Talk:List of oldest living people

Clone List

I don't know why, but as the page has been changed to verified living supercentenarians, it no longer serves any purpose and is merely a clone list of the GRG List. Therefore, it should be reverted back to list of living supercentenarians, or deleted, as maintaining it would be a waste of time, when a link to the GRG could alternatively be provided. XZT (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have boldy revised the list so that it meets a particular set of criteria. As I do not own this page, revisions or even a complete restructuring based on a new set of criteria is welcomed and encouraged. Also, my computer is acting up, so I haven't been able to clearly express the criteria as I would like to, so please help me improve that as well. While modifications are welcome, any reversion creates a version that does not adhere to any criteria will be reverted. Per the discussion above, we cannot have a list on Wikipedia with absolutely no criteria, as it was in its original state. You may be bold yourself and institute a better one if you think you have it, but the previous version was unacceptable. Cheers, CP 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that by the criteria that I defined, it does not have to be a clone list. Entries would be accepted from any international body that deals primarily with longevity research. Cheers, CP 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list needed to be re-structured, as dubious cases were listed and the length of the list was sometimes too much for the format of the page. However, our guidelines should definitely differ from merely GRG defined cases to prevent this list from becoming defunct. Therefore, I think that we should take all the GRG cases, as well as most media reports, especially those from developed countries and that are plausible. Cases that enter the media from poorer, less well-documented regions should not be included, except if absolute proof is given. For inclusion of a new case, our criteria should be:

1. Supercentenarians on GRG list.
2. Media reports from countries with well-documented birth/death records. The more articles to support the case the better.
3. Only plausible cases should be added. We should adhere to the GRG with regards to the Oldest Person and not add anyone claiming to be older than, at present, Edna Parker, unless the GRG confirms their claim.
4. We should include people already known to be 110, who have not yet been added to the official GRG list.
5. Do not include, or delete, people who have not been heard of for over a year, or had their last birthday go completely unreported and have been deleted from the GRG list or reported as deceased.

If we begin by sticking to these guidelines, this should clear up the list and remove all those anomalies that are slipping in, while keeping it independent of the GRG list. Also, it would help if any new cases could be discussed here before being added, or removed. XZT (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this criteria is that it violates Wikipedia's no original research policies. Other than number one, you are including a subjective judgment of your own. In #2, you're subjectively deciding who qualifies as a country with "well-documented" records. If there were a reliable source, maybe a list of countries who are "officially" considered "well-documented," then this could work. #3 is obviously subjective, who defines "plausible." The GRG/Guinness has been wrong several times in the past as to who the "oldest person" was, which is why people have lost that title, cases have been recognized posthumously etc. etc. I have no problem using the GRG as a source for those who have been verified, but I do have a problem using them to determine which cases are "plausible" (aside from setting an upper age boundary at Jeanne Calment, but then again, it's not just the GRG who does this, it's used scientifically to determine human lifespan) or what the "upper limit" is for people currently living (again, besides 122 years and however many days). #4, I have to ask, what qualifies as someone "already known" as being 110? If people are "already known" to be that way, then why does the GRG bother validating cases at all? It's because there needs to be some reasonable, reliable and verifiable proof. #5 depends on the sources. If, for example, we say that our criteria is "the GRG list" then "the GRG list" criteria considers "living" those people that they've heard from within a year. So as long as they continue to have that person on their list, and as long as we continue to trust them as a reliable source, then we have to wait until they remove the individual before we can do it ourselves, otherwise it's original research that contradicts our reliable source. Cheers, CP 07:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For my second point, we can take the 34 MEDC countries of the world, as recognised by the CIA World Factbook, as having well-documented records of births/deaths and population changes. Media reports from those countries can be included in the criteria (as long as they are not ludicrous). Whilst I agree with your point about plausible cases, I think the threshold of Jeanne Calment's age is still too high, as her age was exceptional. The closest verified case was Sarah Knauss, 3 years younger than Jeanne Calment. I don't want to see 120+ cases enter the list just because one verified person reached that age before, without sufficient proof. However, provided we stick to the GRG and MEDC media we shouldn't get 120+ reports, at least not for several years yet. What I meant by the fourth point is if someone widely reported and verified by the media reaches 110 and is not added to the GRG list for several months due to a backlog of cases that should not stop them from being included here, in case such a situation comes about. And 5, we both agree on, I just included that as part of my criteria - it will depend on the sources. XZT (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's still some subjectivity in that. "Media reports from those countries can be included in the criteria (as long as they are not ludicrous)" Who decides what ludicrous is (aside from over Calment's age of course)? Calment is used as the upper bound for human lifespan in many scientific circles, I would think it to be original research to set it at any other point for the purposes of this list because it's a subjective judgment. If one person made it to 122, why is it implausible that another person could be 120 today? Unlikely, yes, but it's OR to apply our subjective probability assessment here. "It's not likely that so and so is 120, so we'll discount them." That's original research and subjectivity. #4 then is redundant, since we would be including all 110 cases published in the 34 MEDC countries (under Calment's age), so they would already be on the list whether or not the GRG added them. Cheers, CP 18:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. You have my attention. That was certainly bold. Is there any possibility of having the "verified" list as currently presented- following GRG standards, and having a separate list of "known persons" similar to how individuals are listed in Surviving veterans of World War I? TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.166 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's say we stick to cases on the GRG list, plus cases reported in the media of the 34 listed MEDC countries, as long as they are below the age of Jeanne Calment (122 years). That will keep this list much more concise, filter out dubious cases and prevent it from becoming an unnecessary clone of the GRG list. Hopefully this will mean it will be of much more use throughout the future. XZT (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I like TFBCT's suggestion, although we would still have to abide by a (relatively) objective criteria for that section. It basically means the difference between including them in the main table or having two separate tables, either of which is fine with me. I slightly prefer the two table solution so that the "official" world record holder doesn't get drowned out by a dozen "claimants", but that's just me. XZT's criteria is great and within Wikipedia policy as far as I can tell (I'm sure some may disagree, but I feel that it's reasonable). I think the next step, while we decide whether or not we want two separate tables or one integrated one, is to figure out all the cases that will be included. We should be able to rescue most of the cases that I removed (they can be found in the edit history) and we will have to include some of the claims from the Longevity claims article, as well as Maria Diaz Cortes. Also, I think, to avoid edit warring, we should decide on the cases to be included beforehand and then add them to the list, since Wikipedia has no deadline. When we do finish the list, we can also move the page back to its original title.

