Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Fannie Buten

Now Fannie Buten is a pretty uncommon name. I found a 1930 census record of a Fannie Buten here [1] saying that she was living in Delaware, Pennsylvania at the time with her husband named Mathie and says that she was born in about 1901. Here [2] it says that Mathie was born in about 1900. According to here: [3] Buten moved from Austria to America in 1915.

And here [4] is a Fannie Buten at the time living in New York, New York that imm(em)igrated to the U.S. from somewhere. It may or may not be her. I figured that I'd just throw that in there.

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

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

World's Oldest People - again

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

My proposed compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of this Page?

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

I agree with the above exclusions.

Next,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teresa Hsu Chih

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

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

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

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

Consensus on Unverified LIE supercentenarians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts on this whole LIE thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josef Kowalski (born 2 February 1900)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com

Or check out the www.grg.org website.

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

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

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

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

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

DEATH KNELL OF HIE?

Greetings,

Just checking this page here:

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

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

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

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

I suggest we have another vote round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manuela Fernández López

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

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

Time Issue for unvalidated list

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

Spain's oldest person died this week.

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

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

Ryoung122 23:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The GRG has never updated its pending list [5]. If this list was regularly updated with information about documentation received for claims then I would support having a separate list for people known to have documentation. I don't think we should have a third list based on subjective criteria. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Lead-in Paragraph for "unvalidated" section

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

There is plenty of research already published:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228_4

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

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

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0531556500002503

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARGARET FISH, ENGLAND

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

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

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

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

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

Update: I've been informed from the same source that an error has been made, Ms. Fish is still alive. Due to issues on anonymity, my source cannot disclose who made the initial error. Apologies to the Fish family. Note also that on the below blog list of the oldest persons in the UK, Ms. Fish has been removed from the list of recent deaths (although not yet restored to the list of living supercentenarians). I am sure the GRG list, as well, will be updated shortly.

http://oldestinbritain.webs.com/oldestlivingbritons.htm

Ryoung122 12:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The above comments have actually astounded me. Some anonymous source in the government declares Margaret Fish is dead, and you guys beleive it???? Then you guys want to wait for the press to dispute the claim???

Sounds like a spy thriller to me. I think you people want to get your act together - Pronto. Suffice to say the Fish family are dicusted. B. Hartgill121.44.231.36 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as you are (apart fron a single edit in 2007) an anonymous (despite adding a name to your sig) single issue editor who claims to be a relative with no substantiating evidence we are not obliged to believe anything you say even if it is true. It would not be the first time an editor has claimed something on wiki without proof (wiki vandals do this all the time). As wiki editors we cannot believe what is said without evidence. That is the way wikipedia works. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply: This may seem wholly inappropriate, but in reality errors do happen. The death of Bob Hope was erroneously announced on the floor of the House of Representatives. Many other persons have been erroneously reported deceased by sources as reliable as CNN, CBS, etc.:

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

**Apoligize** to the family for misreporting her death. But .. Hartgill but before you give comments on me. I tried to re-add her on the living supercentenarian page, but wiki people would not let me do that due to the government reporting her death. So I just shakes my head and said : Eh well, let us wait for her 111th birthday report then. peter vermaelen 14:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wikipedia has regularly had false reports on death. For example, the Kama Chinen article was vandalized last week. If you check many articles on oldest living persons, they are often regularly vandalized by anonymous IP addresses claiming the person died, only for everyone to find out that was not the case. So, yes, there needs to be precautions taken to ensure that the information is correct.Ryoung122 13:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is why I always call the family or the nursing home before I declare someone as deceased. (But of course I can only do that on my personal cases. I do not have a collection of phonenumbers out there, I only do Belgian cases) peter vermaelen 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mary Ray, oldest American, second oldest person in world dies at age of 114

http://keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/03/07/news/local/free/doc4b93e9d20eee1839489847.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.89.41 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Neva Morris and Mary Jo. Ray - LOCK!

