Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 13

Wikilinking for nationality

Is there a reason there are multiple Wikilinks for each nation? For example, there are 50+ wikilinks to USA in this article. Are they necessary (for example autocounting)?Ryoung122 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mainly for convenience - just having to use {USA}. However I don't think it would be helpful in a table like this to only link the top one. In some tables I want to click on the link, only to find that I have to go and hunt for it further up the table. SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove the disputed cases from the list!

It's interesting that there are lots of disputed peoples (lots of question marks) on such a list whose name is "list of the verified oldest people". I would remove all of them. Otherwise this puts the list to the category of joke.

Those people were (mostly) verified at their death and have been questioned subsequently. Unless there is conclusive proof that the verification was in error they remain "verified". DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I do think we should give more information about why there is a dispute, and what the dispute is so that it can be left up to the reader to decide if they include them or not. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Hagel Dead?

Is Catherine Hagel dead, I heard she died yesterday. Is there any truth in this. --Audrey Knight (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt matter, shes dead. My condolences. --Audrey Knight (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Longest Living POLISH people.

Please help us. we are from Poland very big database, not published.

for more information , please contakt Wolfgang on Wikipedia -Poland

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Wolfgang/brudnopis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.218 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be mostly longevity claims...not reliable.Ryoung122 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Note

On January 20, 2009, not only will the next American president take office, but the person who has been in the top 100 the longest on this chart will be removed. (Or at least it's likely.) Star Garnet (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

By that, I of course meant that Delfina Filkins will be gone. Star Garnet (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean January 20, 2009? Delina Filkins?

By the way, I suggested making an addenda list that is equivalent to the number of disputed cases.Ryoung122 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i am relatively new to this page and don't quite understand: will Ms Filkins be gone because of a number of increasingly older candidates who are currently "bubbling under" the Top 100? Cheers, tomasz. 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There are a couple of living people aged 113y, 180/170d who will break into the top 100 soon (Manuela Fernandez-Fojaco, and Olivia Thomas). If they pass Filkins then she will drop out of the top 100. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but she was undispusted and found to be fully verifiable, what we can't say for many peoples on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.44.137 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, as per Robert's suggestion, we should somehow highlight the questionable cases, maybe simply by italicizing them. After all, on GRG, there are codes depicting the level of verification for various individuals, so we'd simply be applying a form of qualification for some cases which others have highlighted. I think we need also to, on this page, describe for each case which is in dispute the nature of the dispute. This can be a brief note like "Some suspect Izumi may have been 105 at death," and "Some suspect White may have been 102 at death." Canada Jack (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If all are surviving Delina Filkins will be tied on January 29, 2009, and fall off the list January 30. TFBCT1 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum added

As most here have no doubt noticed, I took the liberty of adding an addendum of extra verified claims which bring the undisputed list of claims here to 100 individuals. I know that at least one member here was adamant against this list, but I feel it is justified for the following reasons: #1: None of the sources we generally use have a "Top 100" list per se, so the numbering we use here borders on original research; and #2: Various sources dispute or note dispute with some of these individuals, so if they were to have a numbered list, they may not include those questionable claims. The simplest thing therefore is to include with an addendum a number of unquestioned claims equal to the number of questioned claims.

I, however, count six claims, not the seven that the addendum now includes. Just to clarify, here are what I identified as the six disputed claims:

1: Shig Izumi (may be 105); 2: Carrie White (may be 102); 3: Kamato Hongo (I understand she may have been younger as some records are inconsistent, but how much younger? If only by a year it should be noted); 4: Anitica Butariu (uncertain as to what the dispute is - is this questioned because the authorities in Romania haven't revealed their criteria for acceptance?); 5: Mathew Beard (is this here because the main claim comes from US Social Security records?); 6: Moses Hardy (may have been 112). Accordingly, the list addendum should omit the seventh claim. Canada Jack (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see elsewhere that with Hongo, the question is whether she was 115 or 116. Therefore, she would be on the list regardless, and therefore the addendum should be FIVE deep. Canada Jack (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Kamato Hongo "may be 110"...Belgian demographer Michel Poulain believes she was only 110, not 115 or 116. This research is to be published soon (I already have the manuscript).

Some more comments: Mitsu Fujisawa could be a 7th case. I have reasons to doubt that one (but nothing has been published). Moses Hardy, if not 113, was at least 112 so that is the least disputable case. With Romania, that was a case that the GRG accepted early (Louis Epstein also accepted cases like Janina Izykowska of Poland, 116, since dropped). Although nothing has been published to dispute the Butariu claim, the articles from 1997 claimed that Dr. Victor Arsenie had the documents for this case, but we have not been able to find him. As for Mathew Beard, the SSA accepted the case but it was a questionable census match (they had a scoring system, with 4=very good match, 3=good match, 2=marginal match, 1=inconclusive, 0=not a match). Beard's case scored a 2...I personally suggested they not accept. Ironically, though, the Beard age claim was to 116 or so, so he could have been even older.Ryoung122 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An addenda fulfills Wikipedia's call for a pluralistic view, one that incorporates major points of view. Cases like Izumi are accepted by some authorities, not by others.Ryoung122 15:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty here to add footnotes for the disputed cases, and included a note about Robert's doubt on Fujisawa's claim. However, that may not pass muster in terms of wiki-style, so please correct if need by. Also, it seems Star Garnet was of a similar mind, though with a different solution and we tried to change the page simulateously. But I think that putting a table into the "notes" section is problematic and aesthetically clumsy. But that's my opinion. See if my solution (footnotes for the disputed claims) better addresses this or sufficiently addresses this. Canada Jack (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the addendum should be made a section or subsection? Star Garnet (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on addendum. I remember reading a time back that Nelle Hunt was also a disputed case and may even have been debunked. Does anybody no if this is true? And if so, should she be listed as a proven case? Thanks. TFBCT1 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The other "can of worms" is that a lot of cases could be open to question. Nelle Hunt's age is confirmed by a 1900 census listing, among other things. Women in mid-life often understate their age, and sometimes this gets misintepreted.Ryoung122 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. TFBCT1 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The oldest people, Maria de Jesus dead

See: 14-year-old U.S. woman to be world's oldest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.232 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm older than 14! Missing a century?Ryoung122 10:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Real purpose of these lists

The real purpose of these lists should be to show the demographics of longevity...the whole argument about age verification is that when the process is rigorous, then claims such as that of Thomas Parr are seen as nonsensical, impossible. Look how tight the data is, just days (and sometimes less) separate those outside the top 10.Ryoung122 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitsu Fujisawa

I don't want to call this case into question unless I find an article that explicitly says so. I do have doubts about this case, but not enough to put a ? mark by her name. For one, she enrolled in a university at 112 and took exercise classes at 112. However, finding the original news articles from 1988 will be difficult. Remember, I finally found the Izumi smoking gun but that took years.Ryoung122 10:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a note to the main page on her mentioning your concerns - should I omit it until something more concrete emerges? Canada Jack (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it - it's original research in its purest form. Someone, it doesn't matter who it is, makes a claim on a Wikipedia talk page with no sources whatsoever and freely admits as much. Material that is not verifiable may be removed at any time. Cheers, CP 17:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right call. I shouldn't have put it in in the first place. Canada Jack (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was not "original research"...the research was done 20 years ago:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11978

