This is an archive of past discussions about List of oldest living people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Greetings,
What happened to the talk-page list of 109-year-olds nearing 110? It makes sense to have this on the talk page, as it gives editors cases to look out for.Ryoung12221:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
They have been automatically archived. As this talk page is neither a messageboard or a forum the inclusion here of persons who definitely do not meet the requirement for inclusion in the article is inappropriate. There is probably an appropriate place somewhere for such a list, this talk page isn't it. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)07:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The talk page is for improving the article. Listing people nearing their 110th birthday is going to improve the article by listing claims to 110 that would otherwise have been missed, and would otherwise have taken more time to be added. Therefore I don't see the issue - it improves the article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't justify using this talk page as a WP:FORUM, which is essentially what discussing people who are definitely not supercentenarians would be. If some user(s) wants to make a user page of the list that would be appropriate (especially as it is essentially WP:Original research. The argument that someone might be missed does not hold water either, there are clearly enough users managing to find reports of claimed 110th birthdays (most of whom were not on this list). The list included numerous people that do not meet proposed criteria (a previous supercentenarian) AND of the 4 most recent people to have possibly turned 110 only 1 has been added to the unverified list. All in all there seems little justification on retaining such a list here. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people just like to be difficult. Obama may have taken office in 2009, but he was "elected" in 2008 and started campaigning well before then. Obama may have "not been the president" on January 18 2009 but everyone knew he was in line for the position. It makes sense to list potential/upcoming 110+ cases, even if they are 109. Cases are often reported only once a year. There is something called "margin". When you drive down the interstate, there is an "emergency lane" outside the "official" lanes. When you play MLB, there is "foul territory" outside the official "fair" territory. Your argument is basically saying there shouldn't be any "foul" territory, which is ridiculous.Ryoung12222:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Change to unverified criteria
Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
It appears clear from the lengthy discussions above that the concensus (5:2 by my reckoning) is that the criteria for inclusion on the verified list be that the country has produced a previous verified supercentenarian. Before making ther change i would like it clarified whether users think this shoud apply to country of current residence or country of birth. I favour country of birth. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither of them. We should see which of the countries produced the documentation that validated the claim.Japf (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I understand you. If they are verified then the question does not apply. If not how can we (wiki users) know what documentation is being used? Are there even any verified supercents whose documentation was not from their country of residence and whose country of birth has not had a supercent resident? DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I was referring to a validated immigrant and which country that validation belongs. As example, imagine that Juanita Alejandro is validated. Should we accept all the mexican claims from then, or do we say that she was validated in the US? I obviously answered an unasked question.
My answer to the asked question is "country of childhood". Anyone who arrived to the US at 3 years old has good chances to prove their claim disregarding which country they were born, but if it did at 30 the country of birth should be considered important.Japf (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I considered the problem of how long someone had been in their country of residence but thought it might get too complicated (we would need to know when they arrived in the country and I don't think that information would be readily available to us). I suppose even if we limited it to the same pairs of countries (ie if Juanita Alejandro is validated then anyone born in Mexico and now residing in the US meets the criteria but someone born in Mexico and still living there does not) we would still have the same potential problem. And I thought it wqas going to be a simple either/or choice! DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
"If you live in a country with no records, it will be very difficult for you to prove your claim" is more neutral than "If you live in a poor country, it will be very difficult for you to prove your claim".Japf (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
But we're not excluding countries based on having no records, we're excluding countries which have records but are so small that they've never had a supercentenarian before. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. That may happen. But only for the first claim. If the records of that country are really good, that claim will be validated, and the country enters in the list.Japf (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What about China (largest country by population) India (2nd), Indonesia (4th) Brazil (5th), Pakistan (6th), Bangladesh (7th) Nigeria (8th)? None of them have a verified supercentenarian. New Zealand (123rd) does and so does Cape Verde {by birth anmyway} (169). Do they qualify as "small"? DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)21:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The point is, Luxembourg has never had a "verified" supercentenarian because it is so small (about 400,000 people) and the odds of someone living to 110 are about 1 in 5 million, so it's no surprise it hasn't happened yet. But Luxembourg has good records and it would be silly to not list a case from there just because of lack of precedent.
As for India, Bangladesh, etc., what I suggested makes a lot of sense: anyone from any country, worldwide, with a claimed year, month, and date of birth; a media citation; a claim to age 110-112; and lack of published counterevidence should qualify. Most claims from places like Bangladesh do NOT meet these qualifications. Such a system is self-limiting and fair to everyone.Ryoung12222:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Robert, you belong to GRG, so I will ask you a question. Why doesn't the GRG group go to countries like China, India and so on, and start to validate the extreme longevity claims?Japf (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
Let me start by pointing out that research from the Max Planck Institute in Rostock, Germany suggests that government data on supercentenarians isn't reliable until a nation has had compulsory birth registration for a century or more. If China started keeping compulsory birth records in 1949, they won't have a reliable system until 2059...some fifty years from now.