As a note, the 34 countries are Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See (Vatican), Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States and can be viewed in colourful flag form here for ease of reference. Cheers, CP 05:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with either the one or two table system. Would having two tables prevent the formatting issue which arises when more than 103 people are listed? I'll have a look at the cases we had and present a list of those who I think should be included. XZT (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, under the new criteria the following can be included:

Josefa Punzon of Spain (8th August 1896) http://www.granadadigital.com/gd/amplia.php?id=63248&parte=Provincia

Rosa Rein of Switzerland (24th March 1897) http://www.epochtimes.de/articles/2007/03/19/99710.html

Cora Gentry of the USA (14th April 1897) http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070416/NEWS/704160311/1007

Viola Koch of the USA (24th May 1897)http://www.weeklycalistogan.com/articles/2007/05/24/features/community/doc46564e3d0c614934796789.txt

Annie Butler of the UK (4th June 1897) http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/features?articleid=2935658

Mary Brown of the UK (5th September 1897) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/05/nold105.xml

Louis de Cazenave of France (16th October 1897) http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22600357-5005961,00.html

Stella Cooley of the USA (6th November 1897) http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=384754

Harvey Hite of the USA (15th November 1897) http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/11122176.html

Minnie Smith of the UK (5th January 1898) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7172882.stm

Antonio Fernandes de Castro of Portugal (6th January 1898) http://ww1.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=317710&visual=26&rss=0

Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander of the Netherlands (6th January 1898) http://www.ad.nl/denhaag/article1942151.ece

Wally McBride Baker of the USA (9th January 1898) http://cbs3.com/delawarewire/22.0.html?type=nplocal&state=DE&category=News&filename=DE--110thBirthday.xml

These cases meet the criteria for inclusion. That means we are cutting out of the list the following:

Frieda Borchert of Germany

Teresa Hsu Chih of Singapore

Ludwika Kosztyla of Poland

Marjorie MacGown of the UK

Eleanor Thatcher of the UK

Choe Pu Yong of South Korea

The above cases do not meet the criteria, not having sufficient evidence and will be removed from the table, until they do meet the new criteria.

As well as those cases to be included, we should include Maria Diaz Cortes of Spain and Virginia Call of the USA. There may well be others, but that's all I can think of at the moment. XZT (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, as far as I understand the problem, no, a second table wouldn't solve the problem that we encounter with over 100ish entries, although I still slightly favour the option, especially given the names I list below that would trump Edna Parker. The easiest way to solve that, in my opinion, is to convert the flag templates to regular image format, which would give us an extra 100ish templates to work with, but that's just my opinion. Also, I could have sworn than Ponticelli had a mention in the Italian press, because I remember taking him off of this list until someone showed evidence that he made it to his 110th birthday...

