Talk:List of oldest living people

Some names to watch out for

IMPORTANT: Please do not add any of these to the main list without a citation of them turning 110.
Name	Birth	Sex	Age	Country
Anna Baiesi	17 January 1900	F	124 years, 221 days	Italy
Haru Kitagawa[1]	23 January 1900	F	124 years, 215 days	Japan
Tanekichi Oonishi	15 February 1900	M	124 years, 192 days	Japan
Mersene Zohos	14 March 1900	F	124 years, 164 days	Greece United States
Shike Sato	16 March 1900	F	124 years, 162 days	Japan
Albert Plummer	27 March 1900	M	124 years, 151 days	United States
Maria Eriksson	28 March 1900	F	124 years, 150 days	Sweden
Carmen Vasquez Lopez	29 March 1900	F	124 years, 149 days	Spain
Ruth Galmon	30 March 1900	F	124 years, 148 days	United States
Felipa Gutiérrez López	11 April 1900	F	124 years, 136 days	Spain
Elin Karlsson	21 April 1900	F	124 years, 157 days	Sweden
Anita Tiburni	3 May 1900	F	124 years, 114 days	Italy
Marie Keller	3 May 1900	F	124 years, 114 days	Switzerland
Rosa Martínez Casais	3 May 1900	F	124 years, 114 days	Spain
Cécile Guichard	5 May 1900	F	124 years, 112 days	France
Zheng Ji	15 May 1900	M	124 years, 98 days	China
Victoria Southan	24 May 1900	F	124 years, 93 days	United Kingdom
Ethel Lang	27 May 1900	F	124 years, 90 days	United Kingdom
Flossie Carter	2 June 1900	F	124 years, 84 days	United States

Lets actually leave it up this time. 12.177.224.253 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NO! I strongly object to the inclusion of this material on this talk page. This page is NOT a messageboard, it is NOT a forum and it is NOT a tracking service for possible supercentenarians. Wikipedia is for (in theory referenced) encyclopedic content. This page is for discussing people who are at least claimed to be 110. The people on this list have no such claim. The majority also have no citation making them OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No-one's claiming it is a messageboard or forum. The talk page is for improving the article, which is what this list is for. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't. Having this list in no way improves the current state of the article. There is a strong liklihood that many entries will never improve this article. It is more than likely anyone on this list who is later reported to have turned 110 before their death will be included in the article anyway there are plenty of vigilant users to ensure that happens wihtout this list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We have no guarantee that we have people speaking every language. Even then it's not always as simple as searching for "110th birthday" on a search engine. Sometimes results only come up if you include the name of the person and when this happens, it's possible that no-one will notice the article. Other articles have sometimes only been available online for a matter of weeks so sometimes it's a matter of urgency to find the articles. This list aids in all of those areas. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SiameeTurtle. Someone found the report about Jeanne Gagnard. That person whoever (s)he is doesn't have the obligation to follow Mrs. Gagnard case. The case became known to the Wikipedia, and now anyone can look for the confirmation that she is alive or not. If the person that found these case didn't put it on the list, this case could have been lost. Remember that Wikipedia may be a guide for the GRG or oldest people discussion group, since we try to find new unverified cases independently of them. I see no arm to a list of almost 110-year-olds.Japf (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Jeanne Gagnard is also a rather good example. It seems as if her report will stay up on the web, but at least some of the newspapers covering the french (as well as for example japanese cases) disappear off the web very quickly, and there are likely not many who follow them closely outside of wikipedia. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that Derby didn't consider my analogy to "foul territory" in sports. Often, when a measurement is close to aline, some margin of error/leeway is used to ensure that the material encompassed WITHIN the boundaries marked is as complete for that near the margin as it is for the center. Of course, this is impossible to accomplish in reality, but the stated goal makes sense: the goal is to get the material as uniform as possible.Ryoung122 05:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to use a sporting analogy then this table consists of practise pitches. They don't count for the actual game. Although my limited knowledge of baseball is fairly limited I don't expect that practise pitches are counted by authoritative statisticians. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say let's be practical here. This is a subject where numerous disparate sources are at play, many not obvious or easy to find. If there is no similar compiled list elsewhere on some public forum, I'd say we should keep this here, despite the qualms about it being outside the normal bounds of wikipedia. Derby, I think you are right in the technical sense that such a list is outside the scope of a wikipedia discussion page. However, the practical reality is there is no similar list elsewhere to inform people of who is near 110 and who therefore to watch for when their 110th birthday approaches. Or, at least, no easily accessible list which a casual reader might find. The list therefore keeps many who otherwise might not be aware to keep an eye out. Given the broad international nature of readership here, this is an enormous tool for improving and keeping the page as accurate and up-to-date as possible.

If we extend the baseball analogy, there are numerous people keeping track of sports stats, but there are only a relatively narrow range of things to keep track of. Some thirty teams or so, in the case of major league baseball. So there is little need to have, in a discussion page, lists of player stats or what have you as they are readily available and are easy to find elsewhere. We need not, for example, list the number of game won and lost by the San Diego Padres so the main page can be updated at the end of the season: such information is readily accessible elsewhere. Not so on this subject, where cases can and do pop up literally anywhere and often have scant or one-off coverage. The more people are aware of 108-and 109-year-olds out there, the closer these cases can be tracked. And wikipedia seems to be the place to go for those most involved in the subject, like Robert, and others more casually involved, like myself. Canada Jack (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue that it is useful but still feel it would be better placed elsewhere. I don't see why one of the users who has contributed to this discussion can't have it on a user page. My concern with having it here is that it is being used as an ad-hoc article for near-supercentenarians (i.e. a table with no criteria, occasional references and the odd discussion about particular individuals). Having this list on a user page would have (almost) no restrictions and would only need a link here to achieve the same result. This would avoid the issues of WP:What Wikipedia is not#Content "...merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." which I take to include article talk pages but not user pages (I may be wrong!); Wikipedia:No original research (which I believe this is); and WP:NOTFORUM (ditto). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the point of the "talk" page is to make the main page better, to discuss issues, and to point out what is missing. Also, something to consider: while "supercentenarian" now means, basically, someone 110 or older, it originally meant anyone "well over 100." In 1939, Bowerman cited cases aged 108 and older. So, there is some precedent for tracking lower. On a practical front, I believe that age 108 is too numerous, and even age 109. However, having cases within 3 months of turning 110 makes a lot of sense. And I believe that this is most useful here (where the article editors will be), not on a personal user page.Ryoung122 15:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Many of the wikipedia policies don't apply to the talk pages, or at least not as vigorously as they do to the article pages. Case in point: Wikipedia:No original research and WP:CITE. Nearly any article talk page out there is loaded with original research and uncited material. At least in an ideal world, they are refined and cited or else discarded after discussion before making it into the article. Non-editors (or at least non-regulars) drop by all the time to say 'Hey I noticed detail X is missing from the page, can someone add it?'. People toss ideas onto the talk page to give them some vetting before they hit the main article, and disputes are settled instead of requiring admin mediation or a public revert war. All of these are legitimate uses for a talk page and none of them need the same kind of rigorous application of Wikipedia rules. And ultimately the only thing that distinguishes this from a talk page comment saying 'Hey, should this person be added in a few days, they're 109' is that it is organized and formatted into a table. As for WP:NOTFORUM, this really isn't a free form discussion on the topic or opinions about supercentenarians, nor is it any kind of social thing. The table and the discussion that follow are very distinctly aimed at improving the article in the future and hammering out the wiki policy applications to the table on the talk page. Frankly, I think that's exactly what a Talk page is for. aremisasling (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering why some people that are in the 'Unverified living supercentenarians' list are still there. For instance, I saw a short video about the 110th birthday of Catherine Masters on the website of the BBC just the other day, and think she should be 'moved' to the list of 'Verified living supercentenarians.' I'm not that familiar with wikipedia and don't want to do that (don't even know HOW to do that), so I was wondering if a short article or video on a website would be enough to make the change. And another thing, there seem to be lots of people on this list of unverified claims. Wouldn't it be easier to just google some names and find a report on the internet about their 110th birthday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidje (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are quite a few people turning 110 around the world every month. Sometimes it takes time for the validating authorities to process the paperwork on new cases. That's part of the point of having an "unverified" list here...it includes "pending" cases that could be validated but have not yet been.

Let's face it, we have four years until Ms. Masters is in contention for the world title, at earliest. I detest the relentless focus on Wikipedia for "immediate updates of everything" which does not give time or proper space to, for example, historic cases from the past.Ryoung122 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Many of the folks here do look up the names on the unverified list periodically to check for new references or to see if they have passed away. But wikipedia is a strictly volunteer workforce (if you can even call it that). None of us get paid, so often wiki articles sit on the sidelines while we go about our daily lives. If you do think someone should be listed as verified, you can use the other edits on the page as examples of how to do it or drop a line on the talk page, like you did, with a link to the source you've found. As to whether it fits the specs of a particular page is another matter. The unverified/verified designation is more a measure of what kind of documentation there is on someone. A news source may say a person is 110, but things like birth certificates, census records, marriage licenses, etc. are used to back up the claim. If you have a link to that video, I'm sure someone would look into it. Thanks. aremisasling (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Link for Gail Stites http://www.dailyiowegian.com/people/local_story_338115522.html Tuyvan (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't discuss the fact that it would indeed take four years until Ms. Masters will be in contention for the world title, the point is that the list of 'unverified' claims seems to get longer and longer and the only 'accepted' source is the Gerontology Research Group, which isn't updated that much. When it comes to verification, if it involves people from countries like Britain or the Netherlands (where I live), you can be absolutely sure that the person in question has indeed reached the age of 110. That is something which can't be said for - for instance - the USA, where they don't seem to have any birth registers. My point is that the list of 'verified' claims has (at the moment) 78 people on it. Someone who sees that list, could be mistaken and think that there are 'only' 78 supercentenarians alive, while the correct number could easily be (somewhere around) 140 or 150. (And with such a long list of unverified claims you would almost tend to think that all of these people on the list are frauds. ;-))

Greetings,

I believe you are OFF for several reasons.

1. The "unverified" list on this page is meant to be a list of potentially validatable cases. The length of the list does not mean that "most" of the cases listed are false or true. It means that the number of claims that Wikipedia has identified is growing.