Mitsu Fujisawa apparently a fake

I'm currently reading the Japanese Wikipedia article on Seki Takewara (January 11, 1878 - March 2, 1987). If I'm understanding it correctly, the last paragraph states that Mitsu Fujisawa turned out to be a fake, being born in 1890 instead of 1876. Here's how I understand it:

According to the article, Fujisawa's family members had doubts about her true age, so in 1989 the Longevity Award Committee of Japan decided to investigate this. The investigation revealed that Fujisawa's real first name was Kosayo (born 1890), and that the original Mitsu Fujisawa died young and Kosayo was using her older sister's name and birthdate. In March 1989, Fujisawa's family petitioned the Ministry of Welfare to correct this error, but the Ministry couldn't find any credible evidence to support the petition. However, in April 1989, the Longevity Award Committee of Japan decided to posthumously give the "Japan's Oldest Person" title to Seki Takewara for the period of May 21, 1986 to March 2, 1987 (Which, BTW, would've meant that Japan had no supercentenarians from the death of Ine Tsugawa on May 21, 1986 until Waka Shirahama's 110th birthday on March 26, 1988!).

Can someone read the article and see whether my understanding/interpretation is accurate?

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%8E%9F%E3%82%BB%E3%82%AD

The issue was whether the original Japanese article or articles debunking this case can be located, not whether it is original research.Ryoung122 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the wikipedia article, nothing can be found on this on the web as far as I can find. I don't doubt the wikipedia article is correct, but I don't know where a source for it can be found. No "list-of-oldest japanese" contains Mitsu Fujisawa though. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Woman, 107, seeks husband

nice article: telegraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.195 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuti Yusupova

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7857591.stm

I don't know if you have come across this claim of 128 years old before, but it appears that officials discovered her when performing a sweep of birth certificates of people over 100 years old and living. Well worth watching that news article. RichyBoy (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Take this to "longevity claims." As its been pointed out, a 1997 Microsoft Word printout is NOT an 1880 birth certificate.Ryoung122 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's OK because I wasn't saying she was a verified person; I was merely drawing attention to the claim to start with in the unlikely event that it went overlooked by you guys that do all the work. I'm unaware of all of the related wiki pages and there is no reason why I should be, of course, now I know in the future I can put this onto a more relevant discussion page. RichyBoy (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

couting years + days vs. days?

I just updated the table because I thought there was a mistake. According to this table, someone could have lived for more days than someone else, yet be ranked lower. Today, this was the case with Numbers 80 and 81 in the table (Mary Josephine Ray, and Luce Maced). I understand that the difference it due to leap years.

What I am questioning is why we count the misleading number of (years + days) instead of just days? Shouldn't we be listing the people in the order of oldest to youngest? If you have lived for a longer amount of time (in other words more days), should you not be considered "older"?

If there is interest in changing this, then the bot that updates this table needs to be changed. 137.82.175.12 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion already. And while there may indeed be a good argument to make that going by day-count is more accurate, the sources we get this information from (GRG, Epstein) both rank by year/day. Why? Because very few people reckon someone's age by the number of days they lived. Do you routinely measure how long you live by how many days you've lived, or by years and days? Further, since both the sources, when by year/day are tied, they rank chronologically and not by day-count. See, for example, Carrie Lazenby and Ura Koyama. Both lived 114 years, 218 days. But Koyama lived an extra day by day-count, yet both sources put Lazenby above Koyama. I have argued that, therefore, to do anything other than what the sources do is employing a new criterion - rank by day-count - and therefore is original research. Therefore, the ones to convince to change should be the sources, not here at wikipedia. However, while that argument has won the day in the case of how we rank living people against the dead with the same year/day count but not day count, the placements for the dead are still by day-count, which I argue is original research.

Further, to argue that day-count is more accurate is misleading. The year/day count is accurate to within a day (currently) of actual time lived. However, since we don't note the particluar hour of birth and death, the "day" count actually has a margin of error of greater than a day anyway! So it is entirely possible for someone who is supposedly a day "older" than another person to have actually lived less time than that person. Therefore, I have argued, the greater "accuracy," since it is smaller than the margin of error, isn't truly more "accurate" a measure of longevity than some seem to think. Canada Jack (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. You are correct. In most cases, we do not have the actual hour of birth and hour of death. In fact, in some cases the date of birth is a "factored" number...an estimate. The SSA study randomly distributed birthdates as 1, 15, or 30 for cases with only a known month of birth.

In science, a digit is not "significant" if the result is less than the margin of error. Trying to 'correct' for leap day is simply missing the point. The point should be how close the data is aligned (which indicates a biological limit to human longevity) rather than whom ranks ahead of whom.Ryoung122 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's like fussing over thousands of a second in a 100 metre race when you don't have the ability to measure the distance to within a metre. Canada Jack (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I understand that the margin of error may well be more than a day. But this is not a supporting argument for choosing (years + days) over (days). In fact, the most convincing argument your have proposed is that the day-count is original research and should therefore be removed altogether. I would certainly favour removing this column, because otherwise it is simply misleading (it's not how we rank them, and it reflects an amount of accuracy that isn't there). 137.82.175.12 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, coincidentally, today the problem has manifest itself again with Gertrude Baines and Mary Bidwell. I propose the "Age in days" column should be removed, due to accuracy problems, original research, and the confusing situations that occur on days like today. 137.82.175.12 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the original research argument is the best one, but others continually argue that to count by days is more "scientific," which, I suppose, means they mean it is more accurate. Robert says it most succinctly when he said In science, a digit is not "significant" if the result is less than the margin of error. AS for going ahead and removing the days column, there might be some resistance to that as I doubt there would be consensus here to do so. Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely be in favour of removal of the Age in Days column. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is in favour of removal of the Age in Days column (overwhelmingly, if not unanimously!). So I will. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

130 year old woman from kazakhstan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164503/Is-woman-really-old-LIGHT-BULB-Oldest-person-world-set-celebrate-130th-birthday.html Seems legit; census info, birth cert. and all. Is this source correct? Recent article...Figured I'd ask you guys first.--Lvivske (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Legit? Not even close in the sense of "verified" as required for this article. This should be in Longevity claims, only just though as 130 is the maximum age accepted for initial claims on that page, otherwise it would be a longevity myth, which is probably more accurate in any case. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at that 1979 passport photo. Way too young looking for a 100-year-old. --75.170.40.194 (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, it is still only documents that can be used to verify or debunk a case. Sarah Knauss, an extensively verified 119-year-old, looked hardly much older when she was 100, so looks can decieve... http://www.cacao-chocolate.com/chocolate-sarahknauss99.html Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

114-year-old Nigerian in news, probably false claim...

