Talk:List of oldest living people

France: Ripe for Change

You know, Marie-Simone Capony of France did not emerge until the death of the previous titleholder, Camille Loiseau. Given France's penchant for 'anonymity' I'm almost certain there are some missing 111 and 112-year-olds out there. One, Shiender Biewer, said born July 1895 and lives in Lyon...but we don't have enough information. Given that:

A. Clementine Solignac's health has been shaky (broke hip in Sept, daughter died);

B. The next-in-line is Marie L'Huillier, but at her 112th birthday party she was pictured in bed (hence, not in good shape)

C. The next-in-line is Eugenie Blanchard, but at her 110th birthday party she was already frail and out-of-it. That's more than a year ago.

D. Our French correspondent hasn't sent any documentation on the 'class of 1897' batch, such as Marie Rouch, Louise Bontemps, etc.

E. Again, there are rumors of two additional French super-cs (but not enough information available)

F. We've had some emerge as late as 114 (Anne Primout, Lydie Vellard).

G. Emergent or not, once the death records come in, we find out about them.

All this leads to a situation where France is more ripe for surprises than, say, Italy or the UK, where we have a better handle on what is happening there.

Of course the USA is still highly fluid, more surprises can be expected from the USA as well...Ryoung122 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Call

Remember that Virginia Call of Chicago, IL claims birth Jan 4 1894, has a 96-year-old daughter and 82-year-old grandson, according to the claims. Based on records found so far, she may have been born in Jan 1895. I have not yet visited the family or thoroughly investigated to see if the potential 1910 census match is really her..neither has a 1900 census match been positively matched. This case remains the 'dark horse,' the one that is most likely to cause trouble. Is she born in Jan 1895? Or Jan 1894? Either way, she'd be very near the top of the list.Ryoung122 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't nearly enough for GRG. But it wouldn't take much more to put her on Wikipedia, in 11th place. Because why would her age be enhanced to cover a young pregnancy, when they also claim that her daughter had a son at 14? By elaborating the lie, they have brought shame to the family (in some eyes) and increased the chances of the lie being exposed.

If it's true then at 117 she could become the first ever parent to 'see' their child become a centenarian, at least to my knowledge. I realise living more than 3 further years is a long shot, but a shot nonetheless. They may have already beaten Sarah Knauss and daughter.

And your preliminary investigations have supported her SC status. It's not like she'd be surpassing Edna Parker, or even close in 4th. She would be on the main page with the next death, but then we have accepted Nicholas Kao with no documentation, but again with a degree of credibility. Captain celery 04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting issue

Why is the 'longevity' template NOT displaying at the bottom of the page?Ryoung122 10:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to figure that out, but for once I couldn't. I figured out which edit caused the change from show to not show, but I can't figure out what that edit did to break the template. Maybe you should ask the person who created the template? Cheers, CP 15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Which edit was it? What date was it?Ryoung122 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still out order though: definitely strange. Extremely sexy 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even more strange: one reference is removed and it works again. Extremely sexy 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Might have just been an overload. I have no clue. It's fixed now. If it gets broken again, I'll watch for what does it. Cheers, CP 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, if it happens again, we need to update reflist from '2' to '3'. I suppose the 'space' for the references wasn't enough with just '2'.Ryoung122 12:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also been thinking along those lines. Extremely sexy 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For a seemingly inexplicable reason, when I add Harvey Hite to the bottom of the list, the table cannot represent his age span or country flag. Anyone know why this is? XZT 09:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Marie Rouch of France 1897-2007

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9019 Ryoung122 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Choe Pu Yong

What is the rationale for including the undocumented case of Choe Pu Yong and not Ludwika Kosztyła? Why Nicholas Kao Se Tseien and not Fan Shee Hoo? I'm not really buying some of Robert Young's old arguments. I think that we need a very clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion from this list for it to be viable. Cheers, CP 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that a North Korean case was dubious. It's a poor country and not with a big population to make up for it. But it is from the Yahoo oldest people forum. That's where we've got most of the non-GRG cases on here so it has some credibilty. For Nicholas Kao I suppose it's the religious argument again. And then there's the one that China and Poland don't have great records for legitimacy. Of course Nicholas Kao is not living in mainland China now, and Fan Shee Hoo in Canada, but perhaps the point still stands. Captain celery 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fan Shee Hoo is on the oldest people's forum too. Haven't checked for Kosztyła, but will do so tomorrow. Cheers, CP 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Has that happened since the original debate? I think she should be up there then. Captain celery 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As recently as November 13. Cheers, CP 05:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So Kosztyla is up. The source listed a report on her 100th birthday. Obviously a mistake and I changed it to 110th since the forum doesn't discuss mere centenarians. Also it says it's in Polish whereas all the others are in English. Perhaps another mistake. -- Captain celery (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dina Manfredini

