Jump to content

Talk:List of British supercentenarians/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unreliable sources

I have just reverted a series of edits to List of British supercentenarians by Tripod86 (talk · contribs), because they are all based on a source which requires payment (see Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration), and which in any case is based on user-submitted data, and is therefore not a reliable source.

I'm sorry to undo someone's work, but there is a lot of hype around longevity, and it is important to stick to reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The site that is linked to has the death registers for the UK, giving the ages of the deceased, which is a reliable source. 86.153.221.46 (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The people section

Hi, just letting y'all know there's a discussion about removing the People section from this article at Talk:List of French supercentenarians. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Janetta Jane Thomas

I have checked the registers and censuses. She was born, as the article says, in Llantrisant, Glamorganshire. She also died in Wales. However, the GRG on http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/UK.HTM lists her as being born, and having died in the UK, which is incorrect. Many areas of the site where I found the information are subscription only, so I can't use them as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your point isn't clear. Wales is in the UK, so "born/died in the UK", while not very precise, is not incorrect. 81.159.58.45 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant to say England SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agnes Helyar

Agnes Helyar (19 September 1866 - 12 March 1976) [1] was the oldest person in the UK in between Rose Heeley and Sarah Morgan, but died at 109 years and 175 days. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the GRG only validates those 1. Aged 109y275d+ 2. Oldest person by year of birth (Helyar wasn't) 3. Oldest person in the world. I'm not really sure where I stand on adding her. Wikipedia says it's not a conflict of interest so long as the sources are cited (which they are). SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: the GRG verifies the ages of:

1. Those 110+

2. Oldest person by year of birth

3. Oldest by nation

We do not verify "honorable mention" claims to 109 years 275 days to 109 years 364 days.

The UK table is here:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/UK.HTM

If you have a claim and can document it, please e-mail me at ryoung122@yahoo.com

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 02:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been posted to WOP (with documentation). [2]. So given that the GRG only validates 110+, I assume this documentation alone would be good enough for inclusion here? SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh just noticed your third point. Nermind the above comment then. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added her on as the following article says she was officially recognised as the oldest in the UK: [3] SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Annie Butler

Someone needs to fix her name on the main page for she is still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.222.9 (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Doris Nash

But when is died Doris Nash? --82.59.85.220 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Fish of Wilstead Bedfordshire has just been rmoved from the list of living Supercentenarians. She is shown as having died on 31 Jan 2010. This is incorrect. She is in fact alive and well and is just about to celebrate her 111th birthday on & March 2010. B Hartgill121.44.231.36 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

List consistency

Greetings,

These "list of" by nations are remarkably inconsistent. Consider:

1. The USA list just does the top 100, but the UK and French lists go over 100. If we are going to list beyond 100, we should do it for all, not just some.

2. The UK list includes immigrant and emigrant supercentenarians. The French list, until today, included emigrant supercentenarians (someone split it out). The Italian list has a separate list for "emigrant" supercentenarians.

