This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
NO! I strongly object to the inclusion of this material on this talk page. This page is NOT a messageboard, it is NOT a forum and it is NOT a tracking service for possible supercentenarians. Wikipedia is for (in theory referenced) encyclopedic content. This page is for discussing people who are at least claimed to be 110. The people on this list have no such claim. The majority also have no citation making them OR. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't. Having this list in no way improves the current state of the article. There is a strong liklihood that many entries will never improve this article. It is more than likely anyone on this list who is later reported to have turned 110 before their death will be included in the article anyway there are plenty of vigilant users to ensure that happens wihtout this list. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have no guarantee that we have people speaking every language. Even then it's not always as simple as searching for "110th birthday" on a search engine. Sometimes results only come up if you include the name of the person and when this happens, it's possible that no-one will notice the article. Other articles have sometimes only been available online for a matter of weeks so sometimes it's a matter of urgency to find the articles. This list aids in all of those areas. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SiameeTurtle. Someone found the report about Jeanne Gagnard. That person whoever (s)he is doesn't have the obligation to follow Mrs. Gagnard case. The case became known to the Wikipedia, and now anyone can look for the confirmation that she is alive or not. If the person that found these case didn't put it on the list, this case could have been lost. Remember that Wikipedia may be a guide for the GRG or oldest people discussion group, since we try to find new unverified cases independently of them. I see no arm to a list of almost 110-year-olds.Japf (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Jeanne Gagnard is also a rather good example. It seems as if her report will stay up on the web, but at least some of the newspapers covering the french (as well as for example japanese cases) disappear off the web very quickly, and there are likely not many who follow them closely outside of wikipedia. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very disappointed that Derby didn't consider my analogy to "foul territory" in sports. Often, when a measurement is close to aline, some margin of error/leeway is used to ensure that the material encompassed WITHIN the boundaries marked is as complete for that near the margin as it is for the center. Of course, this is impossible to accomplish in reality, but the stated goal makes sense: the goal is to get the material as uniform as possible.Ryoung12205:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use a sporting analogy then this table consists of practise pitches. They don't count for the actual game. Although my limited knowledge of baseball is fairly limited I don't expect that practise pitches are counted by authoritative statisticians. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)08:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say let's be practical here. This is a subject where numerous disparate sources are at play, many not obvious or easy to find. If there is no similar compiled list elsewhere on some public forum, I'd say we should keep this here, despite the qualms about it being outside the normal bounds of wikipedia. Derby, I think you are right in the technical sense that such a list is outside the scope of a wikipedia discussion page. However, the practical reality is there is no similar list elsewhere to inform people of who is near 110 and who therefore to watch for when their 110th birthday approaches. Or, at least, no easily accessible list which a casual reader might find. The list therefore keeps many who otherwise might not be aware to keep an eye out. Given the broad international nature of readership here, this is an enormous tool for improving and keeping the page as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
If we extend the baseball analogy, there are numerous people keeping track of sports stats, but there are only a relatively narrow range of things to keep track of. Some thirty teams or so, in the case of major league baseball. So there is little need to have, in a discussion page, lists of player stats or what have you as they are readily available and are easy to find elsewhere. We need not, for example, list the number of game won and lost by the San Diego Padres so the main page can be updated at the end of the season: such information is readily accessible elsewhere. Not so on this subject, where cases can and do pop up literally anywhere and often have scant or one-off coverage. The more people are aware of 108-and 109-year-olds out there, the closer these cases can be tracked. And wikipedia seems to be the place to go for those most involved in the subject, like Robert, and others more casually involved, like myself. Canada Jack (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue that it is useful but still feel it would be better placed elsewhere. I don't see why one of the users who has contributed to this discussion can't have it on a user page. My concern with having it here is that it is being used as an ad-hoc article for near-supercentenarians (i.e. a table with no criteria, occasional references and the odd discussion about particular individuals). Having this list on a user page would have (almost) no restrictions and would only need a link here to achieve the same result. This would avoid the issues of WP:What Wikipedia is not#Content "...merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." which I take to include article talk pages but not user pages (I may be wrong!); Wikipedia:No original research (which I believe this is); and