Other names may include Fan Shee Hoo (born in China December 14, 1895, but age reported in Canada) (no update since December 2006), Noninji Elizabeth Bete (born May 21, 1886 in South Africa) (no update since December 4, 2005), Pearl Gartrell (born April 1, 1888 in the US) (no recent updates, and I saw once source that claimed she was only 105 in 2007), LaJean Smith (born June 23, 1889 in the US and I'm not sure why we have an article on her) (I can't find any source for this claim), Elias Athanasiades (born May 14, 1891 in Turkey and age reported in Greece) (I can't find and source for this claim), Rebecca Lanier (born March 24, 1892 in the US), Elizabeth Johnson (born December 25, 1892 in the US) (I can't find any source for this claim) and Richard Washington (born April 13, 1893 in the US) (no update since April 2006). Per our criteria, however, all of these people have to be verified as having been alive within the last year, which I haven't done yet. Once I do, I'll list them below with a reference or strike them from the list. Cheers, CP 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Take Ohtawara was validated by the GRG, so she doesn't have to be cut — I have added her accordingly. Cheers, CP 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So in the end, out of all the above, only one individual qualifies:

Rebecca Lanier (March 24, 1892) http://www.louisdb.org/documents/cr/2007/jn/28/cr28jn07-10.html Cheers, CP 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Ponticelli appeared for 11th November, but that was 3 weeks before his 110th birthday. XZT (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what a second table would look like without references.

Rank	Name	Sex	Birth	Age	Country
1	María Díaz Cortés	F	January 4, 1892	132 years, 190 days	Spain
2	Rebecca Lanier	F	March 24, 1892	132 years, 110 days	United States
3	Virgina Call	F	January 4, 1894	130 years, 190 days	United States
4	Josefa Punzon	F	August 8, 1896	127 years, 339 days	Spain
5	Rosa Rein	F	March 24, 1897	127 years, 110 days	Switzerland
6	Cora Gentry	F	April 14, 1897	127 years, 89 days	United States
7	Viola Koch	F	May 24, 1897	127 years, 49 days	United States
8	Annie Butler	F	June 4, 1897	127 years, 38 days	United Kingdom
9	Mary Brown	F	September 5, 1897	126 years, 311 days	United Kingdom
10	Louis de Cazenave	M	October 16, 1897	126 years, 270 days	France
11	Stella Cooley	F	November 6, 1897	126 years, 249 days	Spain
12	Minnie Smith	F	January 5, 1898	126 years, 189 days	United Kingdom
13	Antonio Fernandes de Castro	M	January 6, 1898	126 years, 188 days	Portugal
	Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander	F	January 6, 1898	126 years, 188 days	Netherlands
15	Wally McBride Baker	F	January 9, 1898	126 years, 185 days	United States

We would of course need a small introduction to this table, explaining what it is and what the criteria are. Cheers, CP 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like how the separate list is presented. It does not interfere at all with the "verified" list. And I think having the second table listed as "unverified" gives it the proper distinction regarding credibilty. TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.166 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-Addition Maintenance

I have added Tsuji Takano of Japan, as he has just been added to the GRG list. XZT (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also added Masatake Kinoshita of Japan, who was also validated today. As well as this, I will remove Tama Higuchi, Yukino Matsuoka, Kane Akazawa and Katsuno Mizuno, all of Japan, as they have not been heard of from over one year and have been removed from the GRG List. XZT (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiffy, and I'm going to add Julia Fournier Cuadros to the unverified list. By the way, you should remove Tsuji Takano of Japan from your list above, since he's been validated. Cheers, CP 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note de Cazenave died today. I have removed him from the list. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. A small postnote is that de Cazenave's obit mentioned that Ponticelli made it to 110, so I added him to the table and he can be removed from XZT's list above. Cheers, CP 22:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A minor point - with the split tables, is a reference to the GRG list necessary for every entry in the top table? If there's a GWR-verified entry at any stage in the future, a separate reference for that person might be an idea, but I think it's safe to just have one reference to the GRG list at the top of the table. Tevildo (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Chikao Beppu of Japan, as she is on the GRG List. XZT (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Yoshie Hattori of Japan - she, too, has been added.XZT (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And Nellie Jones of the USA. XZT (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Natsuyo Abe of Japan and Mildred Chrissie Martinstein of the USA. XZT (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as all of those, I've also added Annie Butler of the UK, as she has been verified and included on the GRG list today.XZT (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Today I have added Alta Moore of the USA to the unverified supercentenarians list, as I have found a news report of her 110th birthday and she is from the US, one of the 34 countries in the MEDC list.XZT (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also included Dr. Leila Denmark of the US, who turned 110 yesterday and has appeared in the news. XZT (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Haya Kurogi of Japan has died and I have removed her from the list accordingly. XZT (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