Second, the age verification lists started in the 1870s with skeptics such as William Thoms. Every claim to 110+ he investigated turned out to be false or dubious. Therefore, he suggested to start keeping records of verified centenarians using strongly documented and verified cases, such as from insurance records. By the 1890s, Thomas Emley Young of the Society of Actuaries, London began the first real lists of verified centenarian cases. Research such as this stayed mostly among experts for quite some time. In the 1950s, Guinness World Records used some of these experts to begin keeping track of "authenticated" oldest persons. The spotlight shifted back to the scientists in the 1990s, when evidence began to emerge about the genetic advantages of supercentenarians (i.e., longevity tends to run in families). Consider this: in 1998, the GRG list had less than 70 persons listed. Within a decade, the list now exceeds 1,000 persons. But the primary focus is on demographic validity first. Expanding to all parts of the world isn't feasible when the records don't exist. Even today, children born in places such as the Sudan are unlikely to have records of their birth.
Third, it seems that too many people have turned these lists into "sports"...betting games, or nationalistic fervor. They are missing the point. Evidence suggests that the life expectancy for all races is quite similar. Also, using population numbers, we can estimate that if China has 20,000 centenarians, they likely have 20 supercentenarians, 10 aged 111+, 5 aged 112+, 2 aged 113+, and one aged 114+. So, statistically I can estimate that the oldest person in China might be 114...if records existed.
Now, the Chinese government has made strides in recent years to keep records on centenarians. Consider these improvements:
In 1933, China's oldest claim was "256"
In 1982, China's oldest claim was "144"
In 1993, China's oldest claim was "131"
In 2008, China's oldest claim was "121"
Even that claim, China noted, was from a minority group (i.e., less likely to be true) and a male (i.e., again less likely to be true). The oldest Han Chinese claim in 2008 was age "118". Based on that, we can see that the difference between China's oldest estimated person (by stats) and China's oldest Han Chinese person is still about four years. We also have a problem in China about the "one year addition"---Chinese tradition begins counting at age 1, not zero, so many claims are one year older than they should be, based on Western years. For example, Hu Amei of Shanghai was said to be born in 1895, died in 2007, and was '113' years old...but that would be '112' by Western measure.Ryoung12209:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Question for Robert - why should we automatically exclude an unverified claim owing to "counterevidence" which may itself be erroneous? Seems to me that the basic fact that a claim is unverified means that there is doubt as to the claim's veracity, at the very least, the claim is provisional. So, for our purposes, a claim should be listed until such time as that claim has been either verified or debunked. To exclude a claim for the mere existence of counterevidence prejudges the veracity of a claim and is therefore POV. Canada Jack (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I disagree. First of all, "unverified" should be taken to be NPOV, given no other information. It simply means "believe it or not," but the experts haven't checked. Additional information such as:
--age claimed
--source of the claim
--ages of family members
can lead one to doubt a claim, or to think a claim has merit. For example, a claim to "148" is meritless, based on science...a claim to '110' is possible.
Back to the issue: OK, so a claim on the "unverified" list is provisional. (It's not completely NPOV because clues, such as country of origin and age claimed, make the case either more likely or less likely to be true.) But what about when counterevidence strongly suggests the claim is not true? Judging a claim on counterevidence, by definition, CANNOT be "prejudging" because it is judging based on evidence after some investigation. I said "evidence," NOT "innuendo." You are confusing the issue. Also, I disagree on the "mere existence." The evidence on Ruth Galmon is quite strong, including two census matches (the 1900 census and the 1910 census). This also means that there shouldn't be any 1900 or 1910 census matches that can later "prove" the case. It would be very difficult to prove the case. Now, there could be a church record somewhere, but the burden of proof is upon the claimant (and their family/those making the claim).Ryoung12209:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
From your perspective, being a gerontologist, there are degrees of verified/unverified. But, for the purposes of this page, how does wikipedia assess claims? Are we to assign your various criteria for inclusion on the unverified section? And how do we do so? That's what I am getting at here.