2. The GRG list adds a disclaimer that the primary purpose is to provide a list of validated candidates for the world's oldest person title (and other titles, such as 'oldest man'), not to provide a statistically valid sample (which tends to require cohort extinction first and relying on sources other than news reports to ensure that all cases have an equal chance of discovery) and not to provide a real estimate of the world's supercentenarian population (note the estimate is 300-450 on the Table E list). However, I do think the GRG list serves as a hedge against unrealistic claims. For example, in the year 2000 it was claimed that Lottie Elliott, 109, was the "world's oldest person" (from England, as usual!). With a list of 78 verified persons aged 110+, I think most people will realize that age 109 is not old enough to be in contention for the world's oldest person title, based on this information.

3. Regarding Ms. Masters: you are probably from the UK. The GRG list already leans heavily in favor of the UK, Italy, and Belgium (due to these countries having both easily-accesible systems of public recordkeeping and a public tradition of reporting on their oldest persons). In France, records are fairly easy to get but there is less interest (the French have Jeanne Calment to look up to; who cares that a French lady is 110, some may think) and thus France is underrepresented. Germany has historical issues problems...its top 3 oldest persons were born in what is now the Ukraine, and records are difficult to come by. The plethora of historical boundary changes amongst the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, etc. is a big mess. German cases from western Germany may be easier, but they also suffered huge military and civilian casualties in two wars.

4. The GRG is not the "only accepted source," the www.recordholders.org site, which hosts Louis Epstein, is also used as a backup. But Ms. Masters isn't on that yet, either.

In the U.S., birth registration was not compulsory for all states until 1933 (though some states, like Massachusetts, had complete records in the 1870s). Records for Southerners and African-Americans, in particular, are more difficult. More than that, however, the US has no central registry of centenarians (like the UK, Belgium, Germany, etc. do) and so researchers must rely on either news reports and family reports (both of which can be checked for census matches) or records that become available after death. This means that the U.S. information can become fairly complete after 4-5 years, but not initially.

So, I do question where there is a value in creating a list overloaded with cases from "easy to get" countries. You mentioned Catherine Masters, born Nov 23 1899. Catherine Carter of Kansas was born Nov 22 1899 and there's a 1900 census match listing her as born in Nov 1899. So which Catherine should be done first? Why are you concerned about one Catherine, but not the other?Ryoung122 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In response a few answers from me. I don't want to take part in this discussion, I just asked one simple question why it would take so long for one person to become validated. And I do have some problems with the GRG. I think their working method of validating supercentenarians is not that well done. For instance, the GRG works with country correspondent volunteers and not every country does have one. So there you go, supercentenarians from those countries aren't going to be recognized that easily.

Then, regarding Ms. Masters. No, as I stated earlier, I'm not from the UK, I'm Dutch. But your point seems to be that you don't want the list to lean to heavily in favour of some countries. In that case you could almost discount all the Japanese or Americans, because the list also leans a lot in those directions. Speaking for myself, I don't care if loads of people from the same country are on the list, as long as they deserve to be on the list. I asked about the case of Ms. Masters because I'd read earlier about her, seen her on the BBC News and found it strange it took some time for her to get on the list. I agree you have to be very sure if you validate a supercentenarian, but the argument you don't want the list to lean to much in one direction doesn't make sense to me.

For all the rest, it was just one simple question and I don't wish to take part in this discussion, I would leave that to others. Thank you. - Guidje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.72.206 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reinstating the limbo cases list. Just because someone doesn't have a birthday report doesn't mean there dead. This is particularly true for Japan where it's become very rare to get information on super c's outside of the respect the elders day in September.Tim198 (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

is Manuela Fernandez Lopez 20 February 1900 F &0000000000000109.000000109 years, &0000000000000360.000000360 days Spain still alive, if not then prove it. 74.249.144.205 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

dont remove her name, is she alive or not, at least tell me why that name keeps getting removed!!!!!!!!!!!!! 74.226.167.135 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering, where do you get all these names from? And yes, could we please remove people who have been on the list for >1 week(?) past their 110th birthday. I notice the list is starting to get clogged up with people who have no 110th birthday reports. Brendanology^TalK 13:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree A LOT. Let's not focus on "recentism." Edna Parker was featured in a 109th birthday story in 2002, but there was no press mention in 2003 when she turned 110. In 2004, there was a press mention for her 111th birthday. Had this case been on Wikipedia, "after one week" out she goes. Gladys Hawley of the UK was mentioned in the press at 109, but not at 110. But at 111, back in the press she was. I think we should keep them on here until they don't fit the possible criteria any more (i.e., if they are 113+ and still no word, off they go). Consider also that cases from Japan are often hard to come by. A man born in Japan in February 1900 might be in the Sept. 2010 list of Japan's oldest persons, but we'll have to wait until September. Should we kick him off after one week? The real point of this list is to help the editors keep track of potential cases that could be added to the main page. Once a case is resolved, then we can process it. Only move a case to the "cold case files" when it's clear that no new information is likely. As long as someone is 110, there is still a good chance that the case isn't being paid much attention to because someone is older. For example, in Japan the "oldest person in the prefecture" is usually reported. But if the oldest person is 111, the 110-year-old may not get mentioned. So we have to be patient.Ryoung122 20:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Hsu Chih

The year of birth in her article has recently been amended to 1898 on the basis of this article from which much of her article has been taken/copied. The citation used for this article is this one which I would not consider to be a sufficiently reliable source. In her article many of The Straits Times citations (unfortunately not on the web), especially the earlier ones, imply 1899 or 1900 as the year of birth. Given the conflicting citations I would suggest that her year of birth is sufficiently unreliable to have her removed from the unverified list (at least until something more definitive is forthcoming). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There being no clarification of her year of birth, and no objection so far, I will go ahead and remove her. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are videos of her doing excerises easily. She doesn't seem to shake at all. She stands up just fine. id say shes anywhere from 80-100. I'd say that she is a false claim. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I myself live in Singapore and though I have never met her personally I think her age is somewhat exaggerated. She is probably only in her 100s at most. I notice that very few, if any, news reports, in print or otherwise, have emphasised on her age which possibly shows that even the Singaporean media may also be unsure of her correct and definite age. Brendanology^TalK 13:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo Groups as a source

I could be wrong, but I thought that citations were supposed to be free access for all users (unfortunately I can't find where it says that). The World's Oldest People at Yahoo has been used as a scource for several unverified claims. Is this in line with wiki policy? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I also doubt Twitter is considered a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says:
"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both."

WP:V#Access to sources says:
"Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. " I am not sure if "anyone should be able to check the sources" means that the source should not require joining up to a usergroup etc. If it does not then it is certainly disappointing that such sources are bing used in this article. Hopefully they will be replaced with more open sources asap. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the source for Lady Mona Agnew. As the source was posted by Jonathan Agnew, her grandson, I would consider it reliable. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am more concerned about Twitter being used as a source for Lillian Leblanc. I accept that Aggers mentioning his grandmother on the BBC is reliable but hope that a better source is available soon otherwise it opens the door for more Twitter citations and that is probably not a good thing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And I wouldn't consider facebook a reliable source either! This is getting ridiculous. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Mona Agnew

Jonathan Agnew just announced on the commentary for Test Match Special that today is his grandmother's 110th birthday. I think this qualifies as a reliable source for her status. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a quotable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

American versus British spellings

Greetings,

Last I checked, the USA had over 300 million people, well more than the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand combined (about 133 million). It seems very presumptuous and biased (POV) to suggest that we should use "American" spellings for "American only" articles.

One person, one vote.Ryoung122 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is totally obnoxious to suggest that the idiosyncratic spelling used by one country over-rules that used by the rest of the world. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is totally obnoxious to suggest that U.S. spellings are "idiosyncratic" and not used elsewhere. I note that the article on organization on Wikipedia uses the Z as the default spelling.

The United States, its territories and in some cases Canada are the only country that uses American English, the rest of the wolrd does not. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English the following guidelines apply to spelling in an article:

1. Consistency within articles (this article uses international date format because it is an international article, the same should apply to spelling for consistency )
2. Strong national ties to topic (this is an international topic therefore international conventions for date format and spelling should be used)
3. Retaining the existing variety (The opening paragraph of this article was added on 24 November using the spelling "organisations" it has remained as such except for one other attempt at changing it which I also reverted)
4. Opportuninties for commonality (I believe this refers to using words which have alternate meanings in British and American English which does not apply in this case)

So none of the reasons given above justify changing the spelling. If you can provide a valid reason under wikipedia policy for changing the spelling in this case, and IF there is consensus to change it then it can be changed. None of the arguments supplied so far justify a change. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization

Ryoung122 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The portuguese language wikipedia is a ruthless war between European Portuguese users and Brazilian Portuguese users. The war has became deadlier when wikipedia started to adopt the new spelling from the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990, since then we have brazilian against portuguese AND old spellers against new spellers. The funniest part of this querel is that some people state that English language has also more than one version, but american and british people are gentlemen, and don't bother with small details as changing "center" to "centre" or the way round. I'm glad to know that this is not true.Japf (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that doesn't include India and Pakistan. I don't think the spelling matters so long as it is consistent. SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, anglophones are not "gentlemen" about their spelling differences. However, they have solved the issue with a remarkably successful WP:ENGVAR practice. Please read the three basic criteria. Here, it may come down to going along with the very first variety-disambiguating word: please look back at the earliest versions in the history. Tony (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the relevant paragraph was added on 24 November 2009, the spelling used was "organisation". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mildred JaMais

• The following was posted on usenet by Louis Epstein

"In September 2008 this newsgroup reproduced the NY Times obituary for singer Connie Haines,noting that she was born Yvonne JaMais and survived by her mother Mildred who'd taught her as a girl." "I've just learned from a writer working on her obituary that Mildred died today at 110.She couldn't quite die "jamais",but did her best."

