![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I don't see any reason too use the 100% font sizes for the tables. It makes the font sizes bigger than the rest of the standard text. The 90% font size is more appropriate. It is closer to size of the regular text and also makes the tables smaller which therefore makes the page shorter. And that's definitely a GOOD thing! Tim198 ( talk) 18:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Why all the hissy-fit over March 24 or 25? I've seen both dates being bandied about; I don't think going with one or the other is "vandalism." Ryoung122 22:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
cant you people let the grg do their job, they let you do yours. 74.226.189.26 ( talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
How do we know that Peggy Straton was born on March 3rd, 1900? Just because she was featured on the show on March 3rd doesn't mean that's her birthdate. (and as we saw with Elizabeth Howell last year people aren't always featured on their birthday). I'm removing her until another source can be found. Tim198 ( talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an uneducated suggestion on my part, but do you think we should indicate next to each name how many documents they have submitted so far - one or two documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanology ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The GRG keeps track of this, Wikipedia is just a "mirror" site on this matter.
In any case, the pending ages listed are not "claimed" ages but partially documented ages. For example, Melinda Harris claims to be born in 1896, but the 1910 census lists her as age 12, making 1898 a "documented" age rather than "claimed" age. Ryoung122 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
At present theree is a wide variety of citations being used for these, some of which are unacceptable and actually violate WP:Reliability. These include:
Comments? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Surely the idea is to have a reliable source substantiating their claim? We should keep any claims on here if we know they are still alive. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 09:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Siameseturtle. Longevitydude ( talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For example, if it's 8:00 pm in the East Coast, USA, and the UK is 4 hours ahead of us, meaning that it would be midnight there (a new day), wouldn't it seem necessary to add them? Another example, Claude Choules had had a 109th birthday report on March 2, 2010 in the US, which would be considered the 3rd in Australia, which is his birthday. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/last-ww1-vet-in-australia-claude-choules-turning-109/story-e6frg13u-1225836139288
It seems bias not to apply that concept here? Wouldn't you guys concur? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 00:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A birthday should be celebrated in the place the person is. A person who was born in Hawaii, wouldn't celebrate it in the local previous day only because started to live in Kiribati, which is in a time zone about 24 hours ahead. We are limited by our convention of time. Claude Choules was born in England and now lives in Australia, so he can celebrate his birthday 12 hours earlier (thinking in universal time), but for him it will always be March 3rd, inspite of being March 2nd elsewhere in the world.
Should be considered supercentenarian a person which dies during his/her 110th birthday? Or even in the opinion of same people, due to changes of time zones and irregularities of calendar, the question can be also asked to cases which the person dies in the previous day or the day after the 110th birthday.
Japf (
talk)
13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You are a supercenterian if it is past midnight in the time zone you live in. If your born May 30, 1900 and it is 12:01 A.M May 30 2010 your a supercentarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Siamese, the same argument applies for every person who dies before the time of their birth. So to be "accurate," we'd have to note that probably half the people here "only lived to x years x days instead of the official x years x+1 days owing to not having died after the time of day they were born." Which in the end gets trivial and extremely silly. But, if we want to get REALLY technical, we should note the tropical year as our calendar year does not reflect the true single rotation of the earth around the sun. And a tropical year, measured from equinox to equinox, is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 30 seconds. At least the most recent one. They vary. As do the tropical years as measured along any particualr point along the ecliptic. So we'd have to know person x's precise moment of birth, chart it on the ecliptic, then mark the time from then to the moment of death along the ecliptic. But wait! The equinoxes precess, so perhaps we should go by the sidereal year instead, the year as measured by the background stars! This is about 20 minutes longer.
So, if we want to get "scientific," we'd have to dispense with what we define here as "years" as they are wholly inaccurate. Maybe we should simply count days instead (hmm.... sounds like an old argument...). But we aren't going down that road because a) the sources go by years and days, not by days, and b) the sources go by calendar years and not tropical or sidereal years, and c) GRG etc currently note the dates of birth and death, they do not note the times of birth and death. In the end, take solace in the fact that the margin of error via year/day counts is about equal to the differences in the various calander computations, so people who lived to one or two days of each other by year/day can't really with confidence be sorted out in terms of rank, even though we do so here. As Robert Young said before, fussing over one or two days misses the bigger picture in this field - where the range of the extremely old proven centenarians lie is the issue of real scientific relevance and interest. Canada Jack ( talk) 04:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Should we wait until a supercentenarian gets an update from a reliable source on their 110+ birthday? Some (eg. Albert Plummer) are in articles a week prior to their 110th birthday celebration. We don't know if they are alive. Should we remove them for now until further notice? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to have to bring up this subject again but I'm just not satisfied with the current criteria for the unverified list. What specifically caused me to bring up this subject again is the case of Choe Pu Yong. It's interesting how Choe Pu Yong has changed her age claimed from 112 to 113. When a person changes their age like that it's usually a sign of exageration. Also, I think it's highly unlikely that she'd still be able to garden if she were really 113. But of course, since North Korea is a LIE country with no reliable recordkeeping system we can't determine how old she really is. Now I know that some HIE countries (such as the United States) still produce false cases but at least we can usually weed those out with census records (eg Frances Street). The bottom line is that I just don't see the point of likely false cases from LIE's being listed on this page. I believe that all LIE cases should be moved to the longevity claims page while this page should be reserved for those BORN in HIE countries. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that since the current criteria was put in place (which is about 4 months now) NONE of the LIE cases have been validated nor are there any pending cases from LIE's on the GRG page. I think this proves that it's extremly difficult to obtain documentation for these cases and that these cases don't belong on this page. Tim198 ( talk) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You are wright, a 113-year-old can't work in the garden. This is only our opinion, there is no reference telling that, which we could use. Assuming that a person from a LIE country is automaticaly lying or impossible to verify is consildered a prejudice and a mere point of view. And what arbritary criterium could we use? A claim from Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabia, two HIE countries are more realistic than a claim from Poland (a LIE country)? A claim from Colombia which had already had a verified claim is more valid that a claim from its neighbour Venezuela which hasn't?
Some of the claims below 113 can be true, and maybe most of them are. If you are a liar, why do you bother to claim to be 110 years old, if you can be the oldest person in the world, just for adding 5 years to your lie?
Anyway, if that lady claims to 113, we can eliminate her from the list. Japf ( talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend that this criteria is perfect but I just can't think of anything better to seperate the likely to be validated cases from the unlikely to be validated cases (which is what the goal of the unverified list on this page should be). Tim198 ( talk) 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we would present this information, but as the number of people still living from the 1800s is dwindling down, it is becoming perhaps a more notable subject. Per the list right now, there are 70 verified supercentenarians and 43 unverified supercentenrians who were born in the 1800s, which is a total of 113 people. Now, 4 of these are men, 2 verified, and 2 unverified. Walter Breuning and Jiroemon Kimura are verifired, while Orildes Camargo and Marco Atehortua are unverified. Thoughts? -— AMK152 ( t • c) 04:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as Japf notes, the big milestone is the end of the 19th century, which was December 31, 1900. Another big milestone, shortly after, is the death of Queen Victoria on January 22, 1901. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
There are four countries that consist of the United Kingdom: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Saying the UK isn't specific enough. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 21:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I find this article from the Kochi shinbun saying that 111 year old woman has died but I can't say who it is. It mentions something about Takaoka in the translation so I think it might be Tome Takaoka that died. Can someone here who understands Japanese translate the article fully?
http://www.kochinews.co.jp/?&nwSrl=259744&nwIW=1&nwVt=knd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.149.180 ( talk) 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This site does not necessarily confirm that a person has celebrated their claimed 110th birthday and should not be used here unless there is a report specifically to that effect. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
But it does list those who have died, and it is compiled by one of GRG's British correspondents. And casual Wikipedians can view the citation, unlike WOP. Quite a good source then, if not perfect. GRG still has Tomasa Mendez even though she died nearly a year ago. That doesn't make it a bad list. Pistachio disguisey ( talk) 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
At present the article says:
Worldwide there are estimated to be 300–450 living supercentenarians.[1] This page lists both verified and unverified cases. Currently there are 76 verified living supercentenarians and 74 unverified living supercentenarians.
