOW, there is nothing intrinsic about the time run or the years lived, outside of how this compares to others who ran the distance or lived long.

Your comments seem odd and misplaced about "undue weight," etc., given to a list of 100 cases. First, you presuppose that by not including a complete list or "list of lists" (which exists on the bottom of the page, so is therefore not excluded) we are "excluding" some universally accepted "true" list of oldest people. But such a list does not exist. The GRG have DEFINED lists, for example, all supercentenarians, top 20 Japanese cases, living superc's etc. But they DON'T simply list 100-this, 100-that. ...your statement about limiting the (recognition of the) "achievement" to the top-100 list places top-100 promoters (i.e., GRG) as the judge of who is recognized rather than source consensus that recognizes all supercentenarians. This is odd - I am not aware that GRG has that particular list, or a series of 100-deep list. If I am not mistaken, they have a 200-deep list, at least on all people.

Further, the lists are not limited to simply what GRG has. As noted, several sources are consulted, GRG is not the sole source, and the manner in which THEY do the lists are not simply replicated here.

Third, your belief that 110th birthdays were unheard-of in certain eras is contradicted by the evidence... To me, this betrays your lack of time spent reading the various attendant articles. Only about a dozen cases of 110+ are verified from before 1960. And this is not simply because the "rules" for verification only came later. Much research has been done on earlier cases, many have been verified from the 60s, very few from before. Further, much research has been done on the general subject which confirms that many claims were exaggerated, some wildly, and once reliable records allowed verification and debunking, those claims were often shown to be false. But there are many pages dedicated to those older claims, and the claims which can not be readily verified or debunked. Which is why the lists here are limited to verified claims.

The practical problem, given the proven propensity of wild claims regarding age to be made, and the ability to verify those claims only emerging as record-keeping was vastly improved, mostly in the 19th century in some countries, is that including non-verified claims, or even claims which MIGHT be true, renders these lists meaningless as they don't record the actual proven lengths of human longevity. Longevity claims and longevity myths cover those areas. It is no mere coincidence, gerontologists argue, that the claims for the longest-lived people emerge from countries with poor record-keeping and a lack of an ability to verify those claims.

Fourth, your position that the top-107 list takes no position on what age is notable is false, in that of course it sets an age, just like any list must, the age being whatever age the 100th undisputed case is today; but 110 is much simpler and better sourced and so a complete list should be included alongside, and the unthinking opposition to such an alternate list is strikingly protective of a single-POV take on this title. Wrong. In 2000, reaching the age of 111 or so was "notable" in terms of the list. Now, you need to be 113 1/2 to hit the list. This reflects a shift in demographics which, some argue, is the true value of the 100-style list (comparing the woman-only to men-only lists bears this out). Sure, 110 is "simpler," save for the fact that it'd be 1,500 claims long. But, again, what is so special about hitting 110? It was special in, say, 1970. Even 1980. It no longer is very notable.

Finally, your last statement in combination with your prior seems to say that a list cutoff should be determined by achieving something, and that achievement should be as defined by demographers calculating trends... You have it backwards. There is no "definition" per se of what age one needs to be "notable," and it is not defined by the particular age on the list, it is defined by how old are the oldest people. Saying "110 cutoff" says nothing as, conceivably, there may be 1,000 people who reach that age at a given point of time, or there could be NO people at that age (as was the case in recent memory). What IS more significant is ranking the oldest people and picking a specific number of them to identify a demographic trend. 100 is a round number, arbitrary for sure, but that number could just as easily be 50, or 200, or a 1,000. For the purposes of wikipedia, I'd argue that 100 is probably the maximum. Therefore, if and when the list of living super-c's reaches 100, I'd argue we'd make it the "100 oldest living people" and not add more. Why? Because reaching 110 would no longer be notable.

Canada Jack (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll treat that as withdrawing the insult and thank you for responding in kind. The short answer is, if you believe this is covered by the template, you would presumably accept a considered template rearrangement to make clear that it is covered, because, it does not appear covered to a reasonable template reader, and, after all, templates are for navigation (that might also work for the list of notable centenarians); this might permit a transitional sentence to be added to this article.