I suggest locking Neva Morris' and Mary Josephine Ray's articles until the media attention begins to die down. Ray and Bailey passed away yesterday. And for the most part so far, Mary Jo. Ray has received a heck of a lot of media attention ever since. Alot of articles say Neva Morris is the new oldest American. Can we do that? We already had one vandilizer on her page so far. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't understood. Neva morris is the oldest american person, isn't she?Japf (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2010 (UTc)

J. Reeta Jones

What does the J stand for and why does it need to be initialised? Brendanology^ContriB 11:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like she's usually called just Reeta Jones; church article Hepcat65 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would make it an initial if I were her as well. Because...the J. stands for James, usually a male name. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To Hepcat65 – Okay, I see, but Reeta sounds more like a middle name to me... /To NickOrnstein – Oh, I see... I understand perfectly why she would want to initialise it...Brendanology^ContriB 11:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Claims proven to be false

I understand a lot of this stuff now that I have been doing my research, but the one thing I can not figure out...Why would someone pretend to be 111 when they're really 109?? (or something like that) Do they just want publicity? Do they really not know how old they are? I just don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.88.163 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a mixture all the things you said. Some want publicity, others don't know their age. Others lied about their age when they were younger for retiring earlier or for escape mobilisation etc. Others stole the identity of older people. But the ones who are 109 and claim to be 111 aren't the worst cases. Maybe, among the oldest claimants there should be 100-year-olds claiming to be 130, and this is the real problem!Japf (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your help. I guess even at that age you might still lie, I just thought they were such good people that they couldn't lie but they are people like everyone else. By the way, this is the same person that wrote the first comment, I just wasn't signed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdisnard (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

mississippi winn

i think she needs an article, shes the oldest person in louisiana, the oldest african american, and not to mention, the last surviving child of slaves, plus there are articles about her. 65.0.27.97 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research? Unencyclopedic?

This text was removed from under the headline "Other cases" by user:Frank as unhelpful and unencyclopedic : " It should be noted that some cases come from nations (such as the United Kingdom) with compulsory birth registration and a central government register of documents; these cases are more than 90% likely to be eventually verified. Others come from nations that, historically, have had few or no verified cases, and thus one can infer that their likelihood of verification will be small (less than 10%). Since cases of persons just turning 110 are often less likely to be processed, the reader can infer that cases nearer the top of the list are less likely to be verified. For example, if someone is now listed as age 112, the case had more than two years to produce sufficient evidence of age. In addition, studies have shown that the validation rate for cases decreases, the higher the age claimed (in part because the true cases, if younger than the false/exaggerated claims, will be more likely to die first). Thus, this list can be viewed, inferentially, as a sliding scale of believability. "

I think there are some interesting statistics there & some of it may perhaps be used, if rewritten in a more encyclopedic way. It looks like original research, but someone may be able to find verifications somewhere - if not now, then perhaps when the Max Planck Institute's book on "Supercentenarians" is out in July. Hepcat65 (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New video of supercent

A video of Maria Virginia Pestana was released here: http://cosimoderondo.blogspot.com/2010/04/111-maria-virginia-pestana-fundou.html

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: 109 year olds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings,

I believe you are OFF for several reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: should we stop at 109 or 108? If we consider that the mortality rate reaches 50% annually by age 107, then that means someone at their 109th birthday has a 50% chance of reaching 110. That means anyone 109 years 1 day or older is more likely to reach 110 than not reach 110. That, to me, makes it a good stopping point.Ryoung122 17:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This section shouldn't be here at all. It serves no constructive prupose and is not only not what a talk page is for but is also clogging up the page (currently at 130k, the recommended maximum size is 100k). It is being used by one or two users to keep track of possible future supercentenarians (essentially treating it as a forum, which it is specifically NOT) and would be more appropriate to a user page. Correct me if I'm wrong but are not the vast majority of these cases being taken from the WOP forum? The fact that there are so few citations suggest that they are. The argument used previously that irregular users of this article might "miss" someone on the list turning 110 is not borne out by the edit history. The only editors adding names to the article AND deleting them from here are regular editors who I suggest are quite capable of referring to a list such as this on a user's page. At the very least this page could include those who are less than 3 months from a possible 110th birthday, the rest, all those that are hidden, should be moved elsewhere. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)