This has really been making the rounds in the news lately.
http://www.javno.com/en-world/114-year-old-nigerian-arrested-with-marijuana_244895
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n325/a03.html
Probably a false claim. Over there when anybody gets over about 90 their ages start to get blurred and exaggerated, i.e. the "village elder"/"wise old man" syndrome. Thoughts? --75.170.40.194 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

110-year-old dies in Corvallis, Oregon

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2009/03/26/news/community/4aaa04_pearson.txt
Might not be big news but there must be a table somewhere on the site she could be added to. Where? Also, there needs to be some consolidation of supercentenarian-related articles on here. I mean, hell, does "Supercentenarian" and "Supercentenarian tracking" really need to be two different articles? --75.170.40.194 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she was on the oldest living by state page, but now that she has died, her name will be removed - she's several years short of the all-time Oregon record, btw. Canada Jack (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sortable table

Hello. Is there any reason why the table in this article is not sortable? I would like to make it a sortable table ... but I would also like to first solicit if there is any valid reason why it is not currently sortable. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Using a sortable table has been tried before (on mopre than one occasion) but does not work properly because there are tied ranks (iirc). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 11:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't follow. What does a "tied rank" have to do with this issue? How would a tied rank render improper sorting? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

From Help:Sorting#Limitations: "Javascript sorting may not work properly on tables with cells extending over multiple rows and/or columns." I'm pretty sure that the tied ranks do not separate in the sort. Probably the best way to see why/how it doesn't work properly is to copy the table onto another page and make it sortable and see what happens. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I see what you mean. Thanks. Yes, if the "tied" positions are listed as extending over multiple rows (or columns), you are correct ... it would render the sorting improper. However, tied ranks do not necessarily have to be formatted in this restrictive way. In other words, this is a problem that has an easy solution. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Question about the list #1 - Age calculations

I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 1): Everyone would likely agree that age listed as "age in days" is more accurate than age listed as "age in years and days" ... since all "years" are not created equal (i.e., a leap year equates to 366 days, but a non-leap year equates to 365 days). Furthermore, the whole "point" of these lists is to rank people by oldest-to-youngest age. I also understand that we at Wikipedia simply report what the major "sources" (GRG, etc.) come up with. My question, then, is this. Why on earth would those major sources ignore such an important concept as "age in days" when the entire point of their work is to rank people by age? I am very confused by that. If getting the ages and the list rankings accurate is important to them, why do they live under the fictional notion that a leap year of 366 days is "equal to" a non-leap year of 365 days? Clearly, a person who is 366 days old is "older" than a person who is 365 days old (even if only by one day). Why do the major sources ignore this vital concept? I cannot understand that at all. Why would these organizations (whose main goal is to rank ages accurately) deliberately employ an inaccurate (or, less accurate) method of counting age? If anyone can shed light on this strange convention, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

"Comment": There are, in fact, MANY reasons for maintaining this data. One of them is to calculate annual mortality rates, and for that the age in "years" is actually used, not age in days. Thus, whether someone died at 110 years, 1 day or 110 years, 364 days, it's still age 110. There are many other reasons why this data is maintained, but the main point is NOT to provide a list of the "100 oldest people of all time." The real point of many observations is NOT that "Person X is ranked 97th" but that the data fits together so much better when validated (i.e., the ages claimed are closer together) than when unvalidated. The point of many observations is to avoid problems such as "just a coincidence" or "one bad case slipped through." With many observations, we can see the big picture: and the big picture is that age 113 is very rare (there are currently just 12 living verified persons 113 or older worldwide) and 114 is almost nonpareil: there's currently zero living 114-year-olds. So, we can see that just one extra year goes from an age almost always now reached by at least a few persons(since the 1980s) to an age that is reached (114) that has regularly been the low end of the cohort extinction range (116 is the high end). Anything above 116 is an outlier...data so rare as to not be expected very often (a verified 117th birthday has not occurred yet this decade).Ryoung122 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone would likely agree that age listed as "age in days" is more accurate than age listed as "age in years and days" In fact the consensus is the opposite which is why the Age in Days column was removed (see Talk:List of the verified oldest people#couting years + days vs. days? above). DerbyCountyinNZ 09:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it was removed, listing it both ways doesn't seem to be a problem.Ryoung122 09:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Age in years and days is unflexible. Eventually people born after 1900 will enter this list and unfortunately the system discriminates against them. Secondly it doesn't allow for calendar changes, so the system assumes that no-one from Romania will live to 114/5 before around 2024. This system will develop problems in the future. SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's NOT true. If a person's age is recorded using a different calendar system, but the system is reliable enough to consider the data valid, the data is simply translated into the Gregorian calendar system. For example, if someone in Japan was born in Meiji year 20, that is converted to 1887.Ryoung122 10:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, some of the sources do reckon by day-count, but they list the ages by year/day count as that is how people generally understand ages. Saying someone has lived 40,000 days will likely elite a blank stare from most people, for example.

But a better reason is the fallacy that day counts are somehow "more accurate" than year/day counts. While it certainly is true that, owing to leap years, ages may be out by a day, this is only a concern if the level of accuracy itself is less than a day. But it isn't. The level of accuracy when we go by birthdate/deathdate is in fact close to 48 hours. Babies who are born before midnight but die 20 minutes later are not really "older" than babies born in the early hours of one day but who die later that evening. But by the way we reckon daycounts, we'd rank the 20-minute baby as "older." In other words, someone who seemingly is "older" by day count by a single day might in fact be younger than someone seemingly day younger, when one considers the time of day born.

And, as Robert Young points out, obsessing over who is older by a day or so misses the grander picture of where the range of people at this age are, which is the more important thing. The fact that, say, a mere handful of people had lived to be 113 by 1980 and now we have something like 150 is the more pertinent "scientific" interest here, not who among two people is "really" older when their year/day count matches but one has an extra day by day count. Canada Jack (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Too many listcruft fanboys miss the major points here...it is not so much who is ranked 96th or 97th, but that so many of the top 100 cases come from since 1980. Clearly, humans ARE living longer, and there was a huge increase from the 1960s to the 1990s. However, we can also see that that increase has levelled off this decade. We don't know why yet, or whether that is temporary, but tracking the data can help researchers figure out what works and what doesn't.Ryoung122 10:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about the list #2 - Frequency of age and rank updates

I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 2): We at Wikipedia only report what outside sources report ... and we do not report any "original research". Do these outside sources (such as GRG, etc.) actually change these age rankings on a day-by-day basis? How does this occur? Do they have a website that they continually update every single day? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

The list is updated manually (by whichever user first notices it needs updating) as living persons move up the table. If new information is found that a deceased person has since been confirmed to belong on the list they are usually added here by someone who is keeping an eye on the Epstein or GRG lists (this is quite rare, usually they are idientified while still iving). I think the Epstein list is updated more regularly than the GRG list but as User:Ryoung122 is a senior researcher with GRG any newly discovered case is usually mentioned here quite promptly. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The lists are updated at GRG quite frequently. Rarely is there a week without an update. In terms of OR, they have to be confirmed by those sources to get on the "living" list, though to get off the living list, one only has to note that the death has been reported in the media. IOW, the level of authority is drastically reduced in that situation. As for daily updates, the only issue here is on the living lists and, since a person can be taken off a list when reported dead, there is no "OR" in simply presuming all are still alive if there have been to reports to the contrary. Is it "OR" to presume, for example, that Barack Obama is still alive if we aren't there in person in the White House to confirm it? Do we need to say "alive as of this most recent date" for the page on Brad Pitt? No, the presumption is that the living are alive until reports emerge to the contrary. Canada Jack (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about the list #3 - Martha Graham's estimated age