WP:NOTFORUM (ditto). DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the point of the "talk" page is to make the main page better, to discuss issues, and to point out what is missing. Also, something to consider: while "supercentenarian" now means, basically, someone 110 or older, it originally meant anyone "well over 100." In 1939, Bowerman cited cases aged 108 and older. So, there is some precedent for tracking lower. On a practical front, I believe that age 108 is too numerous, and even age 109. However, having cases within 3 months of turning 110 makes a lot of sense. And I believe that this is most useful here (where the article editors will be), not on a personal user page.Ryoung12215:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the wikipedia policies don't apply to the talk pages, or at least not as vigorously as they do to the article pages. Case in point: Wikipedia:No original research and WP:CITE. Nearly any article talk page out there is loaded with original research and uncited material. At least in an ideal world, they are refined and cited or else discarded after discussion before making it into the article. Non-editors (or at least non-regulars) drop by all the time to say 'Hey I noticed detail X is missing from the page, can someone add it?'. People toss ideas onto the talk page to give them some vetting before they hit the main article, and disputes are settled instead of requiring admin mediation or a public revert war. All of these are legitimate uses for a talk page and none of them need the same kind of rigorous application of Wikipedia rules. And ultimately the only thing that distinguishes this from a talk page comment saying 'Hey, should this person be added in a few days, they're 109' is that it is organized and formatted into a table. As for WP:NOTFORUM, this really isn't a free form discussion on the topic or opinions about supercentenarians, nor is it any kind of social thing. The table and the discussion that follow are very distinctly aimed at improving the article in the future and hammering out the wiki policy applications to the table on the talk page. Frankly, I think that's exactly what a Talk page is for. aremisasling (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering why some people that are in the 'Unverified living supercentenarians' list are still there. For instance, I saw a short video about the 110th birthday of Catherine Masters on the website of the BBC just the other day, and think she should be 'moved' to the list of 'Verified living supercentenarians.' I'm not that familiar with wikipedia and don't want to do that (don't even know HOW to do that), so I was wondering if a short article or video on a website would be enough to make the change. And another thing, there seem to be lots of people on this list of unverified claims. Wouldn't it be easier to just google some names and find a report on the internet about their 110th birthday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidje (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, there are quite a few people turning 110 around the world every month. Sometimes it takes time for the validating authorities to process the paperwork on new cases. That's part of the point of having an "unverified" list here...it includes "pending" cases that could be validated but have not yet been.
Let's face it, we have four years until Ms. Masters is in contention for the world title, at earliest. I detest the relentless focus on Wikipedia for "immediate updates of everything" which does not give time or proper space to, for example, historic cases from the past.Ryoung12220:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the folks here do look up the names on the unverified list periodically to check for new references or to see if they have passed away. But wikipedia is a strictly volunteer workforce (if you can even call it that). None of us get paid, so often wiki articles sit on the sidelines while we go about our daily lives. If you do think someone should be listed as verified, you can use the other edits on the page as examples of how to do it or drop a line on the talk page, like you did, with a link to the source you've found. As to whether it fits the specs of a particular page is another matter. The unverified/verified designation is more a measure of what kind of documentation there is on someone. A news source may say a person is 110, but things like birth certificates, census records, marriage licenses, etc. are used to back up the claim. If you have a link to that video, I'm sure someone would look into it. Thanks. aremisasling (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't discuss the fact that it would indeed take four years until Ms. Masters will be in contention for the world title, the point is that the list of 'unverified' claims seems to get longer and longer and the only 'accepted' source is the Gerontology Research Group, which isn't updated that much. When it comes to verification, if it involves people from countries like Britain or the Netherlands (where I live), you can be absolutely sure that the person in question has indeed reached the age of 110. That is something which can't be said for - for instance - the USA, where they don't seem to have any birth registers. My point is that the list of 'verified' claims has (at the moment) 78 people on it. Someone who sees that list, could be mistaken and think that there are 'only' 78 supercentenarians alive, while the correct number could easily be (somewhere around) 140 or 150. (And with such a long list of unverified claims you would almost tend to think that all of these people on the list are frauds. ;-))
Greetings,
I believe you are OFF for several reasons.
1. The "unverified" list on this page is meant to be a list of potentially validatable cases. The length of the list does not mean that "most" of the cases listed are false or true. It means that the number of claims that Wikipedia has identified is growing.
