Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about List of oldest living people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Corrections

Greetings ~ I have some corrections to suggest for the unverified section:

Add: María Cruz Bustamante Morales (Oct 31 1899) Chile
Add: Maria Rosa do Sacramento (Dec 31 1899) Brazil
Add: María Leonor Melchor Navarrete (Dec 29 1900) Mexico
Remove: Benedicta Rodríguez (Aug 04 1900) Colombia - has not yet had a confirmation of reaching 110 (the report on her was from May 2010)
Gabe A (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Morales: Article states that according to a register, she was born in 1906.
do Sacramento: blog
Navarrete: blog
Rodríguez: removed (as of now).

Blogs can't be added here, which is why I added the two (now three because of Rodríguez to here. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick Ornstein: Please stop edit warring

Per WP:BLP, WP:3RR doesn't apply, but edit-warring does no one any good. So I'm making my plea here: These are living people. Louis Epstein's OHB list is not a reliable source. It fails WP:RS and it is specifically excluded in the Notability and sourcing guidance at the WOP WikiProject page. If you don't like that, please try to generate a new consensus on the WOP talk page. But on a page about living people, to revert the replacement of genuine reliable sources with ones that are not, is serious business. It's childish, too. Please comply with the rules. David in DC (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Childish? WP:NPA. → Brend an 09:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Louis Epstein list was considered to be reliable source by consensus in the WOP WikiProject page. It was Arbcom (supposely composed by intelligent people) that have decided this stupidity.Japf (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

L.E. agrees:On my talk page, he summed up the real problem(s) better than I could ever hope to. And then blithely reiterated them. David in DC (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on Sortable Tables

If the months in the table dates are shortened to 3 letter abbreviations (Jan, Feb, Mar, etc.) then the wikitables can be made into wikitable sortables. Shortening the months would allow the table to detect them as dates, thus making it sortable in chronological order (Currently it doesn't recognize the format '01 January 2001' as a date, but it recognizes '01 Jan 2001'). This would also give the option to sort by country, gender, or any categories in the current columns. Gabe A (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been tried before. It does not work when there are tied ranks. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

viuda de …

Re: the recent removal of viuda de surnames: It's a bit blithe to treat all "Spanish speaking countries" as a unit on this issue. Family name#Spanish-speaking countries discusses a variety of conventions. Despite a year living in Cochabamba, the exact convention here is not clear to me. Nor is the convention that might be embraced by women born around 1900. I can say that local media have clearly presented viuda de … as a part of these women's names, not as an explanatory or parenthetical note. Further, their inclusion reduces ambiguity and aids in readers specifying these individuals. As such, I'm restoring the text.--Carwil (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

johannes heesters

warum fehlt hier johannes heesters--Niemann80 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Diese Seite ist für das Leben SUPERCENTENARIANs. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Lanier

Hi, I imagine there's a fair amount of cross-editing between this list and other similar lists but if not I just wanted to bring this person to your attention based on the news stories that put her age at 119. I think she should be mentioned somewhere but I don't know how to go about adding her correctly. Brig Anderson (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

She is not verified, and recent reports put her date of birth as post 1900. As a debunked case she does not even qualify for the Longevity claims article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For further reference on Rebecca Lanier, while this is WP:OR, I have posted my analysis on this claim on The 110 Club forum here (copy & paste the link): http://z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=1848 so that others can be more aware of this claim and see whether we can "resolve" this claim by other Wikipedians finding out any additional information to formally prove or debunk this case. Regarding her inclusion in the longevity claims article, I actually think she should be placed there because she is a living claimant and we "only believe" that she is actually born in March 1905 or 1906 based on two Census records. That should not be considered as a "formal debunking" of the claim yet without more information about her early family life. Regards, CalvinTy 15:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to videos of newcasts

David in DC, I saw your question in your recent diff about whether "... video of Today Show birthday greetings a WP:RS? Is it a Copyright violation?".

I was curious myself and found out the following:

Use of video links

"Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not verifiably uploaded by the copyright holder.

External video links

Links to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites must abide by Wikipedia's External links guidelines (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections.

Restrictions on linking external links

"Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work."

Cite video template

"Editors can use the cite episode template to cite specific television programs. The cite video template can be used for movies and other visual media."

Looks like the gist of all of the above is that as long as we can verify that the original video on Today Show on MSNBC's website is theirs, not from a YouTube video where an user could have uploaded the same (or similar/edited) video, which would be a copyright violation. After confirming WP:V, then we can use the template of citing a video to appropriately cite the source hosting the video. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the video is on MSNBC's own web site. The stuff about YouTube applies to YouTube videos. So, no, it's not a copyright violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got time to check atm, but wasn't there a previous discussion about the Today Show with the conclusion that it was not a reliable source? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I sorta remember that, too. But couldn't cite it. That's why I left it in with a query in the diff. David in DC (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason it was so hard to find is that the list of archives with dates is not complete (and I can't find how to update it)! The discussion is here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno how to fix the archives either but I'm grateful to DCiNZ for excavating in them to dig out this thread. It was illuminating, and fun to read. Gee, willikers, everything used to be so civil hereabouts until the horrible, inexpert interlopers invaded the garden with their juvenile weed-whackers, huh? <--- Note to the humor-impaired. This is called irony. (Alanis Morrisette's misuse of the term, notwithstanding.)

Thanks, also, to TQFK for explaining why the issue is not about copyright. Narrowing issues helps.

On the merits. I see arguments on both sides, but the more convincing, in my view is that Today Show birthday greetings, whether delivered by Willard Scott or Al Roker do not qualify as reliable sources.David in DC (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm back to this discussion after a few days. @AQFK, correct, since the Today Show video is on MSNBC's website, we can assure to ourselves that it is verifiable and a reliable source. Apologizes if I was not clear, but yeah, I was using an example of "user uploading a YouTube video of the same Today Show" and stating that would be a case of a copyright violation. Cheers, CalvinTy 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the historical debate about Today Show, DerbyCountyinNZ. It definitely was illuminating. My concern is that when something is a reliable source, such as a major news website (such as MSNBC) due to their presumed vetting process, but then there is a part of website such as Today Show where some Wikipedians are saying to the effect of "yes, the main site is a reliable source, but this small corner of the website is not reliable because of reason X". I'm sorry, but I'm quite concerned about that. If we trust MSNBC's vetting process and consider them a reliable source, then why can't we do the same with content on a part of their website, such as Today Show?