I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 3): In this list, Note #7 states: "The day count for Martha Graham is an estimate as her month of birth is known but not her date of birth." Apparently, it is verified that Martha Graham was born in December 1844 ... but the actual specific and exact date within that month is unknown. Thus, her age is an estimate. Does anyone have any idea as to how her age was "estimated"? Did some source (e.g., GRG) just pick a random date like, say, December 17, 1844 ... and then just "go with it"? If these sources did pick some fictional birth-date ... can we find out what they used? And shouldn't the article list this "estimated" birth-date as well? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Graham's age is taken from the both the GRG table and Epstein's. How that estimate was arrived at is given in the note on the article page. As the dates given here can only be those used by reliable sources and GRG and Epstein are the only 2 reliable sources (I believe Guinness base their records on the these tables) the fact that they give the same estimate for Graham's age is sufficient for this page. Any attempt to provide an alternative age would be original research. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The GRG table you linked to is not an 'official' table. It also includes unvalidated claims (such as El Hadj Mohammed El Mokri). If you look at the tables that the GRG update (such as this, Martha Graham is not listed. Martha Graham's date of birth was extrapolated from one of her claimed ages (she also claimed she was 118). It doesn't seem to be a widely accepted case. SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Her case is controversial in the sense that, according to Robert Young, her claim could not be verified under current rules because the earliest known document for her is more than 20 years after the event. (The 1900 census states her month and year of birth when she was, I think, a 55-year-old.) As to the estimate, because the "verification" came from the census, and that census only listed month of birth and not date of birth, she therefore lived about 180 days beyond her birthday. Robert notes that frequently, people would list their date of birth as "January 1" or "December 25" if they didn't know it. And if a specific date was not known, the gerontology people would assign a nominal birthdate, though you'd have to ask Robert how often that was done... Canada Jack (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah... 180 days... I think that was simply a matter of "born in December, died six months after her birthday in June, so 6 x 30 = 180." Since the level of accuracy is a month, they applied that, it would seem, to the estimate of the days. Canada Jack (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Date format

Another editor has pointed out to me that the dates in this article should be formatted as, for example, 26 June 1876 ... as opposed to June 26, 1876. This editor's reasoning is: "This is an international page, international date system (d-m-y) not American system (m-d-y) applies". This editor also states: "[Using the American system is a] contravention of WP:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic". I looked up that particular Wikipedia policy. It seems to me that using a m-d-y format such as June 26, 1876, is not necessarily an American style. I assume that that style is used in many other parts of the globe, as well. Also, the Wikipedia policy cited states:

Retaining the existing format

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
• In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

I checked back to the initial creation of this article page (from March 8, 2007). At that time -- and ever since -- the article has been formatted with dates in the m-d-y format. So ... rather than engage in edit warring and reverting back-and-forth, I have come to this Talk Page to seek consensus on this issue. Are there any thoughts on this matter? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Here in Australia we use the day/month/year format. I do get confused when I see say 7/6/2005 for example as for me it means 7th June whereas in the American format it means 6th July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.33.91 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As the user you have quoted above I will happily elucidate on my comment. WP:MOSDATE says:

"Strong national ties to a topic Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field."

This is fairly clear that m/d/y is used ONLY in the US and perhaps Canada. This page was (unfortunately) started with that format when, as an international ratyher than US-centric page it should have been d/m/y. On 15 April an anonymous user (edit: ooops, I think this was actually me but on checking the IP it gives the location as China, not one of the IPs I use. I vaguely recall have changed the dates on an article but couldn't remember if it was this one. Sincere apologies. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)) went to the trouble of reformatting the page to d/m/y. Strictly speaking this contravened this section in WP:MOSDATE: "Retaining the existing format If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor"."

However I would suggest that given the international nature of this article that there are insufficient reasons for reverting to m/d/y format, Particularly as no-one else has raised any concerns in the 7 weeks or so since the change was made. DerbyCountyinNZ 07:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rican woman Maria Mojica Torres added today (May 18th, 2009)

Who is she, all of a sudden? I can't find her in the GRG list... Please, someone explain it to me! 87.160.168.202 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone added her before she's been verified [1] SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomoji Tanabe

Does anybody know why Tomoji Tanabe has been removed from the GRG's List of Recent Deaths for 2009? TFBCT1 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It must have been a mistake; you can e-mail the GRG webmaster to get it corrected. 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.251.173 (talk)

Accuracy within the Top 10

It seems very odd to me that the case of Izumi is included in this table when it is at best unverifiable, but it is still recognized by G. World Records. Carrie White however is listed flat out as a FALSE claim on GRG's website. Is she still recognized by Guiness?, if not perhaps she can be removed. It irritates me Guiness seems to want to continue to recognize obvious frauds do to unwilligness to admit a mistake.

GRG has Izumu listed as dispute, White listed as FALSE, and no info on Hongo. Basically was just wondering if anyone (maybe RYoung) could shed some light on any of this and give justification for why these people are stil included on the table, and also the full reasoning for why their ages probably false. Hongo's wiki doesnt even list WHY her supposed age is disputed, that could be important information, no? Lolwikiments (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to us to decide which candidates should be excised from the lists when some authorities choose to recognize their claims. Those specific claims you mention have been noted as being disputed. White's claim is still listed by some authorities, other say it is false. Therefore we note the claim is disputed while listing it. If and when those who recognize a particular claim decide it is false, we will excise the claim. But it is not our place to presume recognized authority A is simply wrong and remove the claim. We simply report the citable claim. Canada Jack (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico isn't a country

Puerto Rico isn't a country; it's a territory. My edit was reverted without discussion or explanation in the edit summary, so I'd like to hear people's opinions here. --Edge3 (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The source (GRG) lists the country as Puerto Rico. For an earlier discussion see this DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to pin down as the citizens of Puerto Rico are US citizens, but not full citizens in that they don't pay all of the taxes residents of the states do, and they are not allowed to vote in national elections. They also have no voting representation in congress. Furthermore, some international bodies treat them as US, some treat them as a separate nation, and some treat them (and other territories of various nations) as a special case. Given that the international community and even Puerto Rico itself can't really figure out what they are (there's a significant if not majority movement in PR to redefine the relationship due to recent US policy statements regarding its status) and what the relationship is seems to shift from decade to decade without formal legislation, I don't imagine this issue is solvable on wikipedia. I hate to say it, but I think we just need to pick a policy on territories and stick with it. It's borderline OR, but I don't think we have any other options besides not listing nationality, which I don't think is the number one solution here. aremisasling (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion linked above seems to not have come to a consensus, so I agree that we need to figure out a policy pretty soon. The debate over whether PR should be listed as a country is most likely occurring on other articles/lists as well. In my opinion, however, all territories should be considered part of the sovereign country.--Edge3 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Beard still a disputed case

I've checked with RobertYoung re Matthew Beard appearing to be no longer disputed in the GRG list and this is his respone: "No, this case is still disputed, and that status likely won't change. If a new GRG table inadvertently didn't have italics, that was unintentional.Ryoung122 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)". Should we wait for the GRG list to be corrected or just go ahead and revert? {Copied to Talk:Oldest people and Talk:List of the verified oldest men} Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New List Candidates

There's a new "top 200" list on the GRG page that includes at least one new top-100 listee now listed here yet.131.96.91.251 (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of this new "top 200" list. Where is Lucia Lauria Vigna who died on June 28, 2009 at the age of 113 years, 116 days, she should be listed next to Kaku Yamanaka, but she's missing from the list altogether. Does anyone have an explanation?