2. The GRG list adds a disclaimer that the primary purpose is to provide a list of validated candidates for the world's oldest person title (and other titles, such as 'oldest man'), not to provide a statistically valid sample (which tends to require cohort extinction first and relying on sources other than news reports to ensure that all cases have an equal chance of discovery) and not to provide a real estimate of the world's supercentenarian population (note the estimate is 300-450 on the Table E list). However, I do think the GRG list serves as a hedge against unrealistic claims. For example, in the year 2000 it was claimed that Lottie Elliott, 109, was the "world's oldest person" (from England, as usual!). With a list of 78 verified persons aged 110+, I think most people will realize that age 109 is not old enough to be in contention for the world's oldest person title, based on this information.
3. Regarding Ms. Masters: you are probably from the UK. The GRG list already leans heavily in favor of the UK, Italy, and Belgium (due to these countries having both easily-accesible systems of public recordkeeping and a public tradition of reporting on their oldest persons). In France, records are fairly easy to get but there is less interest (the French have Jeanne Calment to look up to; who cares that a French lady is 110, some may think) and thus France is underrepresented. Germany has historical issues problems...its top 3 oldest persons were born in what is now the Ukraine, and records are difficult to come by. The plethora of historical boundary changes amongst the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, etc. is a big mess. German cases from western Germany may be easier, but they also suffered huge military and civilian casualties in two wars.
4. The GRG is not the "only accepted source," the www.recordholders.org site, which hosts Louis Epstein, is also used as a backup. But Ms. Masters isn't on that yet, either.
In the U.S., birth registration was not compulsory for all states until 1933 (though some states, like Massachusetts, had complete records in the 1870s). Records for Southerners and African-Americans, in particular, are more difficult. More than that, however, the US has no central registry of centenarians (like the UK, Belgium, Germany, etc. do) and so researchers must rely on either news reports and family reports (both of which can be checked for census matches) or records that become available after death. This means that the U.S. information can become fairly complete after 4-5 years, but not initially.
So, I do question where there is a value in creating a list overloaded with cases from "easy to get" countries. You mentioned Catherine Masters, born Nov 23 1899. Catherine Carter of Kansas was born Nov 22 1899 and there's a 1900 census match listing her as born in Nov 1899. So which Catherine should be done first? Why are you concerned about one Catherine, but not the other?Ryoung12220:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response a few answers from me. I don't want to take part in this discussion, I just asked one simple question why it would take so long for one person to become validated. And I do have some problems with the GRG. I think their working method of validating supercentenarians is not that well done. For instance, the GRG works with country correspondent volunteers and not every country does have one. So there you go, supercentenarians from those countries aren't going to be recognized that easily.
Then, regarding Ms. Masters. No, as I stated earlier, I'm not from the UK, I'm Dutch. But your point seems to be that you don't want the list to lean to heavily in favour of some countries. In that case you could almost discount all the Japanese or Americans, because the list also leans a lot in those directions. Speaking for myself, I don't care if loads of people from the same country are on the list, as long as they deserve to be on the list. I asked about the case of Ms. Masters because I'd read earlier about her, seen her on the BBC News and found it strange it took some time for her to get on the list. I agree you have to be very sure if you validate a supercentenarian, but the argument you don't want the list to lean to much in one direction doesn't make sense to me.
For all the rest, it was just one simple question and I don't wish to take part in this discussion, I would leave that to others. Thank you. - Guidje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.72.206 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reinstating the limbo cases list. Just because someone doesn't have a birthday report doesn't mean there dead. This is particularly true for Japan where it's become very rare to get information on super c's outside of the respect the elders day in September.Tim198 (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carmella Trocino
I question that Carmella Trocino actually has been confirmed alive above 110. The Iowa centenarian statistics, while getting better, still seems to include people who has died, and I think she is one such case, only alive on paper. It would be nice to have someone find an actual newsreport. As of now I only find one mention of a Carmella Trocino, on a myspacepage, which has the same county as the one in the Iowa centenarian report, and in which she is explicitly said to be dead:
http://www.myspace.com/poetsongsmith
" my deceased Grandfather and Grandmother, Angelo and Carmella Trocino, who came over on the boat in the 20's, arranged marriage, saw the Statue of Liberty, became great citizens of the USA, and settled in Oelwein, Iowa with many other Italians on the west side of town, worked for the railroad but also farmed a few acres, and man, the food, gotta love that food, and the heritage and legacy they left behind. I miss them both so much. "
Yubiquitoyama (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked SSDI and there is a record of a Carmela Trocino born in 1899 that died in 2002 in Kansas City, MO. My guess is that she moved to Missouri sometime later in life and the offical records were never updated to reflect that. I think she should be removed until some more concrete evidence of her acutally being alive emerges.Tim198 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again
The current criteria for unverified super-c's is:
"The following table presents a list of unverified living claimed supercentenarians under the age of 113, who have been recognized by international media from a World Bank high income economy country, and who are awaiting validation or debunking. There are currently 60 living unverified supercentenarians, 58 of whom are female and 2 of whom are male. Claims over 113 can be found at longevity claims."