On GRG it lists her birthdate as April 4th but here we have it as May 4th. Since GRG is the source I presume they have it correct, but can anyone confirm that? Captain celery 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I say go with what the GRG says. More likely that someone got the month number wrong in the template than anything. Plus we have to go with what is verifiable by the references. Cheers, CP 05:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate issue, the year 1896 was a leap year- 366 days. This is not being reflected in the daily numbers. Thus several of number of days columns are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.242 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

List too long?

Is this list getting too long? I tried to add Harvey Hite and it couldn't display his information correctly, messing up the format of the table. It seems it can only take 103 cases before this starts to happen. Is there a way to fix this, or should we alter the table to the Top 100 Living Supercentenarians? Any thoughts/ideas? XZT 10:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have added Harvey Hite yesterday, since I remembered that he was added to the main page as 10th oldest man, before the new Japanese cases. But another source lists his birthdate as the 19th. I'd ignore that, but the source that's been used has been on CSNBC for a few days. I imagine that the 15th is still correct, but the story was written earlier. Maybe he had a party at the weekend. It's just a bit misleading. -- Captain celery (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. For some reason, the age and country templates aren't working after the 103rd individual in the list. Maybe someone knows of a technical reason and how to fix it. Perhaps we should cut the list off at 100, we don't want to manually update their age. Useight 16:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a maximum number of templates that the software will allow to be transcluded on any given page. Try taking the flag templates out and just replace with the name of the country. - -- fchd (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried but there's nothing I can do, so I think that we should cut the list off at 100 if this problem continues. Have this article re-titled "The 100 Oldest Living People" rather than "Living Supercentenarians".XZT (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1896 problem

Separate issue, the year 1896 was a leap year- 366 days. This is not being reflected in the daily numbers. Thus several of number of days columns are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.242 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. 1896 was a leap year, February had 29 days. If correct, there should be 29 days difference between Kuni Numata b. Feb. 1, 1896 and Chisato Sato who was b. March 1, 1896, not 28 days as listed. Likewise the age difference between Kane Akazawa, b. Feb. 27, 1896 and Chisato Sato b. March 1, 1896 should be 3 days, not 2 days as listed -and so on. There is something wrong with the algorithm. Am I the only one who's noticed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.242 (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is partly in error. The calculation is made by computer automatically in two steps. For example from 1 February 1896 to 1 February 2007 is 111 years. Then it automatically calculates the number of days from 1 February 2007 until today's date. All years (leap years or otherwise) count as one year. On this basis it is correct to say that (as at today's date 20 November) Kane Akazawa, b. Feb. 27, 1896 has lived 111 years and 266 days and Chisato Sato b. March 1, 1896 has lived 111 years and 264 days - 2 days differently - BUT - respectively they have actually lived - 40808 days and 40805 days - 3 days differently. This is made up as (111x365) + 27 leap days + 266 = 40808; and (111x365) + 26 leap days + 264 = 40805. (Remember that the year 1900 had no 29 February). This does not impact anyone's position on this list. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I fully understand. I did not take into consideration that a "year" is not a precise constant and is affected by how many leap years a person has lived. It just seems odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.242 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other wiki lists of oldest people in particular categories where the age is given in days only. That could be done with this list, if it ever became an issue. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a list of days is particularly meaningful. We are interested in these people because of the number of years (110 plus); the number of days is secondary - except that we list them on this basis. I would prefer a footnote for each case. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the intial enquiry, the age difference between Kane Akazawa, b. Feb. 27, 1896 and Chisato Sato b. March 1, 1896 is in fact 3 days, although the list has the initial appearance of 2 days. But this applies to everyone born before 29th February 1896, they all should appear one day older than listed (that is they have all lived one more leap day than the rest on the list.) But this is a relatively trivial matter as we are talking about one day in more than 40,000. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregorian adjustment