• I'm wondering if any research has been done about her. Williamb (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-=-=-

RfC: Listing supercentenarian claimants

There are thought to be 350-400 living supercentenarians in the world. Of these, around 70 or 80 have been officially validated by organisations such as the GRG. The problem with using a list of validated people alone is that it does not give a world perspective, and the validation procedure usually takes months, and fairly often, even years. The reason for stringent age validation is that there are many claims to old age, many of which are outlandish. Some countries do seem to be 'hotspots' for excessive longevity claims, such as Brazil - though these claims tend to be older than the oldest verified living person, and in many cases, older than the oldest verified person (Jeanne Calment) ever. Other pages list worldwide claims over the age of 115: longevity claims, longevity myths. To give a worldwide view on the subject, supercentenarian claims are also listed, provided they have a citation with a specific date of birth and are under the claimed age of 113. Currently, those listed have to be from a high income economy, which seems to conflict with WP:NPOV, due to exclusion of people based on their country. The premise for using this criterion was that those from poorer countries may not have the records necessary to be validated, and that they are less likely to be true. People from non-high income economies have been verified to live beyond 110. The world's oldest person from 2004-2006, Maria Capovilla was herself from a lower-middle income economy (Ecuador) and lived to be one of the 5 verified undisputed oldest people ever. Though we have had two votes on the issue, it has not been resolved due to no consensus. The main two suggestions put forward were to 1) List all claimants aged under 113 who have a specific claimed birthdate, who are from any country. 2) List supercentenarians from countries which have had a verified supercentenarian in the past. Some users postulate that the former option may result in a build up of claims from non-HIE countries, though only a handful of claims from non-HIE countries between 110-113 are known. On the other hand, the latter is likely to exclude people who live in smaller countries (and therefore may conflict with WP:NPOV) - as they have had less chance to have a supercentenarian in their country in the past. As previous votes have ended in no consensus, the original criterion for listing only those from high income economies has remained for months, despite being against Wikipedia policy. I would like to see some light at the end of the tunnel. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The high income economy criteria per se is an obvious violation to the NPOV for sure. The criteria should be "coutries where people can prove their age by statal records". An unverified record with no statal records will probably stay for ever unverified, so shouldn't be on the limbo list. So which are the "coutries where people can prove their age by statal records"? The answer is very close to high income economy countries or maybe exactly the same.Japf (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet we see there are validated people born in India, Ecuador, Mexico, Columbia, Russia, Lithuania, Poland, South Africa, Algeria etc. Many of the Caribbean islands have records for the era because they were colonies, for example St Kitts and Nevis, and Jamaica, where we have two supercentenarian claimants. There's also a woman in Italy less than a week short of 110 who was born in Argentina, where the records have apparently already been located. So no, I don't agree that it is very close. I might also add that the list does not include the British Virgin Islands, which might sound trivial, but there is a woman there aged 109 years and 3 months. Clearly, there's no list that would describe the likelihood of having records. Even within a country, it can vary from place to place and person to person. So in an ideal world, we might have the criterion "coutries where people can prove their age by statal records", but we won't know that until they are verified, which then defeats the purpose. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of seperating the section titled "Unverified living supercentenarians" into two subsections one containing those from high income economies and the other containing those not from high income economies. There should also be a paragraph though explaining that the later is far less trustworthy as for the reasons presented by SiameseTurtle above. From there on I think the merits of including each person should be decided on a person to person basis. Concerns with regards to outlandish claims can be addressed in that manner.Chhe (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting proposition, however wouldn't we then be listing certain cases and suggesting they are unlikely to be verified and/or likely to be false? I still think that's against WP:NPOV. It's perhaps ironic that it was me who suggested and implemented the high income economy criterion, and now I think it should be removed. As we have a cut off at 113, it will exclude extreme claims anyway, and at the same time include false negatives. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion, though I'd be surprised if it gained consensus. Even better would be to keep this page for verified super-c's only and move unverified claims to a new article where differences in possible verifiability could be explained. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, a page for only verified living supercentenarians is effectively an amalgamation of just one or two sites' data (and usually a carbon-copy of just one). Given there are thought to be 350-400 supercentenarians in the world and only 70-odd are validated, it's crucial for all the information to be in one place. Only then can we give a worldwide perspective and in my opionion most importantly, give proper context to both the verified and unverified lists. Separate lists would prevent the cohesion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone has raised this issue. Its definitely POV to restrict the listings of unverified claims to high income countries. I also do not understand why there is a cut off at 113. Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997, lived to 122 years old (verified). There are many people in the Middle East who claim to be around that age too. There should simply be a section for unverified claims that includes all such claims, with refs and column entitled "notes" where an extended explanation can be given (if there is a birth document, known birthdate or not, etc.) This would make the article much more interesting and NPOV. Tiamut^talk 20:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are pages at longevity claims and longevity myths for more extreme claims. Though Calment lived to 122, I think we need to deal mainly with living claimants: if someone claims to be 116, then they claim to be the oldest in the world. While that could actually be true, there will also be many claimants with a false date of birth. We need to accept that some people do give false ages (deliberately or not) and it's the title of the world's oldest person that they want. So, 113 is semi-arbitrary, but if this were to be changed I don't think it should go above the age of the verified oldest woman, or verified oldest man at the time. However, I would rather jump one hurdle at a time. As for adding notes, I worry that it could cross over into WP:OR and WP:BLP (for example, the information added in the section below). SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The cutoff at 113 is the easier think to explain. If someone can't prove his/her supercentenarian status by the 113th birthday will never do.

I agree that the high income economy criteria is not the best, but the "accept all" criteria is worst. With the present criteria, near half of the claims become validated sooner or later. The "accept all" criteria would enlarge the list three or four times, and would only add a surplus of one or even no validated cases to the validated cases from high income economy list.

Most age claims are proved by State or Church records. It is very difficult to prove an extreme age claim in a country without this kind of records. Sometimes a person can prove his/her claim by other means, and that doesn't say anything about the country (s)he lives. So, I agree it is NPOV to assume the high income economy criterium. An arbritary list would be NPOV too. But If you set up some criteria and look for which countries agree with them, it shouldn't be NPOV. For instance we could choose countries with generalised census since {{CURRENTYEAR}}-110.Japf (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"The "accept all" criteria would enlarge the list three or four times" - are you referring to accepting all claims (even over 113), or all claims below 113? SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the article works the way that it is; separated into verified and unverified. People who are that old have no living witnesses to their birth so on some level we are taking people's word for it. I think that way it takes into account the countries where birth records are not reliable. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Some debunked claims?

According to the US Search website http://www.ussearch.com/ I have found some people that are said to be younger:
-Ivory Ross-Lambert (keyword lastname: Lambert) is said to be 108 years old. Residence:Bearden, Arkansas.
-Fannie Buten is said to be 108 years old. Residence is Bala Cynwyd, Pennyslvania.
-Ruby Muhammad is said only to be 97 years old. Residence: Elk Grove, California.
-Andrew Hatch is said to be 109 years old. Residence: Oakland, California.
-Nellie Vallery is said to be 105 years old. Reidence: in Louisiana.
-Frances Street is even said to be 101 years old (according to http://intelius.com/ , of course everyone knows about that)

So...is this a reliable source? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that it is a reliable source (though after looking on the site, it doesn't seem to explain where the data comes from, so I'm hesitant to call it that). The main issue for me is that it's a primary source, which is hard to interpret. One census return for Lambert does suggest age 108, but another suggests she is 110. Records are not always 100% accurate and using different records can suggest different dates of birth. This is for the validation procedure to weigh up, not Wikipedia. I think it would be best to send your evidence to the researchers - I think it would be original research here. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. The doubt I have is that Ruby Muhammad is thought to be 102, so where have they got 97 from? And the nearest New Orleans Andrew Hatch they could find was in his 80s not 109. Also, when did Fannie Buten move to the US? If it was as an adult then the 20-year rule comes in and makes 108 seem unreliable. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I took pictures of the information directly from the site. I can upload them to Wikipedia and display them here. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is material which needs to be assessed by GRG or whomever, otherwise it is original research. Canada Jack (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I sent a message on that to WOP last week. They either haven't posted it yet or they are looking more into it, or they might think that it is just completely stupid. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, the listings above are similar to telephone listings or personal-data listings. It is secondary-source information, NOT primary-source information. Further, the site is not meant to be used to determine is a person's age claim is valid or not. I would recommend not using it here.Ryoung122 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are three pics: "CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE IN BETTER QUALITY!!!"

Frances Street's residence

File:Ivory ross lambert 7303.png

Ivory Ross-Lambert's residence

File:Nellie vallery10493.png

Nellie Vallery's residence

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranks unnecessary for Unverified list?

I truly believe it should be removed. On foreign supercentenarian pages such as List of Canadian supercentenarians and all the others don't rank the unverified, just the verified ones. Also on the Longevity claims page, there are no ranks at all. Do we really need ranks for unverified on this page. It seems biased that they rank them here and not on other pages. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the ranks have no 'meaningful' point, but it's necessary to keep track of the numbers. Without them, if someone updated the list but forgot to update the summary, the numbers in the summary could get confused. SiameseTurtle (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "waiting list number"? In a list of cases not accepted yet, rank is not very important, and the information is already in apparent chronological order. Another option is to delete the column entirely and count the numbers just in total.Ryoung122 01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert, you are right as usual, keep up the good work. 65.0.46.138 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lock page?

Ip users continue to add supercentenarians from the low income economy countries after they have been continuosly informed to stop. More work must be created to delete them and make the page where it needs to be, and that takes a while. It would easier on us if we lock it. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is that we're using a system that is against Wikipedia rules. The RFC I posted seems to have amounted to nothing and we're back in the same loophole: We know the criterion has to change, but repeated votes prevent any change from happening. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we can't agree then either apply no criteria, list ALL claimed 110-112-year-olds, removing those who turn 113, OR simply omit the unverified list. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oldest living person is a Palestinian woman named Mariam Amash?

• Who is the World's Oldest Living Person?
• This Is the World's Oldest Living Person: 120 Years!: A Palestinian woman

Does anyone have any more information on what happened to this woman? The story was reported in 2008 and it was said her family was going to send her identity document (from the time of the Ottoman Empire) to Guinness. Any word on what happened? Tiamut^talk 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. This woman, while Palestinian, lives in Jisr az-Zarqa, an Arab town inside the borders of Israel. I'm assuming that she can therefore be added to the list of unverified claimants under the current criteria as her country of residence is "high income" one.

As I stated in the RfC above though, I so think that restriction is POV and should be lifted so that this page can reflect a worldwide perspective on this topic. Tiamut^talk 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First, this page includes unverified claims only up to the age of 113. Once a person reaches that age, if not yet verified, it is exceedingly unlikely they ever will be. Which is why there is an argument over the criteria - should we include claims from countries which have never or are unlikely to verify claims? Recall, this is primarily a page for VERIFIED claims, with a list of claims from countries which have claims which stand a chance to be verified.