As far as I can determine from the discussions previously the consensus was to amend this to include non-HIE countries who have previously had a verified super-c. If instead of re-hashing the arguments (for the umpteenth time) users could merely indicate which option they support we might actually get somewhere. This would of course apply to the list of non-super-c's on this talk page (as people seem to insist that it remain) even though there is actually NO other standard specified for inclusion.
A: No criteria except a citation claiming an age between 110 years 0 days and 112 years 365 days
B: The current criteria.
C: Option B plus countries with a previously verified super-c.
D: [edit:] Only countries with a previously verified super-c.
I vote for D - include only candidates from countries with previous verified claims. This way we avoid the issue of lack of balance if we arbitrarily exclude non-HIE countries. Canada Jack (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Canada Jack - but I want to add that I think only those who were born in a country with a veried super-c should be included.Tim198 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Option A (so long as the claimed age has a claimed date of birth). In the last couple of weeks, someone born in Mexico (moved to the USA in her 80s) has been validated with documents from Mexico. Yet only a few months ago, a Mexican claimant to the age of 119 died. Unfortunately the idea suggested above excludes countries with small populations, who are much less likely to ever have supercentenarians - but that says nothing about the availability of records, or the likelihood of the claim being true. I firmly believe that on Wikipedia we should be impartial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, from Mexico in the last month we've had a verified claim to age 110 (from someone from a bourgeoisie family: that is, "high social status" if not high income, and a well-documented family tree) and an unverified claim to age 119 (from someone from a very poor, "illiterate" family; with no original proofs of birth, marriage, or even ID, even in a Catholic country). This suggests that, once again, extreme age claims are associated with illiteracy. However, we can see that the first-world/third-world dichotomy is false. We can have upper-class elites in places like Colombia and Ecuador. We can have illiterate, unbelievable claims in places like South Africa. Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff without appearing to be classist is difficult, especially when scientific research strongly correlates age inflation with low social status. However, I do believe that if we add the two caveats of requiring a claimed birthdate and requiring the claim to be between 110 and 112.99, this will produce an unverified list here that will serve the purpose of a "list of pending cases". One more caveat: I do think that cases should be excluded where evidence suggests the age claim is not true. For example, Mattie Caldwell:
Few persons have voted, and two new answers appeared. May I suggest a schemed that I will actualize with further suggestions, since the many issues are being posted.
So:
Option A corresponds to the black rectangle;
Option B the green rectangle;
Option C the green rectangle plus the red elipse;
Option D the red ellipse;
Tim defends the red ellipse outside of the blue rectangle;
I'd like to suggest "Option A" but let's be clear:
1. Only claims between 110 years 0 days and 112 years 365 days, with a claimed year, month, and date of birth should be included. If we see a report about a '110-year-old voter' with no birthdate given, sorry that doesn't cut it. Anyone 113+ is already listed on the longevity claims page. The point of this list should be that the validation process is long, and also the discovery process of cases is slow, so it may take some time to find documents for a case. But if, after 3 years, a case is still not accepted, it's not likely to be.Ryoung12208:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I vote for C, but I assume I'm in the minority here. I still don't think everyone should be included and I think only including those countries with previously verified claims is too restrictive. I think immigrants to countries "accepted" also should be included (as they are now), which is the way I understand the choices above. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even with immigrants, there is a huge difference between a case like Mary Josephine Ray (came to the U.S. in 1898; is now 114) and a case like this:
Shukrat Aliyeva came from a region known for age myths, did not come to the U.S. until 2005, and thus her story "began" at age "118" (the world's oldest person, if true). It's a junk case that's not going anywhere (there's not even a claimed day of birth, let alone month). The point is, an immigrant to the U.S. could come from a region with reliable records, or a region with a history of inflated claims. All these complications make option A a better default value, because it would exclude Aliyeva on "no claimed date of birth" and age claim above 112.99 rather than immigration status.Ryoung12210:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An immigrant is always an emigrant from somewhere. Marie Josephine Ray is a valid example. Imagine her case was not validated yet. She is an immigrant in USA, and that doesn't count. However, she was born in Canada which is a HIE country, making her claim accepted by the four criteria. Shukrat Aliyeva is exactly the opposite. If we exclude immigrants, her claim fails all the proposed criteria.Japf (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two more points to make about immigrants. One, early-life immigrants may have documentation in the country they moved to (for example, the oldest woman from Peru moved to the U.S. early in life and is recorded in the June 1900 census in NYC) whereas late-life immigrants cannot have early-life proof of birth from the country they moved to, by definition, since they lived in their home country in early life. A second point is that a late-life immigrant like Soledad Mexia MIGHT have documentation from the home country.
