Talk:List of the verified oldest people

Shige Hirooka

Everyone else on the top 100 list has a page. Shige Hirooka is now #95 and she still doesn't have a page...she needs a page. I'm just pointing that out. Jdisnard (talk)22:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean all the other LIVING people on this page have an article. The same thing happened with Kama Chinen. Some people just do not have sufficient details available about them to justify an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant living people, sorry...and thank you. I just wasn't sure if there was no reason for her to have a page or if no one wanted to because she is important but I guess I haven't really heard much of her. I just hope in the near future we'll know more about her.Jdisnard (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.88.163 (talk)

Shige Hirooka is nothing more than a name with an associated birthdate. Kama Chinen was already anonymous when she became Japan's oldest in April 2008, and was only identified much later. Her article was created only when she became WOP in September 2009. Shige Hirooka might possibly meet notability guidelines, but there is simply no information on her at present. Brendan (talk, contribs) 04:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Martha Graham

Should Mathra Graham be "disputed? I don't believe the claim is disputed, only that her precise date of birth is not known, making her between 114 years and 177 to 208 days. I would change her postion to 114 years and 177 days and change the footnote to refelect this. Or, should we follow the source that "calculates" ca 180 days. In any event, her claim is not disputed. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussion here seems inconclusive. I actually thought there was greater argument for her exclusion (not that I agreed with it) on the basis that an exact DoB was required. Maybe that discussion is somewhere else? Anyway, I'd go with 114y 177d. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read the previous discussion. I think she should be here, without the "disputed" colur and with 114 years and 177 days. Alan Davidson (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Shouldn't it be 114 years and 176 days, though? 31+28+31+30+31+25 = 176. Leob (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think her claimed is "disputed" because the earliest record of her is the 1900 census match. There does not appear to be an early life record of her yet.DHanson317 (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be "disputed" as her claim would not be accepted if put forward today, as the earliest record for her is the 1900 census when she was in her early 40s. So the dispute is not over the uncertainty with her exact day of birth, but the grandfathered nature of her claim where criteria in the past was less stringent. As for "C.180" I say go with "c 180" as when we use "+" it is generally for claims with an uncertain date of death, so person X lived 112 y, 179+ days, i.e. is dead but last reported alive at a date where she/he was that age. Canada Jack (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

it should be "disputed" as her claim would not be accepted if put forward today is OR. In the Epstein list there is no dispute remark for her. Leob (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we add another person to the addendum because of her disputed status? 173.71.80.164 (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There has already been a person added. I think you are thinking about Fannie Thomas. No extra addendum is added for her because she would still be in the top 100 with or without her disputed age.DHanson317 (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes do not explain why she is disputed - or have I mssied something? I appreciate the previous discussion - but should this be reflected in the footnotes? Alan Davidson (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DHanson317: Given that Fannie Thomas is now at 98th place, taking her other possible birthdate will take her outside of the entire list, including the addendum... As for Martha Graham's case, I agree that she should be "disputed" because of the uncertainty of her birthdate. If born 31 December 1844, age = 114 years, 176 days, position = 52. If born 1 December 1844, age = 114 years, 206 days, position = 43. We should probably go with the 31 December 1844 scenario, as it is the "worst-case" scenario. After all, there are a full 8 people in the addendum to cover the "worst-case scenario" of ALL of those disputed cases being false. → Brendan 10:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Martha Graham is disputed based on the fact that there has been no early life record of her found...so far. DHanson317 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, this last point (the reason for the dispute) is not mentioned in the footnotes (or have I missed something?)Alan Davidson (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Louis Epstein's lists aren't the only lists in existence. I don't include Martha Graham in the Young version of the GRG lists.Ryoung122 12:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As Robert says above, Martha Graham is not included in the GRG list. Therefore we have only one source, Epstein, which does not mention that Graham is disputed, merely that her age is approximate to the nearest month. Unless Epstein indicates that her entire case is disputed OR there is a note on the GRG list that Martha Graham is not included because her case is disputed (for whatever reason) we, as wiki editors, have no grounds to identify her case as disputed (beyond that of her exact age, as per the present note). To do otherwise is OR. It would probably be best that she was not highlighted in the article as disputed but, as with Moses Hardy in the men's list this is not a major problem. However, because we have no (cited) reason to identify her as no longer verified, we should not be adding any more in the addendum to make up for that possibility. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Martha Graham is on at least one GRG list. She is on this one: http://grg.org/Adams/CCCC.HTM. DHanson317 (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And that entry does not indicate that her case is disputed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

the addendum for proven cases

Since there are 9 disputed cases, shouldn't there be 9 proven cases listed in the addendum? I count only 8.74.131.99.14 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because the lower age for Fannie Thomas (113y 273d) would include her in the addendum. With any luck it wont matter in a few more days anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Who changed her to "273" days? You can see that her social security record says "April 14":