The bottom line is, we need to decide which formula to use and then apply it consistently. I personally wouldn't mind listing "everyone" 110+ (the USA list would be 500+, though). The bigger issue may be what to do with immigrant/emigrant cases.Ryoung122 20:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I think we should be as comprehensive as possible. Obviously, adding all the USA cases is a lot of work. That's one of the reasons why I added a drop down table here, as there are several tables and biographies listed here already. Recent changes have meant that the table is no longer sortable, meaning that they cannot be sorted by date of birth/death.
2. If we're going to list emigrants separately then we should at least have a ranking tying them into the main table. ie. Showing their rank among all British-born people. A rank saying they were the oldest person ever who had emigrated from the UK says absolutely nothing useful at all. And for the record, I'm vehemently opposed to listing immigrants with emigrants - otherwise they're never listed on any main national list (seems WP:NPOV to me). SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the USA list should be expanded to include all supercentenarians. I've been expanding the list a little at a time over the past few months but it's a very time-consuming effort. I'd appreciate it if someone else could help with the effort.
I think it's important to list the 100 oldest people born in the country. If you want the article to be shorter I'd recommend deleting the Progressive list of the oldest people in Britain table which is just plain unesscary. I'd also recommend removing some of the living persons biographies. Someone like Violet Wood (who's 65th oldest in the world) isn't notable at all and doesn't need a biography. I also don't understang why the table needs to be sortable. None of the other tables in the longevity section of wikipedia are and this one doesn't need to be either.
The various country pages are very inconsistent in regards to immigrants/emigrants. Some list immigrants in a separate list, some list emigrants in a seperate list and some list both in the same list. I'd recommend listing the immigrants in a seperate list on all the pages as GRG organizes most of their tables by birth country rather than death country. Also, if we make all the pages uniform every super-c will get to be on one and only one main list.Tim198 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The idea behind the living people biographies is so that we can build it up as we go along. If they die before being notable enough for their own page, then they go. If not, then we should already have many references in place by the time they might be notable for their own page. Three years is a long time and it's more difficult to find references on their earlier birthdays by that point.
The table needs sorting as people might want to know the most recent deaths, or might want to see the order of the supercentenarians. For example, someone might want to know where Rebecca Hewision ranked when she died. People might want to see the distribution of supercentenarians born in each decade.
Also, I disagree with listing immigrants separately. Any databases that are kept are by country of residence. Italian correspondents were unaware of Jennie Pranno because she didn't live in Italy. Guinness and the media give titles to people who are the oldest resident. For example, Lucy d'Abreu was given the title of the oldest British person. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think if you want to 'build up' articles you should do so on your user page. As things stand now including entries on people like Violet Wood is in violation of WP:BLP1E. Violet Wood has only been featured in the news one time (For her 110th birthday) and I'd argue that she's likely to remain a low-profile individual in that statistics show that over 50% of individuals don't live to celebrate a 111th birthday (which is when she'd likely be featured in the news again). I also think we should be consistent with the other country pages. (None of them have biographies of all their living superc's). IMO, the only superc-s who should have a biography (be it a full article or stub) are those who are the oldest woman or man in his/her country or someone who's notable for something else besides their longevity (like Dr. Leila Denmark).
I think you make some good points about table sortability. I have tried to sort the table and it isn't sorting correctly. Is there a limit to how many entries can be added before the table becomes unsortable?
I see that I was mistaken about what I said earlier about GRG excluding Immigrants. The reason I thought that is because GRG lists the National longevity recordholders based on country of birth and I thought that the main country lists were organazied in that way too. I personally don't care wheather we exluce immigrants or emigrants on the main lists but I do prefer that we exclude one or the other. I don't think it's right to list some people either twice or not at all on the main lists.Tim198 (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Rules about notability, among others, are about the article as a whole. I accept that there are few sources about a few of them, but in the context of the entire article it makes sense to list everyone. I too would like to see all the pages consistent with one-another, but I feel other pages do not go far enough. I don't think we should have to bring other pages down to the lowest common denominator, I think we should have more emphasis on improving the other articles. For the record, Violet Wood is already half way to 110 and is statistically odds-on to make it. In summary, as individual articles, they don't cut it. But as an article on British supercentenarians, it's quite important to have biographies on as many of them as possible. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you about the other pages not going far enough. I think just the opposite. This page has too much information on it, some of which is redundant. All of the information in the opening paragraph can be found through looking at the various tables, In doesn't need to be stated in writing. Likewise, the 'progressive list of the oldest british person on record' table is redundant becuase one can just look at the chronological list above it to determine this information. As far as the biographies go I'd like to ask you this: Would someone like Violet Wood have a biography in a print encylopedia? I think you'd have to answer no.Tim198 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
For the opening paragraph, I think you should read WP:LEAD. The opening paragraph has to give a summary of an article; it's not supposed to be a single statement. Fortunately, we're not going to run out of paper as this is not a print encyclopaedia. If others agree to removing the records list, then so be it SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Four list system proposals

Greetings, I also noticed the German list had yet another system, INCLUDING emigrants while EXCLUDING immigrants. There are actually four possible systems:

1. Include all super-cs (including immigrants and emigrants)

2. List emigrants separately, include immigrants

3. List immigrants separately, include emigrants

4. List immigrants and emigrants separately

Some points to ponder:

A. The GRG uses system 2, as below:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/UK.HTM

http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/Italy.HTM

So, outside sources would favor version 2.