Maybe this could be clarified because at present it doesn't seem to make sense. If there are 300-450 living supercentenarians, of whom 76 are verified, then the other 224-374 must be unverified supercentenarians. Or does the above mean 74 unverified living supercentenarians on our list? Ordinary Person ( talk) 07:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've noticed, but did not comment, on the unexplained removal of Albert Plummer from the list of unverified super-cs. I've noticed that he has now been restored. Can anyone offer an explanation for this?
In addition, I've noticed that the citation provided for Plummer is one from 5 days before his claimed 110th birthday. It's a WOP message that I've already seen, and it seems credible, but I've noticed multiple recent edits removing super-cs with pre-birthday citations. So can anyone offer another explanation for Albert Plummer's citation? Brendanology ContriB 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I get a "link not found" error when trying to access the citation. Before I remove her maybe someone else has better luck? And btw, the name used here should be the same as the citation even if the Italian preference is different. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I am commenting on a recent change from Onie Ponder's listed name from "Onie Ponder" to "Onezima Ponder", and then back to "Onie Ponder" again. I would like to know if her first name really should be listed as Onezima, or stay as Onie.
Louis Epstein's list clearly states that "Onie" is a nickname of some sort, not her proper first name.
Personally, I would suggest changing it back to "Onezima". When Bernardina Van Dommelen was still on this list, there was a revert at some point on this page in the past, undoing a change that someone had made to her line (naming her as Berthe Van Dommelen), with the edit summary commenting that "Berthe" was only a nickname for Van Dommelen, and not her actual first name.
Thoughts? Brendanology ContriB 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
Supercentenarians have their "long form" name and their "short form" name. There's "Eunice Allen (Lyons) Orchin Garrett Sanborn" and then there's "Eunice Sanborn."
I believe that while an actual article on the person should list the full name, the "article title" or the link should be the name the person goes by.
"Onie Ponder" is the name that was selected by the family for her listing on the GRG list. If they decide to change it, it's up to them. Ryoung122 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know where this site gets it's information from? I've been searching through the site and while some of the ages given for some people seem realistic, some seem to be very odd. For example, Eunice Sanborn is listed as being 120 years old and of course we all know that's not true. I don't think someone like Gertrude Weaver should be removed just based on the info on this site alone. Tim198 ( talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Just by Mrs. Weaver's family saying that they have a 1900 census of her doesn't mean all that much until someone discovers it.
Where is the U.S. Public Records Index site by the way please? Thanks! -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 18:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that the site Robert used as well as the U.S. person search sites all use the public records index as there source, don't you? It's just that on certain sites you have to order a subscrpition to obtain more detalied info. The site I used is http://www.ussearch.com/consumer/index.jsp on that site all you can access for free is the persons name and age. The rest you have to pay for.
As far as Gertrude Weaver is concerned, we don't know when the birth record from the public records index is from. It could be from when she was in her 30's or 40's or even later. It's possible that she wanted to inflate her age so she could appear younger. Alot of middle aged women used to do that.
The bottom line is that we just don't have enough information to say how old Ms. Weaver really is. We don't know if she got married, had kids, what her maiden name might be, what her parents names are etc. We need to know these things so we can attempt to find the census matches for ourselves. I agree that we shouldn't just accept the families word on that. It would be nice if we had full access to the article from the Camden news. That might give us the information we need. Tim198 ( talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
For UNverified claims, I'd prefer to give them two years. The point of them being on the list is a sort of addendum, an alternate listing with lower standards. COULD Nellie Vallery still be alive? Certainly. Ryoung122 04:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There was, I believe, a UPI article couple days ago about how they finally tracked down the oldest 'living' man in Tokyo according to records and found a mummified body of a man who had been dead for 30 years. Apparently his family had kept his death secret and claimed his old age pension benefits for all that time... Williamb ( talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if we should have a listing for Limbo cases? I'm concerned that there are a lot of cases being deleted just for having outdated references. I think we should have an addendum list for anyone who "may" be between 110 and 113 and has been featured in a citable source. Ryoung122 03:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
At one point I was searching through the 1900 U.S. Census for anyone with the first name Cora (most people use their married name, and she was married at some point), and found one Cora M. Clausen/Clauson, with listed birth of March 1899, in Beltrami Co., MN. Now there is a newspaper clipping here --> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CPtXDMLVHi4/S-jG_nVCuVI/AAAAAAAABEI/qUblJ6j9jAM/s1600/IMG.jpg claiming Cora Hansen moved with her family from Minnesota to Jenner, Alberta in 1912. Cora Clausen's father has the slightly rarer name of Elling Clausen. Interestingly enough, Cora Clausen is living with her father Elling Clausen in Alberta in the 1916 Canadian Census. According to 1900 U.S. Census information, Cora Clausen's parents, Elling and Eliza Mary (Else Marie) married in Drangedal Sogn, Telemark fylke, Norway in June 1878 and immigrated to the U.S. in July 1882. I hope this information helps. I don't know how often people move from Norway to Minnesota to Alberta, but I don't think it is very common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.207.57 ( talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have heard of this man who served as an Indian Scout for the United states Calvary. He is the last living veteran of the Punitive Expedition that fought for the United States .The Punitive Expedition was a war we had with Pancho Villa from 1916 to 1917 in northern Mexico. He was born in the Arizona territory on January 12,1898 . He is now 112 years old. After he was released by the U.S calvary in 1917 he went back to Northern Mexico and has been their ever since. If this is true and may people have told me that it is, he is the third oldest man alive in the world . The oldest living veteran in the world. The last man do do a calvary charge with the U.S army in war time. Please if anyone has this mans location please post it. 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
DO you have information proving or disproving? Or are you showing just your own stupidity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 23:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
John Red Hawk was incorrectly typed, whatever. Anyway, there is a John Red-Hawk and John Redhawk on Ancestry. You are correct. It says that a John Red-Hawk lived in South Dakota during the 1910s in an Indian census. (See here: http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2&gsfn=John&gsln=Redhawk&_81004010=1898&msbpn__ftp=Arizona%2C+USA) Ive seen this message every day, and I just wanted to say something. You are certainly correct IP. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Good there is proof then in the records. I need his address or location in Mexico to track him down and interview him. He is 112 years old and probably has little time left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That is the purpose of the interview . To find out all information on this man possible before he dies. Track down discharge papers from U.S calvary units involved in the war. To see if he as any items used in war. To talk to persons in the area of Mexico he lives at. TO track his life as much as possible. The key thing is to find where he lives in Mexico. When I have an address or location then the rest can happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I know where he lives now in Mexico. My research assistant Is going home to Arizona for spring break .He will cross into Mexico and go to the city of Aconchi Mexico . John Red hawk lives close to this town but has no phone or address . He must live like they did 80 years ago. He was very hard to track down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No he does not work for a newspaper. He works for me to track down people who claim to be 110 years old . This is research he is doing for me to get his degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
-- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Information has been collected and is in the process of being verified. Waiting on records from the United States Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 04:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Notified by United States Army that Army records for the Punitive expedition were destroyed by fire in St Louis on July 12, 1973 . They are going to forward the information on to other sources in attempt to verify information I sent to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.173.71 ( talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Waiting on a reply back from the National Archive Washington D.C on a discharge paper and 3 pictures presented. When I find out if they match units with government records that were in the Punitive Expedition. I can post for the general public. I also have sent a baptism record from 1931 when he became a Christian that states his age was 33 years old to the Catholic Church for verification. When I have reply's from both you will be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.192.24 ( talk) 05:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
According to the International Database on Longevity, two Spanish anonymous 114-year-olds have been verified, both of whom would be old enough to be on this list.