Wow, one little mistake. Your list doesn't even go to the 200th place.Ryoung122 01:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one mistake that needs to be fixed. Longevitydude (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was only joking with you. To all who compiled the list. Job well done. :) TFBCT1

On the new list Mary Bidwell is listed at 114 years, 342 days. Should be 114 years, 352 days. Thanks. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, her age is in dispute by 10 days. This is just one example of over-focusing on minor details.Ryoung122 11:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

How is that possible...

...that almost all of the oldest people in world history died in the late 20th century - 2009? Only one person from this list (Martha Graham)died before 1980's and it was in 1959. So before 1959 nobody could reach the age of 113, and only in 1980's people suddenly began to live that long? 77.127.118.39 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Better healthcare, better diets, better record-keeping. Martha Graham's an old case which isn't up to scratch by modern standards so the GRG doesn't list her (but Guinness still does). Don't forget Delina Filkins and Betsy Baker. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Title of this article

I would like to know why this title is "List of the verified oldest people" ... as opposed to "List of the 100 verified oldest people". If we use the former, then the title essentially implies a full list of all of the verified oldest people. If we use the latter, then we are explicitly limiting the list to the top 100. Am I missing something here? Also ... if (for whatever reason) we continue to use the current title, wouldn't it be more proper to say "List of verified oldest people" ... removing the word "the"? I am no linguistics expert, but use of the word "the" in this title does not seem correct. It seems awkward, inappropriate, and grammatically incorrect ... no? Any feedback? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually I would say removing 'the' would make the title awkward, inappropriate, and grammatically incorrect. 'The' is needed for the word 'oldest'. I'm neutral on the number being included though. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)|

I would suggest that the title be changed to "The hundred longest lifespans recorded" since the number of people actually recorded is more than 100.What do you think? We can always keep this page as a redirect so that anyone searching for the 100 oldest 'people' still get the list. 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Harsh Baat Kijiye(Talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

addendum

wheres the addendum ,why was it removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.146.105 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've returned it as there was no reason for its removal. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you, i guess there is some good in you after all. 74.249.149.254 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Anitica Butariu

The page currently says "rank disputed" in terms of Butariu. However, this seems to be out of the question on whether her date of birth is as per the Gregorian calendar or the Julian calendar. I have yet to see any source which has raised this issue, it is therefore Original Research. I propose we remove the Gregorian/Julian calendar "issue" from the notes, as no source has raised it as an issue, unless someone can find a source. And I propose we change the "dispute" note to one saying something like "verified by Romanian authorities, but not by international authorities".Canada Jack (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue about the Gregorian calendar has been thoroughly discussed and debated before. See the archives bfore raising it again. As for the dispute - I agree. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any note from the sources regarding a potential issue with the conversions between calendars. I'll give you till Friday to find something we can source, Alan, after which time this Original Research will be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For a note that has been so thoroughly discussed and in place for well over two years, I believe you should prompt and promote discussion and consensus before taking such action unilaterally. I would respect that process. Alan Davidson (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Alan, have I removed anything from the main page? And have I not initiated discussion? The entry as it stands is original research if there is no source "disputing the rank" or questioning whether Romanian authorities know the difference between the various calendars. It matters not one whit if the argument to have the entry is airtight and perfect, nor if others believe it should also be there, if no outside source is making that precise argument. It still is original research, and therefore should be removed. If you have some argument why this is NOT OR, then let's hear it. Canada Jack (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, these issues were discussed earlier, and since that time, two of the three issues which Alan suggests were "thoroughly discussed" have since resulted in that information eventually being removed. Specifically, the "day count" issue, and a similar "Gregorian" note with Izumi. We still have the Butariu note, and from my reading on the various debates, while there was much argument on Izumi and day-counts, there was almost no discussion on the Butariu note, Alan simply stating "no comments mean consensus." I had one of the few comments on Butariu then when I felt it was justified to note the potential discrepancy. However, I no longer believe that is justified.

Since this issue has never been fully discussed, we should do so now. Canada Jack (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, here is what Epstein has: "Anicuta Batariu...June 17,1882-November 21,1997 [Certification apparently only by Romanian authorities]." GRG has the same dates with similar and identical notes: "Batariu was accepted by Romanian authorities," and "Certification apparently only by Romanian authorities," but no reference to a potential date discrepancy. In all instances, an identical birth date is noted for Batariu, with no "?" after the birthdate, no note on Romania being on a different calendar when she was born, nothing but the "Romanian authorities" note. This is, therefore, Original Research, however justified the point being made. Canada Jack (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack,the Gregorian issue has ben discussed thoroughly here more than 2 years ago. This note has been amended by several people over the years to be in this form for a considerable amount of time - that is, consensus by a number of editors. Please read the archives, there is an entry which gives a reference to another source. But, I don't believe we are actually in disagreement. The note states accurately "The sources do not indicate ..." the possible discrepancy in dates. The note is not saying it is one way or the other. It is an appropriate synthesis. However, given your tone in the past I don't believe any reasoning will convince - so let me say this. If any single account person agrees with you - I will make the change. (It is not such a big deal). Alan Davidson (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Alan, I've read the archives. the issue was discussed, and similar points were raised. It went for comment, but the comments were focused on the day-count issue, not on the Gregorian calendar issue. So the issue in terms of Batariu/Butariu (do we have the correct spelling here, btw?) was never "resolved."

Since that time, the day-count issue has been resolved, we no longer list ages by days. Since that time, the "Gregorian" issue in terms of Izumi was raised - by me - and we got subsequent agreement to remove the note, when it became clear that you had raised an issue on calendar usage which was completely irrelevant to the Japanese situation. The Izumi issue, incidentally, was raised at the time and not changed until I brought it up again and dealt with it.

Now, we can finally move to remove the final note, as - and this was raised before - the note constitutes Original Research as no source I have found raises this issue at all. You are hereby invited to find a reference which makes the same point of a possible miscalculation of Batariu's birthdate.

However, given your tone in the past I don't believe any reasoning will convince - so let me say this. If any single account person agrees with you - I will make the change. (It is not such a big deal).

The only person with a "tone" problem is you, Alan. The last time, I pointed out the error of the Izumi date "correction," spelled out how the specific days mentioned as a possible error would not apply as Japan was never on the Gregorian calendar, nor on any similar western-style calendar where a date confusion could arise. And every other editor agreed with my analysis. Instead of swallowing your pride and acknowledging the error, you strung out the debate, pretending that it was still an issue whatever calendar they had previously used (without ever telling us where the specific number of days difference arose from), pretended you didn't author the note (which, I found, in fact you had, save for some minor word changes that did not affect the over-all point) and then suggested your main concern was that the proper process was respected, as if the presence of erroneous material was beside the point.

But, I don't believe we are actually in disagreement. The note states accurately "The sources do not indicate ..." the possible discrepancy in dates. The problem with that logic is we could potentially think of any number of "discrepancies" which the sources do not indicate were accounted for. Like, the "sources do not indicate whether the person reading the record was experienced in differentiating European cursive numbers, where a '1' could be misread as a '7.' " Or, whether, using your Gregorian example, whether a person of the Orthodox faith stated an Orthodox date for the birth of their child who was born in a country using the Gregorian calendar. I personally know people here in Toronto, Serbs, for example, who follow the Orthodox dates. Can we be certain they reported a Gregorian date for the birth of their child?