B. If we exclude immigrants, then the lists would not be consistent with the "oldest person" lists. For example, Lucy D'Abreu, an immigrant, was considered the UK's oldest person. Also, Mary Josephine Ray, born in Canada, is considered the "oldest living American." Thus, option 3 is not a good idea.

C. If we include emigrants, then the list is inconsistent. For example, Grace Clawson, born in the UK, died in Florida aged 114, was NOT considered "the oldest person in the UK." For this reason, it is not a good idea to list emigrants together, as part of the point of these lists is to figure out who the "oldest person" was, in the nation. I note the GRG uses chronological order and highlights the "oldest person in the nation," so that is more obvious. Thus, options 3 and 4 are, in my opinion, not the best choices.

In my opinion, option 2 lists the "oldest person" of that nation when the person was actually a supercentenarian, and lists emigrants separately.

Of course, when it comes to "all-time records" I favor listing by birth and excluding immigrants, but that is another matter...that focuses on place of birth, not on residence or place of death.Ryoung122 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with either options 2 or 3. I personally don't care wheather we exluce immigrants or emigrants on the main lists but I do prefer that we exclude one or the other. I don't think it's right to list some people either twice or not at all on the main lists.Tim198 (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So I guess no one else has an opinion on this. Robert Young and I have talked and we agreed to go with option 3 so I'm going to move the emigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim198 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we please just slow everything down? Everything doesn't have to be done at once. This section hasn't even been up for 3 full days yet. There are many things still yet to consider. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Fish, Wilstead, England

Who decided that Margaret Fish died on 31 Jan 2010? I,m sure that her family who are gathering to celebrate her 111th birthday at Wilstead will more than a little surprised by this"FACT". Margaret is in fact alive and well. Can someone get their facts right? B. Hartgill121.44.231.36 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.231.36 (talk)

Do you have first-hand knowledge from the family and/or care home?Ryoung122 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I'm Margaret's son in law. B Hartgill121.44.231.36 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If/when there is a news report, I'm sure everyone will be happy to restore Ms. Fish to her proper status.Ryoung122 10:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Unlike when people are happy to claim she died without a news report? O Fenian (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the proof of death that led you to delete Margaret Fish in the first place, and how was it verified. Perhaps you do not bother with such insignificant details? I AM a member of her family and I can assure you she is not DEAD. This has caused much distress to the family. B. Hartgill121.44.231.36 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Hartgill, I believe this involves issues that are beyond the scope of Wikipedia, as Wikipedia ultimately copies its information from other sources. I suggest you e-mail me at robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com to discuss what happened and why. If you check, you will see that I DID NOT make the edits on Wikipedia that removed Ms. Fish from the lists. Rather, I am trying to help make sure we get this problem fixed. SincerelyRyoung122 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:BLPN notes that the GRG has been used as a citation for her death. Right now, the front page of that website includes a notice that she's quite alive and apparently retracting a previous statement to the contrary. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

'Country of residence'?

The list of oldest supercentenarians has a title of Country in the last column, but each row contains a town and country. I'm thinking this title (or the info in the column) should be changed? Bertcocaine (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

100 oldest British ever

Would it be possible to remove Allingham's picture? It doesn't seem constructive to me and besides, it's squashing up the whole list. And could we remove the sortable feature? It's already RANKED by age, and there's little or no point in putting the sortable feature since the purpose of the table is already clearly stated. BrendanologyContriB 05:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Allingham's picture is there to illustrate an example of a supercentenarian. Rather than removing it, it could be moved to the region records section. Sorting is needed for the reasons I mentioned in the 'LIST CONSISTENCY PLEASE' section above. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clearing that up. BrendanologyContriB 10:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should Choules be listed as oldest Englishman?