In a sense, the birthday video greetings by Willard Scott on the Today Show (been running for decades) are akin to a local newspaper saying on their website this week, "Congratulations to our resident, Mrs. Z, who turned 108 yesterday!". We can use that as a reliable source that a fictitious Mrs. Z is likely alive this week, and that this would be a "current claim". I saw Canada Jack making several good points in that 2009 discussion, but they appear to focus on whether Today Show vetted the birthday announcements or not, which is overkill, I believe, since we already classified a national news website as a reliable source & should apply to all their content (I guess?). Regards, CalvinTy 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For me, the argument hinges not on whether the Today Show is a reliable source, but whether a weatherman with no particular credentials outside of delivering weather reports can be considered a "reliable source." If we just say "if it appears on the Today Show, that counts as a reliable source," then include the reports. If we say that there is nothing newsworthy coming from a weatherman within the show and therefore HE is not a reliable source on this non-weather subject, then we don't include the reports. Canada Jack (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the lax standards of what qualifies as a "reliable" source as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is still hard to see how a weatherman who gets a tip from just anybody (i.e. no indiciation that they are reliable themselves in any way) can be considered a reliable source, even for the unverified claims in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with CJ and DCiNZ. It's entirely consistent with WP:RS for parts of a website to be reliable and others not. The editorial process involved goes to determining if the particular source, ie, the Willard Scott/Al Roker greetings are reliable. Just because other things hosted at msnbc.com are reliable, does not necessitate the editorial judgment that everything on msnbc.com is reliable. This is where flexibility, editorial discretion and collaboration come into the process.

Check out WP:NEWSORG. Here's a partial quotation

Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis.... Being known as a mainstream news source does not automatically make said source reliable.... Even for reputable sources, there are various articles which may not be reliable. Having corroborating sources increases the chance the information is reliable, but beware of the practice of "churnalism", especially in print media....

Hard to get more on point than that, in regard to our current discussion.

BTW, welcome back CT. You are an exemplar of what I consider to be the only true marker of adulthood --- the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Your four daughters are most fortunate, as are your fellow editors here. David in DC (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that reputable outlets contain errors. However, the section of the "news" we are talking about isn't even pretending to be "news" per se. It's simply a family-friendly happy birthday greeting. This contrasts with other reports on aged persons in papers and other media where the age of the person is the news story, even if that age is not corroborated. That is the distinction here. Canada Jack (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected -- WP:NEWSORG says it all; it's quite true that even reputable reliable sources will have errors from time to time. Wikipedia as a whole recognizes that and that is why it has been said, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." In light of that, I can see why people legitimately can question specific information stated inside a reliable source. I guess my last comment would be that while Today Show's birthday greetings (whether it's by a weatherman or by a gerontology expert) may not be vetted at all, it still could be a tertiary source for a "living claim", not using it as the "sole source" as that would not be acceptable to the consensus here. By the way, David in DC, thank you for the kind compliment. Cheers, CalvinTy 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is not the level of vetting by the Today Show, it is this is not "news" per se, the greetings merely appear on a "news" show. We don't have the same issue with newspapers as these sort of things appear as a news story. I suppose if we were to cite a classified ad in the births/deaths section of a paper, celebrating an anniversary or an important birthday, we'd be on the same shaky ground in arguing that, as this appears in a newspaper, it is citable. Sure, but it's not a news story. Canada Jack (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we come to a decision on whether or not to accept Today Show birthday greetings as a reliable source for this article? I say not. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they're acceptable as a sole source. The one place on this page they appear is as a second footnote for a particular entry. The first is sufficient, so I see no harm in leaving the second there. If Willard were the only "source" being cited, I'd be moved to delete it and request a cite to a reliable source David in DC (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Report of XXX at claimed age of YYY

I've replaced all the references in English that were styled this way, and replaced with actual footnotes. This format for references is quite useless. It doesn't geve the English reader any information other than that some editor stuck some link there. Working on just the English ones, I found a nursing home letter as a source. I found the obit of the subjects brother, naming her as a survivor, dated 111 years after her purfported birthdate. I found a sidebar to a story about someone else. I found a blog post on a newspaper's website from a grandaughter wishing her grandmother happy birthday.

This is bad. And I'm guessing there's some of this trash in the non-English refs too. Would whoever speaks these foreign languages sufficiently well please check improve them? Ipse dixit by an IP editor, hobbyist or even academic expert is not a sufficient footnote. The reader should have some chance to see if we're quoting a news story, a sidebar, or a nursing home's monthly newsletter (found that too). David in DC (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove unverified claims

This is an article about validated living supercentenrians, excluding unverified claims. These such claims should be merged into the 'longvity claims' article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohho56oy (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The title is "List of living supercentenarians", not "List of verified living supercentenarians". It's fine to have this here; the Longevity claims article is more for the people like Old Tom Parr who were/are real people but who have highly implausible claims; at least, that's how it's set up right now. Is there a particular reason you want to change that? I'm open to ideas. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's been a while; I want to change it so I won't confuse people from (especially newcomers0 from understanding aout this page. --HoHHo56Oy (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Check: Singaporean supercentenarian

Can somebody help to verify whether Teresa Hsu Chih is on this list? Thanks. 218.186.16.237 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

She was removed some time ago as there are conflicting reports of her date of birth and therefore none can be considered sufficiently reliable for her to be included here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Flag icon issue

Regarding flag icons on this article, I am recommending reverts by everyone (myself, included) to be paused for the time being while MOS:FLAG guideline may be revised per current discussions at Village Pump (policy) here. More specifically, there is a current discussion about whether flag icons should be in longevity lists since the MOS:FLAG guideline only covers infoboxes, not lists.

While I am of the opinion that flag icons with country names next to flag icons are redundant (and that flag icons can be removed from lists), it is preferable that everyone do not make any premature moves until the appropriate guideline is updated first. Cheers, CalvinTy 14:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The guideline does not need updating to justify removing flag icons on lists of living people. That's why I started here. Please see WP:FLAGBIO. Unless one argues that FLAGBIO applies only to info boxes and ledes (a level of hair-splitting wiki-lawyering I hope this won't descend to) the current guideline amply justifies the removal of the icons here. David in DC (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This whole pedantic use of MOS to justify edits which are really unnecessary is beginning to look like a lot of ********* **** (shades of JJB). Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia; use of highlighting and flags can be used without being detrimental to wiki as a whole and is actually useful in the context of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On a collaborative editing project as large as wikipedia, following the Manual of Style is not a small matter. Discussing and implementing it is not pedantic. And I'm at least marginally less annoying than JJB. The edits are not unnecessary. They are very necessary. They mark compliance with the rules of the road. And they bring uniformity to an area where the Manual of Style is quite explicit.