By the standards of this list, shouldn't Ruby Muhammad also be on the unverified table? There's just as much "evidence" supporting (or not supporting) her case as some of the others on that table... 71.42.216.100 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is the caveat that if a reliable site debunks the claim, it should not be included. I don't know if there is such a site though. Let's be honest. According to the research of Robert Young she's probably only 100, but I suppose that would be original research. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Harvey Hite

The GRG has verifiedhim as authentic. Plz change the citation.74.140.136.51 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hite was cited with a GRG reference hours before this comment was made. Cheers, CP 07:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Leila Denmark

Renowned American pediatrician, scientist, author, Leila Alice Denmark, MD, birthdate 02/01/1898, will be 110 years old tomorrow. I'm assuming? that she will be in the process of being verified for inclusion? She would certainly be one of the most accomplished supercentenarians to date. TFBCT

As soon as there is a reliable source confirming that she made it to 110, she may be added to the unverified case list. I suspect that she will be verified rather quickly - Sir Young has been following her for some time now. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found a report and put her on the list. XZT (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Myrtle Jones

I am a little confused by the requirement to be on the unverified list. Myrtle Jones was on the verified list before we introduced the new criteria. Can someone explain why she should not be entered on the unverified list? Many thanks. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the source quoted. I have now used another source. There are several online. There is a photo on her 110th birthday at http://www.newsphotos.com.au/SearchResults.asp?PageAction=SimpleSearch&QueryText=myrtle+jonesAlan Davidson (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mariam Amash

someone add this to the unverified section, thanks... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7247679.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.245.47 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added this to this link to her entry in Longevity Claims but removed once I realised that none of web-sites referring to Mrs Amash cites a date of birth.DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Subjectively speaking, obviously a false claim. Within the confines of the "objectivity" of this article, however, Israel is one of the 34 countries, which therefore means that she should be on the "unverified section". Without a birthdate though, there's no rush. Contrasting opinions? 71.42.216.100 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Frieda Tessmer

Is this enough to put her to the unverified section? [1] --217.87.170.166 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, especially if the objective is to be as inclusive as possible. Does anyone know the birthdate? 71.42.216.100 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is August 5, 1897. She is the second oldest person in Germany. --217.87.170.166 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Marjorie Macgowan

Due to the fact Marjorie Macgowan is in the living national longevity recordholders page[2], she should also be included in the unverified section of living supercentenarians. so i did just that! Webbmyster (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The source given on that page is from the Yahoo site which is not considered sufficiently reliable to justify inclusion on this page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense to use different sources on pages which cover the same topic! Webbmyster (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it shouldn't be used on that page either. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unverified and examined

The paragraph before the second table states in part: "The majority of these cases will in time be validated." However, I understand that some will never be validated - as they have been examined, and whilst not refuted, cannot be proved. I would like to know to which people this applies. If I am mistaken, please let me know. Can this be done? Alan Davidson (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Guzman with wrong flag

Daniel Guzman, # 7 of the not yet verified living SC lives in Colombia/South America, not in Spain. So the flag must be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.220.96 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unverified claims wording

The current wording in one section of the explanation of the unverified criteria reads "The following table presents a list of unverified living supercentenarians, who have not yet been officially recognized by an international body of gerontology, but have been recognized by international media from one of the 34 CIA recognised MEDC countries and who are awaiting validation." By this interpretation, the place of birth/residence of the individual is irrelevant so long as the media that reports it is from one of the 34 countries. It also excludes any claim from one of those 34 countries if they are not reported in international media (which would exclude a lot of the American cases listed in local newspapers). I think that it be reworded to read something like "The following table presents a list of unverified living supercentenarians, who have not yet been officially recognized by an international body of gerontology. These individuals reside in one of the 34 CIA recognised MEDC countries and have been reported on by local or national media agencies." Something like that, which emphasizes that it's the place that they live (and therefore meet the data-quality control requirement that is the spirit of this) rather than the reporting of news agencies. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Lazare Ponticelli just passed away and this article was already updated. It's amazingly fast. This article has become everything I imagined when I created it and more. Useight (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delayed GRG death reports

How to handle the fact that the GRG list is not immediately updated for recent deaths? A current case is Tatsuno Ioda who was found to have died some time ago and who was then removed, but since she was still on the GRG list she was reinstated. While this without a doubt eventually will be resolved when the GRG list is updated, it seems it can produce some unnecessary updates in the meantime. Should a person be taken off the list when he/she has died, or not until the GRG list is updated? It seems to me that a person who has died simply shouldn't be on the list, even if those responsible at GRG have a vacation, but I also realise that it is not always possible to link to a death notice when doing the change (which is often true for the Japanese cases). (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Good point, but dead is dead regardless. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)