http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm
Ryoung122 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
Although the U.S. Public Records Index match for Gertrude Weaver fits, I'd like to mention that the ages cited often are understated, because women tended to lie about their age in the past.
For example, Beatrice Farve is listed as born in 1905...but that's not possible if she were listed as 5 years old in the 1900 census.
I don't mind someone putting her on the "likely younger than claimed" lists but I have a feeling that as more information comes to light, her final age and year of birth may be different. Ryoung122 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you (and Nick Orstein as well) both think that she shouldn't be included because of what the public records index says then I guess I have no choice but to accept your opinions and move on.
We'll also need to remove the following people as well, based on the information in the index.
Annie Leverett/Leverette is said to be only 99 years old.
Ivory Ross-Lambert said to be 108 years old.
Naomi Conner said to be 119 years old. (this seems absolutely ridiculous, but it does mean that she doesn't meet the criteria for the page) Tim198 ( talk) 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Gertrude Weaver should be on this page, as her claim to 112 has NOT been shown to be false by a reliable counter document. As for 119, that's above the 113+ cutoff and would go to longevity claims. Ryoung122 04:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think a gap of 2 years is okay, but over 2 like Annie Leverette, Vallery, Weaver, are exaggerating. Their birth dates on their need to be looked at. SiameseTurtle said that 2 census matches were found for Ivory Lambert. One saying that she is 108, and another saying 110. In my opinion, Lambert should be the only added.
Robert, you said you found Weaver's DOB was to be in 1904. I think US Search updates her age regularly. Did you purchase money to find her records on there? You should check a few other "disputed" cases on there.
Of course, on Ancestry, a census had Fannie Butens birth year as 1901. But an older census said 1899. US Search is just sticking with one census. Similar to Lambert. Has anyone found census matches for Conner and/or Vallery? Even Leverette?
Also, Conner is claiming to be 110 in her most recent article. I don't know why her age is recorded as 119. Is it common for the site to make type-os? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you Nick regarding Ross-Lambert. We should definately consider the 1920 census match on her to be more reliable than the 1930 match (since it's closer to the time of birth). I do hope that somebody will eventually be able to locate the 1900 and 1910 census matches on her though. Without those, it's not really possible to say anything definitive about her real age.
Regarding Naomi Conner, if you go to message #14691 on the WOP yahoo group you'll find that Filipe Prista Lucas found a POSSIBLE match on Naomi Conner in the 1920 census indcating that she was 18 years old at the time (and thus if true would make her only 108 years old at this time and NOT a supercentenarian) This evidence is admittedly a little thin, though. Tim198 ( talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we should add Naomi Conner back. A census said she was 108. That's pretty close, and it's not even the 1900 census. Leverette should only be removed in my opinion. I think Vallery as well because US Search has her as age 106. Im not sure about her yet, although thanks to that site, Nellie's maiden name or either middle name is Wallace. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 12:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we please keep in mind that this article is about living people. If we are to remove someone then there should be hard evidence. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the Swedish correspondants said she moved to Sweden not too long ago. Her name appears in the Swedish National Register here: It even includes exactly where she lives (e.g. address). http://www.ratsit.se/BC/ReportSmall.aspx?ID=qEQWdEbn2DOKjdDtknCxSpTL76FroMz0ht50iQNqjKE
But could this be similar to Japan's National Register? According to a recent article (posted on WOP here [3]), there were tons of Japanese claimed centenarians who appear in National Registers (some aged 150-200 years old at max) and just rot. Luckily, Japanese authorities removed the tons of cases that have been dead for a long time.
Angele DeFreine of Belgium, who's family "claims" to be updating her status to Peter Vermaelen (aka makila) via phone, but her name doens't appear in the Belgium National Register. Sort of the opposite of Saro Dursun.
I believe that Dursun is dead, as well as the 4th and 5th oldest (Juana Hernandez, born 24 June 1900 & Jwani Yaukhan, born 1 July 1900, respectively) in Sweden who are (probably) immigrants. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't the swedish GRG-correspondent in contact with the family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.203.34 ( talk) 11:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason that she was never added to the list?
110th birthday report here > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/14618
As there is occasionally some cross-over between the above article and this one regular editors may like to provide some input into the former as this has, again, been edited in a somewhat POV fashion which may not be consistent with that of the vast majority of users. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 19:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
A user on the Italian Wikipedia with the name of 'Pascar' quoted "Arena falso caso". Which translates to Arena case false (or veisverse).
Is there any proof that her age is false? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I confirm you it was a "false case", no Maria Carmela Arena aged 110 exists in Italy.-- Pascar ( talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I have been adding the oldest person by (province, state etc.) in several country supercentenarian articles. I have been trying to add the oldest person born in a certain place in the country. And Paolo S. (aka Pascar) from the Italian wikipedia has a different perspective; he adds the oldest person to live in a particular place.
And on the Italian supercentenarian article, Paolo agrees with adding cities. I think that cities is being too precise; too much information. I know that the Nordic countries have municipalities because they don't have anything bigger than that, Italy has regions.
What is your opinion on this. I'd like to hear everyone's view. Thanks! -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
According to me supercentenarians are not just numbers, so if you report their provenience (city) it is a good thing. If you don't have data for supercentenarians of some countries you cannot cancel data from the others of other countries, it isn't a good reason. Then a record of a region is the oldest person in that region. An example: Rosa Rein, born in German Empire (now Poland), was doyenne of Switzerland. Lazzaro Ponticelli left Italy when he was 9 and was the oldest living man in France, a record in France. So Serafina Naccarato, born in Calabria, was a record (the oldest person, the doyenne) in Marche Region, not in Calabria. Finally I'm not from Italian Wikipedia (that doesn't exist, Wikipedia in Italian exists), I'm from Wikipedia. -- Pascar ( talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what is the difference between State of the U.S. and Region of Italy or of France. A Region in Italy is an administrative entity with borders, so if you know where a person was born or died... where is the difficulty???-- Pascar ( talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've modified the table about the Italian regions, tell me if it is better in this way. -- Pascar ( talk) 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
On the page of the german supercentenarians you made the list of the oldest people born in the Bundesländer according to the actual borders without including people aged less than 110 years. In most cases that could be useful, but we have Ottilie Aleith who died in Thuringia aged 109 years 347 days. So she seems to be the oldest person ever who died in Thuringia as no thuringian became a supercentanarian and it is nearly unbelievable that a second person should have died in Thuringia less than 18 days before his/her 110th birthday. Does anyone knows if she was born in Thuringia? If so, we should add her as oldest known person ever born in Thuringia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.185.132 ( talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
You have to answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NickOrnstein#Please_don.27t_.22dumb_down.22_the_language What do you think?-- Pascar ( talk) 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be a few things discussed. In my opinion, people should be removed if they are exaggerating their age, especially if a gerontologist/professional (e.g. Robert Young) brings it up. We already removed one "supercentenarians" due to what we (Wikipedians) thought she was exaggerating (Hsu Chih).