Name: Fannie Thomas SSN: 550-80-8511 Last Residence: 91010 Duarte, Los Angeles, California, United States of America Born: 14 Apr 1867 Died: Jan 1981 State (Year) SSN issued: California (1965) up arrow Save This Record Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Citation: Number: 550-80-8511;Issue State: California;Issue Date:

Ryoung122 12:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

She was listed as disputed as Epstein has her DoB as 24 April. Not sure if this constitutes OR or not. Now that she is in the addendum it seems appropriate to list her minimum undisputed age rather than the "disputed" older age. I have no issues with using the greater age if that is the consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that Fannie Thomas is not on the 100 list, why do we have 7 disputed claims and 6 persons in the addendum? Talk 9:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Martha Graham is definiately in the top hundred, but she's listed in brown because only the month, not the day of her birth is known. Czolgolz (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

because that there are 7 disputed or incomplete cases above (top 100), then shall be 7 in the addendum, so there will be no missunderstandings of resders of the article, otherwise shall be there a special footnote, why there are only 6 in the addendum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.202.101 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Seven versus 7

I propose that the number of living supercentenarians should be recorded in words, as opposed to numbers, as long as the textual representation is one word only. We can have "twenty living supercentenarians", "seventeen living supercentenarians", and so on. However, if the number turns into a compound word, such as "There are twenty-one living supercentenarians", we should change that to numbers, so it would say "There are 21 living supercentenarians". As the current number of such supercentenarians is 7, I suggest it be written in words as it does not involve more than one word. Cases which involve "more than one word", are something like, let's say, "ninety-nine [99] living supercentenarians", or even something ridiculous such as "There are one thousand, seven hundred, fifty-eight living supercentenarians", which looks messy. It'd be easier in that instance to simply say "There are 1758 living supercentenarians". For now, shall we keep it at "seven", as opposed to "7"? → Brendan 13:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Common style is to spell out numbers when stated in a sentence from one to nine, then use numerals for 10 and above. The exception is when a number starts a sentence, so common style would be "There are 21 living.... seven of whom are male...", but "Twenty-one people are supercentenarians..." Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack is correct; the AP and others have adopted this rule for simplicity. Also, sentences beginning with a very complicated number are usually recast to move the number elsewhere in the sentence. Now, given the history of this page, can someone explain why it is currently "seven" instead of "seven"? I could speak very immoderately about my emotions about discovering this bolding and this section's title and initiator, but I would rather have more information about it first. JJB 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it, CJ. "Seven" it is then. JJB: I don't understand... your argument seems to be a "X instead of X" one, instead of the more logical "X instead of Y" argument. What I'm saying is I don't get your point when you say why there are 7 supercentenarians instead of 7 supercentenarians? → Brendan 14:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Brendan. Who bolded it? When? Thanks. JJB 19:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Who cares? It's even less important than 7 v seven. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Juana Rodriguez does not belong on this list

Rodriguez has no place on this list. This is for VERIFIED oldest persons. Rodriguez has not been verified. Only in Cuba is her age officially recognized; neither the Guinness Book of World Records nor any other organization in the world recognizes her purported age. Her cake was provided by the communist party. This is a sham by the Cuban dictatorship to promote its own interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria h (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed year ban on regular editors of this article

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For those that are unaware, there is a proposal here that many of the regular editors of this article, including myself, be banned from editing any longevity related articles for at least 1 year after which they may request, once every 3 months, permission to resume editing. Most are also threatened with a 1 year "behavior restriction" for making "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith". 3 guesses who is responsible for this. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC) An ArbCom case is in progress. It is OK to announce it here, but I think not in this way. I am asking for advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC) It's not? I must have missed the notice proposing I be banned from editing articles such as this as well as my "good behaviour bond" which no doubt included that information. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I asked the clerk to the arbitration to advise on this, and also to help you so that you don't undermine your own case. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Oh I think I've just done that rather successfully anyway! :) DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an ArbCom case currently running that is related to this page and related ones: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. Interested parties are encouraged to read that page as well as the subpages linked in its introduction if they wish to. Derby, if you wish to post notices about the ArbCom case to a few relevant pages, please try to leave a neutral notice next time. The first two sentences should be fine as a starting point. NW (Talk) 20:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How can a person be neutral, while wikipedia itself it is being attacked?Japf (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty narcissistic idea of what "Wikipedia itself" constitutes. A walled garden populated by longevity hobbyists who coordinate their efforts offline is being reined in. That's all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What's narcissistic is the idea of what is the "walled garden" as deemed by oneself. Aside from the "reined in/reigned in" error, Grismaldo is NOT an uninvolved party, but someone whom was recruited to AFD's many times in the past by canvassing (whether that be the current or 2007 issue).Ryoung122 04:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For someone who is supposedly and expert at conducting historical research in order to date things accurately that's a pretty sloppy accusation. I wasn't around in 2007 Robert. You are also wrong about my very scant participation in this topic. No one canvassed me. I found my way here because of a post at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I'm guilty of the afore mentioned spelling error of course. Robert I suggest you take a less combative attitude to this issue. It isn't helping anything. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The above link goes to the ArbCom discussion, but doesn't link to the most-current discussion page.Ryoung122 04:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to the "workshop" discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop Ryoung122 04:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Division Between Longevity Claims and Longevity Myths