In the end, we should raise points raised by reputable, published sources. Since GRG and Epstein both chose only to mention that Romanian authorities verified the dates, and made no mention of any other potential issue, then neither should we, as that is OR. If you wish to wait until someone else agrees with me, so be it. But that doesn't change the fact that this is OR. Canada Jack (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am now removing the text I identified as being Original Research, as the lone editor to raise an objection has not supplied a source for the note which he apparently inserted. Further, the inclusion of his note has necessitated a further note to the birth claim being questioned, viz “rank disputed” even though no source has been produced to make the point he makes and the editor, it would seem, is the sole source “disputing the rank.”

The text in question notes that Anitica Butariu/Batariu was born in Romania, a country which did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until the 20th century, hence her reported date of birth might be as per the old Julian calendar and therefore inflated by 13 days.

As the policy explicitly states: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

1. The original thought (which is the potential discrepancy, not Romania’s adoption of the Gregorian calendar) is not attributed to any reliable source.

2. The analysis (Romanian authorities have not explicitly stated whether they accounted for a calendar conversion) is not attributed to any reliable source.

3. The synthesis (combining birth information of Anitica Butariu with historical data regarding when and how Romania adopted the Gregorian calendar) is not attributed to any reliable source.

4. The position being advanced (a possible error with Butariu’s date of birth) is not clearly advanced by any cited source. Canada Jack (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lone editor? - this was discussed in 2007 - and at that time we editors agreed to use certain wording - another person provided a source (see the archives) which you have missed, or ignored) = Then several additional other editors adjusted this over the years (please check for yourself). To show good faith I agreed to change it if there was ANY support - you changed it without any - agreed, discussed and in place for more than two years. I wonder what others think!!! This is quite trivial - I will leave it and not deal with you (no matter how much you further provoke). Alan Davidson (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is, as you say above, a source for the specific claim that Batariu's birthdate may by mistated by 13 days owing to confusion over calendars, then I recommend you locate that source, and then we can reinstate the note. Otherwise, as I have established (with not a single editor disputing my specific contentions), this is Original Research. Canada Jack (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Background colors

I changed the background color of the disputed items, I'm slightly colorblind, and they seemed too close in color to me. If there are any objections to the new color, please state so here, and we can try to find a color that is suitable and contrasts with the green for the living persons. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 04:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

Why was ranking removed? Also why was Lucy d'Abreu added? I thought it was agreed that although Martha Graham was footnoted, she would not be considered an unproven case, and hence only a need for "six" in the addendum. Please explain. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this too. It seems that Mitsu Fujisawa's case has been questioned, there are question marks there now, but the source (from the history of this page) is to a GRG page which seems to only indicate a question here via an italicized entry, the manner in which questioned claims there are indicated. But, to be consistent, we should have something a bit more substantive I'd say, some note which can be linked which explicitly raises questions about this claim. I've supplied links to all questioned claims, save for Beard's which I could not find, but in that case we know the dispute. Graham's dispute is different as it is a question of a grandfathered case accepted by some but not all authorities.

I would remove the "?" from Fujisawa's case until there is a substantive link, and I would remove the seventh claim in the addendum. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and do that for consistency especially in that Fujisawa's case has not been "?" on the List of the verified oldest women, nor any addition for her to that addendum. TFBCT1 (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to question the source we use, which is why the question mark is needed. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of questioning the source, it's a matter of whether we should declare a case "disputed" when all we have is a name in italics. We need more than that. Canada Jack (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I quote from the tables: "cases in italics are questionable as validated cases". We have to go with our source. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, what happend to Carrie C. White's footnote? Is it now considered original research? TFBCT1 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the White citation and put it back. As for the case in question, it seems a bit lame to me to simply say "GRG indicates this is a questionable case," without saying why it is a questionable case, as we have done for all the others. However, I will concede that this is sufficient, even without a description of the nature of the dispute. To be consistent, we should insert a note that GRG calls it questionable. Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. My problem remains now that we are not being consistent with information on List of the verified oldest women page which is what caused my confusion initially. We need to be consistent throughout Wikipedia. Since the corrections have not been made, I'll go ahead and make them on that page as well. TFBCT1 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on Mitsu Fujisawa, which is a difficult case. There seems little doubt that the Japanese authorities "took back" this case after the fact, when it was revealed that it was a mistake. The lists of oldest in Japan which can be found rather easily in Japanese do not include her anymore. Unfortunately though, this story is so old that it wasn't widely available on the web when it broke, and therefore it is more or less only available as a Japanese wikipedia footnote on the 109-year-old man who was posthumously upgraded to "oldest in Japan", for the period Mitsu Fujisawa had previously been. For this reason there are even in Japanese no really good refs as to why Mitsu Fujisawa is questionable. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not checking the previous archives, but as a rookie contributor who rarely uses the discussion section, I wanted to know why Besse Cooper and Walter Breuning are in the Addendum section when they are "validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group". Never mind me, doofus mistake on my part, they have not even reached top 100 yet. However, Besse Cooper are only 4 days away from entering the top 100? Would she be automatically placed on the top 100 or remain in the Addendum section?

Also, I think my confusion comes from the first sentence after the word "Addendum" saying: "Several claims are disputed; accordingly, an addendum of proven claims is included." Then, immediately afterwards, the table showing #101-#107 oldest is displayed. It implies that everyone currently listed are disputed. CalvinTy (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The list is updated manually for position, automatically for current age of living persons. People watch the page and edits typically happen near 00:00 GMT. Regarding the addendum, none of them are listed as disputed. There are as many in the addendum section as are listed as disputed in the section above.  Frank  |  talk  16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Frank (I had to identify you via the history tab). I see 7 disputed entries inside the Top 100, so am I to infer that that's how there are an equal number of 7 entries in the Addendum? Like I said before, I'm quite confused because, as you said, none of the "Addendum" entries are disputed. So why do we even have this section if they are now integrated into the Top 100? Might as well nuke the section as it serves no purpose other than "apparently attempting to rank" #101 through #107 oldest persons right now? CalvinTy (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Those individuals do not appear in the list above.  Frank  |  talk  17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is actually quite clear and the addendum is obviously necessary. The top 100 are verified and not disproven, however there are 7 cases which are now disputed. This is because although they were validated under the rules in use, and with the information available, at the time they would probably not be validated under the present criteria (also, some information has been lost). They cannot be removed however as there is no proof that the listed age is incorrect. Therefore they are "disputed" (and notes explaining why in each case added) and 7 undisputed claims have been included to top up the 100. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand about the disputed cases being validated at the time, DerbyCountyinNZ, but you and Frank appear to be missing my point. The sentence, ""Several claims are disputed; accordingly, an addendum of proven claims is included." is right above the table showing #101 through #107. It implies that the 7 names below (Besse Cooper et al) are disputed. Do you follow? The disputed cases are already within the top 100 so the disputed cases are (understandably) not listed *separately* in the table below showing #101 - #107. I hope this helps clarify my original confusion. CalvinTy (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

'Several claims are disputed' refers to the disputed cases in the main table. Then the addendum of proven cases is listed below. I don't see where it implies that disputed cases are in the addendum. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After further review, I belatedly see what the point of the Addendum table. We are only adding an EQUAL number of proven claims (I was dense last week...) since we had included the disputed claims in the main table. If we had discounted the disputed claims, then those in the separate table would have been in the MAIN table. Gotcha. Thanks to all for your patience. CalvinTy (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus needed

Greetings,

I'd like a consensus as to whether we should remove Martha Graham (and other incomplete cases) from these lists. I should note that Robert Young from GRG has recommended that we not include incomplete cases on the lists and, in fact, Martha Graham is no longer listed on GRG's top 200 oldest list.