As to "Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia; use of highlighting and flags can be used without being detrimental to wiki as a whole and is actually useful in the context of this article," this is the wrong place for that argument. Please join the discussion on this at the Village Pump or make a proposal on the MOS talk page devoted to flags. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FLAGBIO makes it clear that flags should not be used in a "biographical article"'s "introduction or infobox" to display "birth or death information" (all quotes). Firstly, this is a list, not a biographical article. Secondly, it's in a table, not in an introduction or infobox. And finally, it does not display birth or death information, but the country of residence. Thus, there are no grounds for removing the flags from this article based on this policy. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, now you're wikilawyering. This isn't a "biographical article", yes, but it's a list of BLPs, which requires the exact same amount of scrutiny. Secondly, and more importantly, it's not conveying any additional information. All it's doing is dramatically increasing the size of the page without adding anything to it. Finally, common sense should apply here; like David in DC says, and back to my point about wikilawyering, the purpose of FLAGBIO is to prevent bloat like this from turning up in articles. It can still cause a great deal of confusion, and lead to nationalist problems; no one in their right mind would ever tell an Okinawan, for instance, that they're Japanese. It can be misleading, which is exactly why FLAGBIO exists; to prevent exactly these sorts of situations. We should be following the rule's intent (which I've described above) instead of trying to interpret it literally. The burden here is on those wanting to include the flags to determine exactly what useful information they convey; I've now gone through what the pitfalls are. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Whether or not some other longevity articles are "bloated" is irrelevant to this article. If other article are bloated (e.g. List of oldest people in the world) fix them, don't use it as an excuse to make unnecessary adjustments to this article. 2. This article is not "bloated" by the use of flags, the difference is insignificant. 3. There is no "misleading" of information by using flags in this article. They are actually a useful means of identifying the country of residence of a person, in fact anyone with a basic knowledge of flags (which should be within the capability of the average wiki user) would probably find it quicker and easier to identify a country by the flag than the written name. 4. Throwing up MOS, FLAGBIO, COMMONSENSE and BURDEN looks more like wikilawyering to me than those against this change. (And we're back to JJB style editing again). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I can bet that the flags are a major reason as to why the article has gained a lot of fame, compared to other longevity articles. Flags have stayed on here for years. I will always support having flags. Flag make visually make it easier for the viewer to see. I can care so much less about the rules on this issue. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, policy-based arguments will be more convincing here. Also, since a lot of longevity articles and lists bombard the reader's eyes, I'm not sure how they make this one stand out, except that perhaps readers (i.e. David in DC and myself) find it a lot more annoying than the rest. But to keep this from becoming the same old people, we do have some conversation going at the village pump, so hopefully we can get some outside perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bombard" is your guys opinion, just like I find it "visually easier" for me. It would be good to hear more. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bombard is not my reason. My reason is simple. It's in the rules. Those arguing that the flags make it easier to read, or better, or that "we've done it this way for years" are simply missing the point. If you don't like a rule, you go to that rule's page and argue for change. I'm doing just that right now on the issue of BC/AD vs BCE/CE. And getting batted around like a pinata. I am unable to change consensus, so regardless of whether I think BC/AD is wildly at odds with WP:NPOV I am prohibited from changing things to my liking. Similarly here. If you get FLAGBIO changed, than flags come back. But not based on any of our opinions about "bombard" or "visually easier" or "I can bet that the flags are a major reason as to why the article has gained a lot of fame...", but rather because of a change in the rules. The WOP WikiProject does not operate according to different rules than the rest of wikipedia. It doesn't get a waiver from the rules based on the longevity of the rule-violation. If there's a policy based argument, I'm eager to hear it. Otherwise, not so much. David in DC (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The three edits after my most recent edits are accompanied by edit summaries that are spurious. Pretty cowardly to make them as an IP editor, too. My crap detector is tingling big time. I think we know the IP editor. I'm not sure which of us it is, but I'm sure its someone who also edits under a name we'd recognize. David in DC (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To echo David in DC above, I'm arguing to remove these flags based on FLAGBIO; my personal opinions are secondary. I've pointed out why FLAGBIO should (and does) apply to lists of living people, and the headaches it can cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All, I did not mean to open a sore debate about flag icons itself here. I did not want anyone to descend into "wiki-lawyering mode" including myself. I even agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights's contention that editors "wanting to include the flags to determine exactly what useful information they convey" would need to really justify the flag icon in "country of residence" (when the country's text usually suffice) other than an easy answer of "flags are visually appealing"; I think that's not enough. But -- that's not why I started the discussion here -- while I don't know how long guidelines get updated, but in discussions, there may be a growing consensus for one action over other, it does not mean that editors now "zoom to the affected pages" and begin reverting/editing even in good faith based on a guideline that has not YET been updated I saw this happening when David in DC understandably felt he could proceed editing the page, and when some IP editor reverted, and then BNL reverted, then I reverted BNL's edit -- at that point, I was like, "this is going nowhere because nothing is etched yet". As SiameseTurtle pointed out earlier, WP:FLAGBIO did not explicitly cover lists so how can either side use this policy to defend their position of "believing flags can be in lists" or "believing flags should NOT be in lists" when WP:FLAGBIO does not say anything about it? I already knew that if I had proceeded to remove flag icons first based solely on Village Pump's current discussion, there would be outrage and I would not have an explicit guideline to defend myself explaining why I did this as I would be on shaky ground.

Regarding the burden issue, I think it's the other way around -- since the guideline was ambiguous about flags in lists (even in BLP lists), the burden lies with the side requesting removal of flags in lists (which is now a growing consensus, though). Like what I quoted BNL above, BNL has made a good point about asking for answers from those who find flag icons necessary in lists. If those people cannot justify flag icons on lists, then there we have it, we can edit the guideline and be done with it. I don't know how long that takes, but I hope it's soon. That's all. Cheers, CalvinTy 15:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The person who can read WP:FLAGBIO in full, and conclude that it is ambiguous about any use of flags on pages that source birth and/or death dates becuase it only mentions lists and infoboxes has a great future in the law.

Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality. For example, actor Bruce Willis was born on a U.S. military base in Germany, so putting a German flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was a German citizen. Similarly, many people die on foreign soil due to war, vacation accidents, etc. without any effect on their actual citizenship or nationality.

Every bit of the logic behind the explanatory material after the black letter rule: Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death applies here. No revision of the guideline, as it stands today, is required to remove flag icons. The current guideline authorizes it. Hell, the current guideline requires it.

Only the rules against edit-warring stop us. Now. Because of timidity by the named and cowardice by the anonymous IP wheel-warrer who leaves phony edit summaries.

So I'll continue revising the English footnotes to bring them into compliance with the guidelines. These pages do not operate under special rules. Pretending that they do disrupts wikipedia. Still, there's so much carp in the longevity suite of articles, like the faux footnotes on this page, that there's time enough to await whatever the hell it is we're supposed to be waiting for to delete the out-of-policy flag icons. David in DC (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The main lists in this article do NOT use flags to indicate place of birth (and obvioulsy of death!). Previously place of birth and residence were included, which certainly made the article unnecessarily messy and was certainly an example of misuse of flags. But that issue was removed a while ago (as was the scoring table of super-c's by country, which was even worse) and now only the country of residence is included, with footnotes with place of birth if different. Remove them from the footnotes by all means as I agree that they are superfluous there (the footnotes themselves could also be considered unnecessary). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Obvioulsy, I'm not touching any more flag icons. To do so, at this point, would be to invite charges of edit-warring. If anyone else thinks something needs removing, (s)he should remove it. I'll focus on putting the very badly created, and out-of-policy, footnotes into some semblence of usefulness. At least the English ones. Assuming good faith, whoever put up the ones in other languages must be able to read them with sufficient fluency to fix those. They probably won't, since they seem content with the footnotes satisfying their own idiosyncratic longevity- specific footnote guidelines instead of wikipedia's, but what the hell, hope springs eternal. David in DC (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As someone who likes the idea of flags being used in a balanced and sensible way, and someone who has no prior input into this article (I've come over from the Village pump debate on flags), I'm afraid I just don't see a good enough reason to have dozens of flags in this article. They convey no extra information whatsoever, as the name of the relevant country is right next to the flag, and these people have never represented their country at anything, therefore have never appeared in connection with their flag. Furthermore, and this seems ridiculous to me, that the flags don't even represent the subject's nationality, but just the place where they live. This makes the flags potentially misleading, as the casual reader may well take them to represent nationality. FLAGBIO clearly states that flags are not to be used to represent places of birth or death, (presumably nobody thought it necessary to add "places of residence" to that guideline, since it seems such a bizarre idea). It states that birth/death flags are not to be used because they can imply nationality, and flags of residence obviously have the same quality. This use of flags is in clear contravention of FLAGBIO.