Should Claude Choules be listed as oldest Englishman? Pistachio disguisey (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending cases

On the Oldest Living Britons website, http://oldestinbritain.webs.com/oldestbritons.htm, it lists each of the pending cases except Marjorie McGowan's as having been validated. Is this reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.129.251 (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Deceased subsection in People section

Random cases are being mentioned in this section; a random supercentenarian bio here and there. There are many other cases not mentioned here, even the oldest ever from the UK. This subsection, in my opinion, needs to be deleted. Anybody oppose? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Are GRG tables not updated since 2007 or 2009 reliable sources

Seventy-five items are sourced to a GRG document that has not been updated since April 2007. Two more are sourced to a GRG document not updated since October 2009. Other pages used as references are a bit less stale but still old enough to beg the question of reliability. I'm uneasy leaving these references in, especially as to living people. What say ye? David in DC (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

While its right to question based on whether a page has been updated, if the info is for before then then its still an ok source we use many paper resources that were published alot longer ago. Gnangarra 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we do, but given the state of longevity research, the older the document, the more likely its ordinal rankings are unreliably skewed toward the parts of the world with the best records. A 2007 or 2009 list is very likely to have missed data from most of Africa and much of Asia and South America that's been uncovered more recently. The big argument GRG data proponents have made for their charts' reliability is that they reflect state-of-theart in longevity research and tracking. The older the chart, the less water that argument holds. David in DC (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A minor reason to leave them in until replaced with something better is that "out of date" for a given person effectively means "died and we didn't know". This takes it outside the scope of BLP. Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
The sources are one of several pages listing supercentenarians from each country. Why would it make a difference if people from Africa, Asia and South America are not included? That information would not be taken anyway. Your statements are simply WP:OR. The GRG is well known as the world's leading organisation on longevity. Nowhere on Wikipedia does it state that old citations should be used. I appreciate your skepticism, but tables would only be updated if necessary. Untrue to your opening comment, only deceased British supercentenarians are listed on the citations last updated in 2007 and 2009. The 2007 citation simply cites supercentenarians identified before that date (the youngest being Henry Allingham). There are further citations for supercentenarians that were validated after this date (which are already used on this article), including the pages specific for the year of death and for living supercentenarians. SiameseTurtle (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Oldest people from Britain" website

This "source" is used in four refs on the current page. Would anyone care to make a policy-based argument as to why it's even a close question whether or not this website is a WP:RS? Please understand, although the page may be compiled entirely by:

that would have no bearing on whether it was a reliable source. Reliability, in the wiki-sense, is based on whether the "source" can be accurately described as fitting into the rubrics to be found at WP:RS. If you are someone who helps compile this page, or who admires someone who compiles this page, please do not be offended by questions about the website's reliability. It is meant as no insult. It is a technical analysis of "reliability", as defined by the rules, policies, guidelines, and community norms of this particular encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The “Oldest in Britain” website is one of the most reliable and thoroughly researched sites on the web concerned with the extreme elderly.
Two of the researchers connected with this site are some of the most dedicated and knowledgeable people of the subject on the planet.
The site is not involved in original research, but collects data from a multitude of sources, including government records, print and electronic media, and routinely scans the nation’s death and obituary notices.
It is one of the best and most reliable sources on the web. Cam46136 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)cam46136
How can one verify these assertions? I'm looking for a policy-based explanation. Cam says so, while benefitting from the assumption of good faith, is not sufficient. David in DC (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I observe the following:

  • The site is hosted as a subdomain of Webs (web hosting), a free do-it-yourself hosting service similar to Angelfire and the now-defunct Geocities.
  • The contact page and the hosting service implies that this is someone's personal project, albeit someone who is passionate about this subject.
  • It seems to be a self-published source, given that it provides no documentation about itself, its methods, or its sources.
  • No sources are provided for any claims.
  • No sources are described on any of the pages.
  • No coverage of this site (that I can find) can be found in reliable secondary sources. Googling the string "Oldest people from Britain" yields just 11 hits.