I'd also like a vote as to whether we should go with the 1894 birthdate for Moses Hardy (as is now listed on Epstein's page)

I support making both of the above changes.Tim198 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A week has now passed, and since no else has responded I'm going to make the changed I suggestedTim198 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew I should have responded to this earlier, but I've been too busy. I don't support accepting the 1894 date for Hardy. His age has NOT been "debunked". There are 2 equally acceptable sources for his age. If the GRG still accepts the 1893 date then I think that is good enough for this article. If the GRG changes to 1894 then he should be listed with that date, and removedfrom here. If Graham is to be removedfrom the list I would like to see her added as a footnote. Although her claim has no exact birthdate her age is otherwise verified and it would probably improve the article to include someone who would otherwise be included in the list and would be some 20 years earlier than anyone else on the list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Making the changes on Wikipedia is like "the tail wagging the dog." Yes, going with 1894 would result in "undisputed" but at the same time, there was quite a bit of evidence going for 1893 and even earlier (1910 census, 1930 census, drivers' ID card, social security records, obituaries).Ryoung122 22:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Derby, I disagree with you about Moses Hardy not being debunked. His claim has been debunked (at least by Louis Epstein). The definition of the word debunk courtesy dictionary.com is

verb (used with object)

to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

By changing his official birthdate to 1894 Louis is debunking the claim. He's exposing the claim of birth to 1893 as being exaggerated. Why should we go with GRG over Epstein and not vice versa? Again, as I stated in another section above with two of the three earliest records supporting an 1894 birth it makes more sense to go with 1894 over 1893. Derby, you need to provide evidence on why you believe we should stick with 1893. Just saying because GRG said so doesn't cut it my view.Tim198 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To Robert Young, I read what you said about the new evidence being discovered after Hardy had already been accepted by Guinness. But I want to ask you this: IF you had all the evidence before Hardy had been accepted would you go with 1893 or 1894?Tim198 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb should be to list the possible older age, if there is evidence to suggest that age might be accurate. Otherwise, the person disappears from the list and one is unaware of a possible bona fide claimant. Canada Jack (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion about Moses Hardy should go to Talk:Moses Hardy if any valid consensus to be formed, and this entire problem about his being removed from every article would have been made much simpler if that's where it had been in the first place. As to the question itself, "Why should we go with GRG over Epstein and not vice versa?", well if we have two reliable sources that have conflicting claims, we should list those conflicting claims, rather than deciding on either of them. Epstein has made his choice, other reliable sources (the GRG) have not (unless they have, someone fill me in, a source?). There's absolutely no reason to remove 1893 unless it has been conclusively proven (as opposed to just, one person thinks this) or there is consensus among all relevant sources. Canadian Paul 02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems the consensus is to retain the 1893 birthdate, I'll reinstate Hardy (even though I strongly disagree with this)Tim198 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Martial Arts Master Lu Zijian - 116 years old

Today I worked on the table and added the chinese martial arts master Lu Zijian on the 7-th place. Currently he is 116 years old and 176 days. He was born on the 15 October 1893. So my question is why that information was removed by someone when there are solid facts about his age? Also why, if he is not the oldest living man on the planet right now (I posted this information in the first section), his information was removed in the table? I expect answer or I'll continue to edit this table in the name of solid truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.134.62.50 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To be included in this table the person must be verified. To quote from the opening paragraph of this article: "A supercentenarian is considered verified if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group." Lu Zijian has not been verified by such a body, therefore there are in fact no "solid facts" as you have asserted. And if you do continue to re-add anyone that does not meet this requirement it will more than likely be considered WP:Vandalism. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He is to be found on the "recent claims" section of Longevity claims. Canada Jack (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And... he ranks only 19th of claims of people who have unverified dates of birth, six of whom are men, and if we include claims from those who have not updated in the past two years, then we must add another 20 people, at least five of whom are men. Canada Jack (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Anitica Butariu (again)

I'm not pointing fingers, but the first paragraph clearly states:

"A supercentenarian is considered verified if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group."

However, Anitica Butariu's footnote states:

"Aniţica Butariu's claim was accepted by Romanian authorities, but supporting documentation for the claim has never been produced for inspection by international gerontology organizations. However, nothing has been published to dispute the claim."

So which one is it? We need to decide whether or not Butariu really ought to be on this list. These are two conflicting pieces of info about the validation by international gerontology organisations. Should we rephrase Butariu's footnote or remove her altogether? I don't claim to know a lot about her case, so I'd appreciate the help of you guys. Brendanology^ContriB 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

She's still on the GRG list, which would be surprising if they hadn't seen the documents. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why they would let that claim slip through the cracks onto the GRG website's validated lists. This is a MAJOR error. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally with you, Nick Ornstein.

And yes, I'm also wondering why Butariu is still on the GRG's lists. Even Epstein concedes that her "certification (is) apparently only by Romanian authorities". If we include her here, we might as well also include Maria Olivia da Silva as she has been "validated" exclusively by Brazilian authorities. I don't know what she's even doing on this list if the GRG hasn't actually seen her documents. Given that the oldest living Romanian right now is a woman who celebrated her 106th birthday yesterday, I personally find Butariu's claim to 115 very suspicious. This issue is definitely worth discussing some more. --Brendanology^ContriB 12:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Martha Graham and Moses Hardy

I think Martha Graham should be removed from this list. We don't know exactly when she was born and I think in order to be included on this list each case must have an exact birth and death date. (I also understand that this is the reason she is no longer on the GRG lists)

In regards to Moses Hardy, I noticed that Louis Epstein changed his birthdate to 1894 recently on his list. GRG on the other hand is still sticking with the 1893 birthdate. So now we have two reliable sources saying two different things. I would recommend that we go with the 1894 birthdate because when a case is doubted such as this researchers usually go with the more conservative birthday. (Maggie Barnes, for example could have been either 115, 116, or 117 at death but researchers decided to go with the more conservative estimate of 115).Tim198 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then how do you handle Izumi? Go with 105? Canada Jack (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Izumi, while I think most agree that he was only 105 I don't think we can change his age on Wikipedia because none of the reliable sources has "officially" debunked his claim. As such, if we did change it on Wikipedia it would be considered original research (which is a violation of the rules).Tim198 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Has Epstein specifically "debunked" Hardy? Or has he merely chosen to accept the younger age? This makes a difference as to how he should be treated for this article if the GRG still uses the older age. In any case, I think there should be consensus before any changes are made.DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I disagree with the use of the term "debunked" here, which basically means:

de·bunk (d-bngk) tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

If someone claims to be 114 but turns out to be only 92 (and their mother, if still living, would be only 113), then it's appropriate to use the term "debunked." When a case is only off by one year and there are multiple documents on both points, that is something else.