The concept of "prettying up" an article with flags is bogus. If that were acceptable, then we might equally have flowery borders and coloured fonts. The concept of most people being able to identify the country by the flag is also bogus - it has to apply to all flags (not just the ones currently present), and clearly not everyone can identify all flags. If someone from Mozambique qualified for this list, the flag would be of little use to the average Joe in being able to identify the country. In fact, the name of the country would do the job on its own. Additionally, a large number of flags does make the page load slower. These are incontrovertible reasons not to have flags, the most relevant being that they are against the rules. The same goes for the other longevity articles - these articles are not exempt from the rules. Saying "I don't care about the rules" is a good way to get your argument ignored, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Flowery borders and coloured fonts" <---Note to the humour-impaired. This is what's called a joke. It plays on the comic trope of hyperbole. Please, I beg of thee, no one should take this as a suggestion. (Bb, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'll strike my comment and eat my chapeaux.) David in DC (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no, you are correct. God forbid Wikipedia ever goes down that road! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue for a yellow border on the National Geographic page, seems like a perfectly good idea... Canada Jack (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION

This doesn't apply to Nat Geo borders on the Nat Geo page (although that's a very funny idea.) It is, however, entirely dispositive on the question of using flag icons because

"I find it "visually easier" for me." or

"I can bet that the flags are a major reason as to why the article has gained a lot of fame, compared to other longevity articles. Flags have stayed on here for years. I will always support having flags. Flag make visually make it easier for the viewer to see. I can care so much less about the rules on this issue." or

"Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia; use of highlighting and flags can be used without being detrimental to wiki as a whole and is actually useful in the context of this article."

David in DC (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I've made a proposal here. Please join the discussion. David in DC (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, I liked the version with flags better than with country names. Also, if possible, its nices to have own websites for each person like Walther Breuning's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.37.71 (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

IP edit-warriors

If anyone has seen more of the kinds of edits I complain of here, perhaps on other longevity pages where I've missed them, would you please add diffs and comments to the complaint. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been noticing more and more IP edit-warriors across more longevity articles (and nothing to do with flags) that are promptly reverted by those who regularly check for vandalism (non-longevity editors). This seem to have happened in the last month or so, particularly after the death of the World's Oldest Man on 14 Apr 2011. I have no idea if any of the IP's are actually "of same group or even same IP" but it may bear investigation -- since I don't think anyone has paid much attention to them other than successfully reverting their edits (without any further activity). Regards, CalvinTy 13:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My AN report was closed because the diffs I posted did not violate 3RR. However, the closing admin also notified one of the two IPs that he/she can be stopped, after reading the warrior's response to my warning.Pleases see User talk:86.19.191.48. The familiarity the editor displays with my work on the WOP WikiProject suggests a cowardly partisan editing from an IP address in order to avoid the predictibale consequences of his her edit(s) if made by a confirmed user. The "voice" in the edit summaries, and the retort on the IP's talk page, read to me as if written by someone who's immature. Certainly in judgment and, I surmise, also as a matter of developmental chronology.

The editor also appears unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "may". David in DC (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help: I've just left this note on the talk page of User:Litwick. A group of editors, some SPAs and some IPs, are making a concerted effort to wheel war. Check out the recent history of this page. Ideas? David in DC (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Cleanup of Lists

Hello, I have been an interested observer of the various supercentenarian lists for about two years.

I noticed the vandalism of the lists which occurred in mid-April with dismay, but was relieved to see that part of the damage was quickly repaired.

However, there appears to be residual work to repair the lists. Specifically, the current (as of this post date: May 6, 2011) status of the "verified" list has about 85 names, the youngest of which is about 110 years and 149 days. What had - prior to the April vandalism - been the "tail" portion of the verified list was removed and appended to the "unverified" list. This move involved approximately 20 names; i.e., the youngest at the time of the verified supercentenarians. I believe that the first person in this group is Min Quarenberg (Female, US); definitely, the group included Giovanni Ligato (M, Italy).

I bring this to the attention of those who have been actively maintaining the lists, in the hope that they can analyze the residual damage and repair it.

What appears to be a separate issue, but may be related, is the movement of Hermine Nistler (F, Austria) from "verified" status to "pending".

Thanks in advance for consideration of this post.

Wikirao11 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There were more like a half dozen names moved, and those were ones accepted on the Epstein list which has now been deemed not to be a reliable source as per the wikipedia criteria. Canada Jack (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sister Anne Samson

I have known personally Sister Anne Samson and am puzzled as of why she isn't on the list. She lived up to 113 years, 276 days.[1] I wanted to add her to the list but realized each row had to be manually renamed and I don't have the time for that. Maybe someone else can do it more efficiently. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

She actually has a record in the Guinness World Records.[2] — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This list is for LIVING supercentenarians. Anne Samson is on List of the verified oldest people (just). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

What constitutes a reliable source when it comes to extreme age? At the moment it seems that any mainstream newspapr is considered sufficient. But if the report does not mention that any document has been sighted which establishes the claimed date of birth isn't it just hearsay? Should totally unsubstantiated claims be included or does that just degrade the quality of the article? I suppose, given the history of this article, it would be too much to ask that any report have mention of at least one document (birth certifcate, passport etc) if it is to be included? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are quite well-defined for en.wikipedia. So is verifiability. GRG may have its own definition of "reliable" or "verifiable", but these are quite irrelevant. The two links I've provided are a start. Here are a couple of additional useful things to read: WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCES. It's kind of shocking that after all of the discussion about this --- before, during and after the ArbCom case --- has failed to illuminate the difference between GRG rules and WP rules. David in DC (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with GRG, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I am some sort of GRG lackey and/or am unaware of WP rules! I consider it a major failing of Wikipedia if a source is considered reliable just because it appears in the online version of a newspaper. This may be adequate for events and other factual reporting where the inherent truth or verifiability of somethings existence is easily confirmed/refuted, but it is grossly inadequate if the mere mention of someone being a certain age is all that is required. Blindly sticking to "WP rules" where they actually undermine the intent of WP as a worthwhile encyclopedic resource indicates to me a lack of interest in furthering those aims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If two pillars like RS and V are a major failing of Wikipedia, the longevity suite of articles seems a strange place from which to correct these flaws. Please go to the talk page of either piller and try to generate a new consensus.

I'm not "...blindly sticking to the rules." I'm knowingly reserving the fifth piller, WP:IAR, for those truly exceptional cases for which it was intended. Except in those unusual cases, the project is degraded if every editor or WikiProject gets to decide, ad hoc that "...the intent of wikipedia as a worthwhile encyclopedic resource..." requires carving out an exception in their area of interest.

The rules, as they stand, do permit periodicals that are not available online. A citation to the source is quite sufficient, assuming good faith. And they do have a place for scholarly sources. A fairly elevated place. Higher, in many cases than newspapers and periodicals. But only if they're already published and peer-reviewed.