Given those observations, I would regard this source as I would regard any Wikipedia article: Useful for looking things up, but not valid to use as a reference in another article. This site is a convenient useful compilation, but re-publishing actual claims should probably be done by researching individual entries and citing the sources found for them. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation (although the oldest English-born man is Claude Choules of Australia, born 3 March 1901). from the link provided, its a week since he passed its been extensively reported across Australia, US and UK, since then there been a memorial in Pershore that was reported on by BBC News that simple observation indicates that caution should be exercised in using this source as isnt necessarily upto date. Gnangarra 01:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
And if you go to this link[4], you'll see that they last updated on May 3, 2011. Because they don't update everytime something happens, that doesn't mean they'll lose their credibility.DHanson317 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually the fact they dont update when something does happen does indicate that its accuracy is questionable. I havent said its not a credible source but given the fact its not maintained in an efficient timely manor, I said editors should exercise caution in using this site as a source. Gnangarra 05:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
All of the policy-based arguments here suggest that this should not be used as the sole source for a fact. These are, after all, about living persons. WP:BLP would seem to require deletion. It's awfully strict (and rightly so) about facts about living people. David in DC (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, note Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources. This site is clearly a self-published source. It appears to be one man's personal record of old folks in the UK with no disclosure of where the information came from. There is no harm in putting it in the External Links section of the article, but it doesn't appear adequate as a reference. What garra wrote above suggests that any information on this site can be found in reliable sources elsewhere, especially something "extensively reported across Australia, US and UK". ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just vetted all of the GRG citations and oldestinbritain.webs.com (OIB, for ease of reference) citations and made them more transparent as to source, title, publisher, and retrieval date.
It turns out that there are 15 items attributed solely to OIB. It also turns out that many GRG citations are to documents last updated as long as three or four years ago.
I think the OIB cites should be replaced by cite request tags and the OIB home page should be made an external link. I'll create a subhed for discussion of that.
I think we need a separate thread to discuss the GRG pages last updated before 2010. I'll start that now. David in DC (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Should the Oldestinbritain.webs.com citations be replaced with cite requests and oldestinbritain.webs.com be added to the article as an external link

Please opine here. David in DC (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't add citation needed. In fact multiple cites are a desiderata according to some. For your convenience I have created {{Acn}} - [additional citation(s) needed]. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
Thanks. I've just tried to use it, but I think it needs tweaking that's beyond my skills. David in DC (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merle Barwis?

Merle Barwis doesn't have her own article, so I'll put this here, as well as on the page for Grace Jones (supercentenarian). The list of living supercentenarians states that Merle Barwis was born in the US on December 23rd 1900, and that she currently resides in Canada. It makes no mention of her being a citizen at the time of her birth, or indeed even now. Unless she moved to Canada and became a citizen in the 30 days between her birth and Queen Victoria's death, or if her parents were subjects of the Queen (of which there's currently no verifiable proof) then she was never a subject of the Queen. Should I remove this? Hol-Tangings (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Barwis was born in Iowa just a month before Victoria's death and didn't move to Canada until she was a toddler[5]. Therefore, she was never a true Victorian, although it is common to use the term "Victorian Era" even in the context of American history. Grace Jones, Ethel Lang, and James Sisnett are the only remaining supercentenarians who ever lived under Victoria's rule. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It is therefore incorrect to state on this page, that she is one of the last surviving British subjects of Queen Victoria. She may well be a Victorian, having lived for 30 days during the time in which Victoria was a ruling monarch, however, at that time, unless it can be proven that her parents were British in any way, Barwis was not a British subject. It could be changed to, say, "Barwis was alive for thirty days under the rule of Queen Victoria, however was not a subject of hers, although she did later become resident in a country over which descendants of Victoria have reigned", but it could just as easily be removed, since saying she was British is false, unless we find some evidence that her parents were. Hol-Tangings (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Although she was alive at the tail-end the Victorian Era, she was not a subject of Victoria during that time. I have removed mention of her as one. MarkMc1990 (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I shall do the same at the 'Grace Jones' article Hol-Tangings (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Having race on these tables

Should the race(s) of these supercentenarians be put on these tables in this article just like for the U.S. supercentenarians article? After all, the U.K.'s ethnicity categories on its census are very similar to the U.S. race categories on its census. Futurist110 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sant Kaur Bajwa

Missing from the list, died last week and is being reported as UK's oldest at time of death [6] Beest (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Another source: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/uks-oldest-person-dies-aged-115-201430879.html 109.144.166.62 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And another source, saying that the age is unverified because she had no birth certificate. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23421826 81.132.113.6 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Editorial comments in lede

I have removed the editorial comments added by several IPs regarding the lack of pending/unverified cases. Removal of these cases is based on conversations at WT:WOP#Where_do_we_go_from_here. I understand that there is disagreement regarding these changes but edit-warring WP:POINTy text into this article's lede is a poor response. Instead of putting that text back in, please discuss your concerns here. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oldest in Britain

Can I make something clear first: this discussion at RSN did NOT conclude that Oldest in Britain is not a reliable source. Some users, however, seem to have just decided otherwise.