I suspect that this list does not take into account the fact that the Gregorian calendar was not adopted by China until 1912 and 1929 (and some others). The respective ages may be inflated by 13 days. On this list it would impact Nicholas Kao Se Tseien. If the birth date is a Chinese date then the Chinese year in 1919 (or 1929) was 13 days shorter, so he lived 13 days shorter which would put her in 64th position. The automatic calculator would treat all years equally - including leap years and these shortened years. Perhaps he should be put in 64th position with a footnote explaining that his total number of days is in fact less than the one above. (Note the Gregorian calendar was adjusted in Europe in the 1580s, in England (and thus the US and other colonies) in 1752 - for other dates go to Gregorian calendar). Alan Davidson (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Old Style Gregorian calendar birth dates should be adjusted to the correct number of days to coincide with the New Style Julian calendar with a footnote explaining why. This should be done for both uniformity and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.121 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I will add such a footnote. Please comment. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now made the change. But on reflection, perhaps I should change his date of birth to the "standard" date; and then footnote his local date of birth, explaining why. The advantage of this is that the list will look in tact. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did that. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That does make more sense and appears to be the standard elsewhere as well. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.95 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that no one actually cares that all of this is blatant original research and has no place here. We report what the sources say, not what we think may or may not be right and may or may not have been taken into account. It is even admitted that you have no clue if this was already adjusted for or not! If the sources say that the person was born on day X and lived a total of Y days, then that is what we reproduce. Wikipedia is NOT I repeat NOT a place for original research. I am undoing all of these changes. Cheers, CP 20:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion on Talk:List of the oldest people, a similar note may be appropriate here as well. Cheers, CP 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian family names

I noticed Italian (female) supercentenarians are mostly indicated by two family names, and don't think this is correct. My guess is the second surname belongs to their (dead) husbands, as apparently confirmed by an article I found, in which Lauria Vigna is mentioned as simply Lauria, Ruberto D'Anna as Ruberto, Grotta Marinozzi as Grotta, Pizzinato Papo as Pizzinato, and so on. Anyway, no dash between surnames is generally used, though I think few exceptions exist.

Since the reform of Italian family law, in the 1970s, all women hold their maiden name forever. In case of marriage (no matter when it took place) they add the husband's family name, in the sense that they're allowed to use it (e.g. in signatures).

It's true that older women still prefer to introduce themselves by their husband's surname, but this doesn't match the legal usage. For example, it is likely that former "First Lady" introduces herself as Franca Ciampi, and probably signs "Franca Pilla Ciampi", but on her ID card is written Franca Pilla. Even the common usage generally avoids the double surname. On newspapers you may often encounter Flavia Franzoni or Flavia Prodi, very seldom Flavia Franzoni Prodi, and never Flavia Franzoni-Prodi.

In Italy we ironically say people with two surnames are either noble or bastard. :)

Thank you for attention. --Erinaceus Italicus 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think as few names as possible are desirable. I remember reading the Guinness Book of Records when I was young and I didn't have the attention span for some of them. And judging by some of the edits we get, certain people don't seem to have moved on from that level. I know that in Spain both the paternal and maternal names are taken, but beyond that I only know how it works in English. 80.2.16.73 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

Lazarre Ponticelli

Lazarre Ponticelli was born in Italy, but moved to France in 1907. Should he have a French or Italian flag next to his name (or both)? Alan Davidson (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When i put him on the list i put a French and Italian because people have both flags on the top one hundred ever list, but then there are Elizabeth Stefan and Bessie Roffey aswell so should everyone have 2 flags or not? Funkdaddymac (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Auto-updating date

It makes no sense to have an automatically updating "as of" date. Firstly, it serves no purpose but to tell the reader what date it is today, which most people can find out by another means. Secondly, it is claiming that all entries are automatically checked on a daily basis to see if anybody has died. That certainly wasn't the case back in August, when this automatic date was already present.

Even if somebody has since set up a bot (or is planning to) to check this page every day, look up each person on the list to see if he/she is still alive and remove anybody who has died, such a bot can be made to update the current date as well. Today's date as the "as of" date would still be bogus if the bot fails to run for some reason or has not yet run today (not to mention the time zone ambiguity). -- Smjg (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Crunch time

This list needs a clear criteria for inclusion. Right now it seems to be "everyone on the GRG list and anyone else we feel like unless it's challenged" That is simply unacceptable. As the World's Oldest People forum has been discussed and dismissed as a reliable source, much of this list is questionable anyways, especially in light of Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living people. I can think of a few ways to do it, feel free to suggest more:

1. Only people officially validated by the GRG and on their big list will be included on this one.
2. The above and anyone whose claim is reported in a reliable source (local or national news would count) and whose claimed age is less than that of Jeanne Calment (the longest lived scientifically verified human) — note that this would include ANY claim under 122, whether or not the GRG, the World's Oldest People forum or anyone else thinks it's plausible or not UNLESS a reliable source has disproven the claim.
3. ANY claim reported in a reliable source (including the GRG list), minus those that have been debunked by a reliable source.