By the way, some countries in the Caribbean, for example, likely have Westernized systems of recordkeeping and "could" have validated cases, if they were aware they could participate in the global system. Should we exclude them simply because no one did what anyone could have done? It's an UNverified list, after all, and the point of it seems to be to list cases that have a potential for future validation. By definition, if someone doesn't even know their month or date of birth, their case is not likely to be validated, so that requirement already excludes a large number of claims. Excluding those claims to 113+ (which are listed on the longevity claims article) further narrows this list to just those cases in the 110-112.99 age range that stand a decent chance of future validation.Ryoung12220:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument has always been that we should list unverified claims not on the presumption of the validity of the claim in question but on the "decent chance of future validation." THAT is why candidates should come from countries which have shown a history of being able to verify claims should be the main criterion. Otherwise, we end up with a good number of claims which we know from day 1 will stay "unverified" until they turn 113 or die. Let's also remember that countries which can verify claims can also prove claims false. (Not all, but some claims can be disproved.) One can at least often verify, in the case of Americans, that some people who claim to be 110 now were of the expected age in the 1930 census in America, which doesn't prove the claim, but it does disprove the claim if that individual is found and they were, say, 20 in that particular year. With countries with no history of verification, in most cases claims don't stand a chance of being disproved let alone proved. Canada Jack (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Soledad Mexia wouldn't have been added to the list under those criteria and yet we see she's validated now. Wikipedia encourages pages and contributors to be unbiased, yet in both the old criteria and some of the new criteria, we are being biased against people from certain countries. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again instead of having a simple vote as I requested we have descended into long winded arguments about the merits or otherwise of the various options. This makes it very difficult to achieve a consensus meaning we will be left with the current criteria (and it looks like that is not the preferred option for anyone!). It appears (?) that option D is the favoured option (I was hoping to leave the discussion of immigrant cases until we had arrived at a consensus (note that there is no mention of immigrant cases in the current criteria)). One can but try. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)22:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The year of birth in her article has recently been amended to 1898 on the basis of this article from which much of her article has been taken/copied. The citation used for this article is this one which I would not consider to be a sufficiently reliable source. In her article many of The Straits Times citations (unfortunately not on the web), especially the earlier ones, imply 1899 or 1900 as the year of birth. Given the conflicting citations I would suggest that her year of birth is sufficiently unreliable to have her removed from the unverified list (at least until something more definitive is forthcoming). DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)00:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but I thought that citations were supposed to be free access for all users (unfortunately I can't find where it says that). The World's Oldest People at Yahoo has been used as a scource for several unverified claims. Is this in line with wiki policy? DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)06:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS says: "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both."
WP:V#Access to sources says: "Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. " I am not sure if "anyone should be able to check the sources" means that the source should not require joining up to a usergroup etc. If it does not then it is certainly disappointing that such sources are bing used in this article. Hopefully they will be replaced with more open sources asap. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am more concerned about Twitter being used as a source for Lillian Leblanc. I accept that Aggers mentioning his grandmother on the BBC is reliable but hope that a better source is available soon otherwise it opens the door for more Twitter citations and that is probably not a good thing. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)02:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, the USA had over 300 million people, well more than the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand combined (about 133 million). It seems very presumptuous and biased (POV) to suggest that we should use "American" spellings for "American only" articles.
It is totally obnoxious to suggest that the idiosyncratic spelling used by one country over-rules that used by the rest of the world. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)09:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally obnoxious to suggest that U.S. spellings are "idiosyncratic" and not used elsewhere. I note that the article on organization on Wikipedia uses the Z as the default spelling.