When it comes to VERIFIED claims, it's a rather easy thing. We go to the various recognized sources. But barring a clearing house of unverified claims, we lack an easy answer in this case. It seems clear to me that once a source - like yourself - deems a claim to be untrue, then we omit. But if a claim has NOT been debunked, just that there is evidence there to suggest otherwise, you are suggesting we nevertheless omit the claim. And how, prey tell, do we assess that? I am saying for all practical purposes, we can't. And I defy you to come up with a relatively simple rule to do so. Simply having that depend on the personal discretion of one Robert Young isn't the way to go (though I personally would agree with the personal discretion of Robert Young). I recognize that, for example, the Galmon case is, for all intents and purposes, discredited. And that while there is a possibility that the case is true, as it is nearly impossible to prove a negative (we can prove a person was born at a time and place if records exist, we can't prove a person wasn't born at a particular time or place if records aren't there). And while the burden of proof should lie with those making the claim, the same can be said for all the other unverified claims. Canada Jack (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'd like to point out, before I take the credit or blame for everything, that:
1. These cases were debunked by Filipe Prista Lucas, not myself
2. The records and the interpretation were posted to the WOP message board, with a date stamp. But it also means that if you don't believe it, you can register for www.ancestry.com or similar website and check yourself.
3. Filipe Prista Lucas IS listed on the GRG website as one of the top three claims investigators...
4. Eventually, claims such as this will be listed (if not already) on the GRG website. For example,
Hager Young (who claims to be 113) is listed here:
as two years younger than claimed. Based on this, she should be listed on the "unverified" list as born on Oct 12 1898. "Unverified" might include cases for which some evidence exists (in this case, the 1920 census, the 1900 census) but might be missing other documents, such as an ID card or marriage record.
This is quite complex. For the GRG, I divide the "unverified" cases into categories of completeness:
verified=3 stars
2 documents=2 stars
1 document=1 star
0 documents (but with citation)=0 stars
Now, Wikipedia doesn't have to follow that. But we should understand that there are really more than just two levels. I think that's what the "unverified" debate has been all about: a case, such as Marie Audy from France, may come from a nation with a good track record (though not perfect) but no one from the family hasn't sent documents yet. Or, we may have a case where the family has provided one of three documents, and so is not yet "verified" but there is reason to believe it is true. Another case might come from an area with a mixed record (such as Barbados) and some from an area with no records (parts of the Sahel in Africa; parts of the Indian subcontinent).
To make it easy, I suggest Wikipedia divide cases into three levels:
A. cases verified by a noted authority
B. cases with a claimed day, month, and year of birth and an age claim between 110 and 112 (with 113+ to longevity claims)
C. cases that do not meet the "B" standard (unlisted)
Well, sure, which is why it seems to me to be needlessly complicating things by trying to determine what shouldn't be listed even when a claim has not been disproven. That's all I'm saying right above. I think we all at least agree on the unverified with a claimed date, 110 to 112 given that very few unproven 113-year-olds will end up being verified. And instead of trying to come up with some rationale to NOT list some claims we either list ALL claims, or claims from places with a history of verification even if the particular case may be dubious (but not disproved). I go with the latter but perhaps we need another vote... Canada Jack (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Debunked claims
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Greetings,
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.
All we need is a reliable source from a third-party publication (a message on Robert Young's group does not pass the test, since it consists of original research and has not been accepted by Wikipedia for a very long time) and then yes, she should be removed. Cheers, CP16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: You are wrong again, CP. If something is first posted somewhere besides Wikipedia, it is NOT "original research." What you are saying is an issue of "reliability." Considering that Filipe Prista Lucas is listed on the GRG website as one of the top three investigators, I find it a reliable report. Also, the previous debate on the "world's oldest people" webgroup failed to consider that the group reliability is based upon who runs it, not Yahoo. Given my position as Senior Consultant for Gerontology, Guinness World Records, I should be considered an "expert" in the field. I would argue that Filipe should as well, as one of the Senior Claims Investigators for the Gerontology Research Group.
The bottom line is, this case isn't simply unverified and uninvestigated; it was investigated and found to be exaggerated (now, two years isn't that much, but it's enough to make her less than 110).Ryoung122 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ryoung12221:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You can dance around the issue as much as you'd like, but you know that every time a message from your message board was used as a source on the recent deaths page (or any page for that matter), it was removed as an unreliable source. Not by me, not by any one person, but by community consensus. That's the only bottom line that matters. Cheers, CP07:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
CP, I'm not dancing. You know that Wikipedia is often anti-hierarchical, anti-authoritative and tribalistic. It gives people a sense of power to tear things down. When the Bible said "the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life" it was talking about nonsense like this. You also know that I'm an "expert" in the field (see Guinness World Records, page 2, 2010 edition, 2009 edition, 2008 edition, 2007 edition) and so I should qualify for an "exemption," as the Wiki-guidelines make mention of giving some leeway in that regard. I'm not simply Joe Blow from anytown, anywhere.