This list either needs to have a set, objective set of criteria that can be placed in the lead and used to define who is included on this list, or it needs to be deleted as arbitrary and unencyclopedic content. Since I feel that the latter would be a loss, let's form a consensus on the types of people who stay and the those who go. Cheers, CP 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been over a week since I raised this issue. If no one steps in to discuss or object, I will resolve it myself within a few days. Cheers, CP 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Paul, verily indeed, so exactly what strategy do you favour yourself, please: tell me? Extremely sexy (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a favourite in particular, they all have their charm. #1 guarantees (as much as reasonably possible) that no false cases are introduced. #2 gives us a wider range of selection, but forces us to accept claims that probably aren't true. #3 forces us to accept claims that are utterly ridiculous (my unbridled optimism fails to embrace Moloko Temo), but frees the list from all judgment of the claims thus making it, effectively, neutral. It also depends on who's willing to help. If I'm the only one who cares, the #1 is getting chosen because it's the easiest for me to do myself (though I'd wait until Beatrice Favre was verified to save me some work). If others are going to help, #2 seems like a better compromise to me, though we'd have to accept questionable cases. Cheers, CP 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is not about original research, we can only include material from other sources, but it is appropriate to include comments that some sources may be questionable. This can be domne in the introduction and as a footnote to each entry (as we already do. I would include a broad range of "reliable" material. The problem is that we often disagree about what is reliable. Provided we source the material with an appropriate notes (as we do) the reader can judge the "reliability". I am interested in the comment above "Oldest People forum has been discussed and dismissed as a reliable source, much of this list is questionable anyways" - can you explain? Alan Davidson (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By "Oldest People forum has been discussed and dismissed as a reliable source, much of this list is questionable anyways" I meant that since about two dozen individuals on this list are sourced by the forum, then about two dozen individuals could be deemed questionably sourced. They should be replaced with more reliable news reports if possible. No matter which solution is chosen, all will have to be sourced more reliably than the WOP forum. Cheers, CP 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

María Díaz

Greetings from Spain,

I have added María Díaz Cortés as the oldest supercentenary. I thought that this was sort of a legend, but it looks like the age of María has been properly verified through her national identity card and birth documents. MaeseLeon (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this highlights my point. An editor has, in good faith, added a name to this list. Then, an anonymous editor removed the name with the sole explanation of "sorry." By what criteria was the name removed? By my suggestion #1, she should be removed, but then so should a lot of others. By my other suggestions, she should have not have. I can only take this to mean that people feel that option #1 is the safest. I will therefore within a few days re-write the lead paragraph to explain the criteria, then structure the list accordingly. In addition, unless someone objects, I will take up Geometry Guy's suggestion and remove the rank numbers. Cheers, CP 21:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The quoted source for this person, El País, could hardly be considered a definitive source of proof of age, even less so than the yahoo group or other supposedly "official" sources for some of the longevity claims. Personally, I would prefer the numbering be kept, it's not THAT difficult to update them manually, there seem to be enough people who are capable and willing to do so!DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbering vote is one-one now if you consider me abstaining or two-two if you consider my statement below having voted for both. In any case, we can't simply arbitrarily decide that one site is allowed to be reliable source in general, but not for this issue. That's subjective picking and choosing. A source is either reliable or it's not and if we decide it's not, then we have a reason to exclude Cortes. Do we declare El Pais a reliable source for nothing? Maybe it might be helpful to expand on what can be considered a reliable source before we revamp the list, but I can tell you now that consensus has generally leaned towards WoP not counting and most national, even local newspapers counting. Perhaps a request for comment might be appropriate here? Cheers, CP 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rank numbers

I suggest we remove the rank numbers from the table. They require too much manual mantainance. Any objections?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No objection or support here. While I don't think that they add much, I also don't think that it's really all that hard to maintain either. Cheers, CP 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the rank numbers be kept b/c otherwise people are going to be confused on the counting since the list won't quite match up with the GRG list.74.140.136.51 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)