Second, punch in "world's oldest person" to a search engine and you will get (besides the current verified eldest person) a raft of claims to the title "oldest person." Go to longevity claims and you will find your "oldest person", is in fact sixth on the section of "incomplete claims" and would be around eighth on the list of recently updated claims with at least a claimed date of birth. And these are just the lists of what are considered claims which are at least scientifically plausible. There are a great many (past) claims which are considered implausible, on longevity myths.

So, in sum, since your claimant has had a decade-plus opportunity since turning 110 to have brought her claim to the bodies who can verify it and has not, either for lack of documentation or fear of exposing a false claim, it should not reside on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Seperate the unverified from this page?

This page should just be for verified supercentenarians only. This page just turns into a mess house over the disputes of the unverified supercentenarians. I think that the unverified should be on a seperate article titled List of unverified living supercentenarians. It should have all the supercentenarians. It can be similar to the Longevity claims page because the longevity claims list displays tons of low income and high income countries. When i mean all, I mean the lowest of low income economy countries. This way, the disputes will be all over with. I can make the page now...that's if Robert Young and a few other good people (e.g. Tim 198, Siamese Turtle, and/or several others) like the idea. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. That's what longevity claims already exists for. The problem is, with no standards applied the claims are so numerous as to not really warrant a list below age 113 (in my opinion).

The real purpose of this second listing is to list cases that have turned 110 and have a reasonable chance of future acceptance. While some disagree as to what standards should be employed (high income?), I think most agree that this second list serves a useful function.Ryoung122 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie Fairbanks

What happened to him? He's no longer on the list. Brendan_ology 13:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

he died. 198.175.205.251 (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WHAT? Brendanology^TalK 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He actually did die according to Filipe Prista Lucas here http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/14176. His name appeared on the SSDI. He was one of the last three recognized living men in America born in the 1800s. The other two living are Andrew Hatch (disputed), and Walter Breuning. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, Ronnie Fairbanks had a CLAIM to birth in 1897, but no no proof of birth, and was thus NOT recognized as "one of the last three men born in the 1800s."Ryoung122 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. RIP, Ronnie Fairbanks. Brendanology^TalK 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Supercentenarians

Why are there no "verified" supercentenarians on this list born after December 13, 1899? It seems silly that all the younger people aged 110 have to be on the unverified list. Can this be changed? 98.234.188.71 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the paragraph at the beginning of the article about what constitutes verified? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

no need to be ugly, he just asked a question, derby, aka a wikipedian after cp's own heart. 74.249.139.86 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

John Red Hawk Indian Scout for U.S. calvary

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

Ruth Galmon

Robert Young said the following for Mrs. Galmon saying quote:

"Ruth Galmon is only 108, according to a GRG investigation: I found one file in Ancestry.com which includes a Ruth Galmon, born in St Helena County, LA, on March 30, 1899, the daughter of James Galmon and Mary Lear Franklin. However, if we go to the census, we find that: - she is not registered in 1900, whereas a sister of hers is said to have been born in December 1898, and - she is registered in 1910 at the age of 9. All considered, should this be the case now being reported (which I believe it most probably is, given the birthday coincidence and as Galmon is a rare surname), she should have just turned 108 years old."

He said that it was a "GRG investigation".

I think Ruth Galmon should be taken off for now.

I also believe that Hines, and Elliot should be moved down the list. And to remove Street. But thats a different story. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Nick about Galmon and also about Hines, Elliot and Street. The problem is some here refuse to consider the yahoo group an acceptable source and I don't really understand why. All you have to do is sign up for a free account to view the message board. And on top of that the information on those cases was posted by Filipe Prista Lucas who is a GRG senior claims investigator.

In fact, scrolling through the unverified list I found other claims that appear to be false:

Nettie Whittington (Census matches sugest birth in 1900) [2]

Eddye Williams (at most 109 today because she is not listed as born in 1900 and has a brother born in May 1899) [3]

Hosea Peeples (only 109 today) [4]

Tim198 (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont forgot the other 4 possibly debunked claims:

Frances Street (likely only 101 years old) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/12438

Juanita Elliott (likely 109 years old) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11742

Andrew Hatch (likely born in 1922) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/8857

Louisiana Hines (born in 1899) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/10481

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Andrew Hatch case is a very iffy case as we only have 1 census match, but the fact that his daughter is said to be much younger than him adds more evidence that this man is not as old as he claims to be. And, lets face it, this man doesn't look or act very much like a super-c. I do think he should be removed. Tim198 (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute of Unverified supercentenarians

I can't seem to understand that the other foreign Wikipedia pages display ALL supercentenarians except for America. Such as [5] and [6].

The Italian page seems to have no disputes whatsoever on their discussion page. Everything seems to be a breeze for them.

The Portuguese page has alot of claims from the past that have passed on. Forget this page, its abandoned.

The point im trying to get across is: who cares whether they are from high or low. There are supercents from the past from low economy countries that have been verified. The low income economy claims will eventually be on the Longevity claims article.

It's "like a box of chocolates. You never know what ya gonna get". -Forrest Gump, 1998.

MEANING THAT: You never know if or when a Low income economy country is going to have a person validated to be a supercentenarian (eg. Maria Capovilla). Hope that makes sense. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. In fact the portuguese version of the unvalidated part had been created by me, and abandoned. I need time to update it. My initial intention was to included all supercentenarian claims whatever countries they belong to. Soon I realised that this list would be full of false or difficult to prove claims, and that it should be some criteria in posting a claim. For the moment the high income country criterium is not perfect, but works.Japf (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The high income economy criterion does not work: it discriminates and it goes against several Wikipedia rules. It's completely unimpartial, non-scientific and damages the integrity of the article. I'm glad others are seeing this criterion for what it really is: it damages the article, it does not improve it. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you at at least agree with the 113th birthday rule? I don't think this would be a serious article where first clamaint says to be 200 years old.Japf (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The 113 "rule" has been used because claims over that age are considered unlikely. For the same reason it has been agreed by consensus on numerous occasions that a criteria is needed so that claims that are unlikely to be verified are also excluded. We have, several times, been close to changing that criteria but as certain editors are unwilling to accept any criteria at all the current "high income economy" criteria is still in place. Note that no verified superc's from a non-HIE country have been verified since this dispute began. If there were to be no country criteria then there should also be no age criteria as the argument that Maria Capovillova would have been included in the absence of one (country) should also apply to the other (age). This would mean that all those on the Longevity claims page up to the age of 115 (or 116) would be included here. I for one would see that as detrimental to the integrity of this article and would unnecessarily devalue the legitimate claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you probably would since you just created a strawman. Claims above the age of the oldest living person are dealt with by Guinness, which is more thorough. I have always stipulated that there must be some sort of age limit and that it should be below the age of the oldest living woman and/or man. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Im sure that there are plenty of others that bend the rules a little on Wiki. WOP is for all of the GRG researchers worldwide to kind of come together. GRG is basically WOP. On WOP, they talk about receiving documents from so and so, census research from individual claims, birthday reports, etc. I would say to go ahead and use it as a source because GRG members even use it! They are the source! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you bend the rules and get caught you can't complain. If WOP is actually GRG in disguise then using it here violates WP:Selfpublish and shouldn't be used here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are references that use unreliable sources such as for Cora Hansen's 110th birthday (uses a blog), Lillian Leblanc's (uses facebook), Lady Mona Agnew (uses twitter). --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:Twitter, Twitter and similar blogs are not considered reliable sources. As such I don't think they should be used here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It IS an "unvalidated" list, after all? To me, what matters is NOT whether the case can be verified but that the case has a certain degree of plausibility/reliability. Most extreme/false claims begin with ridiculous ages claimed. If a claim starts from a 110th birthday story, it has a higher degree of believability than if it starts from even "I'm 115!" or "I'm 120"! (like Miriam Amash).

Yet another compromise is to have three lists.

1. The verified list (the GRG and/or www.recordholders.org lists)

2. The "high-income" unverified list

3. other claims (to age 110-112)

How about that?!!!131.96.91.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

My proposed compromise

Please note that the GRG has received documents validating the case of Rosalind Hill, born in St. Kitts in 1899 and died in NYC in 2010. Though not "high income," a valid case came from there (note that likely false cases have come from another Caribbean island, Dominica).

Therefore, I propose that the UNvalidated section on this list include:

All unvalidated, claims to birth that would result in the person being 110+ (such as born Feb 9 1900, alive on Feb 10 2010), requiring a citable source, for which the person is believed to be alive, and for which a claimed date, month, and year of birth are made, except those claims to 113+ (which are featured on the longevity claims page).

In my opinion, if someone says "I'm 110" but there's not even a date of birth or month of birth claimed, it cannot be put in proper order, and there is a strong suggestion that the age claim is based on oral, self-reported ages rather than a documented age.

It seems that most would agree. I note that exceptions (cases validated at age 113+) are extremely rare, and if they are validated they can be added to the validated list. Right? Another option is to use a cutoff of "anyone claiming to be older than the current oldest living recognized person." Ryoung122 02:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The above compromise would allow claims from places such as Eastern Europe or the Caribbean to be listed, but exclude more unlikely reports such as "I'm 115"!. Extreme claims (those 113+) would be listed on "longevity clsims."Ryoung122 02:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Mr Young, I don't agree with this. The Soledax Mexia and Rosalind Hill cases have been brought up before in these discussions but lets face it, they are the EXCEPTION and NOT the rule. Out of over 1000 cases verified by GRG only about 10 or so have come from non high-income economies. In the future I'm sure this number will increase greatly and we will have to re-evaluate it at some point but as of now the high-income economy criteria should he used. In fact, I'd say the current criteria is not strict enough. We shouldn't list people who immigrated from a non high-income economy country to a high-income economy country later in life. Obtaining early life records are a necessity when it comes to validating super-c cases. As such, it doesn't matter where a person lives now but where they were born. For Example, in this 111th birthday story for Elizabeth Buhler it specifically states that all of her early life records from the Ukraine were destroyed. The fact that she lives in Canada now is irrelevant. She cannot and will not be verified. I would like to say that I don't think claims from non high-income economies should be totally ignored by Wikipedia. So I would recommend that they be moved to the longevity claims page with an explanation on why they are unlikely to be verified.Tim198 (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When is enough enough? It's completely arbitrary. Back when we started this discussion, one of the points were that there hadn't been many in the past. Since then even more have been validated, in the space of a few months. The numbers are increasing all the time and yet the outdated idea that supercentenarian claims from non-high income economies are either false or unverifiable is simply unfounded. Once you start to say that these cases are unverifiable, you're crossing over into WP:OR, WP:BALL and WP:BLP. Using the high-income economy criterion is against WP:NPOV. We're not here to predict the future, or publish our own thoughts about living people. We're here to simply publish what reliable sources say in a non-judgemental way. People from Ireland have been verified, despite most of their records being destroyed. And for the record, I agree with Robert. SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Since then even more have been validated", more of who exactly? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the compromise is here. If you're suggesting that any claim should be allowed provided there is a reliable citation as long as the claim is under 113 (or the current oldest validated person) then that's not a compromise. I don't believe it has (ever) been suggested that any unverified claim be included without a reliable citation so that is irrelevant. What is left is that there is either some criteria (as at present, though it appears almost everyone agrees the current criteria is unsatisfactory) or no crtieria (which the majority of users object to {as per previous discussions}). If the compromise is to allow any person being considered by GRG to be included, regardless of any other criteria, then that would make sense (on the assumpiton that GRG wouldn't waste effort on {highly} unlikely claims). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so im guessing that we can unlock the article and add the unverified non-disputed claimants under 113 with a complete date of birth.