Greetings, the current "definitional" disambiguation between longevity claims and myths is contorted:

This article is about validated specific supercentenarian claims by modern standards. For modern, or complete, unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity claims. For historical, incomplete unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity myths.

One could define "longevity claims," most broadly, as ANY claim to longevity. But that's not a good operational definition, since we already have the "verified claims" covered in the "verified" lists. So...

One could use an operational definition: I define a longevity claim as being in that grey area of possible but unlikely and unvalidated. I used a minimum age cutoff of 113 because of the greater number of unvalidated claims versus validated supercentenarians. For example, in the USA, a majority of claims to age 110+ between 1980 and 2009 were false, with the proportion rising by age claim. 65% of SSDI claims to age 110 were not validated, while 99% of claims to 115+ were not validated, suggesting the likelihood of a claim to 115+ being true is very small.

However, it's not "mythical" until the age exceeds the proven, documented age of 122.45 days by a substantial amount. Demographer S. Jay Olshansky defined the cutoff point as "130". Therefore, longevity myths could be defined as a subset of longevity claims...those to ages 130+ that are outside the scientific likelihood of being true, and can therefore be assumed to be scientifically invalid (even if religiously valid). For example, one could argue using the religious lens that Noah was 950, because the Bible said so. Fine. But that's a myth, just as the idea of the whole Earth flooding, or of getting all the animals in the Ark is something that is counter to scientific evidence. There's also no evidence of an actual Ark (unless one watches CBN).

So, I would define in general longevity claims as being those to extreme age that are unvalidated but possible; longevity myths are those that are unvalidated and not scientifically possible.

Further, there is a rationale behind having an article on longevity myths: to explore the narratives of longevity mythology, or why people want to believe in humans living longer than scientifically reproducible evidence shows.

But that's not the point of a disambiguation. To make the disambiguation simple, I suggest Jay Olshanksy's "130" years cutoff point be used.Ryoung122 04:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this really meant to be here? It looks like it should be in Talk:Longevity claims or Talk:Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert, this just shows that you want the Longevity myths article to be an essay on "why people want to believe in humans living longer...". That is not (currently) a topic in mythology studies. Please apply some basic logic to your own arguments. If someone in the 18th century believed that a neighbour of theirs was 140 years old, that was no more or less myth-making than believing that another neighbour was 100 years old. Both cases were extremely rare in those days; the science had not yet been done to show that 100 was possible and 140 not. Whether or not we have a basis for an article on Longevity myths should go back to WP:FTN or to Request for Comment, so that more views can be considered. I think there may be more reason to have one on Longevity research, pulling together the methods used by researchers such as yourself. In the meantime, the list articles need some sorting out and we may be able to refer to an appropriate wikiproject for guidance on how list articles in other subject areas are handled. There are criteria for featured lists, for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the solution could be to reborn the Robert's "Longevity Myths" as "Modern Longevity Myths" or something else. But, the problem is already solved isn't it Judith? Why bother to discuss this issues, if you, JJB and other vandals are ready to destroy everything about longevity, once the working people get banned?Japf (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling people with a different perspective "vandals" is not helpful. IMJ and JJB do not share a perspective by the way. Apparently anyone you all deem to be an "enemy" must be lumped together. Robert's usage of "longevity myths" is not academic. Our use of "myth" here on wikipedia follows the the study of mythology not the non-academic understanding of "myth" as "false". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think R. Young has already given sources to prove that "longevity myths" is used in the academy. Japf (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No he hasn't. This was exactly why I was interested in this minefield in the first place. I have some expertise in this, and did some research when I first became interested in the Longevity myth article. There is no study of longevity myths. I have yet to see any academic literature on "longevity" as a motif in folklore even, though I assume that this may exist. But besides that, I looked into Robert's own book, which was a master's thesis if I'm not mistaken, and his use of "myth" is not in line with that of the academy, in any relevant field - folkloristics, classics, religious studies, anthropology, etc. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So myth is a word that people can't use without religious meaning: Let's see the magazine Science:

Application of Bloom's Taxonomy Debunks the "MCAT Myth". Science 25 January 2008 414.

Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%. Science 29 June 2007: 1836.

The "MYTH" of the Biased Doc. Science 10 March 2006: 1355.

Celestial Spectroscopy: Making Reality Fit the Myth. Science 5 September 2003: 1332-1333

U.S. Soil Erosion Rates--Myth and Reality. Science 14 July 2000: 248-250

Is labile hypertension a myth?Science 4 May 1979: 489

I'm at home now, but if you want, I can give you the number of articles in which "myth" does not have religious meaning in academy, tomorrow at work where I can use the Web of Science.Japf (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That scientists sometimes use the colloquial meaning of "myth" doesn't change anything. You wont find that usage of myth in reference works. Why? Because reference works are going to reflect the technical usage and not colloquial usage. I have never denied that people don't use "myth" to mean "something believed by people which isn't true". But so what? All kinds of people use terms that have technical meanings in a colloquial sense all the time. We, as a reference work, don't do that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean as reference works? An article in Science subjected to peer-review using "myth" with meaning of "false" is not enough for you? If the reviwers thought the same as you they would not accept the article.Japf (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The most cited paper I found has the strange title "INSTITUTIONALIZED ORGANIZATIONS - FORMAL-STRUCTURE AS MYTH AND CEREMONY", which I don't know what it means (pardon the letter type, it was copy-paste from the site), so I could considere it as a using your newspeak myth. But the good news are that from the second through the tenth most cited article "myth" only means "fantasy" or "false". So, in academy "myth" only means religion, or this is strange feature exclusive to wikipedia?Japf (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is hard to follow or understand. "Myth", in the formal sense, is not always religious myth. Non-religious myth still does not mean "believed by some but untrue". The article you reference does indeed refer to myth in the formal, technical sense, and not the colloquial. Where exactly did you find these most cited papers and what relevance does that have? Myth on Wikipedia is used in the formal technical sense, following the disciplines that actually produce knowledge about myths and mythology, (again, folkloristsics, anthropology, religious studies, classics, etc.). That a well cited paper in the hard sciences used the term myth to mean fantasy in the title is utterly meaningless to what we do here in a multi-disciplinary reference work. This discussion is over. Have the last word if you want but I will not continue to repeat myself.Griswaldo (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I used the Web of Knowledge, unfortunately is not freely available. Unfortunately too, 7 of the ten references are from non-"hard" disciplines such as psychiatry and litterature. I'm from the chemistry area, and I could forbitten you to use "aromatic" with the meaning of smell, "crystal" with the sence of good glass, "gas" as shortname for gasoline, etc. You just can't extend the definitions of a scientific area to others. For instance, how many meanings the wor "function" has got, concerning the different areas? What you are doing is to restrict the meaning of a word, and that is newspeak.Japf (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We aren't really considering an article on Longevity myths in the non-technical sense, are we? Because that would equate to Nonsense about longevity. Would we then have articles on Nonsense about chemistry, Nonsense about the Moon, Nonsense about geography, ad infinitum? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense about longevity is the title for a good and relevant article concerning how stupid people can be when try to speak about longevity. The same can apply to Nonsense about chemistry, Nonsense about the Moon, Nonsense about geography, and of course Nonsense in wikipedia. We can be technical even when we talk about nonsense.Japf (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We cover things that aren't true, e.g. reports of alien abductions if they are notable, but we don't have articles that are rag-bag collections of false beliefs. We cover mythology and religion seriously, as there is a great deal of relevant scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference about writing a report about someone saying that wass kinapped by aliens, and other person that said to be 130-years old. Were they lying? We don't have proves. Were they telling the truth? They did not provided proves. It is exactly the same. Really, what's happening. Is it a sort of taboo? Japf (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether we should group all different kinds of incorrect reports about longevity into a single topic. We shouldn't, because just being incorrect or implausible is not a good basis for such a grouping. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That´s the real question because no one except JJB and his followers wants that. Japf (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don'r see wh ythis discussion is taking place HERE!!! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MACC and MCLL

I personally think that until they're on the GRG list and Louis Epstein's list, MACC and MCLL should be removed from this list. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 13:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)