I imply nothing about anyone being anyone's lackey. Almost the only sources cited here are newspaper articles and GRG. If the newspaper articles are reliable sources everywhere but here, then wikipedia --- at least on the topic of longevity --- is simply a mirror for the GRG tables. That's why I point out the difference between the two different insitutions' different rules. The effect of deprecating WP:RS here would be to conflate the two. David in DC (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

What constitutes a reliable source when it comes to extreme age? At the moment it seems that any mainstream newspapr is considered sufficient. But if the report does not mention that any document has been sighted which establishes the claimed date of birth isn't it just hearsay? Should totally unsubstantiated claims be included or does that just degrade the quality of the article? I suppose, given the history of this article, it would be too much to ask that any report have mention of at least one document (birth certifcate, passport etc) if it is to be included? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are quite well-defined for en.wikipedia. So is verifiability. GRG may have its own definition of "reliable" or "verifiable", but these are quite irrelevant. The two links I've provided are a start. Here are a couple of additional useful things to read: WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCES. It's kind of shocking that after all of the discussion about this --- before, during and after the ArbCom case --- has failed to illuminate the difference between GRG rules and WP rules. David in DC (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with GRG, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I am some sort of GRG lackey and/or am unaware of WP rules! I consider it a major failing of Wikipedia if a source is considered reliable just because it appears in the online version of a newspaper. This may be adequate for events and other factual reporting where the inherent truth or verifiability of somethings existence is easily confirmed/refuted, but it is grossly inadequate if the mere mention of someone being a certain age is all that is required. Blindly sticking to "WP rules" where they actually undermine the intent of WP as a worthwhile encyclopedic resource indicates to me a lack of interest in furthering those aims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If two pillars like RS and V are a major failing of Wikipedia, the longevity suite of articles seems a strange place from which to correct these flaws. Please go to the talk page of either piller and try to generate a new consensus.

I'm not "...blindly sticking to the rules." I'm knowingly reserving the fifth piller, WP:IAR, for those truly exceptional cases for which it was intended. Except in those unusual cases, the project is degraded if every editor or WikiProject gets to decide, ad hoc that "...the intent of wikipedia as a worthwhile encyclopedic resource..." requires carving out an exception in their area of interest.

The rules, as they stand, do permit periodicals that are not available online. A citation to the source is quite sufficient, assuming good faith. And they do have a place for scholarly sources. A fairly elevated place. Higher, in many cases than newspapers and periodicals. But only if they're already published and peer-reviewed.

I imply nothing about anyone being anyone's lackey. Almost the only sources cited here are newspaper articles and GRG. If the newspaper articles are reliable sources everywhere but here, then wikipedia --- at least on the topic of longevity --- is simply a mirror for the GRG tables. That's why I point out the difference between the two different insitutions' different rules. The effect of deprecating WP:RS here would be to conflate the two. David in DC (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

Canada Jack: as to a living person, perjorative characterizations should be avoided, absent compelling proof. Please see WP:BLP "Claim" is perjorative. Please see WP:CLAIM. It's more in line with policy to characterize reports than living people. The report may not be coming from the purported supercentenarian(s) at all. Please do not re-revert my recent edit. Please discuss here, if you disagree. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a load of bullshit. "Claim" in this context is NOT a pejorative. Might as well argue that "unverified" is pejorative as well, as we are doubting the veracity of the, uh, claim. However, I see you have rectified the text which implicitly supports the claim by clarifying it is the lifespan which needs to be verified. Canada Jack (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, David, on a page which is quite explicit about "verified" and "unverified" matters in relation to longevity, suggesting the phrase "supercentenarian claimants" is somehow "pejorative" is, if not b.s., then certainly very silly. C'mon. But, notwithstanding, your new text is fine. Canada Jack (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The verification (or lack of it) is attributed to GRG or other sources. We don't say the GRG or newspapers claim something. That would cast doubt on the verification. Plus, GRG and the other sourcees aren't living people.

Who's "claiming" the lifespan is a different thing. If it's a "claimant", that person's veracity IS being cast in doubt. It's ambiguous enough that the reader could be led to believe the "claimant" is the person being listed. That's not necessarily true. If it is true, then the living person's report is being cast in doubt. WP:BLP. If it's a relative or hobbyist or expert, their word is being cast in doubt. WP:BLP

"Report" is better, for BLP reasons, than "claim". WP:CLAIM And characterizing lifespans as supercentenarain rather than people is better for the same reason. Plus, the whole notion of "verifying" people is grammatically incorrect. People don't need verifying. Their lifespans do.

According to my birth certificate, I'm a verified person.

According to my birth certificate, my lifespan is not verified as supercentenarian. David in DC (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible death of Shige Hirooka

This doesn't appear to be the most authoritative site in the world, but http://gpwagpwa.ti-da.net/tag%E5%BB%A3%E5%B2%A1%E3%81%97%E3%81%92%E3%81%95%E3%82%93 seems to say something along the lines of ""The wake for the second-longest living woman in Japan occurred yesterday evening" and is dated 3/31/2011. Worth checking out. --Novarese (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That talks about the death of a woman named Hitoshi Masaru, who was the second oldest in Osaka Prefecture. It affirms that Shige Hirooka is the oldest in Osaka prefecture and the second oldest in Japan.

ah, thanks, that makes sense. I was a little confused because it seemed to say the lady was 113 (or 115 using the lunar calendar?) whereas Shige Hirooka would have been 114 on that date. --Novarese (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why has Shige Hirooka been removed from the list of living supercentenarians?74.131.99.14 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

She is confirmed dead on 29 March. PS: Congrats to Besse Cooper. --WikiNikki (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

David Pur

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136370

Allegedly this man said/says that he is 115 (now 116 if alive). Should I put this in longevity claims and how likely is his case to be true? I put this here just so that this case would get more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.208.63 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The place for such claims is here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Supercentenarians

- - Why are there (5) Japanese supercentenarians which have been placed in limbo who were verified between January and March of 2011, and an additional (2) Toshi Horiya, and Chiyoko Asato who were last verified September 14 and 15th 2010, respectively, who have also been removed. Isn't there some GRG delegate or someone who works with Japanese Wikipedia who can verify if these people are still living. I'm not declaring that it is, but it seems deliberately contentious that Japanese supercentenarians are scrutinized so closely, more than any other nationality, especially in that they are the leader in the group and keep the most accurate records. No other nation has an extensive list of limbo cases. TFBCT1 (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not the job of any wikipedian to verify any case. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is correct, then who's job is it, and why is it the job of a wikipedian to unverify the case, particularly, continuously, for just one nation?TFBCT1 (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia hasn't placed anyone in limbo, the GRG has done that. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