People shouldn't be removed if they receive conformation (e.g. one day prior to their 111th birthday), and be removed one month later. It doesn't make any sense.
Clara Schonholzer (for example) hasn't had an update on her status since December 2009 and she is still on the list, and DerbyCountyinNZ says (in accordance with the rules above in an earlier discussion) that a supercentenarian must be removed if they don't get an update within 1 month on their most recent birthday.
In other words, I believe Gertrude Weaver should remain on the list because on her last update, she was already a (claimed) supercentenarian. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I am 100% opposed to this nonsense. An update NEED NOT be a story about a birthday to confirm that someone was alive within a reasonable amount of time. If that is an issue, how easy would it be to add a "last updated" column along with the source?
So the Gertrude Weaver article precedes her birthday by two days?
That's NO reason to delete unless the person hasn't reached 110 yet, and the claim here is 112. Ryoung122 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't remove cases based on our opinions. I think we should only remove a case if there's actual evidence (such as birth certificates, census records etc...) to suggest a persons exaggerating.
What's really the main problem here is the criteria used for the unverified list (and this is something that's been discussed many times). If we went back to using the HIE criteria then many of the questionable cases could be excluded from the page. I really think we need to consider a re-vote on that. Tim198 ( talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The gerentology list shows Toku Yamaguchi at 49th but this page doesnt show her anywhere. Is she a new validated? Williamb ( talk) 12:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed her, yet again, because the citation [5] states she is 106 and maybe 110. This is the entire citation:
BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) - Rose Axlerod celebrated her 106th birthday Thursday at the Weinberg Campus in Amherst.
According to Senior Services, Rose is the oldest known person in Erie County. And though 106 is definitely a special age, Rose may actually be even older.
When Rose came from Russia to the United States in 1904, documents from her birthplace had conflicting information, and she may actually be 110.
Rose is a retired history teacher from Buffalo Public School 82. Her wish for her birthday? Go to Las Vegas.
This really isn't good enough for inclusion in this article (even given the pretty slack standards that are being used). DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know this was several months ago, but I still have an unanswered question to ask: Why is it that she is currently listed on the verified supercentenarians page as "Frederica Sagor Maas", even though she used to be listed as just "Frederica Maas" when she was still on the unverified list back in July? Brendan ( TalK| ContriB) 08:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the editor just deceided to use her full name. Longevitydude ( talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Since she's not famous only for being supercentenarian, the article about her was created in 2008 with her full name. Perhaps the change of name in the list was only to avoid the "[[Frederica Sagor Maas|Frederica Maas]]" thing. Japf ( talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
On here, sources aren't cited properly, eg. "Report on John Jones' claimed 110th birthday". Should we keep it this way with this article and others? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't John Jones dead, why would he be on this article, besides if there not verified then it is just a claim. Longevitydude ( talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
The "as of" wording, with the date given, is needed due to the time zone difference. One can see whether the age given is as of their time, or a hypothetical time. I note that with Eugenie Blanchard living in the Caribbean but the "as of" being London time, her age is wrong 25% of the time (6 out of 24 hours). Ryoung122 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that validated supercentenarians listed must have been "validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research", why is the following source accepted? [6] Surely we should only be using professional, reliable sources, such as the GRG and Guinness? SiameseTurtle ( talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The citation for Elizabeth Buhler, Pearl Lutzko, and Cora Hansen, which is a report on the oldest living Canadians, is dead. Should something be done about it? Brendan ( talk, contribs) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have put consideration into this:
Why are pending cases in the overall verified section of all supercentenairans by place? They haven't been verified. Unlike this article, where they list the pending cases seperated from the validated list.
Shouldn't pending cases be removed? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 01:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
To stop the numerous uninformed editors who insist Sanborn is 115, I am going to add invisible text next to her age template warning editors not to change her birthdate to 1895. Comment? Brendan ( talk, contribs) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It's so stupid that people didn't start making this a big issue until Eugenie Blanchard died. DHanson317 ( talk) 05:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought the agreement was never to use Twitter as citations for supercentenarians reaching their birthday?
Yet Nettie Whittington is cited by a WOP report ... whose only source is a Twitter update.
Does that count? Brendan ( talk, contribs) 12:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This site here http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/contents/attach/12406/H22roujin.pdf appears to list all those 108+ in Okinawa in september of 2010. I use a translator to translate the page but the translation does not make any sense. does anyone know the real english names of these people so they can be added to these lists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmaster25 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
People on this list must have evidence that they are alive. As that cannot be determined from day to day the only obvious point to establish this is when they reach a birthday. If there is no reliable citation for their most recent birthday then it is likely they are not alive, two months for this seems more than adequate. Keeping people on the list because there is no citation for their death is unscientific: failure to prove a negative is not the same as proving a positive. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 00:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is Frank Buckles on the Unverified list, his age is Verified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 ( talk) 16:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There are other media reports that he in fact celebrated his (claimed) 110th birthday, so someone should fix the citation... I'm too lazy... Canada Jack ( talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's something: http://www.cbs59.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=93586 Czolgolz ( talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to actually "celebrate" your birthday to turn that age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 ( talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add three media-reported supercentenarians to this list, from Cochabamba, Bolivia. These individuals and a dozen others are being honored in a public Centenarian event, have had their birth dates confirmed by the National Retirement System in Bolivia (Senasir), and are currently local media coverage including in major local newspapers. I doubt there is any contact between them and the GRG mentioned here. However, this list seems oriented to the GRG's categories. How exactly can they be added?-- Carwil ( talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
For those that are unaware, there is a proposal here that many of the regular editors of this article, including myself, be banned from editing any longevity related articles for at least 1 year after which they may request, once every 3 months, permission to resume editing. Most are also threatened with a 1 year "behavior restriction" for making "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith". 3 guesses who is responsible for this. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Shigechiyo Izumi should be removed from all wikipedia pages as his claim is no longer being accepted by any reliable source. Guinness dropped the case in the 2011 edition and Robert Young confirms here that GRG has as well. Epstein has also removed him from his list. Tim198 ( talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
As per the recent ArbCom decision, and the clarification here, WOP can no longer be used as a citation for people included in the unverified list in this article. They will therefore need to be removed. Any person with no other citation claiming to have celebrated a 110th birthday will also need to be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Now we have the start of the deletions:
Charlotte Flowers
Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.
Yvonne de la Tour
Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.
Eddye Williams
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/DC-WOMAN-TURNS-110-80662422.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113002998.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403886.html
have been deleted from the Wikipedia lists.
These are real people, notable for their longevity and other reasons.
Contrary to what has been stated beforehand, these people are now being removed from LISTS not from articles.
Now the censorship kicks in, and now the knowledge is deleted.