So...can I add them to the list right now!?!? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NO! There is no consensus to change the criteria, there hasn't even been any discussion yet! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If or when the time comes, just go to my page and scroll down to the Unverified supercentenarians. ALL of the recognized claims are there...for the people born in the 1800s. All of the disputed cases are removed and it is ALMOST ALWAYS up to date. Just ignore the deceased claims that are in red. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's been PLENTY of discussion. I would say that DerbyCountyinNZ is the most-ardent defender of the current system. Hard to say there is a consensus to keep the current version. It's more like a stalemate.131.96.91.65 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are totally incorrect. I am in favour of changing to countries with a previously verified supercentenarian. The only reason the current system is still in place is that there is only a bare consensus to change and that seems insufficient. Until there is a clear consensus to change the current system stays, no matter how many people disagree witth it. That's the way wikipedia works. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, starting a response with an OPINION that "you are totally incorrect" is NOT constructive. It is clear that you, Derby, have been the counterbalance preventing change here.

Rubbish. Do not claim that I am doing something I am not. As I have pointed out more than once, I am in favour of changing the current criteria. That the criteria has remained unchanged is down to a lack of clear consensus to do so. Consensus to change is a wiki guideline, that that has not been met is nothing to do with me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02

50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I called my suggestion a "compromise" because there are many people that favor no standards. Having standards, but requiring them to be fair and impartial, is a sensible compromise to either "no standards" or "tough-to-qualify" rules.

The purpose of the second list is actually multiple, not one. First off, it provides a "waiting list" of cases of super-c claims that "just turned 110" and are likely to be verified. Fine. But a second purpose is to list people whose age appears possibly true, but unvalidated (such as this lady from Canada):

http://www.winklertimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2445989

The purpose of this page is to provide a list of "living" supercentenarians. However, there has to be some standard...right now, the List 1 includes "verified" cases. List 2 includes "unverified but likely verifiable" cases. What about a third list, "likely true but unverifiable" cases? This would include only those claims to age 110-112 with dates of birth. That is a fair standard that can be applied equally. I'm sure that most would be willing to include the "high-income economy" rule so long as a third list was included.

Remember, one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that of pluralism...multiple major viewpoints should be presented, and LET THE READER DECIDE!Ryoung122 02:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Marie Coulon of France

Why is she listed on the unverified list? The source provided Francais Celebres is NOT an acceptable source because it just essentially copies whatever is posted on Wikipedia. In addition there is no information on her anywhere on the web and even the GRG French correspondent has never heard of her. see [7]. As such, I'm removing her. She was probably just created by a wikipedia vandal. I don't know why this has been allowed to stand for OVER A YEAR. NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! Tim198 (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it was vandalism since it was added by Pistachio disguisey[8]. You should ask him why.Japf (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm talking about the French wikipedia not the American wikipedia. The Marie Coulon claim was orginally posted by someone over at French wikipedia, which was then posted to Francais Celebres and then Pistachio used it as a source for the American wikipedia. Whoever posted the claim at French wikipedia is likely a vandal because there is no evidence that she exists. Even Robert Young has said he can't find any evidence she exists.Tim198 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A few French cases have been added without proper citations. Probably they should have been removed, but rather than try to stem the tide, I attempted to find a source. Then I had to add Marie Coulon for consistency. I think I later removed that case. I was dubious since there wasn't even a photograph. But I believe it was later reinstated. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fannie Buten

Now Fannie Buten is a pretty uncommon name. I found a 1930 census record of a Fannie Buten here [9] saying that she was living in Delaware, Pennsylvania at the time with her husband named Mathie and says that she was born in about 1901. Here [10] it says that Mathie was born in about 1900. According to here: [11] Buten moved from Austria to America in 1915.

And here [12] is a Fannie Buten at the time living in New York, New York that imm(em)igrated to the U.S. from somewhere. It may or may not be her. I figured that I'd just throw that in there.

Robert Young said that US Search isn't a primary source, meaning that it doesn't validate a person's age. But her age did change when she turned "claimed" 109 on February 1st. Is she disputed because of the census record? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Moreover, sites like Ancestry.com often "estimate" an age that is off 33% of the time. It's best to look at the original record. Even then, the 1930 census is well after a birth event, and taken at a time when women tend to undestate their age (from age 30-79, women tend to understate their age).131.96.91.65 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

World's Oldest People - again

Using citations from WOP should only be used where no other is available. It is unnecessary to update a previous citation just because it's mentioned on WOP, a citation that the claimant has celebrated a birthday is sufficient they are assumed to be still alive and awaiting verfication until they are either verified, debunked, die or are not reported to still be alive after the following birthday. WOP is not the ideal source as it is a messageboard forum and not an independent news authority (it may be regarded as a reliable authority because it includes information from GRG researchers but I'm not sure wiki should make such an exception), I think it is very close to coming under WP:SELFPUBLISH. It would be nice to find a more definitive statement on such sources (I'm sure I found one some time ago). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of this Page?

Greetings,

Wikipedia policies on NPOV state that multiple, major viewpoints should be included in an article (this is called pluralism). It is not the job of Wikipedia to present just the most-dominant point of view, then: it is Wikipedia's job to present multiple major viewpoints.

Clearly, List 1 (the validated list) presents the skeptics' POV: that is, we cannot know if unvalidated cases are true, so only validated cases should be listed.

List 2, currently, seems little more than a "waiting list." Supposedly a list of unvalidated cases, we have excluded:

A. longevity myths (130+) B. longevity claims (unvalidated claims to 113-130) C. claims missing month and day of birth, as well as year (even if the claim is "just" 110)

I agree with the above exclusions.

Next,

D. claims to 110-112 from nations that are NOT "high-income" economies

I will admit there is a correlation between income and literacy, but we have seen, for example, nations such as Saudi Arabia with "high" incomes but still lacking documentation, even for the birthdate of the Sultan. Right now, "high-income" is a proxy.

A better measure are nations "with a system of compulsory birth registration in place for 100+ years." That could include places such as St. Kitts (a British colony) but wouldn't help with Mexico. That could get complicated.

The real question is: with List 1 already expressing a skeptic's view, list 2 could be a little more nuanced. If we take the POV that a lot of people claim to be 110+, but just don't have documents (such as the "111" year-old woman in Canada who was born in the Ukraine), then where is that POV expressed? Where does a case cross the line from being at least 50% likely to be true to being less than 50% likely to be true? A study of American supercentenarian claims found that although 90% of Caucasian-American claims to age 110+ between 1980 and 1999 could be verified, just 50% of African American claims could be. That means, in reality, that we have outside-source, journal-article material to suggest there is a marked difference in the relative validity of claims, within America. Further, nations such as France have shown that immigrant claims are notoriously unreliable, with questionable claims from places such as Algeria, Polynesia, and China. So, simply living IN a "high-income" economy does no make a case likely to be true.

It has been suggested that immigrants born outside the "high-income" country should be excluded if they are "late-life" immigrants. I would go further and say that except for immigrants within a 20-year "early-life" window, those who migrated after 20 should not be considered for list 2 in its current form. The current rules of validation say that "early-life" documents are those issued within 20 years of the birth event (for example, Sarah Knauss was 19 when recorded in the 1900 census).

Now, we could argue that list 2 then serves the purpose as a "pending" list of cases likely to be validated.

Should we have a third list, however? The problem arises from cases from places like Poland, Singapore, etc. It is true that Poland has a history of dubious claims (recently, they have been mostly male; likely these men inflated their age to avoid war service). However, Poland has also recently started efforts to track centenarians, and they identified cases, such as a woman born Aug 5 1897, which seems not to be motivated by "personal" glory, but is instead a "national-list" type case. For cases like this, or Elena Bordeian of Moldavia, etc. I suggest we could make a third list. I would like to note that, by starting a list at age 110 (ground-up approach), and limiting it to under 113, we already cut off the vast majority of questionable cases. Most false claimants are going to start a claim with a ridiculous age. That's not true with Cuba, of course.