If Louis had "debunked" Moses Hardy, then why is he on Louis's "validated" list? Louis goes with "1894" but also notes 1893:

Moses Hardy 112 335 January 6,1894 December 7,2006 [some records say born 1893]

While this isn't the place for original research, the original claim to 1893 was backed up by an ID card, 1930 census, and 1910 census match (which qualified, under the 20-year-rule, as proxy proof of birth). Thus, the case was accepted by both Guinness and the GRG. Later, his WWI draft registration and the 1900 census emerged (which I found) listing him as born in 1894. That makes this case problematic, as both dates have some support. In reality, quite a few cases are problematic. Due to Wiki-pedi-holic-ism, some people are so obsessed that they forget the rule for significant digits. Mr. Hardy's social security record listed 1893 (and a second account listed 1892) and the 1920 census supported an even older age (1891).Ryoung122 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is one of consistency. As I mentioned above, I liken the Hardy case to the Maggie Barnes case. Maggie Barnes could have been 116 (based on the 1900 census record) or 115 (based on family bible record). GRG chose to go the conservative route (as they seem to do with all cases that have conflicting evidence) and validated her at age 115. But with Moses Hardy you did the exact opposite and continue to go with 113 versus 112. Also, with the 1900 census being the record closest to Hardy's birth it's more likely to be correct. Based on these facts, I see little reason not to change his age at this point.Tim198 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the point, you STILL don't get, is that the "tail shouldn't wag the dog." Wikipedia is supposed to be reflective of OUTSIDE sources, not ORIGINAL research. However, I can see that that mantra is failing due to the hypotism of the power of "anyone can edit". But the result is that Wikipedia becomes a LESS reliable place, not a more reliable place.

As for Martha Graham: there should at least be a footnote, as she is included in Louis's lists and was once in the Guinness Book (mid-1980s). I don't list her because there isn't an exact date of birth, and the "proof of age" is the 1900 census (which lists her was born Dec 1844), which is far outside the birth event.Ryoung122 05:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Moses Hardy. He is not confirmed to be 113, he may only be 112, but Martha Graham is for sure 114. She may be a few days younger or older than what is said but she should be on the list. We know she is supposed to be one of the top 100 oldest people. So why was she removed? Jdisnard

Re Martha Graham: If Beatrice Farve with even the birth month not known for sure is on the list, Martha Graham should be too. --Leob (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different. There is a recorded date for Farve, even though it is only one. This has been sufficient for GRG. There has never been an exact date for Graham, merely a month. We can only go by the source. If the GRG decides that there is insufficient evidence to list an exact date for Farve THEN she would either be listed as disputed or removed from the list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for the Farve's birthdate? If it's her ID with a fake year 1905 for the sake of the DMV computer, there is no way to trust the day of the month either. It is convenient to point to it as a recorded date, but it is as good as presuming that Graham was born on Dec. 31 1844 to compute her guaranteed minimum age.

Speaking of Graham, comparing http://www.grg.org/Adams/B.HTM and http://www.grg.org/Adams/BB200.HTM the only conclusion I can draw is that excluding her from the "public" table had been done for aesthetic reasons so that all age numbers look "exact", as there is no dispute note next to Graham in B.HTM. I don't see a convincing reason why Wikipedia should slavishly follow the "public" GRG table instead of listing all GRG-verified oldest people with or without known exact age by compiling the two tables.

Also, I think Hardy should get a footnote similar to Fujisawa's. Having a disputed case without an explanation looks strange. (It is curious that between B.HTM and BB200.HTM Kott (some records say 1 year younger) went down a year and became verified, and a Hardy (some records say 1 year older) went up a year and became disputed.) --Leob (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Extension

Should we extend this list (and the two related lists) to 125 people? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No. 100 is a reasonable number to include in such a list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest not to limit the list by a number of people but rather by some age. On a long term one might get a kind of exponential distribution of the cases with a random cut-off (in this case 100). Many interesting features of the distribution might get lost and many interesting cases might also get lost. To give an example: The number of male people on the list will decrease dramatically in the future.I would suggest to set the cut off to 113 years or even lower, but not below 110. A way to avoid the mentioned complications and to maintain the list as it is, one might set up another list with a cut off of 113 or lower on which all the cases above a certain age are kept. 79.216.173.61 (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Title and/or list is misleading

The article is entitled 'verified' and then goes on to list a number of 'disputed' claimants. So which is it? Are the disputed names verified or not? If verified then they need to be listed as such and not as disputed. If they are indeed disputed then they need to be removed from the list - because they are not verified. The article should lose the 'verified' bit or the list should lose those people who have not in fact been 'verified'. As it stands the article is misleading. Wembwandt (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's both. Some cases were, and still are considered verified, but recent findings have cast some doubt on the authenticity of the validation. The article has to keep the "verified" part, or it opens the floodgates for all claims to be added. This page is only for cases of longevity that are accepted by reliable international sources dealing specifically with extreme longevity, such as Guinness World Records or the GRG. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that ST. But shouldnt we remove the disputed claims? They are no longer verified - if once they were. Wembwandt (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they are still verified until the source (ie GRG) removes them. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What happed to to 43.

This list currently jumps from 42 to 44 skipping 43. And no there is no tie for position number 42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.36.14 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Tie for 100

This article in the past has, when 2 or more people tie for 100 left them in. This means that the article will temporally have 101 persons until someone bumps them off. I think its fine and a lot better than only having 99 people on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.36.14 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Skewed view

Isn't this list very obviously skewed? Fifty ones of the names on it belong to US citizens. This cannot be because birth certificates or other documentation authenticating longevity claims are less available in other countries. Or can it? It seems rather more plausible that the majority of the Gerontology Research Group members are from the US themselves, and thus US claims are easier to verify. If this is the case, very few analytical conclusions may be drawn from the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.170.14 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes... And this is relevant because??? Even so, it is still a fact that it is easier to verify Americans because there is more available data. There are simply not very many countries with sufficient census data from more than 100 years ago, and the US, while far from having the best census data, is definitely the biggest country with easily available such data. Even if the relevant data could be found in quite a few countries, in one as big as the US, it would involve traveling around quite substantially to rural country churches with ancient books of births and deaths. And of course, in many countries, not even such data is available. When brazilian census data is available on the web, there will be more brazilian SC:s, completely regardless of where the correspondents are based... Yubiquitoyama (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

America is also by far the biggest of the western industrialized countries, the only larger countries population-wise are only now emerging from third-world status. Further, many of the western countries from where candidates might emerge are in Europe which experienced two catastrophic wars which killed far millions of civilians and troops, let alone destroyed many records which would corroborate claims. While the United States was not left unscathed by those wars, the demographic consequences were far less severe. Canada Jack (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Survival rate is another very important factor in determining the percentage of supercentenarians within a given population. Just think that, if, say, in country A the average age at death is 5 years less than that in country B, roughly speaking you can expect the number of supercentenarians in A to be something like 1/30 of those in B. That's indeed the reason for which male supercentenarians are a very small minority, even if males are just about half of the whole population.Fbarioli (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)