And now we have the rule of the idiots. Cam46136 ( talk) 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
Would it not make sense to push for more debate and a proper outcome here before jumping in with the scythe? Melissa.vp198 ( talk) 18:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I don't see any reason too use the 100% font sizes for the tables. It makes the font sizes bigger than the rest of the standard text. The 90% font size is more appropriate. It is closer to size of the regular text and also makes the tables smaller which therefore makes the page shorter. And that's definitely a GOOD thing! Tim198 ( talk) 18:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Why all the hissy-fit over March 24 or 25? I've seen both dates being bandied about; I don't think going with one or the other is "vandalism." Ryoung122 22:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
cant you people let the grg do their job, they let you do yours. 74.226.189.26 ( talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
How do we know that Peggy Straton was born on March 3rd, 1900? Just because she was featured on the show on March 3rd doesn't mean that's her birthdate. (and as we saw with Elizabeth Howell last year people aren't always featured on their birthday). I'm removing her until another source can be found. Tim198 ( talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an uneducated suggestion on my part, but do you think we should indicate next to each name how many documents they have submitted so far - one or two documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanology ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The GRG keeps track of this, Wikipedia is just a "mirror" site on this matter.
In any case, the pending ages listed are not "claimed" ages but partially documented ages. For example, Melinda Harris claims to be born in 1896, but the 1910 census lists her as age 12, making 1898 a "documented" age rather than "claimed" age. Ryoung122 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
At present theree is a wide variety of citations being used for these, some of which are unacceptable and actually violate WP:Reliability. These include:
Comments? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Surely the idea is to have a reliable source substantiating their claim? We should keep any claims on here if we know they are still alive. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 09:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Siameseturtle. Longevitydude ( talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For example, if it's 8:00 pm in the East Coast, USA, and the UK is 4 hours ahead of us, meaning that it would be midnight there (a new day), wouldn't it seem necessary to add them? Another example, Claude Choules had had a 109th birthday report on March 2, 2010 in the US, which would be considered the 3rd in Australia, which is his birthday. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/last-ww1-vet-in-australia-claude-choules-turning-109/story-e6frg13u-1225836139288
It seems bias not to apply that concept here? Wouldn't you guys concur? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 00:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A birthday should be celebrated in the place the person is. A person who was born in Hawaii, wouldn't celebrate it in the local previous day only because started to live in Kiribati, which is in a time zone about 24 hours ahead. We are limited by our convention of time. Claude Choules was born in England and now lives in Australia, so he can celebrate his birthday 12 hours earlier (thinking in universal time), but for him it will always be March 3rd, inspite of being March 2nd elsewhere in the world.
Should be considered supercentenarian a person which dies during his/her 110th birthday? Or even in the opinion of same people, due to changes of time zones and irregularities of calendar, the question can be also asked to cases which the person dies in the previous day or the day after the 110th birthday.
Japf (
talk)
13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You are a supercenterian if it is past midnight in the time zone you live in. If your born May 30, 1900 and it is 12:01 A.M May 30 2010 your a supercentarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Siamese, the same argument applies for every person who dies before the time of their birth. So to be "accurate," we'd have to note that probably half the people here "only lived to x years x days instead of the official x years x+1 days owing to not having died after the time of day they were born." Which in the end gets trivial and extremely silly. But, if we want to get REALLY technical, we should note the tropical year as our calendar year does not reflect the true single rotation of the earth around the sun. And a tropical year, measured from equinox to equinox, is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 30 seconds. At least the most recent one. They vary. As do the tropical years as measured along any particualr point along the ecliptic. So we'd have to know person x's precise moment of birth, chart it on the ecliptic, then mark the time from then to the moment of death along the ecliptic. But wait! The equinoxes precess, so perhaps we should go by the sidereal year instead, the year as measured by the background stars! This is about 20 minutes longer.
So, if we want to get "scientific," we'd have to dispense with what we define here as "years" as they are wholly inaccurate. Maybe we should simply count days instead (hmm.... sounds like an old argument...). But we aren't going down that road because a) the sources go by years and days, not by days, and b) the sources go by calendar years and not tropical or sidereal years, and c) GRG etc currently note the dates of birth and death, they do not note the times of birth and death. In the end, take solace in the fact that the margin of error via year/day counts is about equal to the differences in the various calander computations, so people who lived to one or two days of each other by year/day can't really with confidence be sorted out in terms of rank, even though we do so here. As Robert Young said before, fussing over one or two days misses the bigger picture in this field - where the range of the extremely old proven centenarians lie is the issue of real scientific relevance and interest. Canada Jack ( talk) 04:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Should we wait until a supercentenarian gets an update from a reliable source on their 110+ birthday? Some (eg. Albert Plummer) are in articles a week prior to their 110th birthday celebration. We don't know if they are alive. Should we remove them for now until further notice? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to have to bring up this subject again but I'm just not satisfied with the current criteria for the unverified list. What specifically caused me to bring up this subject again is the case of Choe Pu Yong. It's interesting how Choe Pu Yong has changed her age claimed from 112 to 113. When a person changes their age like that it's usually a sign of exageration. Also, I think it's highly unlikely that she'd still be able to garden if she were really 113. But of course, since North Korea is a LIE country with no reliable recordkeeping system we can't determine how old she really is. Now I know that some HIE countries (such as the United States) still produce false cases but at least we can usually weed those out with census records (eg Frances Street). The bottom line is that I just don't see the point of likely false cases from LIE's being listed on this page. I believe that all LIE cases should be moved to the longevity claims page while this page should be reserved for those BORN in HIE countries. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that since the current criteria was put in place (which is about 4 months now) NONE of the LIE cases have been validated nor are there any pending cases from LIE's on the GRG page. I think this proves that it's extremly difficult to obtain documentation for these cases and that these cases don't belong on this page. Tim198 ( talk) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You are wright, a 113-year-old can't work in the garden. This is only our opinion, there is no reference telling that, which we could use. Assuming that a person from a LIE country is automaticaly lying or impossible to verify is consildered a prejudice and a mere point of view. And what arbritary criterium could we use? A claim from Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabia, two HIE countries are more realistic than a claim from Poland (a LIE country)? A claim from Colombia which had already had a verified claim is more valid that a claim from its neighbour Venezuela which hasn't?
Some of the claims below 113 can be true, and maybe most of them are. If you are a liar, why do you bother to claim to be 110 years old, if you can be the oldest person in the world, just for adding 5 years to your lie?
Anyway, if that lady claims to 113, we can eliminate her from the list. Japf ( talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend that this criteria is perfect but I just can't think of anything better to seperate the likely to be validated cases from the unlikely to be validated cases (which is what the goal of the unverified list on this page should be). Tim198 ( talk) 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we would present this information, but as the number of people still living from the 1800s is dwindling down, it is becoming perhaps a more notable subject. Per the list right now, there are 70 verified supercentenarians and 43 unverified supercentenrians who were born in the 1800s, which is a total of 113 people. Now, 4 of these are men, 2 verified, and 2 unverified. Walter Breuning and Jiroemon Kimura are verifired, while Orildes Camargo and Marco Atehortua are unverified. Thoughts? -— AMK152 ( t • c) 04:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as Japf notes, the big milestone is the end of the 19th century, which was December 31, 1900. Another big milestone, shortly after, is the death of Queen Victoria on January 22, 1901. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
There are four countries that consist of the United Kingdom: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Saying the UK isn't specific enough. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 21:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I find this article from the Kochi shinbun saying that 111 year old woman has died but I can't say who it is. It mentions something about Takaoka in the translation so I think it might be Tome Takaoka that died. Can someone here who understands Japanese translate the article fully?
http://www.kochinews.co.jp/?&nwSrl=259744&nwIW=1&nwVt=knd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.149.180 ( talk) 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This site does not necessarily confirm that a person has celebrated their claimed 110th birthday and should not be used here unless there is a report specifically to that effect. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
But it does list those who have died, and it is compiled by one of GRG's British correspondents. And casual Wikipedians can view the citation, unlike WOP. Quite a good source then, if not perfect. GRG still has Tomasa Mendez even though she died nearly a year ago. That doesn't make it a bad list. Pistachio disguisey ( talk) 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
At present the article says:
Worldwide there are estimated to be 300–450 living supercentenarians.[1] This page lists both verified and unverified cases. Currently there are 76 verified living supercentenarians and 74 unverified living supercentenarians.