The United States, its territories and in some cases Canada are the only country that uses American English, the rest of the wolrd does not. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English the following guidelines apply to spelling in an article:
Consistency within articles (this article uses international date format because it is an international article, the same should apply to spelling for consistency )
Strong national ties to topic (this is an international topic therefore international conventions for date format and spelling should be used)
Retaining the existing variety (The opening paragraph of this article was added on 24 November using the spelling "organisations" it has remained as such except for one other attempt at changing it which I also reverted)
Opportuninties for commonality (I believe this refers to using words which have alternate meanings in British and American English which does not apply in this case)
So none of the reasons given above justify changing the spelling. If you can provide a valid reason under wikipedia policy for changing the spelling in this case, and IF there is consensus to change it then it can be changed. None of the arguments supplied so far justify a change. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The portuguese language wikipedia is a ruthless war between European Portuguese users and Brazilian Portuguese users. The war has became deadlier when wikipedia started to adopt the new spelling from the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990, since then we have brazilian against portuguese AND old spellers against new spellers. The funniest part of this querel is that some people state that English language has also more than one version, but american and british people are gentlemen, and don't bother with small details as changing "center" to "centre" or the way round. I'm glad to know that this is not true.Japf (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, anglophones are not "gentlemen" about their spelling differences. However, they have solved the issue with a remarkably successful WP:ENGVAR practice. Please read the three basic criteria. Here, it may come down to going along with the very first variety-disambiguating word: please look back at the earliest versions in the history. Tony(talk)09:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following was posted on usenet by Louis Epstein
"In September 2008 this newsgroup reproduced the NY Times obituary for
singer Connie Haines,noting that she was born Yvonne JaMais and survived
by her mother Mildred who'd taught her as a girl."
"I've just learned from a writer working on her obituary that Mildred
died today at 110.She couldn't quite die "jamais",but did her best."
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
There are thought to be 350-400 living supercentenarians in the world. Of these, around 70 or 80 have been officially validated by organisations such as the GRG. The problem with using a list of validated people alone is that it does not give a world perspective, and the validation procedure usually takes months, and fairly often, even years. The reason for stringent age validation is that there are many claims to old age, many of which are outlandish. Some countries do seem to be 'hotspots' for excessive longevity claims, such as Brazil - though these claims tend to be older than the oldest verified living person, and in many cases, older than the oldest verified person (Jeanne Calment) ever. Other pages list worldwide claims over the age of 115: longevity claims, longevity myths. To give a worldwide view on the subject, supercentenarian claims are also listed, provided they have a citation with a specific date of birth and are under the claimed age of 113. Currently, those listed have to be from a high income economy, which seems to conflict with WP:NPOV, due to exclusion of people based on their country. The premise for using this criterion was that those from poorer countries may not have the records necessary to be validated, and that they are less likely to be true. People from non-high income economies have been verified to live beyond 110. The world's oldest person from 2004-2006, Maria Capovilla was herself from a lower-middle income economy (Ecuador) and lived to be one of the 5 verified undisputed oldest people ever. Though we have had two votes on the issue, it has not been resolved due to no consensus. The main two suggestions put forward were to 1) List all claimants aged under 113 who have a specific claimed birthdate, who are from any country. 2) List supercentenarians from countries which have had a verified supercentenarian in the past. Some users postulate that the former option may result in a build up of claims from non-HIE countries, though only a handful of claims from non-HIE countries between 110-113 are known. On the other hand, the latter is likely to exclude people who live in smaller countries (and therefore may conflict with WP:NPOV) - as they have had less chance to have a supercentenarian in their country in the past. As previous votes have ended in no consensus, the original criterion for listing only those from high income economies has remained for months, despite being against Wikipedia policy. I would like to see some light at the end of the tunnel. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The high income economy criteria per se is an obvious violation to the NPOV for sure. The criteria should be "coutries where people can prove their age by statal records". An unverified record with no statal records will probably stay for ever unverified, so shouldn't be on the limbo list. So which are the "coutries where people can prove their age by statal records"? The answer is very close to high income economy countries or maybe exactly the same.Japf (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we see there are validated people born in India, Ecuador, Mexico, Columbia, Russia, Lithuania, Poland, South Africa, Algeria etc. Many of the Caribbean islands have records for the era because they were colonies, for example St Kitts and Nevis, and Jamaica, where we have two supercentenarian claimants. There's also a woman in Italy less than a week short of 110 who was born in Argentina, where the records have apparently already been located. So no, I don't agree that it is very close. I might also add that the list does not include the British Virgin Islands, which might sound trivial, but there is a woman there aged 109 years and 3 months. Clearly, there's no list that would describe the likelihood of having records. Even within a country, it can vary from place to place and person to person. So in an ideal world, we might have the criterion "coutries where people can prove their age by statal records", but we won't know that until they are verified, which then defeats the purpose. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of seperating the section titled "Unverified living supercentenarians" into two subsections one containing those from high income economies and the other containing those not from high income economies. There should also be a paragraph though explaining that the later is far less trustworthy as for the reasons presented by SiameseTurtle above. From there on I think the merits of including each person should be decided on a person to person basis. Concerns with regards to outlandish claims can be addressed in that manner.Chhe (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting proposition, however wouldn't we then be listing certain cases and suggesting they are unlikely to be verified and/or likely to be false? I still think that's against WP:NPOV. It's perhaps ironic that it was me who suggested and implemented the high income economy criterion, and now I think it should be removed. As we have a cut off at 113, it will exclude extreme claims anyway, and at the same time include false negatives. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable suggestion, though I'd be surprised if it gained consensus. Even better would be to keep this page for verified super-c's only and move unverified claims to a new article where differences in possible verifiability could be explained. DerbyCountyinNZ (TalkContribs)21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, a page for only verified living supercentenarians is effectively an amalgamation of just one or two sites' data (and usually a carbon-copy of just one). Given there are thought to be 350-400 supercentenarians in the world and only 70-odd are validated, it's crucial for all the information to be in one place. Only then can we give a worldwide perspective and in my opionion most importantly, give proper context to both the verified and unverified lists. Separate lists would prevent the cohesion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that someone has raised this issue. Its definitely POV to restrict the listings of unverified claims to high income countries. I also do not understand why there is a cut off at 113. Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997, lived to 122 years old (verified). There are many people in the Middle East who claim to be around that age too. There should simply be a section for unverified claims that includes all such claims, with refs and column entitled "notes" where an extended explanation can be given (if there is a birth document, known birthdate or not, etc.) This would make the article much more interesting and NPOV. Tiamuttalk20:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are pages at longevity claims and longevity myths for more extreme claims. Though Calment lived to 122, I think we need to deal mainly with living claimants: if someone claims to be 116, then they claim to be the oldest in the world. While that could actually be true, there will also be many claimants with a false date of birth. We need to accept that some people do give false ages (deliberately or not) and it's the title of the world's oldest person that they want. So, 113 is semi-arbitrary, but if this were to be changed I don't think it should go above the age of the verified oldest woman, or verified oldest man at the time. However, I would rather jump one hurdle at a time. As for adding notes, I worry that it could cross over into WP:OR and WP:BLP (for example, the information added in the section below). SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cutoff at 113 is the easier think to explain. If someone can't prove his/her supercentenarian status by the 113th birthday will never do.
I agree that the high income economy criteria is not the best, but the "accept all" criteria is worst. With the present criteria, near half of the claims become validated sooner or later. The "accept all" criteria would enlarge the list three or four times, and would only add a surplus of one or even no validated cases to the validated cases from high income economy list.
Most age claims are proved by State or Church records. It is very difficult to prove an extreme age claim in a country without this kind of records. Sometimes a person can prove his/her claim by other means, and that doesn't say anything about the country (s)he lives. So, I agree it is NPOV to assume the high income economy criterium. An arbritary list would be NPOV too. But If you set up some criteria and look for which countries agree with them, it shouldn't be NPOV. For instance we could choose countries with generalised census since {{CURRENTYEAR}}-110.Japf (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The "accept all" criteria would enlarge the list three or four times" - are you referring to accepting all claims (even over 113), or all claims below 113? SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article works the way that it is; separated into verified and unverified. People who are that old have no living witnesses to their birth so on some level we are taking people's word for it. I think that way it takes into account the countries where birth records are not reliable. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some debunked claims?
According to the US Search website http://www.ussearch.com/ I have found some people that are said to be younger:
-Ivory Ross-Lambert (keyword lastname: Lambert) is said to be 108 years old. Residence:Bearden, Arkansas.
-Fannie Buten is said to be 108 years old. Residence is Bala Cynwyd, Pennyslvania.
-Ruby Muhammad is said only to be 97 years old. Residence: Elk Grove, California.