Ca2james said "Not all entries are referenced and it isn't clear where they come from or what, if any, steps are taken to ensure the data is correct." Well let me point you to this example: Matilda Montague was listed on the site as having died on 15 September 2015. this edit was then made on Wikipedia on 21 September to reflect this.

However, no official obituary was published publicly until 24 September. What does that mean? The person running the site clearly has "inside information" (family contact or whatever), otherwise there was no way of knowing.

My argument that the person running the site is a GRG correspondent (so a reliable source) was also just shut down:

"That the author of the page is affiliated with the GRG does not make those pages a reliable source" .

Care to give any explanation? Being affiliated with a reputable, reliable organisation means that the person is not just any old Joe running a fansite. Or is it just the dreaded word "GRG" that causes people to shut their ears? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia has specific definitions about what makes a source reliable. Oldest people in Britain is clearly a self-published source as the information is published by someone with bias on the subject, as was noted in the RSN discussion, and there's no indication that there's any kind of independent review of the information on the site. Self-published sources are generally not acceptable as reliable sources and can never be used for living people per WP:BLPSPS.
No exception to this policy is made if the page owner belongs to the GRG or any other organization: the only exception allowed is if its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. No such publications exist under the name you gave for the publisher (which isn't actually named on the site). Therefore, the exception does not apply and this site is generally considered not reliable.
This issue had been previously discussed; the conclusion at that time was that Oldest in Britain cannot be used on its own. If there are sources supporting the text in addition to Oldest in Britain, Oldest in Britain could possibly be used as well as those sources. But if there are sources that support the information, there's no reason to use this site at all. I think that eliminating it from use is better so that other editors don't start using it on its own again.
Not using this source may mean that information on the article is out of date until the person's death has been written up in reliable sources. That's how things go. Ca2james (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

List of all british supercentenarians ever

The list of all British supercentenarians contains 132 entries, which seems a bit over the top given that the correspondingJapanese list cuts off at 100 names. Is it necessary to list ever British supercentenarian ever? Or can we restrict the list to, say, only people at least 113 years old, or cut off the list at 100 entries (or even less)? Ca2james (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reduced to top 100 [7].--240D:0:F611:A500:1988:2B86:AA91:BF2B (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of British supercentenarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-GRG cases

Wikipedia is NOT the GRG. Anyone age 110+ with a source considered reliable by Wikipedia is no more or less valid to include then someone "verified" by the GRG. See "Proposition" section here: [8]

My edit matches the existing format. This list already included unverified cases (60, 81) and other lists, such as Italy and Poland have non-GRG cases as well, and the Japan list also uses "Unknown" when we don't know the country/prefecture of birth. Cherry picking to try to prove a point does not make one right. These country lists are a total mess and are run more as fiefdoms by different editors, which is why the criteria and quality differs so much by country. Sloppiness elsewhere does not mean this article gets to stay sloppy as well because any one editor prefers it that way. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Your first (2) edits edits were egregiously not to format, if it were not the case I wouldn't have stated it, nor corrected it. The Italian page you reference is a complete mess, no references, although I religiously update it to keep it orderly and the Polish page is inconsequential. I'm rendering this page in France, Germany, Spain and the European table itself. It will list your additions of "living" individuals. There are no inclusions for deceased "unverified" individuals on any of these tables. So I am removing (60, 81) and will not be including Jane Webster. TFBCT1 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Please explain how my first two edits were egregiously not to format. There was a tiny error I missed where the ranks were colored green and I fixed it. I see no other problem. 2. Why are you changing the whole table when there was no consensuses or fixed policy to do so? 3. Wikipedia IS NOT the GRG. Any reliable source is just as valid as has been explained to you. 4. Putting one articles importance over another in this case is your opinion and not a basis to make policy decisions. 5. Please explain how a living non-GRG verified case is any different then a deceased non-GRG verified case? They aren't. Wikipedia is not the GRG and GRG does not decide what goes on these pages, despite what longevity fans might think. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The precedent for almost (2) years has been to list non-verified supercentenarians unnumbered on ranking lists and remove them once deceased as is done for Europe, France, Germany, Spain, Canada, etc. You are going on about the guidelines for the "living supercentenarians" page which don't fully apply here. For consistency I'm going to defer to precedent. TFBCT1 (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see that arguing against the storm here isn't going to get anywhere as this is a wider problem, so I accept your statement in so far as I will live with it, for now, but I do not agree with it. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of British supercentenarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility of tables