Offhand as an inclusionist I'd have no theoretical trouble with a list-of-lists approach to cover 1000 runners of the 4-minute mile, assuming objective inclusion criteria and secondary-source notability, but it's a good illustration of how the situation must appear to outsiders. The point there is that since listing all supercentenarians is a sourceable data presentation method, it should be represented; and that top-107 should not be considered the only way of presenting the data, notwithstanding your statements about GRG vs. other sources. As to unverified cases, I'd need to respond to your suggestion, because I've spent a whole lot of time on them (ask my wife!): there are only about three WP pages on them, but dozens of verified pages; there are many many unverifieds over 110 (what you meant was perhaps that verified 110 was unheard-of); hardly any are verified to modern standards because the standards don't retrofit well; the ideas of Thoms or Haller or Lucian about "verification" were state-of-the-art for their day but don't upscale well; and there are simply too many unknowns to speak significantly about true supercentenarians before the 20th century (Gavrilov) other than to treat all claims with the same respect as the modern ones. Finally, notability is not temporary as to articles, and your statements are problematic in implying that notability for listing IS temporary. As long as the complete list consists of the death lists plus the living list, then you haven't crossed that threshold of creating temporary notability, but the threshold is being challenged in the unverifieds (such as with the POV that they become nonnotable if unverifieds die before 115), and also challenged by your proposal of sticking to 100 total living (if news reported a 110th birthday and there were already 100 living, there would be no place on WP to put it and thus a determination that in this case supercentenarianism is no longer notable in itself, which would be bizarre after it's been notable in itself for so long). I'll grant that mass influx to some things dilutes them significantly (everybody has an iPhone now), but I'm not convinced this is true of notability. But as long as your objection is not based on maintaining a single POV on this article, I trust you can get behind a softer version of addressing my concerns that I will now try. JJB 00:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

...if news reported a 110th birthday and there were already 100 living, there would be no place on WP to put it and thus a determination that in this case supercentenarianism is no longer notable in itself, which would be bizarre after it's been notable in itself for so long.

This isn't "bizarre," it reflects the fact that sticking to an arbitrary age means that at one time you may have the case where few or no people are at that age and another time potentially hundreds. (GRG estimates some 450 or so super-c's alive, 77 currently verified.) Therefore "notability" should not be defined by living to a particular age, it should be defined as being one of a small number of individuals, that small number being the arbitrary element.

So, I will reiterate what I said above. The age 110 is an arbitrary boundary, one which, in verified terms, was in the not-too-distant past only exceeded very rarely, but which is now exceeded almost weekly, a relatively common occurrence. There are currently 77 living verified super-c's. The 77th all-time verified super-c died in 1983. Which underlines the arbitrary nature of the boundary. The value of a 100-deep list is that it reflects those who are at or near the pinnacle in question. Picking a particular age excludes those who may at one time be the oldest person (or whatever category) on the planet, and at another time the 1,000th. Using your criteria in the 60s, we'd have instances where there was no oldest person as there was no one over 110 alive! Indeed, with a mere three men verified over 110 currently alive, your approach implies that it is inconsequential to know who the oldest man is if that oldest man is not yet 110. Which makes no sense to me. People want to know who is oldest or among the oldest, not who is over some arbitrary boundary.

To underline, these pages are not supercentenarian lists per se, they are pages on extreme age.

Secondly, greatly expanding lists of those unverified claims renders meaningless the importance of verification. As is spelled out in other pages on the subjects, gerontologists don't consider most of those old claims to be valid for many good reasons - not simply because old records are considered not up to our standards. Once universal registration came into being in many countries, many claims of extreme age - MOST of them, I should add - were provably false. And the extreme claims started to dwindle in those countries. Which is why most claims NOW for great longevity come from countries with poor record-keeping, at least in the opinion of most gerontologists. But you seem to seek to reverse the onus here - from using evidence to prove a claim to demanding evidence on how we can dismiss unverified claims. That, simply put, will not wash with most of the editors on this site. Especially given that there are already pages on unverified claims. The field of gerontology is one where fraud, deception and simple error in terms of claimed ages was and is rampant, therefore verification criteria are by necessity more stringent.