Maybe this could be clarified because at present it doesn't seem to make sense. If there are 300-450 living supercentenarians, of whom 76 are verified, then the other 224-374 must be unverified supercentenarians. Or does the above mean 74 unverified living supercentenarians on our list? Ordinary Person ( talk) 07:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've noticed, but did not comment, on the unexplained removal of Albert Plummer from the list of unverified super-cs. I've noticed that he has now been restored. Can anyone offer an explanation for this?
In addition, I've noticed that the citation provided for Plummer is one from 5 days before his claimed 110th birthday. It's a WOP message that I've already seen, and it seems credible, but I've noticed multiple recent edits removing super-cs with pre-birthday citations. So can anyone offer another explanation for Albert Plummer's citation? Brendanology ContriB 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I get a "link not found" error when trying to access the citation. Before I remove her maybe someone else has better luck? And btw, the name used here should be the same as the citation even if the Italian preference is different. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I am commenting on a recent change from Onie Ponder's listed name from "Onie Ponder" to "Onezima Ponder", and then back to "Onie Ponder" again. I would like to know if her first name really should be listed as Onezima, or stay as Onie.
Louis Epstein's list clearly states that "Onie" is a nickname of some sort, not her proper first name.
Personally, I would suggest changing it back to "Onezima". When Bernardina Van Dommelen was still on this list, there was a revert at some point on this page in the past, undoing a change that someone had made to her line (naming her as Berthe Van Dommelen), with the edit summary commenting that "Berthe" was only a nickname for Van Dommelen, and not her actual first name.
Thoughts? Brendanology ContriB 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
Supercentenarians have their "long form" name and their "short form" name. There's "Eunice Allen (Lyons) Orchin Garrett Sanborn" and then there's "Eunice Sanborn."
I believe that while an actual article on the person should list the full name, the "article title" or the link should be the name the person goes by.
"Onie Ponder" is the name that was selected by the family for her listing on the GRG list. If they decide to change it, it's up to them. Ryoung122 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know where this site gets it's information from? I've been searching through the site and while some of the ages given for some people seem realistic, some seem to be very odd. For example, Eunice Sanborn is listed as being 120 years old and of course we all know that's not true. I don't think someone like Gertrude Weaver should be removed just based on the info on this site alone. Tim198 ( talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Just by Mrs. Weaver's family saying that they have a 1900 census of her doesn't mean all that much until someone discovers it.
Where is the U.S. Public Records Index site by the way please? Thanks! -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 18:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that the site Robert used as well as the U.S. person search sites all use the public records index as there source, don't you? It's just that on certain sites you have to order a subscrpition to obtain more detalied info. The site I used is http://www.ussearch.com/consumer/index.jsp on that site all you can access for free is the persons name and age. The rest you have to pay for.
As far as Gertrude Weaver is concerned, we don't know when the birth record from the public records index is from. It could be from when she was in her 30's or 40's or even later. It's possible that she wanted to inflate her age so she could appear younger. Alot of middle aged women used to do that.
The bottom line is that we just don't have enough information to say how old Ms. Weaver really is. We don't know if she got married, had kids, what her maiden name might be, what her parents names are etc. We need to know these things so we can attempt to find the census matches for ourselves. I agree that we shouldn't just accept the families word on that. It would be nice if we had full access to the article from the Camden news. That might give us the information we need. Tim198 ( talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
For UNverified claims, I'd prefer to give them two years. The point of them being on the list is a sort of addendum, an alternate listing with lower standards. COULD Nellie Vallery still be alive? Certainly. Ryoung122 04:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There was, I believe, a UPI article couple days ago about how they finally tracked down the oldest 'living' man in Tokyo according to records and found a mummified body of a man who had been dead for 30 years. Apparently his family had kept his death secret and claimed his old age pension benefits for all that time... Williamb ( talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if we should have a listing for Limbo cases? I'm concerned that there are a lot of cases being deleted just for having outdated references. I think we should have an addendum list for anyone who "may" be between 110 and 113 and has been featured in a citable source. Ryoung122 03:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
At one point I was searching through the 1900 U.S. Census for anyone with the first name Cora (most people use their married name, and she was married at some point), and found one Cora M. Clausen/Clauson, with listed birth of March 1899, in Beltrami Co., MN. Now there is a newspaper clipping here --> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CPtXDMLVHi4/S-jG_nVCuVI/AAAAAAAABEI/qUblJ6j9jAM/s1600/IMG.jpg claiming Cora Hansen moved with her family from Minnesota to Jenner, Alberta in 1912. Cora Clausen's father has the slightly rarer name of Elling Clausen. Interestingly enough, Cora Clausen is living with her father Elling Clausen in Alberta in the 1916 Canadian Census. According to 1900 U.S. Census information, Cora Clausen's parents, Elling and Eliza Mary (Else Marie) married in Drangedal Sogn, Telemark fylke, Norway in June 1878 and immigrated to the U.S. in July 1882. I hope this information helps. I don't know how often people move from Norway to Minnesota to Alberta, but I don't think it is very common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.207.57 ( talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have heard of this man who served as an Indian Scout for the United states Calvary. He is the last living veteran of the Punitive Expedition that fought for the United States .The Punitive Expedition was a war we had with Pancho Villa from 1916 to 1917 in northern Mexico. He was born in the Arizona territory on January 12,1898 . He is now 112 years old. After he was released by the U.S calvary in 1917 he went back to Northern Mexico and has been their ever since. If this is true and may people have told me that it is, he is the third oldest man alive in the world . The oldest living veteran in the world. The last man do do a calvary charge with the U.S army in war time. Please if anyone has this mans location please post it. 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
DO you have information proving or disproving? Or are you showing just your own stupidity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 23:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
John Red Hawk was incorrectly typed, whatever. Anyway, there is a John Red-Hawk and John Redhawk on Ancestry. You are correct. It says that a John Red-Hawk lived in South Dakota during the 1910s in an Indian census. (See here: http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2&gsfn=John&gsln=Redhawk&_81004010=1898&msbpn__ftp=Arizona%2C+USA) Ive seen this message every day, and I just wanted to say something. You are certainly correct IP. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Good there is proof then in the records. I need his address or location in Mexico to track him down and interview him. He is 112 years old and probably has little time left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That is the purpose of the interview . To find out all information on this man possible before he dies. Track down discharge papers from U.S calvary units involved in the war. To see if he as any items used in war. To talk to persons in the area of Mexico he lives at. TO track his life as much as possible. The key thing is to find where he lives in Mexico. When I have an address or location then the rest can happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I know where he lives now in Mexico. My research assistant Is going home to Arizona for spring break .He will cross into Mexico and go to the city of Aconchi Mexico . John Red hawk lives close to this town but has no phone or address . He must live like they did 80 years ago. He was very hard to track down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No he does not work for a newspaper. He works for me to track down people who claim to be 110 years old . This is research he is doing for me to get his degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
-- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Information has been collected and is in the process of being verified. Waiting on records from the United States Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 ( talk) 04:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Notified by United States Army that Army records for the Punitive expedition were destroyed by fire in St Louis on July 12, 1973 . They are going to forward the information on to other sources in attempt to verify information I sent to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.173.71 ( talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Waiting on a reply back from the National Archive Washington D.C on a discharge paper and 3 pictures presented. When I find out if they match units with government records that were in the Punitive Expedition. I can post for the general public. I also have sent a baptism record from 1931 when he became a Christian that states his age was 33 years old to the Catholic Church for verification. When I have reply's from both you will be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.192.24 ( talk) 05:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
According to the International Database on Longevity, two Spanish anonymous 114-year-olds have been verified, both of whom would be old enough to be on this list.