TFBCT1, you've hit on the biggest problem in the longevity suite of articles. you asked "Who decides?" the sad answer is that, in most cases, a single organization's self-published web pages are the essential, often exclusive, source. David in DC (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And why exactly are we following GRG's word as gospel? Williamb (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I know. TFBCT1 and Williamb, your assistance in pruning back this WP:WALLEDGARDEN would be most welcome. If you're interested, please consider joining the World's Oldest People WikiProject. Your viewpoint is despately needed in its deliberations. David in DC (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources such as the GRG as references for the information contained in the articles. Some people are known to have died, but their date of death is unknown. Therefore they should no longer be listed on this article. Some people may have died and they were last known to be alive more than a year ago. People can only be listed as living if there is strong evidence to suggest they are. We do not get daily updates on any person mentioned on Wikipedia. Sometimes deaths go unnoticed. Sometimes deaths are only discovered a long time after the event. That's not the nature of the subject, that's the nature of tracking living people. We work with the evidence that we have available to us, just like any other area of Wikipedia. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

SiameseTurtle has said it all. However, David in DC's comment about WP:WALLEDGARDEN is unfounded as he has continued on this path for months now. To me, it appears that he has just canvassed TFBCT1 and Williamb to participate in the WikiProject because David in DC thinks that there is a walled garden here. This is becoming very tiring to see. Gerontology Research Group (herein "GRG") was, and is not, the only international group working with longevity research. However, Guinness World Records do not host a living list of oldest people in the world, and in fact, Guinness World Records cites the GRG for their Top-Ten list. As for International Database of Longevity clearly states here, "No personal information is supplied to the public version of the IDL, and any such personalized information is not made available to researchers or other individuals not involved in the validation process." I don't know how many times GRG (and myself as a new correspondent for GRG) has to apologize for being the only research group in the world providing a reasonable attempt of a public list of the oldest living persons in the world. Furthermore, GRG sometimes are at the mercy of governments such as Japan to provide an official list of oldest living people in that country. There is no walled garden here, David in DC. CalvinTy 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the WalledGarden claims are tiresome. One could almost call it a vendetta. If the GRG is not used who/what is? And given the pendantic rule-following which allows any report found online to be considered reliable(!) presumably the next step will be to remove verified claims and just leave the rubbish... DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Viktor Avilov, born May1, 1900

Dear Wikipedia,

my name is Pavel Rezvushkin (e-mail: Pavel.Rezvushkin@gmail.com). May I ask you to include Viktor Avilov into the list of living supercentennarians? He was born in 1900, and he's almost 111.5 years old now. Here's the reference link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Viktor_Avilov

Thanks in advance,

Sincerely yours,

Pavel Rezvushkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.92.134.91 (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is he even still alive? His Wikipedia page has nothing listed past 1965. 124.185.57.227 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Russian sources claim he's almost surely alive - see http://otvety.google.ru/otvety/thread?tid=150ecd8fc3d0b08c&pli=1; http://alnikol.livejournal.com/352571.html .

I'm sorry if I've mismatched my post -talkin' here in Wikipedia for the first time.

Kind regards,

Pavel Rezvushkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.92.134.91 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Numbering of the lists

What is the issue with removing the numbering of the unverified lists? With no numbering of the lists, it is very laborious to verify the numbers claimed at the top of the page and in each section. In fact, why bother putting a number of each in article? Again, the issue is verification of the numbers claimed. I don't understand why the rank numbers have been removed after being present for at least 3 years.

Update. The article claims on 9/8 there are 141 "others". Upon counting it several times, it is 140. A prime example of why these needed numbering. 9-9-11 IARXPHD

The numbers are wrong again. Can some please modify? By my counting there are only 150 "other" supercentenarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.131 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Serbian Supercentarian

- I'm not sure how to edit, but can someone please add "Slava Ivančević" from Belgrade in the list of supercentenarians, she was born 10. july 1894 and has 117 years at this moment, and is still alive. - Source the news, http://www.kurir-info.rs/vesti/drustvo/srpkinja-najstarija-osoba-na-svetu-sa-117-godina-143630.php Virogenesis (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Reference Text

The edit summary to this reversion of my edit is baffling. The footnote links to a document that, on its face, says it was updated on October 1, 2011. Somehow the editor thinks footnote text that indicates it was published in 2003 is more accurate. The document says, on its face, that it's a compilation of research by a multiplicity of reporters. Dr. Coles' name appears nowhere on its face as author, only as one of many contributors. Somehow the editor thionks attributing the whole document to Dr. Coles is more accurate. Can someone help me understand the reversion. Because the edit summary is nonsensical. The editor appears to be edit-warring, on behalf of inferior text. What can be done to let rationality prevail, without edit-warring? David in DC (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent discussion may have helped end edit-warring on this small topic. David in DC (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

When/where was it decided that edit summaries of the type "xxx date of birth supported by the census of 1900 and 1910" did not constitute WP:OR? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly OR. DHanson317 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Serbian Supercentarian

- I'm not sure how to edit, but can someone please add "Slava Ivančević" from Belgrade in the list of supercentenarians, she was born 10. july 1894 and has 117 years at this moment, and is still alive. - Source the news, http://www.kurir-info.rs/vesti/drustvo/srpkinja-najstarija-osoba-na-svetu-sa-117-godina-143630.php Virogenesis (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is for verified supercentenarian claims and unverified claims under 113 years. Claims over 113 years belong in Longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi-American supercentenarian?

According to this article, Warina Zaya Bashou is 111. http://news.yahoo.com/iraqi-woman-111-sworn-us-citizen-220432812.html Czolgolz (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC) An unverified case has submitted no documents to support the claimed age.Will you join me in restoring the super-c articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.87.148 (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange

Its a bit strange how long the process to become a verified supercentenarian takes. If people over 112 years are still pending cases, how long should they wait to be verified before they pass away? We shouldn´t forget all these extremely old people live on borrowed time. The process to be verified definetely needs to be much faster. I´m new here and maybe a bit naive, and the expert here have tons of explanations for verifications and so on. Nevertheless, find it strange that there are only 72 verified cases, while there are 170+ pending and other cases. I´m quite confident many of these cases are for real over 110 years old, at least when they come from well developed countries. However, the 72 verified supercentenarians on this page by no means give a true picture of the number over 110 year olds out there in this world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.245.235 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to wiki users to verify a case. Reputable bodies such as GRG do this. They require a minimum of three documents to be verified before supercentenarian status is approved. This seems to take 4 to 6 months in most cases, is occasionally quicker for well-known cases, and can take several years if early records are unavailable for any reason. Also note that the only requirement for inclusion here in the unverified section is a reliable source which basically means a mention in an online news report, which in reality is often not reliable at all meaning that many cases are nothing more than hearsay. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Rasch Obituary

Andrew rasch is currently listed on the " other Reports list" listed as born on October 5, 1901. He died on December 10, 2011 per WWW. Legacy.com/obituaries/AZcentral/aspx?n=andrewrasch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.88.122 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Actual link here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sudhakar Chaturvedi validation

Has Sudhakar Chaturvedi really been validated to be on the list of validated supercentenarians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.193.30 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No. And he does no longer qualifies for the unverified list which is for claims under 113. He belongs in Longevity claims, as long as there is an actual citation that he celebrated a 113th birthday. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

José Delgado Corrales

Under unverified supercentenarian living there's a TICO called José Delgado Corrales M 13 March 1900 Who should I submit the documents to put him on the Official name? This Person is still alive as per 1) Today's Nacion.com Website (03/10/2012)
2) TV News TELENOTICIAS^[1] of today, also confirms him http://telenoticias7.com/detalle.php?id=124151
Includes a Video of him