Finally, expanding lists to be "complete" brings its own problems. For example, the list of women over 110 would be well over a thousand. The list of men would be something like 150. Is it of greater interest to know each and every of the 1,500 (or so) oldest women, but only a tenth of the men? Why not the same number for men, a list 1,500 deep? The answer is the particular age is arbitrary and this distorts the lists if applied. In contrast, an arbitrary NUMBER of claims NEVER distorts the data, never implies one list is more important than the other ("only" 150 men would be listed, 1,500 women implies that that list of far greater interest and importance) as long as that number is equally applied. I think it is appropriate to question what that number is, how deep the lists should be, but a list of 1,500 is way too long, and I believe most editors here would agree, and the lists would be of hugely differing lengths EVEN IF YOU ADDED UNVERIFIED CLAIMS.

In sum, the lists should stand at their current depth of 100; while super-c's are the ones most likely to be verified, that doesn't require us to exhaustively note each and every (or great numbers) of them; we should retain the sharp distinction made between verified and unverified claims and not seek to expand the current lists, nor mingle verified and unverified claims. Canada Jack (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You make a reasoned case (though marred by a couple strawmen) that 110 doesn't have the same focus 50 years ago, but that issue is not on-point for determining the current cutoff appropriate for line-item inclusion somewhere on WP, which is not the top-100 issue. I have no problem saying top-100-plus is one appropriate POV about presentation, but please don't assume it's the only one, as you seem to do repeatedly. Please don't assume the 10-men-10-women approach is the "only" way to deal with gender issues, or that gender issues and the other already-represented issues are the "only" data presentation issues, and so on.

You say these lists are not supercentenarian per se, which may be true of some, but it's not true of living supercentenarians, which by your logic should take the top 100 living people NOW instead of waiting until they're all 110 to make the switch. Just another inconsistency to address sometime.

You make side observations about the history, but are you asking me to draw a synthetic conclusion, from the results of the historical validation process and the dwindling in claims you allude to, without telling me what source draws the conclusion and what it is?

I don't know why you think I'm trying to reverse an onus; I'm just trying to follow basic WP:V and to burden all WP statements equally with secondary sources (not hidden GRG chat, e.g.) and inclusion criteria (not criteria that change when you die contrary to WP:NTEMP). It's all about source conformity and policy compliance. If you think my selection of things to edit is misweighted, I apologize, the topic is sprawling and I've only been concentrating on formalizing the unverifieds because the scope is so much more poorly set.

I'm not talking about mixing verifieds with unverifieds; I'm not talking about seeing 1000-1500 names on one WP page; I'm talking about a basic proposal, which is flying better now, to indicate that a list of lists of all verifieds is in fact composed of all death articles plus the living article. You don't seem to dispute that all supercentenarians do in fact appear in these articles. The points of recognizing them as a complete-list set include (1) having a base list of the data manipulated in the many other tables; (2) everyone being able to agree on directing editors with new yet-unlisted data to the same base page, without scope or turf wars or redundancy and forks about the claims, like some I discovered; (3) everyone being able to see WP's version of just which claims are verified and (tabulating them up manually or with coding assistance) how many there are and so on; (4) verifying that everyone over 110 in the country or war article appears in the appropriate base list and so on. There are subtle data presentation errors unbecoming of WP that standardization and scoping are good at rooting out.