These are just some thoughts on where this page might go next.Ryoung122 04:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems largely agreed that the HIE criteria is not the best. Changing to countries with previously verified supr-c's would eliminate countries such as Saudi Arabia and Singapore buit would include others such as Colombia and Ecuador. Poland would be included as soon as there is a verification (which appears to be not too far away). If Unverified Claims were shifted to a separate article (as has been suggested by several people) then there would be no (or certainly, less) need to exclude claimants from any country, although identifiying those from HIE and/or previously verified countries would clarify those with a greater likelihood of being verified (and would enhance the average users understanding of the article). The issue of immigrants requiring early life records is sensible but is it practical (ie how often does the claim mention the age at which a person immigrated?). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Unverified LIE supercentenarians

So...can we begin here on the discussion as to whether or not that we can add the Low Income Economy country supercentenarians? Possibly talk about the advantages and disadvantages (pros and cons)? Or however you guys would normally discuss it? As we all know, it's breaking a Wikipedia rule. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have realised that most claims form LIE countries are so unreal that most of them are blocked by the 113th birthday rule. If there are more people from these countries claiming to be 130 than 110, I think there is no problem including the few which claim a realistical age. Japf (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i meant the claims aged 110-112 years of age. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. This has been discussed ad nauseum already, why reiterate the same arguments yet again?
2. "As we all know, it's breaking a Wikipedia rule". We do not "all know" this, some users have interpreted a wiki guideline to mean that the current consensus to have any criteria is invalid. The majority (ie consensus) is that a criteria is required to exclude unlikely claims.
3. The previous discussions have resulted in apparent consensus that the criteria be changed to those countries with a previously validated supercentenarian. This has not been implemented due to the intransigence of a minority of editors. While not resolving all issues such a change would be a step forward as it would remove at one argument that the HIE "breaks a rule".
4. There are several possible compromises to this problem, but as some editors seem unwilling to compromise it seems pointless to even suggest them.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

2. I've posted this article on both the WP:NPOV noticeboard and on RFC. Both times it was agreed that the current criterion was against Wikipedia rules.

3. The pillars of Wikipedia are not negotiable. It is not neutral point of view to deliberately exclude people based on the country they are from. I don't make the rules. Previous votes were biased from the start both in terms of their options and their wording - which still included options to pick invalid criteria. After time has passed and people have had more time to think, it seems there is yet more support for being impartial and unbiased.

4. I encouraged people to give compromises - but few, if any, were forthcoming. The onus is not on me, or other editors with similar views on this subject, to accept the first compromise that is suggested. The onus is on those making suggestions to keep them within the rules. That you say you have compromises that you do not wish to share does not help the situation. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion from me to include only claims from countries which had previously validated claims was not found to be a POV suggestion. And that's because the only function of the unvalidated list (and the reason for the 113-year cut-off) is to list claims which may be validated. I agree that the HIE criterion is POV. What was a constant critique was the "previously validated" criterion which would deny claims from tiny countries. No, it would simply omit those claims from the waiting list as said country (like Slovenia) had no previous validation and therefore had no track record of verification. There was NEVER a suggestion that those claims not on that list were "untrue," just that there was little chance for validation. Your complaints notwithstanding, there's nothing POV about that. Canada Jack (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The verification procedure does not only apply to supercentenarian research. Some of the countries with supercentenarian claimants do have historical records for the right periods. Again, you assume that because a country has not had a supercentenarian before that there is "little chance for validation", which shows you didn't consider the points I mentioned in the past. A small country tends to have a small population - and therefore is, by chance, unlikely to have a supercentenarian. It's pretty unlikely that Guernsey would've had one in 1902 (then a population of just 40000). You can infer absolutely nothing about the chance of verification. Accepting only countries that have had a supercentenarian in the past gives a huge bias towards larger countries, and will exclude those from small countries, such as the Caribbean. There is something POV about deliberately excluding people based on their country. We cannot predict the future - we don't know which people will be validated, that's why they're on the unvalidated list. It's not possible to have a 'list of unverified supercentenarians, but likely to be verified in the future' - and that's not what Wikipedia is about. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then we should simply state in the intro to the section that, owing to the large number of claims, and large number of claims which are neither verified nor disproven, the list is limited to people from countries who have previous verified claims. And we can also state that this is no way presupposes that listed claims are therefore likely to be verified or that non-listed claims are not true or will not be verified. And... Based on recent history, very few verified claims will likely emerge which have not already been on this list. In my books, we either do that, open the door to all claims, or move the list off the page. Canada Jack (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on this whole LIE thing

This is getting to the point where it is just getting too out of wack (slang term if you people never heard of it). Stressing over unverified LIE supercentenarians. It will keep going downhill just like George W. Bush's IQ level. It seems as if we are running in circles and accomplishing absolutely nothing. People worry just a little too much sometimes. There is so much negativity that it's getting crazy. Where's the love guys? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me just say this: I agree that comments should be focused on the content discussion, not personal attack. Yet your above comment is a personal attack, against not just the editors here but bringing George Bush into it. As such, comments like that are NOT appropriate.Ryoung122 20:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know... I personally support the HIE rule. HIE super-c's are usually more credible than LIE ones. The criteria for appearing on the unverified list is already quite shaky and it would not help at all to just cram in the LIE ones. Otherwise, I think the list would be as clogged up, if not more clogged up, than the time before the implementation of the 110–112 rule. Better keep the criteria tight. I also happen to notice that quite a few LIE cases are like "miniature" versions of longevity claims. Especially if the person in question just keeps living and living on. Brendanology^TalK 13:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who supports the HIE rule: Wikipedia rules say that it is not allowed. I don't know what you mean by minature longevity claims. Frankly, many of them have more going for them than a lot of claims from Western countries: many have been reported on earlier in their 100s. Secondly, pages aren't clogged up by adding extra knowledge. We're not supposed to remove cases to get a nice small number that we can list - we're supposed to list whoever. Wikipedia's policy is to talk about controversial topics in an open and unbiased way. The best way to proceed in my opinion is to add everyone <113, and highlight/make a note beside those who are from countries which have never officially had a supercentenarian before. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems a good idea. I've already said that most of the claims from LIE countries are so unreal that they are cut off by the 113-year-old-criterium and the need for a precise date of birth. Including the LIE claims below 113 with precise dates of birth would not extend the table so much as you are imagining and would eliminate the POV issue.Japf (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggested adding a "third list" for the LIE claims that meet the 110-112, with a birthdate criteria. Pluralism is not dichotimism. There seem to be three major viewpoints here, so we can have three lists. A fourth list, a "free-for-all" (any claim, no matter what) would not be needed. Since those are even more numerous, we have a list of those on the longevity claims page, but only for 113+.

My main problem is that "HIE" is deceptive. Juanita Alejandro was born in Mexico yet lives in the U.S. So she's listed now (as living in the USA) but not if she was born in Mexico? I suggest we can move all "born outside HIE countries" to list three.

I disagree with Siamese Turtle that we cannot make any judgment at all about the relative validity of a case. Like a weather man, we can have some idea that, for example, Grace Jones is going to be verified and that Saro Dursun is not. Dursun is a Turkish immigrant who has not even been seen in a media picture, only reported in a news story. Did she die years ago and no one updated it, because she moved back to Turkey?Ryoung122 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DEATH KNELL OF HIE?

Greetings,

Just checking this page here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/World_Bank_income_groups.svg

Note that SAUDI ARABIA is listed as a "HIE". Yet, it is a nation with such a poor track record of recordkeeping that even the birth records for many of the Sultans born in the 20th century are nonexistent.

This shows to me that "HIE" is an UNtenable position. It does not accurately divide the "reliable" from the "unreliable" or the "verifiable" from the "unverifiable." Standards of literacy and systems of recordkeeping do a far better job of that than income level, which may be influenced by such factors as an "oil strike."

One option is to delete the second list, and move a list of potentially verifiable claims to the "talk" page, where the standard should be "any claim to 110-112" with a citation and birthdate, from anywhere in the world.

I suggest we have another vote round.

• Proposal 1-add a third list (LIE)
• Proposal 2-delete the second list
• Proposal 3-keep the status quo
• Proposal 4-keep the second list but drop the HIE requirement

I suggest we have a "elimination" system where we drop the two proposals with the fewest "ivotes" and then have a final round between the top two vote-getters.Ryoung122 20:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll vote for Option 1 but with two caveats. First, I think the 3rd list should be added to the longevity claims page rather than on here and second I would like to see people that were born in LIE's but now living in HIE's be moved to the third list.Tim198 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's proposal 4 for me.Japf (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

1st of all...sorry if I offended anyone (not saying names). That was how I felt; gotta let it out before volcano explodes. Anyway, I prefer proposal 4 because three lists is too many. The HIE thing isn't necessarily the greatest idea because like Young said "SAUDI ARABIA is listed as a "HIE". Yet, it is a nation with such a poor track record of recordkeeping that even the birth records for many of the Sultans born in the 20th century are nonexistent." So why use it when there are chances that the individual won't have a chance of being verified? Good idea Robert. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Of those options, Proposal 1. (I would actually prefer that ALL unverified claims be in one, separate, article.) DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2. Canada Jack (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I vote for proposal 4. I've already explained why I don't like options 2 and 3. Option 1 also has its flaws, most importantly that it's based upon criteria against NPOV and it would not be possible to explain the split in the article. Where is the justification for separating claims by country? Not all countries are listed by the World Bank, and with the global economy as it is we could see people flipping between the lists. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Proposals 1 and 4 have the most support.

I'm going to suggest a final discussion, either create a "list 3" or drop the HIE requirement.

Please note that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_national_longevity_recordholders

We have listed AT LEAST 11 "living national recordholders" whose age has not been internationally verified, including cases from Eastern Europe and the Caribbean. If anything, I think we need someone like Derby to be more strict THERE. A lot of the "recordholders" represent little more than fanboy wishes (for example, the man listed as India's oldest man hasn't been cited as India's oldest person in a reliable source). If anything, unvalidated cases there should be marked with a different coloration (perhaps a reddish background) or deleted altogether.

Since I like both the list 1 and list 4 options, it's like to hear what option Derby would like to use, if he had to pick one.Ryoung122 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (I take proposal 4 to mean no criteria above WP:Verifiability). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4. We can't go with #1 as even if we have a LIE list, the HIE criterion is still arbritary. Canada Jack (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An Outside View: I am not a member of this group, but I use these lists all the time. Please THINK CAREFULLY before you change it. The system you have is NOT TOO BAD, even with its attendant unsatisfying elements. You have a standing verified list and an unverified list - a sort of waiting room of supercentenarian candidates. This fits the scientific method: a hypothesis is put, it is tested and either rejected or accepted; or awaits further testing. The issues you are trying to address with the LIE and HIE criteria are the three subsets of: bona fide claims (no documentation), false claims (persons claiming years far in excess of their actual age) and exaggerated claims(those genuinely old but with a few years tacked on.) If you go down this path, you could end up with lists everywhere. Best to use the Keep It Simple principle. If I was voting I would probably chose 'proposal 4' (with maybe notes on the side or colour (color?) coding for fine tuning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.170.126 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I change my mind. I want proposal 4 instead. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4. As we base the claims list on having a reliable source stating their claimed date of birth, there's no issue with WP:Verifiability. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think there is a big difference between claimants that begin at 110, and those that just pop out of nowhere at age 115, 120, 130, or whatever. Cases like Josef Kowalski of Poland seem a lot more plausible (there have been over 100 verified male supercentenarians, but so far not a single undisputed claim of a male aged 116). Further, the HIE approach treats "Barbados" as "high-income" but St. Kitts as not, even though we've never had a verified case from Barbados. This type of nonsense means it is probably best to drop the HIE criteria, and simply use the age criteria (cutoff of 113) and exactness criteria (cited source with an exact day, month, and year of birth). Finally, cases where the person's claim has already been demonstrated to be false (such as Ruby Muhammad) should be excluded.