FYI, any Wikipolicy is malleable and adjustable. Also, WOP citations were used until you had a problem with them, so don't put the blame on others.Ryoung12222:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not for you or me to decide if you qualify for an exemption. Until your source is accepted at the BLP noticeboard, it is not considered reliable. If it is accepted there, then I have no problem with it. Until that time, I restoring all the entries that were removed without reliable sources. Cheers, CP19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, to save the trouble, I'll revert the changes, and then make the report myself. Don't worry Robert, I'm on a losing streak lately; but if it is acceptable, I want to make it official. Cheers, CP19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Since WOP is now being used as a source these claims should be changed/removed as well:
Comment: Nowhere in the Hatch discussion did it say that he was likely born in 1922...it says that the only man under that name and from Louisiana was listed as born in 1922. This is a difference between 'suggestion' and 'evidence.' I agree with the other three changes, which are based on positive matches (i.e., several different identifiers are proof that this is the same person) that put the person's age as younger than the age claim.Ryoung12209:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The link to the discussion is here. As long as there are no personal attacks or blatantly false statements, I'll have nothing else to say, so anyone should make their case there. Cheers, CP19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw this listed on the BLP board. Adding info from Googlegroups is OR, the initial text pretty much spells that out:
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.
It's OR and google groups is not RS either, it fails on two fronts. It needs to be removed.
Yes, Ryulong is correct, policies can be adjusted, as they stand now, BLP, RS, V, OR apply at the moment.
Unless they change, that "research" (and it is someone's original research" can not be used here.
Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris16:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
1. This is from Yahoo groups, NOT "Google groups." Yahoo groups are controlled and moderated by the group owner. As I am the world's leading expert and I control/own the World's Oldest People Group on Yahoo, it should be seen as a reliable source, at least when the information posted is by an expert.
2. It's NOT "original research," it was not something published originally on Wikipedia.
No birthdate or month of birth. This is an example of a "junk" case that wouldn't be included under my proposal to include only cases with a claimed month and day of birth.Ryoung12205:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First of all, I'm aware that these supercentenarians have been discussed in the past, but I just want to clear it up. I haven't found anything on the following supercentenarian deaths below and I would like to know whether or not the following are deceased that are below please, Thanx!
Btw, Im aware that Poland isn't a high income economy.
1. Ludwika Kosztyłla (b. 3 Aug. 1897) Poland
2. Louisa Russel (b. 3 Sept. 1897) Australia
3. Grace Talmadge (b. 23 Sept. 1897) United States
4. Choe Pu Yong (b. 2 Nov. 1897) North Korea
5. Lola Norton (b. 10 Nov. 1897) United States
6. Michalina Wasilewska (b. 21 Dec. 1898) Poland
Ludwika Kosztyła died in December 2008, Michalina Wasilewska is still alive. Choe Pu Yong is/was from North Korea. I've no idea about the others. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Add new column?
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
We should add right after name and right before sex, the Race column. Exmaples would be W=White, B=Black & O=Mixed? (I really dont know what O is but it has to be Japanese)--Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
NO, it shouldn't. The issue of race is controversial and adds nothing to this wiki article. It may be convenient for GRG to use it for their research, but this is not GRG. The issue has been discussed (and consensus that it not be included) somewhere on a longevity-related page but I can't find where. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Has Dora McCrae died.....or is it because she hasn't had an update on her birthday in a while........or was she made up and is false? Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
We are waiting for a 110th birthday confirmation. We know she was alive in August 2009, about two weeks before Aug 29, which is her birthday.Ryoung12215:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Willard Scott and the Today Show
Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion
The Today Show is media, and therefore a "birthday" listing on MSNBC should qualify for the UNverified list. The whole point of having an unverified list, is to list potential "other" cases that may not be in the verified list. We don't want the list to be too big..."my great-grandma is 118" doesn't cut it. But if someone gets a listing on the Today Show, someone went through a lot of effort to get a listing.