Anyway, as to the main point, I trust the template is acceptable to you; and as to the side points, you've given me some useful data for how to argue the questions within policy the day that someone inevitably challenges the overall structure of this topic in a sizable way. So thanks for that. That person might not even be me. JJB 20:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that 100-deep lists are somehow sacrosanct, just that lists should be of a certain length, not of a certain age criteria/on. Why 100? That is the number editors here seemed to feel was sufficient, there is no directive from the various sources on what is a "proper" length, so I'm not really sure where the argument that 100 is somehow POV. You seem to be arguing for an age cut-off list which I argue is POV - as the age in question is notable or not notable depending on the list in question. But while the specific number may be arbitrary, how does one come to a "NPOV" number? Is there such a thing? It's not a question you have answered adequately via the age-limit criterion as that makes for lists of wildly different lengths. And accusations of undue weight, etc/. To me, if a number is agreed-upon, that is fine. 100 is what that is now, 10 on some pages. But it could be any number/s as long as it is applied more or less consistently.

You say these lists are not supercentenarian per se, which may be true of some, but it's not true of living supercentenarians, which by your logic should take the top 100 living people NOW instead of waiting until they're all 110 to make the switch. Just another inconsistency to address sometime. Yes, this is true, though I'd argue for a 100-deep list if one could be compiled. In a practical sense, however, it can't be unless more than 100 living people are verified over 110. In several cases here, what would normally be a "100"-deep list or "10"-deep list is just the number of available candidates over the verified age - so there are only 3 men on the Oldest people page, though the list would max out at 10 if there were available candidates. There was a big debate over mixing unverified with verified candidates here a few years back, for national records as those under 110 might not be properly verified, so there'd be an odd situation of a 109-year-old on the national lists disappearing once they turned 110 until they were verified.

As for your overarching point of having complete data, I am not sure that is necessary here at wikipedia as long as we have links to those who compile such lists. It sounds to me like the page might simply copy Epstein, for example. It was for this reason a strong argument for removing the "living" list was made as it more or less copied GRG, that page has now expanded to include other claims. I know there are other pages on other subjects which were removed which mainly copied lists found on one or two sites.

So, I'd imagine you would get resistance to a proposal to have a "base" page of all claims from which the various pages draw their data, if that page is merely a copy of data from a single source like Epstein or GRG. And this is beside the size of this page. I personally don't see the need for this here, nor for the list links at the top of the page. So, my suggestion is to get enough editors on-side with your proposals before enacting them, not withstanding the possible pitfalls I have identified. Canada Jack (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about age calculations

Hello. I have never understood this ... and I am wondering if someone on this Talk Page can help me to understand this. Thanks in advance. On lists such as this (and the GRG list, etc.), I do not understand why ages are "calculated" according to "years and days" (as opposed to the more mathematically correct, "total number of days"). In other words, some "years" are 365 days; some "years" are 366 days. Since lists such as this rank people by how long they have been alive, why is it the industry standard, if you will, to ignore this basic fact that the word "year" has different meanings (365 days in some cases; 366 days in other cases)? In other words, why add in that additional margin of error in calculating ages? I have never understood this. I am wondering if someone at this Talk Page can help me understand why this is so. Why is it that people who study and document longevity (such as the GRG, etc.) turn a blind eye to this obvious (and easily corrected) method of calculating age? Thanks for any insights. This has always driven me crazy. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

This has been recovered repeatedly on this talk page, the discussions are in the archives. If and when I get time I'll add the appropriate shortcuts. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please add the links, if possible. I would like to read the threads. Thanks so much! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 13#couting years + days vs. days?. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I will take a look. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