http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm
Ryoung122 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
Although the U.S. Public Records Index match for Gertrude Weaver fits, I'd like to mention that the ages cited often are understated, because women tended to lie about their age in the past.
For example, Beatrice Farve is listed as born in 1905...but that's not possible if she were listed as 5 years old in the 1900 census.
I don't mind someone putting her on the "likely younger than claimed" lists but I have a feeling that as more information comes to light, her final age and year of birth may be different. Ryoung122 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you (and Nick Orstein as well) both think that she shouldn't be included because of what the public records index says then I guess I have no choice but to accept your opinions and move on.
We'll also need to remove the following people as well, based on the information in the index.
Annie Leverett/Leverette is said to be only 99 years old.
Ivory Ross-Lambert said to be 108 years old.
Naomi Conner said to be 119 years old. (this seems absolutely ridiculous, but it does mean that she doesn't meet the criteria for the page) Tim198 ( talk) 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Gertrude Weaver should be on this page, as her claim to 112 has NOT been shown to be false by a reliable counter document. As for 119, that's above the 113+ cutoff and would go to longevity claims. Ryoung122 04:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think a gap of 2 years is okay, but over 2 like Annie Leverette, Vallery, Weaver, are exaggerating. Their birth dates on their need to be looked at. SiameseTurtle said that 2 census matches were found for Ivory Lambert. One saying that she is 108, and another saying 110. In my opinion, Lambert should be the only added.
Robert, you said you found Weaver's DOB was to be in 1904. I think US Search updates her age regularly. Did you purchase money to find her records on there? You should check a few other "disputed" cases on there.
Of course, on Ancestry, a census had Fannie Butens birth year as 1901. But an older census said 1899. US Search is just sticking with one census. Similar to Lambert. Has anyone found census matches for Conner and/or Vallery? Even Leverette?
Also, Conner is claiming to be 110 in her most recent article. I don't know why her age is recorded as 119. Is it common for the site to make type-os? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you Nick regarding Ross-Lambert. We should definately consider the 1920 census match on her to be more reliable than the 1930 match (since it's closer to the time of birth). I do hope that somebody will eventually be able to locate the 1900 and 1910 census matches on her though. Without those, it's not really possible to say anything definitive about her real age.
Regarding Naomi Conner, if you go to message #14691 on the WOP yahoo group you'll find that Filipe Prista Lucas found a POSSIBLE match on Naomi Conner in the 1920 census indcating that she was 18 years old at the time (and thus if true would make her only 108 years old at this time and NOT a supercentenarian) This evidence is admittedly a little thin, though. Tim198 ( talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we should add Naomi Conner back. A census said she was 108. That's pretty close, and it's not even the 1900 census. Leverette should only be removed in my opinion. I think Vallery as well because US Search has her as age 106. Im not sure about her yet, although thanks to that site, Nellie's maiden name or either middle name is Wallace. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 12:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we please keep in mind that this article is about living people. If we are to remove someone then there should be hard evidence. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the Swedish correspondants said she moved to Sweden not too long ago. Her name appears in the Swedish National Register here: It even includes exactly where she lives (e.g. address). http://www.ratsit.se/BC/ReportSmall.aspx?ID=qEQWdEbn2DOKjdDtknCxSpTL76FroMz0ht50iQNqjKE
But could this be similar to Japan's National Register? According to a recent article (posted on WOP here [3]), there were tons of Japanese claimed centenarians who appear in National Registers (some aged 150-200 years old at max) and just rot. Luckily, Japanese authorities removed the tons of cases that have been dead for a long time.
Angele DeFreine of Belgium, who's family "claims" to be updating her status to Peter Vermaelen (aka makila) via phone, but her name doens't appear in the Belgium National Register. Sort of the opposite of Saro Dursun.
I believe that Dursun is dead, as well as the 4th and 5th oldest (Juana Hernandez, born 24 June 1900 & Jwani Yaukhan, born 1 July 1900, respectively) in Sweden who are (probably) immigrants. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't the swedish GRG-correspondent in contact with the family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.203.34 ( talk) 11:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason that she was never added to the list?
110th birthday report here > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/14618
As there is occasionally some cross-over between the above article and this one regular editors may like to provide some input into the former as this has, again, been edited in a somewhat POV fashion which may not be consistent with that of the vast majority of users. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 19:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
A user on the Italian Wikipedia with the name of 'Pascar' quoted "Arena falso caso". Which translates to Arena case false (or veisverse).
Is there any proof that her age is false? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I confirm you it was a "false case", no Maria Carmela Arena aged 110 exists in Italy.-- Pascar ( talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I have been adding the oldest person by (province, state etc.) in several country supercentenarian articles. I have been trying to add the oldest person born in a certain place in the country. And Paolo S. (aka Pascar) from the Italian wikipedia has a different perspective; he adds the oldest person to live in a particular place.
And on the Italian supercentenarian article, Paolo agrees with adding cities. I think that cities is being too precise; too much information. I know that the Nordic countries have municipalities because they don't have anything bigger than that, Italy has regions.
What is your opinion on this. I'd like to hear everyone's view. Thanks! -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
According to me supercentenarians are not just numbers, so if you report their provenience (city) it is a good thing. If you don't have data for supercentenarians of some countries you cannot cancel data from the others of other countries, it isn't a good reason. Then a record of a region is the oldest person in that region. An example: Rosa Rein, born in German Empire (now Poland), was doyenne of Switzerland. Lazzaro Ponticelli left Italy when he was 9 and was the oldest living man in France, a record in France. So Serafina Naccarato, born in Calabria, was a record (the oldest person, the doyenne) in Marche Region, not in Calabria. Finally I'm not from Italian Wikipedia (that doesn't exist, Wikipedia in Italian exists), I'm from Wikipedia. -- Pascar ( talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what is the difference between State of the U.S. and Region of Italy or of France. A Region in Italy is an administrative entity with borders, so if you know where a person was born or died... where is the difficulty???-- Pascar ( talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've modified the table about the Italian regions, tell me if it is better in this way. -- Pascar ( talk) 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
On the page of the german supercentenarians you made the list of the oldest people born in the Bundesländer according to the actual borders without including people aged less than 110 years. In most cases that could be useful, but we have Ottilie Aleith who died in Thuringia aged 109 years 347 days. So she seems to be the oldest person ever who died in Thuringia as no thuringian became a supercentanarian and it is nearly unbelievable that a second person should have died in Thuringia less than 18 days before his/her 110th birthday. Does anyone knows if she was born in Thuringia? If so, we should add her as oldest known person ever born in Thuringia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.185.132 ( talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
You have to answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NickOrnstein#Please_don.27t_.22dumb_down.22_the_language What do you think?-- Pascar ( talk) 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be a few things discussed. In my opinion, people should be removed if they are exaggerating their age, especially if a gerontologist/professional (e.g. Robert Young) brings it up. We already removed one "supercentenarians" due to what we (Wikipedians) thought she was exaggerating (Hsu Chih).