Now, Willard Scott has had some unverified cases in the past, such as Jackson Pollard's "125th" birthday, that were very dubious. But cases over 113 go to "longevity claims" anyway, so what's the issue with listing an Elizabeth Howell?Ryoung12222:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As someone from outside the US I'm probably not the only one who has never heard of Willard Scott. Looking at the video there wasn't much indication that he should be taken too seriously. There was nothing in the viodeo to suggest that the report was for people having their birthday on that day (I may have missed it, I can't double check at the moment as I have no sound on this comp). People who know the show might not have any difficulty accepting it as a valid citation but to me (and the anonymous user who first changed it) it looks pretty vague! DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)23:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Check out the Willard Scott article. Yes, he claims to be the original Ronald McDonald and was Bozo the Clown...but that misses the point. NBC has been doing "centenarian birthdays" on the TODAY SHOW in the USA for DECADES. I remember this when I was a kid. It's a national news broadcast, I think that should qualify for a "claim" (but not validation).Ryoung12209:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This should most definetly be considered an acceptable source but the real issue is whether September 23 is really her birthdate. When I originally added the claim I assumed everyone on the show was featured on their exact birthday but that doesn't seem to be the case. Until someone can find out what her real birthday is the claim should be removed.Tim198 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
But just a second - how does someone get on the show? Does someone simply contact NBC, say their grandparent is turning 110 or whatever, and they do a piece? Given the tendency of some people to seek publicity, the question has to be asked - what is the process here? And it seems a little odd to me that local print media would be behind the ball on this compared to Willard Scott. Canada Jack (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I realize that you are from Canada. Let me just say this:
1. local sources are often wrong. I don't see why we should consider a LOCAL newspaper but not a NATIONAL television broadcast/internet listing to be a reliable source.
2. Of course these cases are based on the local claim...it could be false. But the Today Show doesn't even put every claim on the show. This alone suggests there must be some vetting process.
3. Not all local newspapers are online, or turn up in search engine results. For example, Herbert Adair was covered in his local newspaper for his 111th birthday, but no 111th birthday story showed up on Google news.
4. As shown with Elizabeth Howell, the Today Show can be ONE of multiple sources used for a case. In this case, a local news report confirms the date of birth, while the TODAY Show confirms that she is still living some six years later. Even if the person died a few days before, it's still within the last two years (the window of listing for unvalidated cases) and well over 110 for this particular case.Ryoung12209:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, Robert, I work for the largest national news organization in Canada. We'd all like to believe that a national broadcaster vets their sources, but as I know from personal experience working for a national television news organization, nuts are drawn to television more than they are to the Hicksville Gleaner.
All I am asking is what in fact is the vetting process for this show? In the case of Howell, we have multiple sources, so that is fine. But I also know that networks often tend to simply post whatever claims they get, claims which sound on face possible and reasonable. They don't have the resources, typically, to vet claims in a manner we'd find acceptable and, frankly, they likely don't really care if someone who says they are 110 truly isn't.
But the Today Show doesn't even put every claim on the show. This alone suggests there must be some vetting process. No it suggests they have lots of claims and only a limited amount of airtime. For someone who demands a level of rigour, I am rather amazed at that remark. In all likelihood, some 23-year-old PA out of J school is given the menial task of wading through the many e-mails they no doubt get to find one that sounds the juiciest. It's passed on to a show producer, calls are made or whatever - but to get the person on air, or contact an affiliate (I've not seen the segment, so you tell me if they do local coverage), whatever. I seriously, seriously doubt they have someone there with any of the wherewithal to sift through the various claims they get.
Local news sources at the very least typically interview the person in question, cull details from relatives, what have you. Is this what Scott does? Or do they simply say "happy birthday" to a person whose details were sent? Canada Jack (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Some further notes on whether this constitutes a "reliable source." Unless I am mistaken here, there is no "news" aspect to these birthday notices. They are little more than friendly community-notice type announcements, though with a greater human interest angle. The fact they are on national television is neither here nor there. So, these aren't "news" items in the normal sense of the word, no more than, say, an interview with someone with a new diet plan on the Today show would be. Appearing on the show doesn't validate the diet plan, which is a common fallacy promoted by people who sell concoctions. In contrast, a discussion in a news article on a diet plan would be expected to do a lot more than repeat the often self-serving claims of the one touting the diet plan. IOW, from what we have here of the descriptions, there is no "news" aspect here at all to the birthday greetings, therefore we shouldn't assume, without information to the contrary, that these claims have any of the minimum vetting expected from regular news sources. Canada Jack (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Robert, the Today Show is NOT a "news" source in this context, and is therefore not a reliable media source. "Hello" indeed. You might as well cite Romper Room's birthday greetings as "news." And, since you are a scholar, I am frankly amazed you would claim otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Quit being disrespectful. This isn't "Romper Room." This the #1 morning news show in America, and Willard Scott has been the longest-running weatherman on national TV news. His "centenarian birthday greetings" have been done for decades.