I questioned this when I arrived too. Basically it's the standardized measurement convention adopted by all the sources; second, the idea that age in days should trump it is handicapped by not being significantly more exact, in that both methods include error of up to 48 hours (birthdate 24, deathdate 24), plus more if the birth/death timezones are different; the fact that someone at 109y364d can be older in days and hours than someone at 110y1d is potentially frustrating, but the cultural fact is that the second person had the birthday and the first didn't. In short it's a Pirates of Penzance problem inherent in the cultural way ages are calculated and recorded. Maybe someday these will be recorded in days, hours and minutes based on better documentation. JJB 02:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am still in the dark. (1) Yes, I know that it is the "standard" method used. But, I am trying to understand why that is? What's the philosophy and rationale? (2) I do not disagree about the errors of 48 hours, etc. There will always be some measure of error present (just as the examples you cite: time zones; not recording the exact minute of birth and death; etc.). So, my basic question is this: with all of these other opportunities for error present, why introduce (allow, tolerate) yet another measure that absolutely adds to and compounds the error? I mean, we know that a leap year is 366 days, and that these days "add up" over the course of a person's 110+ year life span. With all of the other sources of unavoidable error present, why not remove this easily corrected error? I just don't understand. Maybe stated differently, what gain or benefit is there in "pretending" (for age calculation purposes) that a 365-day year is equal to a 366-day year? The whole point of these lists is to compare (and rank/order) the ages of the people. Why pretend that these additional "leap days" don't exist and accumulate? What's the point or rationale? Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Well, that answer sufficed for me. The accumulation amounts to no more than 1 day difference between people of the same age due to different birthdates within a 4-year cycle, and no more than an additional 1 day difference due to the 100-year cycle, so it's not accumulative beyond 2 total days. Generally, annual occasions attempt to track the sun's position rather than have a constant number of days between them; some annual conventions and holidays always occur either 364 or 371 days apart, e.g. So from a math standpoint the error is real, but it doesn't affect much data (e.g., maybe 3 position swaps in a list of 100 people, last time I checked) and is handled with a standardized process, and so can be discounted as not having any real-world effect. But that birthday celebration according to the arbitrary Gregorian year has a whole lot of effect. Check the archives first; then from a WP inclusion standpoint, if you want to pursue this process, I think you'd first want to show that some reliable source presents a list sorted by total days only, to demonstrate that the POV of sorting that way has adherents; then, because it's presumably still a minority, you might tag only the entries where there is a real difference like this: "37. Firstname Lastname: 113 years, 10 days* [Footnote:] *Positioned one place higher if age counted only in days." Then you'd add a sentence or two explaining generally why the two calculations give different sort results. But all that is very hypothetical, you also need to get it to fly past the regulars at WP:WOP. JJB 04:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am afraid that you are missing my point. I am not interested in rehauling or revamping the article with some "minority viewpoint". I am trying to understand why this is the standard method. Let's say that Method A employs the "years and days" age calculation; Method B employs the "total number of days" age calculation. So, Method B has these errors: the 48 hours built-in error; the time zone error; etc. Method A has these errors: the 48 hours built-in error; the time zone error; etc. PLUS an additional built-in error of ignoring the 365/366 day counts. Why add one more error to an already error-filled mix? Particularly when it's 100% definite, concrete, and avoidable? There must be some logic/reason/rationale as to why Method A is the standard calculation. I am sure that the logic is not: "well, Method B has a lot of room for error, so, since error is unavoidable, let's just compound the error and add more error to it by using Method A ... since there is already built-in error no matter what method we use". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Basically, because people mark their ages by years, not by days. Saying someone lived 40,000 days usually will elicit a blank stare. Saying they lived 113 years will get a different reaction. Further, the leap year difference, is only a single day and is WITHIN the margin of error when one considers the day-count accuracy, which is more like 48 hours. It is not an additional margin of error, at least, not necessarily. Two people of the same age by year/day count may be out by one day on day count alone, but that is still within the margin of error - it is not possible to know who is truly "oldest" if we don't know the exact time of birth and death. Further, we can't assume that the recorded date of birth was the ACTUAL date of birth, as, for example, clerical errors often occur whereby say "Wednesday" is assigned the wrong day of the month, or cultural differences are not taken into account, for example sunset marking a new day, or the absence of clocks at night to be able to determine what day a person was actually born.

In the end, these questions are somewhat irrelevant in terms of gerontology, as the main concern there is where the data is trending - how many people reach 110 now compared to 10 years ago, for example - not whether person A is in fact a day older than person B or not. Errors due to data mistakes or rounding are a given: it is assumed that these errors more or less cancel each other once you standardize what data is accepted or not.