People shouldn't be removed if they receive conformation (e.g. one day prior to their 111th birthday), and be removed one month later. It doesn't make any sense.
Clara Schonholzer (for example) hasn't had an update on her status since December 2009 and she is still on the list, and DerbyCountyinNZ says (in accordance with the rules above in an earlier discussion) that a supercentenarian must be removed if they don't get an update within 1 month on their most recent birthday.
In other words, I believe Gertrude Weaver should remain on the list because on her last update, she was already a (claimed) supercentenarian. -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I am 100% opposed to this nonsense. An update NEED NOT be a story about a birthday to confirm that someone was alive within a reasonable amount of time. If that is an issue, how easy would it be to add a "last updated" column along with the source?
So the Gertrude Weaver article precedes her birthday by two days?
That's NO reason to delete unless the person hasn't reached 110 yet, and the claim here is 112. Ryoung122 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't remove cases based on our opinions. I think we should only remove a case if there's actual evidence (such as birth certificates, census records etc...) to suggest a persons exaggerating.
What's really the main problem here is the criteria used for the unverified list (and this is something that's been discussed many times). If we went back to using the HIE criteria then many of the questionable cases could be excluded from the page. I really think we need to consider a re-vote on that. Tim198 ( talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The gerentology list shows Toku Yamaguchi at 49th but this page doesnt show her anywhere. Is she a new validated? Williamb ( talk) 12:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed her, yet again, because the citation [5] states she is 106 and maybe 110. This is the entire citation:
BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) - Rose Axlerod celebrated her 106th birthday Thursday at the Weinberg Campus in Amherst.
According to Senior Services, Rose is the oldest known person in Erie County. And though 106 is definitely a special age, Rose may actually be even older.
When Rose came from Russia to the United States in 1904, documents from her birthplace had conflicting information, and she may actually be 110.
Rose is a retired history teacher from Buffalo Public School 82. Her wish for her birthday? Go to Las Vegas.
This really isn't good enough for inclusion in this article (even given the pretty slack standards that are being used). DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know this was several months ago, but I still have an unanswered question to ask: Why is it that she is currently listed on the verified supercentenarians page as "Frederica Sagor Maas", even though she used to be listed as just "Frederica Maas" when she was still on the unverified list back in July? Brendan ( TalK| ContriB) 08:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the editor just deceided to use her full name. Longevitydude ( talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Since she's not famous only for being supercentenarian, the article about her was created in 2008 with her full name. Perhaps the change of name in the list was only to avoid the "[[Frederica Sagor Maas|Frederica Maas]]" thing. Japf ( talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
On here, sources aren't cited properly, eg. "Report on John Jones' claimed 110th birthday". Should we keep it this way with this article and others? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't John Jones dead, why would he be on this article, besides if there not verified then it is just a claim. Longevitydude ( talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
The "as of" wording, with the date given, is needed due to the time zone difference. One can see whether the age given is as of their time, or a hypothetical time. I note that with Eugenie Blanchard living in the Caribbean but the "as of" being London time, her age is wrong 25% of the time (6 out of 24 hours). Ryoung122 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that validated supercentenarians listed must have been "validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research", why is the following source accepted? [6] Surely we should only be using professional, reliable sources, such as the GRG and Guinness? SiameseTurtle ( talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The citation for Elizabeth Buhler, Pearl Lutzko, and Cora Hansen, which is a report on the oldest living Canadians, is dead. Should something be done about it? Brendan ( talk, contribs) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have put consideration into this:
Why are pending cases in the overall verified section of all supercentenairans by place? They haven't been verified. Unlike this article, where they list the pending cases seperated from the validated list.
Shouldn't pending cases be removed? -- Nick Ornstein ( talk) 01:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
To stop the numerous uninformed editors who insist Sanborn is 115, I am going to add invisible text next to her age template warning editors not to change her birthdate to 1895. Comment? Brendan ( talk, contribs) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It's so stupid that people didn't start making this a big issue until Eugenie Blanchard died. DHanson317 ( talk) 05:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought the agreement was never to use Twitter as citations for supercentenarians reaching their birthday?
Yet Nettie Whittington is cited by a WOP report ... whose only source is a Twitter update.
Does that count? Brendan ( talk, contribs) 12:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This site here http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/contents/attach/12406/H22roujin.pdf appears to list all those 108+ in Okinawa in september of 2010. I use a translator to translate the page but the translation does not make any sense. does anyone know the real english names of these people so they can be added to these lists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmaster25 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
People on this list must have evidence that they are alive. As that cannot be determined from day to day the only obvious point to establish this is when they reach a birthday. If there is no reliable citation for their most recent birthday then it is likely they are not alive, two months for this seems more than adequate. Keeping people on the list because there is no citation for their death is unscientific: failure to prove a negative is not the same as proving a positive. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 00:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is Frank Buckles on the Unverified list, his age is Verified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 ( talk) 16:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There are other media reports that he in fact celebrated his (claimed) 110th birthday, so someone should fix the citation... I'm too lazy... Canada Jack ( talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's something: http://www.cbs59.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=93586 Czolgolz ( talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to actually "celebrate" your birthday to turn that age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 ( talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add three media-reported supercentenarians to this list, from Cochabamba, Bolivia. These individuals and a dozen others are being honored in a public Centenarian event, have had their birth dates confirmed by the National Retirement System in Bolivia (Senasir), and are currently local media coverage including in major local newspapers. I doubt there is any contact between them and the GRG mentioned here. However, this list seems oriented to the GRG's categories. How exactly can they be added?-- Carwil ( talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
For those that are unaware, there is a proposal here that many of the regular editors of this article, including myself, be banned from editing any longevity related articles for at least 1 year after which they may request, once every 3 months, permission to resume editing. Most are also threatened with a 1 year "behavior restriction" for making "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith". 3 guesses who is responsible for this. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Shigechiyo Izumi should be removed from all wikipedia pages as his claim is no longer being accepted by any reliable source. Guinness dropped the case in the 2011 edition and Robert Young confirms here that GRG has as well. Epstein has also removed him from his list. Tim198 ( talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
As per the recent ArbCom decision, and the clarification here, WOP can no longer be used as a citation for people included in the unverified list in this article. They will therefore need to be removed. Any person with no other citation claiming to have celebrated a 110th birthday will also need to be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Now we have the start of the deletions:
Charlotte Flowers
Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.
Yvonne de la Tour
Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.
Eddye Williams
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/DC-WOMAN-TURNS-110-80662422.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113002998.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403886.html
have been deleted from the Wikipedia lists.
These are real people, notable for their longevity and other reasons.
Contrary to what has been stated beforehand, these people are now being removed from LISTS not from articles.
Now the censorship kicks in, and now the knowledge is deleted.
And now we have the rule of the idiots. Cam46136 ( talk) 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
Would it not make sense to push for more debate and a proper outcome here before jumping in with the scythe? Melissa.vp198 ( talk) 18:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)