That said, I agree that a case isn't "validated" simply for being on the show, but you have to imagine that families wouldn't want their deceased relative being falsely reported as "living".Ryoung12205:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Robert, we were never talking about validated cases, we were talking about unvalidated cases. But the more you reveal about this, the more amazed I am that you would suggest this is in any way rises to the reports found in newspapers of people turning 110. Those are, at the very least, reported by journalists. But Willard Scott is NOT a journalist. He is a weatherman, ferchrissakes! It matters not one whit that the show has been on the air for 30 years. He doesn't report news, he doesn't even PRETEND to report news, therefore, this is not a reliable news source, period! Why? He's not a journalist! He reads feel-good stuff some PA has handed him. And, sorry for the "disrespect," but it IS like "Romper Room," as, like Romper Room, people send in names of people having birthdays and they - no doubt, another 23-year-old PA - pick some of those names and read them on air. And I seriously doubt, given Scott read birthday greetings to a supposed 125-year-old, that their vetting process is any better than that of Romper Room. Canada Jack (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you over-estimate journalists in general. They often simply report what they want, and ask questions later. We've seen, for example, Agnes Wetzel being MISreported as the "world's third-oldest person".
With Willard Scott and the Today Show, we're only looking to confirm that someone has been reported alive and age 110+ in the past two years, not that their age claimed is accurate.
In any case, let me ask you this: who is more likely to have a Wikipedia bio, a local newspaper reporter in a town of 6,000, or a national TV weatherman in Washington, D.C.? That's what I thought.Ryoung12203:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In any case, let me ask you this: who is more likely to have a Wikipedia bio, a local newspaper reporter in a town of 6,000, or a national TV weatherman in Washington, D.C.? That's what I thought.
??? That's a non-sequitor argument if I ever heard one! So, journalistic credentials are now irrelevant? We just need national prominence? So, Derek Jeter, who may have a longer wikipedia bio than Mr Scott, is perhaps more "credible" because of his greater prominence? Since when is a nationally known weatherman a source of any reputability on the subject of supercentenarians? Or ANY subject, outside of weather-related ones? You of all people should know the fallacy of an argument from authority, especially when said "authority" has no credentials in the area in question, nor basic journalistic credentials! Not even after credulously wishing a 125-year-old happy birthday? To me, that says it all. But that's okay, because he's "more likely to have a wikipedia bio." Huh? Canada Jack (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I DO argue from authority: like umpires, SOME authority is often better than none at all, mistakes or not. Wikipedia is too often a free-for-all.
In the case of Willard Scott, I highly disagree that just because person X does job A, they can't also do job B. Willard may not be qualified to determine who's age claim is reliable or not...that's not the point, since this is an UNvalidated list. The point is that the Today Show and Willard Scott have an established tradition of reporting centenarian birthdays, and that this tradition often leads families to indicate that their loved one is age 100+ and still alive. That's the point. Your "Derek Jeter" argument is simply JUNK. Derek Jeter doesn't report on supercentenarian birthdays on TV. Willard Scott does.Ryoung12215:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If Willard Scott wished a "125-year-old" it would seem astoundingly obvious that he can't do job B, if job B is with a journalistic caution wishing people of extreme age happy birthday. Ultimely, you seem to miss the point here Robert. If Derek Jeter started wishing people happy birthday, by the criteria you have embraced here, that's good enough for you. The fact that a baseball player has no obvious credentials would seem to me to be the crucial issue, but since you embrace a weatherman who has no obvious credentials - one who wished a "125-year-old" happy birthday - one wonders what further evidence of a lack of qualification is needed here. What "qualification" is needed here? The same minimum jouirnalistic standards presumably found in most news sources. Scott isn't a news source, and he ain't no journalist. This is dead simple. Canada Jack (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Zero Point of World Age Records
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It is my understanding that some cultures begin to count one's age (one day old, and then onward) at conception and/or count someone at birth as already-being one year old. I'm not sure of it, but I think this is the Jewish manner. Could it then be that the same person could be officially considered, say, 112 years old but also perhaps 113 years old depending on the culturally-accepted "zero point" of counting age? Just idly wondering. I have no stake in the article either way.