Please see comments here" Talk:List of supercentenarians from the United States#Accessibility of tables — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsprc (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Use ISO dates

The YYYY-MM-DD date format solves the problem for sorting, however with the minor exception on WP:DATEFORMAT that format is not used in articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:91AF:8FC4:112:73B0:7859:105E (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Tables are now sorted with {{dts}} and {{ayd}}, while keeping a human-readable format. — JFG talk 23:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

List of living supercentenarians?

Why does this article include a list of living supercentenarians in the U.K.? I think it doesn't matter if it does not have a list of living people as living people already are listed in List of oldest living people and currently there are very few living people aged 110+ in the U.K.. The list of French supercentenarians does not include any list of oldest living people in France, then why must this article include that? 90.226.9.16 (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; this list was mostly duplicate information, and living people are already well highlighted in the top 100 list. I have merged it with the global list, and added the remaining two people to a hidden "overflow list" until they are "old enough" to be included in the main list. — JFG talk 07:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Irish list

Seeing no support after two months, I am withdrawing this merge suggestion. — JFG talk 08:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All of the people mentioned at List of Irish supercentenarians were British citizens at birth, because they were born before the partition of Ireland in 1921 (and they have possibly retained a right to their UK citizenship all their life). In addition, this list includes very few people, and I'm not aware of any sources studying Irish supercentenarians specifically. Therefore, I suggest merging both lists into this article, which could be renamed List of British and Irish supercentenarians. — JFG talk 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just redirect the Irish title after merge, to avoid bludgeoning this article's name. Per the historical rationale above, it would remain correct to call them all British, while readers looking specifically for Irish people would be well-served by the redirect. — JFG talk 23:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Historically, this sub-group has been ferociously autonomous.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Also, to Irish supercentenarians specifically, Katherine Plunket is an important figure as one of the first ever validated, and Kathleen Snavely received significant coverage when she became Ireland's oldest ever person in 2015.TFBCT1 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Which sub-group are you talking about? The supercentenarians listed as Irish, or the editors having contributed to this list? Or perhaps you have some other group in mind? Re: Katherine Plunket, she is indeed notable and has her own article accordingly. No question here. Snavely did get coverage, but no article. A mini-bio may be added if there's anything worth reporting apart from her stats. — JFG talk 14:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

What an idiotic suggestion. 5/6ths of Ireland has been free of British rule for nearly 100 years. They are separate countries and therefore the articles should be kept separate. As time progresses, there will eventually be people who reach 110+ years born after 1921 and therefore were not citizens of Britain at their birth. Crveni5 (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to call the proposal "idiotic" in order to express your point of view. Regarding future "born Irish" supercentenarians, the first ones will hit the list in 2031. I'm pretty sure future Wikipedians will know how to handle this situation when it occurs. — JFG talk 07:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emigrants

The article currently has separate lists for British residents and British emigrants. However, the subject matter is "British supercentenarians", so that the places they have moved during their life should not matter to their nationality as British people and ranking as supercentenarians. Therefore I suggest merging the list of emigrants with the main list of 100 oldest British people ever. A similar reasoning was recently applied to the French and Italian lists. — JFG talk 18:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG I completely agree with this change and as there has been no pushback for about five months, I will make the change now, but using the older and longer version of the immigrants list. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I actually realize I don't have the time to do this now, so anyone else is welcome to make the change. Sorry about that. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done. — JFG talk 14:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Phyllis Ridgway

Phyllis Ridgway may be the oldest person in Canada but there's nothing in the given source which says that she's the oldest British-born person in the world. MFlet1 (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Chicdat's revert[1]

You're breaking the transclusion in List of the oldest people by country, Chicdat. — Guarapiranga ☎ 11:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not anymore, since I reverted all your edits. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_British_supercentenarians/Archive_1&oldid=1250073429"