3) Official Goverment Civilan Registar (www.tse.go.cr) as follows (in spanish) (Tribunal Supermo de Elecciones, Consulta de Nombres)

10/3/2012
21:06 	  	
TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE ELECCIONES
REGISTRO CIVIL
INFORME REGISTRAL
NACIMIENTO 	
Número de Cédula: 	1-00***-724  
Nombre: 	JOSE URIEL DE LOS ANGELES
Primer Apellido: 	DELGADO
Segundo Apellido: 	CORRALES
Conocido Como: 	
Fecha de Nacimiento: 	10/03/1900
Lugar de Nacimiento: 	SAN ANTONIO ESCAZU SAN JOSE
Nacionalidad: 	COSTARRICENSE
Estado Civil: 	SOLTERO
Sexo: 	MASCULINO
Nombre Padre: 	JESUS DELGADO
Nombre Madre: 	GABRILA CORRALES
Empadronado: 	SI
Fallecido: 	NO
***** ESTE INFORME NO TIENE EL VALOR DE UNA CERTIFICACION ***** 
***** ULTIMA LINEA *****

Jorios cr (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It is likely this case this case has already been noticed by the Yahoo World's Oldest People forum, and if it appears reasonable it has probably already been brought to the attention of the Gerontoly Research Group. You could try contacting them directly at www.grg.org. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

cases to report more than one year

the list of pending cases, several pessoasestao with the report by actualisar (more than 1 year)-and specifically refirom Maria Juana, Louvenia Posey, Huang Shuqing, and maybe when Clara Sutton.para actualisaçao or elimination of the list (maybe switch to the list LiNbO)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel castelhano (talk • contribs) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unverified cases with no update in over 1 year are usually removed within a few days. It is not necessary to remove them immediately as it may take a few days for a new report to be found. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Carla Porta Musa

I'm finding it kind of hard to believe that she hasn't been put on the pending cases at the very least. Williamb (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There must be a citation claiming that she has celebrated 110th birthday. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to assume that both Italian President, Napolitano and the Pope sends greetings (for her 110th birthday) to dead peoples.

Fame before old age is not a substitute for proper documentation. → Brend an 13:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Unvalidated 113+ claims: auto-moved or need confirmation of survival to 113+?

The main purpose of the "unvalidated claims" section is to give the validators of cases a three-year window, or chance of validating them, as well as giving the claims a chance to be reviewed. If a case has not been verified by age 113, the default value shifts to probably not going to be validated. I think, in practice, when a case is removed on this page, it should be added to the 113+ list of unvalidated longevity claims, IF there is a 113+ citation. For those without a citation, are these cases just deleted? Is someone tracking the "limbo" cases, for example, someone who was reported alive at age 111 but had no report since then?69.15.219.71 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Born in" vs "Native of"

There are several reasons why "born in" is a better term than "native of," when it comes to usage on this and similar list pages of supercentenarians. First off, the place of birth is relevant to the existence of birth documents, not to some flag-waving nationalism. Second, people like John McEnroe may be "born in Germany" but a "native of" the USA. Third, "native" can be a loaded term: who is a "Native" American: does this refer to "American Indians"? Someone born on U.S. soil? Someone born to US parents? There's a fourth issue, however: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a current-event news report. Someone can change their "nativity" by changing their citizenship, but the place where a person is born never changes. Moreover, someone could have been a "native of the U.S." but later became a Swedish citizen (such as the man in the news who deserted in 1984). Issue four includes the fact that "is a native of" is a present-tense statement that can change, whereas "was born in" is a past-tense statement of fact that will not change (unless an error needs correction).

Given these four issues, I recommend all of the articles on supercentenarians that cite "place of birth" use a past tense "born in place X" rather than a present-conditional "is a native of".

69.15.219.71 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Is native of" has aleays seemed to me to be a poor term. "Born in" is clear and would make sense to the average reader. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Alfonso Fabros

This man is listed on many sources as the oldest living WW2 veteran. He was born on February 13, 1901 in the Philippines. He is 111 years old so that makes him a super-centenarian also. He is also one of the few survivors of the Bataan Death march. 68.58.119.97 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What sources? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone posted it today. He has been verified by both the Philippines and the U.S army as a war veteran for World War 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's listed in the unverified section because his age has not been verified by an independent organisation such as GRG. Being verified as a veteran, even the oldest, is not a verification of actual age. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That will be difficult the Japanese destroyed the village he was born in during WW2. It will have to be sourced from other records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

He should now be on the pending list his enlistment papers from WW2 show his birthday as verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted nonsense edit

Someone put in a blatantly bogus entry for "Someone Else" in Bulgaria, alleging age 181 years. I used Undo on it. Seanette (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You can put down any woman claiming to be 123 or any man claiming to be 116 as nonsense. Never has there been a proven case of anyone attaining those ages.

GRG Table EE Update

Greetings,

Some may not have noticed the latest GRG Table EE update:

56 June 29, 2012 U.S. (NC) Trudie Martin Oct. 19, 1901 110* W F lives in U.S. (NC) Gabriel Ainsworth/Robert Young Y

Yasuko Kimura

She has been added on Table E. I no longer wish to fool with the actual article. Too many rules and nitpickers to bother with. Williamb (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 57 July 2, 2012 Japan Masayo Okamoto Sept. 21, 1901 110* O F lives in Japan (Okayama) Anson Davis/MHLW, Japan 58 July 5, 2012 Mexico Dominga Velasco May 12, 1901 111* WH F lives in U.S. (CA) L. Stephen Coles Y 59 July 10, 2012 Japan Sou Nagata Jan. 2, 1901

GRG Adding New Section

The GRG is splitting the Table E list into two sections: "Oldest Validated Living Supercentenarians" and "Other Validated Living Supercentenarians". The second section means the case is validated, but not ranked (i.e., the GRG may have skipped over other cases for special cases, such as a man in the top 100, or the oldest woman in Belgium).

Technically, this means that those from the "other" section should not be assigned a rank number. Think of tennis. Some players are "seeded" 1-32; others are "not ranked". Get it?69.15.219.71 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the GRG. Entries are ranked as per consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, this is the original-research copycat GRG list which really shouldn't exist, but does, because people love to make lists.

You seem to have entirely missed the point. The real point is that this list has basically been parrotting the GRG, and now the GRG has started a new organizational scheme...a sort of "express checkout lane" that approves certain cases faster than others, but does not expect those cases to be categorized in the main ranking scheme, so shouldn't the Wiki list follow the listing it copies? To NOT do so is Original Research, not "consensus". Perhaps you noticed that the months of November and December 1901 are missing? How is Carl Berner really ranked "71st" when his case is more than two months separated and when, at age 110, it is obvious that there are missing cases in between?

Further, you seem to misunderstand the difference between "oldest" and "110+". In 1898, the "oldest living person" list compiled by someone such as Thomas Emley Young, president of the Society of Actuaries, London, was topped by a 106-year-old woman, Margaret Ann Neve. The point is that "oldest" has changed over time. Whereas a cutoff of "110" would have been too high a cutoff point a century ago, it is rapidly moving towards being too low. If, in 2050, there are 4 million centenarians worldwide and just 1 in 1,000 are 110+, that would still equate to 4,000. So, let's ask this question: how has Wikipedia planned, editorially, for the transition from 110+ being a reasonable cutoff point to it being an unmanageable one?