There is also a tradition in some places like China to celebrate birthdays on the Chinese New Year or other culture specific new years instead of a personal birth date. I can't speak for all sources, but I think GRG, at least, likely takes that into account. aremisasling (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
China edit and change to last line in unverified summary
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The edits appeared to be in good faith, but generally China is not differentiated from 'Old China', especially given that there have been major political changes in other countries in the notes section which were not similarly changed in the notes section (Austria is a good example). Also, I felt the final statement referencing the longevity claims article was an important piece and a statement of hope for verification is unencyclopedic. Again, I'm posting this not because I want to pick on the editor that made those changes, and I felt they were in good faith. I'm just showing my work, so to speak. aremisasling (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) (edited for spelling/readability aremisasling (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC))
Carmella Trocino
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I question that Carmella Trocino actually has been confirmed alive above 110. The Iowa centenarian statistics, while getting better, still seems to include people who has died, and I think she is one such case, only alive on paper. It would be nice to have someone find an actual newsreport. As of now I only find one mention of a Carmella Trocino, on a myspacepage, which has the same county as the one in the Iowa centenarian report, and in which she is explicitly said to be dead:
http://www.myspace.com/poetsongsmith
" my deceased Grandfather and Grandmother, Angelo and Carmella Trocino, who came over on the boat in the 20's, arranged marriage, saw the Statue of Liberty, became great citizens of the USA, and settled in Oelwein, Iowa with many other Italians on the west side of town, worked for the railroad but also farmed a few acres, and man, the food, gotta love that food, and the heritage and legacy they left behind. I miss them both so much. "
Yubiquitoyama (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I just checked SSDI and there is a record of a Carmela Trocino born in 1899 that died in 2002 in Kansas City, MO. My guess is that she moved to Missouri sometime later in life and the offical records were never updated to reflect that. I think she should be removed until some more concrete evidence of her acutally being alive emerges.Tim198 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again
Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
The current criteria for unverified super-c's is:
"The following table presents a list of unverified living claimed supercentenarians under the age of 113, who have been recognized by international media from a World Bank high income economy country, and who are awaiting validation or debunking. There are currently 60 living unverified supercentenarians, 58 of whom are female and 2 of whom are male. Claims over 113 can be found at longevity claims."
As far as I can determine from the discussions previously the consensus was to amend this to include non-HIE countries who have previously had a verified super-c. If instead of re-hashing the arguments (for the umpteenth time) users could merely indicate which option they support we might actually get somewhere. This would of course apply to the list of non-super-c's on this talk page (as people seem to insist that it remain) even though there is actually NO other standard specified for inclusion.
A: No criteria except a citation claiming an age between 110 years 0 days and 112 years 365 days
B: The current criteria.
C: Option B plus countries with a previously verified super-c.
D: [edit:] Only countries with a previously verified super-c.
I vote for D - include only candidates from countries with previous verified claims. This way we avoid the issue of lack of balance if we arbitrarily exclude non-HIE countries. Canada Jack (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Canada Jack - but I want to add that I think only those who were born in a country with a veried super-c should be included.Tim198 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Option A (so long as the claimed age has a claimed date of birth). In the last couple of weeks, someone born in Mexico (moved to the USA in her 80s) has been validated with documents from Mexico. Yet only a few months ago, a Mexican claimant to the age of 119 died. Unfortunately the idea suggested above excludes countries with small populations, who are much less likely to ever have supercentenarians - but that says nothing about the availability of records, or the likelihood of the claim being true. I firmly believe that on Wikipedia we should be impartial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a comment, from Mexico in the last month we've had a verified claim to age 110 (from someone from a bourgeoisie family: that is, "high social status" if not high income, and a well-documented family tree) and an unverified claim to age 119 (from someone from a very poor, "illiterate" family; with no original proofs of birth, marriage, or even ID, even in a Catholic country). This suggests that, once again, extreme age claims are associated with illiteracy. However, we can see that the first-world/third-world dichotomy is false. We can have upper-class elites in places like Colombia and Ecuador. We can have illiterate, unbelievable claims in places like South Africa. Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff without appearing to be classist is difficult, especially when scientific research strongly correlates age inflation with low social status. However, I do believe that if we add the two caveats of requiring a claimed birthdate and requiring the claim to be between 110 and 112.99, this will produce an unverified list here that will serve the purpose of a "list of pending cases". One more caveat: I do think that cases should be excluded where evidence suggests the age claim is not true. For example, Mattie Caldwell:
Few persons have voted, and two new answers appeared. May I suggest a schemed that I will actualize with further suggestions, since the many issues are being posted.