Personally I like the idea of a third list because that supports the pluralistic viewpoint, but others don't, so I think we should simply go with Proposal 4 and drop the HIE requirement.Ryoung122 12:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we have sufficient consensus to go forward with Proposal 4. Canada Jack (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we have sufficient consensus, I went ahead and added the list. 2 claims on there: #5, & #7 both have not had an update in over 14 months. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You went ahead with the wrong proposal though: it was proposal 4 that was decided on (not proposal 1). SiameseTurtle (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that the HIE list for list 2 does not sufficiently cover multiple major viewpoints. I prefer Proposal 1 because it allows the reader who likes to have cases like Josef Kowalski or Elena Bordeian listed, listed...but it also is cognizant of the fact that cases from list 2 are fare more likely to be validated (I would say, about 80% of list 2 cases will be verified; only a minority of list 3 cases might). So, it's a compromise that I can accept.

Like the big-state, small-state controversy (solved with a bicameral legislature), sometimes the best way to achieve consensus is to let each side have something.Ryoung122 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Now we are chaning it to Proposal 1 now? Four did win, and yet again, if we keep them on seperate list, maybe more ip address users would understand better. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to say this: Proposal four "did win" (although Wikipedia decisions aren't supposed to be about who has the most votes, but who has the best argument). As a matter of practical standpoint, I think three lists are easier to work with. I know, prima facie, that cases from places like India and Nicaragua will be difficult to verify. I know that I already have documents for some of the people in list 2 and the only reason they aren't added yet to the "validated" list is because there is a backlog of casework. From a practical standpoint, Proposal 1 is less radical a shift than Proposal 4...it preserves the HIE standard (placating those who prefer that) while adding a third list (for those who don't). To pretend that we have total objectivity and that each case presented is the same, in vacuo, is fooling ourselves. Aside from the "small country" argument, we know that countries like Chad may not have the documents needed to verify a case, while documents from Italy do exist. The problem with the HIE standard is that it uses the wrong division (income level) instead of level of education and reliability of recordkeeping (previously, I believe a CIA list of "developed" nations was used). But it is still a better proxy than to pretend that all the cases in list 3 are equally likely to those in list 2 to be validated. So I want to try the "three list" system.Ryoung122 06:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the new system is worth a try, as long as the reasons for differentiating between HIE and LIE are clearly explained in the article. As an alternative (if there is too much disagreement with the new system) a single unverified list could include an extra column for HIE/LIE, again with a clear explanation of why it is included (I still prefer having a previously validated super-c to HIE/LIE). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't really believe what I'm reading here. We finally get something conclusive, and then you say we should ignore the vote and do what you want? And in response to Derby, it's WP:OR (and WP:NPOV) to split the lists and then try and justify it in the article. If you want to comment on the likelihood of validating people from HIE/non-HIE in the article then you need reliable sources. As the HIE requirement was on several times deemed against WP:NPOV (to quote from Wikipedia: "non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors"), it seems the very foundations of proposal 1 are a patch of thin ice. SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have three lists if the separation between the 2nd and 3rd list were something that could reflect the probabilty of validating an extreme age claim. The HIE/LIE criterium doesn't correspond to that. Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea are HIE countries while Poland and Hungary are not. Do you believe that is more likely to validate a Saudi claim than a Polish?(Maybe is my eurocentric POV talking)Japf (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have strong reservations about having both an HIE and an LIE list. Adding the LIE list does NOT render the POV objections for an HIE criterion moot. The criterion is STILL arbritary, and there's no getting around that. Here's a suggestion (partly incorporating an old suggestion of mine): do proposal 4, putting all unverified claims with a birthdate 110-112 on one list, then have a colour code for claims from countries who have never verified a claim before. And text at the top something along the lines of "For various reasons (lack of comprehensive records, a small population pool, etc) some countries have never verified a super-c claim to the satisfaction of gerontology bodies. Those countries are indicated in red." I think that would address concerns of a list with too many unlikely-to-be-ever verified claims as one would have a rough idea of which claims would be more likely to reach the verified list. Canada Jack (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar to what I have suggested above and at Talk:Living national longevity recordholders. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Canada Jack's idea. We DO need some caveats here. By the way, even within the U.S., validation rates vary from 90% for whites to just 50% for blacks:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1515205

The results of the matched records for the residual file indicate that over 90% of the whites were accurately reported as supercentenarians, but only half of the blacks appeared to have attained age 110.

I suggest we simply make a note at the beginning of list 2, indicating that cases from nations with compulsory birth registration and a long history of recordkeeping (100+ years) are far more likely to have claims validated than those from nations without a history of central government birth registration. Comments such as these are certainly NOT "original research." No need to add color codes, as everyone in the list is unverified, according to outside sources.Ryoung122 23:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Having these non-HIE countries included makes this article inconsistent. If the verified cases are in the HIE nations and the unverified can be from any country, this makes this article very weak. This needs to be separated into 2 articles to have any credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IARXPHD (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't mean to be an un-signing stalker... I have seen how to do it now.IARXPHD (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the correlation of HIE countries and validated claims and LIE countries with unvalidated claims is not perfect. The previous status quo was saying that if a person comes from a HIE country his/her claim had more likehood to be true. Although this statement is true, when you apply it to each specific person, this only may be called discrimination, and goes against wikipedia rules. Japf (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why I don't prefer all unverified claims in a separate article

Greetings,

From the GRG tables (as of Aug 2 2007):

Validated Supercentenarian Cases (Data Analysis) as of Aug. 2, 2007
*data below does not include living cases

age	number	surviving	mortality rate
			Yearly	Cumulative
123	0
122	1	-1	100.00%	100.00%
121	1	0	0.00%	99.90%
120	2	-1	50.00%	99.90%
119	3	-1	33.33%	99.80%
118	3	0	0.00%	99.70%
117	5	-2	40.00%	99.70%
116	10	-5	50.00%	99.50%
115	23	-13	56.52%	99.00%
114	62	-39	62.90%	97.70%
113	126	-64	50.79%	93.79%
112	265	-139	52.45%	87.37%
111	510	-245	48.04%	73.45%
110	998	-488	48.90%	48.90%

Cumulatively, among verified cases, of 998 persons reaching age 110, about 49% were dead by age 111; 73% by age 112; 87% by their 113th birthday; by their 115th birthday 98% were deceased. From this, I think we can see that the VAST MAJORITY of REAL supercentenarians die between age 110-114. Meanwhile, the vast majority of age claims to 115+, worldwide, are false or unverifiable. That means I think it is a good idea to split the "not verified" list into two sections. Probably the vast majority of the currently listed cases (aged 110-112 on list 2) will eventually be verified. In all likelihood, 99% of the claims on the longevity claims page will not be verified. The Maria Capovilla case was an extreme exception.

The reason I proposed a "list 3" on this page is that we have cases, like Josef Kowalski of Poland, that are tracked well before they turn 110. As such, it seems reasonable to give the case a three-year window. After three years, 87% of these claimants, if the age claimed is true, will be dead. For the remainder that are not, their continued survival makes the case statistically less and less likely. I note that Pawel Parniak of Poland claimed to be 116, but research showed that he was likely 111 and added five years to his age in an attempt to avoid war service in WWII (it didn't work). But even for a man like that, apparently 111 but claiming 116, he belonged in longevity claims. Adding even just five years makes the case stand out, a lot. Remember, from 998 cases at age 110, by age 115 only 23 are left (not inc. data after Aug 2 2007).Ryoung122 09:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert, do you give me authorisation for formatting your table? Japf (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. It's Wikipedia's fault it doesn't copy and paste in the original formatting. I note that in the "edit box" the information displays correctly.Ryoung122 11:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Josef Kowalski (born 2 February 1900)

Wikipedia recognises him as a living World War I era veteran (see article on WWI veterans) and cites Polish reports from 2009. Should he not be added to the unverified supercentenarian list? ----englishadam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.217.244 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Look to the discussions above this one.Japf (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes he should. To be put on the verified WW1 era list 3 years ago he had to produce discharge papers proving his birth date his start date of service and his discharge date of service. If these were not produced he would not be on the verified veterans list . All the checking on him was done 3 years ago. Why the experts dont have him at least on the unconfirmed 110 year old list is beyond me. Maybe the experts lost his paper work ? The man is still alive simply ask for another copy of his military records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

By the moment the Kowalski case is unvalidated and is from a non-HIE. By the present criterium he should not be included in the list. This is perhaps the main case against the present criterium.

For the validation issue is concern, only after the specialists accept we can put his claim in the validated cases here in wikipedia.

The military records may count as one of three needed documents. Being a soldier in the Russian-Polish war only states that in 1920 he was old enough to handle a gun. Even now there are soldier-boys, and Kowalski could be 14 years old in 1920. So, for a sceptical point of view we only can guarantee that he's older than about 104 years. Of course I don't know was it's happening. I'm only stating that the process can't be automatic.Japf (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Under the present criteria for unverified supercentarians he cannot be included. Evidence that he is a veteran is not proof that he is a supercentenarian and the current criteria (being discussed yet again, see above) excludes Polish persons from this list. That may change, eventually. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

excluding a race is racist 198.175.205.251 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Polish isn't a race. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

surly you should know what i mean, your discriminating against a country, and yes, the polish are a race. 67.33.110.72 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you be more pro-active. If you have first-hand contact information for this man, please e-mail me at

robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com

Or check out the www.grg.org website.