The analogy I use is from track and field - there is no use fussing over whether a 100-metre race is accurately measured to within a single centimeter when your stopwatch can only determine times to the tenth of a second. The stopwatch's margin of error exceeds the distance margin of error. An error of a day in terms of leap years is within the margin of error due to time of day. Canada Jack (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What Jack said, except that for leap days it's a 2-day error not a 1-day. To celebrate a 110th birthday in 2013, you must be two days older than to celebrate a 110th birthday in 2007. JJB 07:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Jack – for every single person on this list the discrepancy can only be one day. The two day discrepancy will only arise for certain people (not all) having their 110th birthday after 29 February 2012, so it is yet to happen. But whilst we are talking about possibilities, the hypothetical person having their 110th birthday in 2013 must be three days older than a person having their 110th birthday in 1907! Alan Davidson (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. So the whole concept of "celebrating actual birthdays" (years lived) makes sense to me ... as people don't generally consider their age to be simply a total number of aggregated days. Agreed. But, when comparing (i.e., ranking these people by longevity), it is clearly a fiction to "pretend" that a leap year is equal to a regular non-leap year. And all this talk of error and margin of error is pointless. Ignoring the leap year's extra day is always (needlessly) interjecting one additional level of error, on top of all the other errors inherent in measuring age. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Bolding war

Can we please stop breaking WP:MOSBOLD that limits bolding only to certain items? How about a compromise to italics, which are permitted in this instance? JJB 18:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NO. The bold words have already been there for eons. If there really was an issue with WP:MOSBOLD, it would have been reverted long ago.

The status quo should stay. The number of living supercentenarians is a significant part of the lede, and if it were not in bold, it would be hard to pick out, really.

I don't see your point at all about the italics. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 00:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I don't even see your point at all -_- DHanson317 (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB is correct. Per the Wikipedia style guidelines, boldface is reserved for certain uses. If emphasis is needed, italics should be used. Cleaning up articles per Wikipedia MOS and other guidelines is an ongoing process. Long-standing non-conformance is not sufficient reason to justify its continued use. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the "bolding war" as such, but I would like to point out that WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "it will always be this way". Remember that consensus can change...and it often does.  Frank  |  talk  00:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant here is, why is this appearing only now when it never was an issue in the past? This has already been discussed before. And despite the fact that consensus can change, no one found any issue regarding the matter and WP:MOS when it was discussed before.

I think I get your point about the italics now. Sorry, but that's NOT the kind of emphasis we want. The emphasis is more on the presence of X living supercentenarians on the list as a whole, not on the fact that these supercentenarians were living. You guys tried to compromise by italicising the word "living", that's not the kind of emphasis we want. We want to point out the phrase as a statement as a whole. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 01:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Brendan, all the longevity articles need to be brought into policy compliance. This hasn't happened yet because any one editor that comes in to work toward compliance can easily get batted away by a plurality of editors from WP:WOP or Yahoo WOP that believe their antipolicy consensus can stand indefinitely. I have been working on these fixes on and off for 18 months, and now suddenly there are additional interested editors who agree with policy. It is unwise to argue from what "we want" when the issue is what Wikipedians in general want as indicated by their policies. You won't want to get hung up on the little bolding issues when whole articles are at stake for nonverifiability and nonnotability, and I'm generally not going to be the one handing out WP:AFDs either. It is time for longevity editors to learn to roll with others. JJB 01:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the bolding issue "little"? It affects the tone and the lede as a whole (well, at least, mostly).

Please present your reasons for being against the bolding of these words in terms of how it affects the tone of the lede as a whole. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:MOSBOLD? It says:

Boldface (text like this) is common in Wikipedia articles, but only for certain usages.

The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph).

Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:

• Table headers
• Definition lists (example: Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States)
• Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats

Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text.

Wikipedians have agreed for a long time that bold in the lead is reserved for the title and synonymous terms to the title. If you're really 15, take a word to the wise: pick your battles wisely. This is a nonstarter. I'm sorry that you've been hanging out with editors who have not followed policy, but now's the time to be a quick learner. JJB 02:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)