So:
Option A corresponds to the black rectangle;
Option B the green rectangle;
Option C the green rectangle plus the red elipse;
Option D the red ellipse;
Tim defends the red ellipse outside of the blue rectangle;
I'd like to suggest "Option A" but let's be clear:
1. Only claims between 110 years 0 days and 112 years 365 days, with a claimed year, month, and date of birth should be included. If we see a report about a '110-year-old voter' with no birthdate given, sorry that doesn't cut it. Anyone 113+ is already listed on the longevity claims page. The point of this list should be that the validation process is long, and also the discovery process of cases is slow, so it may take some time to find documents for a case. But if, after 3 years, a case is still not accepted, it's not likely to be.Ryoung12208:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I vote for C, but I assume I'm in the minority here. I still don't think everyone should be included and I think only including those countries with previously verified claims is too restrictive. I think immigrants to countries "accepted" also should be included (as they are now), which is the way I understand the choices above. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Even with immigrants, there is a huge difference between a case like Mary Josephine Ray (came to the U.S. in 1898; is now 114) and a case like this:
Shukrat Aliyeva came from a region known for age myths, did not come to the U.S. until 2005, and thus her story "began" at age "118" (the world's oldest person, if true). It's a junk case that's not going anywhere (there's not even a claimed day of birth, let alone month). The point is, an immigrant to the U.S. could come from a region with reliable records, or a region with a history of inflated claims. All these complications make option A a better default value, because it would exclude Aliyeva on "no claimed date of birth" and age claim above 112.99 rather than immigration status.Ryoung12210:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
An immigrant is always an emigrant from somewhere. Marie Josephine Ray is a valid example. Imagine her case was not validated yet. She is an immigrant in USA, and that doesn't count. However, she was born in Canada which is a HIE country, making her claim accepted by the four criteria. Shukrat Aliyeva is exactly the opposite. If we exclude immigrants, her claim fails all the proposed criteria.Japf (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
There are two more points to make about immigrants. One, early-life immigrants may have documentation in the country they moved to (for example, the oldest woman from Peru moved to the U.S. early in life and is recorded in the June 1900 census in NYC) whereas late-life immigrants cannot have early-life proof of birth from the country they moved to, by definition, since they lived in their home country in early life. A second point is that a late-life immigrant like Soledad Mexia MIGHT have documentation from the home country.
By the way, some countries in the Caribbean, for example, likely have Westernized systems of recordkeeping and "could" have validated cases, if they were aware they could participate in the global system. Should we exclude them simply because no one did what anyone could have done? It's an UNverified list, after all, and the point of it seems to be to list cases that have a potential for future validation. By definition, if someone doesn't even know their month or date of birth, their case is not likely to be validated, so that requirement already excludes a large number of claims. Excluding those claims to 113+ (which are listed on the longevity claims article) further narrows this list to just those cases in the 110-112.99 age range that stand a decent chance of future validation.Ryoung12220:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My argument has always been that we should list unverified claims not on the presumption of the validity of the claim in question but on the "decent chance of future validation." THAT is why candidates should come from countries which have shown a history of being able to verify claims should be the main criterion. Otherwise, we end up with a good number of claims which we know from day 1 will stay "unverified" until they turn 113 or die. Let's also remember that countries which can verify claims can also prove claims false. (Not all, but some claims can be disproved.) One can at least often verify, in the case of Americans, that some people who claim to be 110 now were of the expected age in the 1930 census in America, which doesn't prove the claim, but it does disprove the claim if that individual is found and they were, say, 20 in that particular year. With countries with no history of verification, in most cases claims don't stand a chance of being disproved let alone proved. Canada Jack (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And Soledad Mexia wouldn't have been added to the list under those criteria and yet we see she's validated now. Wikipedia encourages pages and contributors to be unbiased, yet in both the old criteria and some of the new criteria, we are being biased against people from certain countries. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Soledad Mexia has been validated. Any other claim from Mexico should be accepted if options A, C or D are adopted.Japf (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet again instead of having a simple vote as I requested we have descended into long winded arguments about the merits or otherwise of the various options. This makes it very difficult to achieve a consensus meaning we will be left with the current criteria (and it looks like that is not the preferred option for anyone!). It appears (?) that option D is the favoured option (I was hoping to leave the discussion of immigrant cases until we had arrived at a consensus (note that there is no mention of immigrant cases in the current criteria)). One can but try. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)22:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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."
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
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 (TalkContribs)06:36, 29 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 (TalkContribs)22:32, 15 January 2010 (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 (TalkContribs)02:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
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)
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 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.Ryoung12201:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
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.Ryoung12201:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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?
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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? Tiamuttalk21:07, 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. Tiamuttalk21:13, 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)
American versus British spellings
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
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.
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 (TalkContribs)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:
Consistency within articles (this article uses international date format because it is an international article, the same should apply to spelling for consistency )
Strong national ties to topic (this is an international topic therefore international conventions for date format and spelling should be used)
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)
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 (TalkContribs)09:00, 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)
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 (TalkContribs)10:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Listing supercentenarian claimants
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
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 (TalkContribs)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. Tiamuttalk20:46, 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)
Seperate the unverified from this page?
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.Ryoung12222:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ronnie Fairbanks
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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."Ryoung12222:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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."
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]
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)
Marie Coulon of France
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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 [5]. 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)
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)
Dispute of Unverified supercentenarians
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
I can't seem to understand that the other foreign Wikipedia pages display ALL supercentenarians except for America. Such as [7] and [8].
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.
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 (TalkContribs)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 (TalkContribs)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)
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)
Poland
Australia
United States