The current criteria excludes cases like Kowalski because he comes from a non-HIE country (that is, not a "high-income economy"). While I agree that criteria should be amended, I would also point out that Poland has had men inflate their age, either to avoid war service or to sign up. Even the U.S. did. Frank Buckles claimed to be older than he was in order to join, as did John Babcock. In fact it was quite common for boys of 14, 15, 16 to claim to be older so they could join the service. This man looks old, but can you tell if he is 109 or 110 based on looks? Yakup Satar of Turkey claimed to be 110, but research suggests he was 109. Close, but no cigar.Ryoung122 06:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your high income economy discrimination vs the non high income economy has no value. Germany is a high income economy but records from 1945 and before were mostly patched together guess work. During WW2 records were destroyed by bombing and at the very end shredded by the Nazis. To say records from Germany are correct and complete would be a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The "HIE" isn't my idea. Also, that's why cases are validated on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

76.17.118.157 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Kowalski, Józef 01900-02-02 2 February 1900 110 Poland Polish Army 22nd Regiment Ułanów Last Polish-Soviet War veteran. Took part in September Campaign in World War II and later held in concentration camp. Poland's oldest man. Lives in Tursk, near Sulęcin.[12][13][14][15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Manuela Fernández López

She claimed to have been born on February 20, 1900 in Spain. Here is an update on her 109th birthday http://www.lavozdegalicia.com/galicia/2009/09/27/0003_7997654.htm . Did she make it to 110? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, she died: http://elprogreso.galiciae.com/pdf_files/02102009comarcas_2.pdf SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Dosaigues 1898?-2010 and "Pending List" Proposal

Spain's oldest person died this week.

This is an example of why I consider the three-list system better. Here's a solution aside from the "original research" problem of HIE: cases that are listed on the GRG with "at least one validating document" could be listed in a "pending" list in the middle.

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/639055/0/muere/anciana/reus/

Ryoung122 23:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, this time im sticking with proposal 1. No more changing. Im with Robert. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The GRG has never updated its pending list [13]. If this list was regularly updated with information about documentation received for claims then I would support having a separate list for people known to have documentation. I don't think we should have a third list based on subjective criteria. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Young I think it would be a good idea to seperate the cases in the way you suggest but the list you speak of hasn't been updated since January 2009. Hopefully, you can update it more frequently. In any event I STRONGLY DISAGREE with the current criteria in place. People like Elba Armas and Florence Baker have provided ZERO evidence that their claim is true. (and chances are no records exist that could prove their claim anyway). Meanwhile, we have people like Beryl Kapaun and Mamie Rearden who have census records to back up their claims. We need to seperate the lists between those who have evidence and those who don't.Tim198 (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This may be a case of the "tail wagging the dog" but I think it is a good idea for the GRG to update Table AA ('cases pending'). Basically, 'pending' means there is some documentary evidence produced to support the claim but not enough to "close the deal"...or it may be that enough documents have been produced but the case hasn't been "processed" yet. I note that in some fields, such as chemistry, atomic element 112 was named after 14 years. Yet with a subject like human longevity, I agree more frequent updates are needed than "less than once a year."Ryoung122 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

GRG finally updated Table EE yesterday and since no one has spoken out against this I'm going to add the second table of pending cases. Hopefully GRG will update the table more frequently in the future.Tim198 (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The claimss on this list have more chances for being verified, because the process of validation have already started. Good idea!Japf (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Time Issue for unvalidated list

Greetings,

Part of the point of having an "unverified" list is to provide a different perspective from the "validated" list, which includes stricter requirements (such as proof of being alive in the past year). I think a two-year window is reasonable...part of the rationale of having a list with somewhat less strict requirements is to "cast the fishing net wider." Sometimes, people are still alive even without a birthday report (Edna Parker was featured at age 109 and again at age 111, but not at 110; same with Gladys Hawley of the UK), and listing them for a second year would do better, in my opinion, than deleting without proof of death, either.

Besides, if we make the criteria too strict, we are simply "validating" this list. Right? I think a moderate approach would be a good idea.Ryoung122 21:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Most verifiable cases appear to be validated within a year. The chances of a person not being validated and not dynig and not being reported as still alive until their 112nd birthday would have to be remote. The cases you mention above would not apply as without a 110th birthday report they wouldn't be listed here anyway, under the current criteria. It is far more likely that there is no report of a subsequent birthday because the person has died than no credible source has bothered to follow up a previous report, at least in countries with a history of such reports. I think a month after a subsequent birthday without a report is sufficient to remove an entry. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead-in Paragraph for "unvalidated" section

What I wrote for the "unvalidated" section is NOT "original research" but a summary of what we know about the likelihood of supercentenarian cases to be accepted.

There is plenty of research already published:

• SupercentenariansPart I General: On the age validation of supercentenarians.- The International Database Longevity: Structure and contents.- Part II Country reports: ...

www.springer.com/sociology/population.../978-3-642-11519-6 - Cached

• Validation of Exceptional Longevity - Katherine Plunket: A Well ...Validation of Exceptional Longevity. Katherine Plunket: A Well Documented Super-Centenarian in 1930. by A.R. Thatcher ...

www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/08.htm - Cached

• Semi-supercentenarians and seasonal distribution of birth datesMonth of birth and survival to age 105+: evidence from the age validation study of German semi-supercentenarians by. Doblhammer G, Scholz R, Maier H. ...

www.supercentenarian.com/semi-supercentenarians.html - Cached

• Characteristics of 32 Supercentenarians: DiscussionRegarding age validation, only two of the purported supercentenarians in the sample were found not to have adequate substantiating evidence of their ages. ...

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228_4

• Supercentenarians: slower ageing individuals or senile elderly?*1 ...by JM Robine - 2001 - Cited by 42 - Related articles

• A.R. Thatcher, Katherine Plunket: a well documented supercentenarian in 1930. In: B. Jeune and J.W. Vaupel, Editors, Validation of Exceptional ...

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0531556500002503

• Life at the Extreme Limit: Phenotypic Characteristics of ...Of these 15, 12 (3 men and 9 women) met our age validation criteria and were accepted as supercentenarians. Phenotypic variables studied include medical and ...

biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/11/1201

Let me also say this: we know that the mortality rate at age 110 is higher than at age 95. So, if someone is 95 and claims to be 110, they are less likely to die than a real 110-year-old. More than that, suppose we have four persons who claim to be 110: two are 110; one is 109; one is 95. If the 95-year-old lives 10 more years, they would be "120" on paper but 105 in reality. Meanwhile, those who really were 110 likely died off well before reaching 120. Even the 'off by one year' case is far more likely to die first than the person who adds 15 years to one's age.Ryoung122 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert, you only need to put the right reference on the right place. If your statement was just common sense no one would believe Maria Olívia da Silva 130th birthday claim. People have to be convinced that is extremely difficult to reach the 110th birthday and the mortality rate is very high. So you need to put the references you put here in the text. Japf (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of these statements are "logical sense" if not common sense. For example, to say that cases are less likely to be verified the longer they are on the unverified list is in accord with police-investigation theory ("48" hours). The majority of missing-persons cases are solved in the first 30 days; after one year, chances are diminished. When it comes to supercentenarians, if no one has found documents after a period of time, then the level of believability begins to drop (that includes both the likelihood of a case being true as well as the likelihood that it will be validated). However, that is a general statement, not an individual one. We know that cases like Marcelle Narbonne are problematic because she was born in colonial Tunisia, where it is more difficult to get records for than mainland France. However, the statements I made are in general, not about any one case specifically.

I do think that we could use adding citations, and I did list some articles for further reading. I don't think I should have to do all the work (and some of the articles include my name, so it would be better for a third party to do the citations).Ryoung122 04:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I will repost here what I put on my talk page:

Where's the evidence that countries with few or no verified cases are <10% likely to be validated? Can it not also be inferred that there will be a greater focus on validating people nearer the top of the list (as I tried to with Matilda Lewis and Ida Stewart)? The references you give are very general and don't address the specific issues in the section introduction. Summary and review is allowed, but synthesis of points of view and data are not. I just want the section to be honest and reasoned. At the moment, it doesn't seem to take a neutral stance. There are a couple of points whih I think could stay, but overall the section appears to be geared towards one point of view without any backing by evidence. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're admitting selection bias in favor of the "oldest cases first"? Yes, but research into memory shows that we often remember the beginning and the ending of a sequence. Cases just over 110 also are more likely to be validated because they "just turned 110" and both the family and validators are more likely to give the case impetus. Cases are also more likely to be verified near a birthday. Yes, there are minor fluctuations in observation bias and selection bias. However, I doubt if that bias is enough to overcome the general trend that the higher the age claimed, the less likely the case is to be verified, or that cases that have had more than two years to be verified, but still aren't, are more likely to be cases where the records simply don't exist or are difficult to locate. Further, the beginning/ending bias tends to cancel each other out.

As for real numbers: if you read some of those papers I mentioned, they have real numbers. For example, 90% of Caucasian-American claims in the SSA study were validated, but only 50% of African-American claims. Thus, we can cite actual, documented, scientific research that showed that the level of validation varied within the U.S. Other reports, from Europe for example, have similar notations. I agree that the question of validation for countries with little or no records is an issue, but the real point is that "less than 10%" chance doesn't make that seem impossible. We have seen isolated validations from Colombia, Mexico, Ecuador, St. Kitts, etc. However, the vast majority of claims from those nations have NOT been accepted, such as the "142" year-old man from Ecuador that turned out to be only 96.Ryoung122 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MARGARET FISH, ENGLAND

Why has Margaret Fish been deleted from this list. She was numner 45 2 days ago and is still alive and well. Her family are actually gathering in Wilstead, England to celebrate her 111th birthday on 7 March 2010. B. Hartgill121.44.231.36 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The GRG records her as having died on 31 January. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Although she is off the 'living' GRG list, there is a debate whether she really passed away. But it seems the majority of the people want this wiki page to match Table E. So be it, I guess. If she is still alive, she will be re-added on Table E, but we need confirmation first. Let us wait for her 111th birthday report. Peter Vermaelen 09:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petervermaelen (talk • contribs)

We can't add someone to the list with a citation which has them as deceased (even if there is evidence that that information is incorrect)! It is unfortunate that there appears to have been a mistake and it will hopefully be sorted out quickly in the meantime we really can't do anything. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The report of death came from a British government source...if a mistake was made, it was made there. So far, the only assertion that Ms. Fish is still alive came from an anonymous IP address. While it's possible a mistake was made, there needs to be independent confirmation...at this point, we don't see any.Ryoung122 10:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)