Clearly, the new GRG concept is just a train arriving at the station at the moment, not one leaving. But is would be wise to consider the editorial consequences of being stuck in a mindset where 110+ is always the cutoff point. To pretend the data is already unabridged is just a convenient fiction...how far should that fiction be stretched to conform with convenience?69.15.219.71 (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither does the validated supercentenarians section necessarily have to be a "ranking". We could consider Carl Berner as the "71st living oldest validated supercentenarian".DHanson317 (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that why the word "rank" is used at the top of the column which numbers to 71? Surely the world's oldest person, or even the "second-oldest" person, are considered ranked, not just one of a large collection of similar items.69.15.219.71 (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is by definition a "list" (in fact 3, but we are only discussing the first). The logical order is by age/date of birth. There are 71 entries on the list. The consensus is that they be ranked, therefore the ranking is from 1 to 71. The system the GRG uses is irrelevant. This list is (nominally) compiled from any reliable source. At present only the GRG is considered reliable. If another reliable source were to be used which contained different entries from the GRG then this list would combine all the sources into 1, ordered, list. While the consensus is to rank the verified supercentenarians on this page then they are all ranked. All the other arguments listed above are irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are there "rankings" for the top list, but not the other two? Hmmnn...69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The only question we need to ask is whether the claimants are validated. I saw that GRG had the second list which is rather odd, but both are lists of verified living superc's, so we need not make a separate list here. As for the ranking and lack thereof of the other lists, the logic is it is meaningless to affix a number to unverified claims given there are many which exceed the claims here and so there is no "rank" per se, just a position on a list. Canada Jack (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-reference

I removed a self-reference from this article, but someone reverted me. Self-references are any mentions of the name "Wikipedia", the phrase "this article", or a link to a non-article page in Wikipedia. The one who reverted me says it's not a self-reference. Any reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The link you removed links to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is included in the article so that editors and readers know what sources are valid, i.e. what types of sources the people on this page are referenced by. It is not a reference itself: No supercentenarian is referenced by this page. You might have been thinking that this link was acting as a reference, which it is not. It merely explains what references are accepted and which ones are not. -- JJJ (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought references to the project namespace were not allowed inside articles. Georgia guy (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. --JJJ (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Self references. Georgia guy (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think JJJ is correct. This page has had a lot of issues in terms of what a "reliable source" is for the purposes of "verified" claims. For example, a report in the New York Times on a person who celebrated their 118th birthday might be inserted on this page by an editor in good faith as being "verified" as the source is broadly considered to be a "reliable source." There have been numerous instances of this in the past. But for the purposes of this page, this is not a "reliable" source to constitute a "verified" claim. The link to the wikipedia policy is therefore here to clarify this issue and is therefore not self-referential as per the other policy being cited. Canada Jack (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a reference to the project namespace. Wikipedia articles are not how-tos, and this is a how-to, specifically "How to decide whether anyone belongs in this list". The article namespace is for encyclopedic info, not how-tos. Georgia guy (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a link to what is meant by "reliable source," which is not a generic definition as you had when you put "valid" in its place. Indeed, the inserting of "as defined by wikipedia" came about because a past editor was peeved that they couldn't insert as "validated" a claim which appeared in a reputable news source, so THEY wanted to underline this is what wikipedia defines as "validated." I agree with you to the extent that we should not have "as defined by wikipedia," as that is redundant, IMHO. But the policy you are citing does not apply, and so far three editors agree, and your fix confuses the issue and will raise the very issues the original text was designed to address. Canada Jack (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid states that Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided. Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or to [a] Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible. Just a note. -- JJJ (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

But why is this an exception?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the policy. "...should be avoided where possible." This page is on a subject, unlike most other pages, where there are constant claims being made which would warrant inclusion here under normal circumstances. IOW, there are a great many claims constantly being made of individuals attaining an age which would top the "verified" list, let alone warrant inclusion elsewhere on the page. And, more to the point, this page has constantly been messed up by well-meaning editors who do not understand the subtleties of the "reliable source" policy. Therefore, mentioning the wikipedia tenet in the lede is entirely appropriate as experience here dictates. The policy, after all, says mention of a policy should be avoided "where possible," not "always without any exceptions." Your edit to simply stating "valid" sources means nothing to a new editor who doesn't understand or, more to the point, can't quickly access that policy. And on this page in particular as experience shows us lack of clarity on this issue up-front would lead to more well-intentioned editors inserting inappropriate material. Canada Jack (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. -- JJJ (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Commonly self-references are mentioned in HTML comments that ask people not to make certain edits. Any objections to having one here?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to omitting "(as defined by Wikipedia)" but not "reliable sources". Recall, most visitors to the page won't be editing, they will be browsing and might wonder why that story on the nightly news about a 120-year-old isn't reflected on this page. Not only is GRG mentioned, but the reliable source policy is too, which would answer those questions. And, as I stated earlier, this is one of the few pages where the policy needs to be emphasized. Canada Jack (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with including "reliable source" without the wiki definition is that it is not correct. The wiki dfefinition which is used here is not the same as the generally accepted definition of "reliable". There is no distinction between e.g. The Times/New York Times or BBC/CNN etc and some minor news outlet which is just as likely to report a story of a 115/120/125 year old as a 110 year old. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Males near super-centenarians ages 108+

There are so few men verified and pending as being 110 a grand total of eight as of today's date. I believe that a watch list of men who are over 108 or better should be listed and verification of ages should be started at age 108. SO when they do hit 110 they will be known and all ready verified to be placed on the super centenarian list. It is sad to see a male die on the other list or pending list while awaiting verification well past his 110 birthday. Or at least make males top priority when they allegedly hit 110 and are awaiting verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a list somewhere under Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People which covers this. No need to duplicate it here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I could not find such a list as you mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A guy like Reverend Dean that comes from England should all ready be verified and ready to be placed. He turns 110 in early November And England has kept reliable records for the last 200 years. There should be no delay once he makes his birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protection?

I'm not a Wikipedia expert, so am not sure what can be done, but we keep seeing assorted vandalism, such as repeated (and from different IPs) removal of the entry for Besse Cooper with no supporting reference. So far as my own ability to determine, Ms. Cooper is still very much alive.

Do we have any way to at least cut down such problems? It's about a daily event lately. Seanette (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection would be appropriate. One of the other regular editors of this page should know how to do this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind semi-protecting the page, but it seems from the page history that there are a lot more positive contributions from IPs than detrimental ones, which would make protecting the page counterproductive. Canadian Paul 21:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

All persons on the verified list should be page protected. once added only some expert like Robert Young should be able to change or modify that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT the GRG. Wikipedia editors can use any reliable information, not just the GRG (although that is the main source at the moment). As Robert Young has been banned from editing wikipedia he will have no further direct input to this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

when was he banned I was lead to believe he was their prime source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

^ http://telenoticias7.com/detalle.php?id=124151

[1] ttp://telenoticias7.com/detalle.php?id=124151

[1]