-Andrew Hatch is said to be 109 years old. Residence: Oakland, California.
-Nellie Vallery is said to be 105 years old. Reidence: in Louisiana.
-Frances Street is even said to be 101 years old (according to http://intelius.com/ , of course everyone knows about that)
It could be argued that it is a reliable source (though after looking on the site, it doesn't seem to explain where the data comes from, so I'm hesitant to call it that). The main issue for me is that it's a primary source, which is hard to interpret. One census return for Lambert does suggest age 108, but another suggests she is 110. Records are not always 100% accurate and using different records can suggest different dates of birth. This is for the validation procedure to weigh up, not Wikipedia. I think it would be best to send your evidence to the researchers - I think it would be original research here. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff. The doubt I have is that Ruby Muhammad is thought to be 102, so where have they got 97 from? And the nearest New Orleans Andrew Hatch they could find was in his 80s not 109. Also, when did Fannie Buten move to the US? If it was as an adult then the 20-year rule comes in and makes 108 seem unreliable. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a message on that to WOP last week. They either haven't posted it yet or they are looking more into it, or they might think that it is just completely stupid. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, the listings above are similar to telephone listings or personal-data listings. It is secondary-source information, NOT primary-source information. Further, the site is not meant to be used to determine is a person's age claim is valid or not. I would recommend not using it here.Ryoung12201:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from the pic above on Frances Street's residence, it shows that she may possibly be 101 years of age. And yes...I know that it's all 'original research'...but i mean come on. On the video Street says that she's 108. She should be removed from the list for she has had her age talked about on WOP as well. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranks unnecessary for Unverified list?
I truly believe it should be removed. On foreign supercentenarian pages such as List of Canadian supercentenarians and all the others don't rank the unverified, just the verified ones. Also on the Longevity claims page, there are no ranks at all. Do we really need ranks for unverified on this page. It seems biased that they rank them here and not on other pages. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the ranks have no 'meaningful' point, but it's necessary to keep track of the numbers. Without them, if someone updated the list but forgot to update the summary, the numbers in the summary could get confused. SiameseTurtle (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "waiting list number"? In a list of cases not accepted yet, rank is not very important, and the information is already in apparent chronological order. Another option is to delete the column entirely and count the numbers just in total.Ryoung12201:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ip users continue to add supercentenarians from the low income economy countries after they have been continuosly informed to stop. More work must be created to delete them and make the page where it needs to be, and that takes a while. It would easier on us if we lock it. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that we're using a system that is against Wikipedia rules. The RFC I posted seems to have amounted to nothing and we're back in the same loophole: We know the criterion has to change, but repeated votes prevent any change from happening. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we can't agree then either apply no criteria, list ALL claimed 110-112-year-olds, removing those who turn 113, OR simply omit the unverified list. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oldest living person is a Palestinian woman named Mariam Amash?
Does anyone have any more information on what happened to this woman? The story was reported in 2008 and it was said her family was going to send her identity document (from the time of the Ottoman Empire) to Guinness. Any word on what happened? Tiamuttalk21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. This woman, while Palestinian, lives in Jisr az-Zarqa, an Arab town inside the borders of Israel. I'm assuming that she can therefore be added to the list of unverified claimants under the current criteria as her country of residence is "high income" one.
As I stated in the RfC above though, I so think that restriction is POV and should be lifted so that this page can reflect a worldwide perspective on this topic. Tiamuttalk21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, this page includes unverified claims only up to the age of 113. Once a person reaches that age, if not yet verified, it is exceedingly unlikely they ever will be. Which is why there is an argument over the criteria - should we include claims from countries which have never or are unlikely to verify claims? Recall, this is primarily a page for VERIFIED claims, with a list of claims from countries which have claims which stand a chance to be verified.
Second, punch in "world's oldest person" to a search engine and you will get (besides the current verified eldest person) a raft of claims to the title "oldest person." Go to longevity claims and you will find your "oldest person", is in fact sixth on the section of "incomplete claims" and would be around eighth on the list of recently updated claims with at least a claimed date of birth. And these are just the lists of what are considered claims which are at least scientifically plausible. There are a great many (past) claims which are considered implausible, on longevity myths.
So, in sum, since your claimant has had a decade-plus opportunity since turning 110 to have brought her claim to the bodies who can verify it and has not, either for lack of documentation or fear of exposing a false claim, it should not reside on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seperate the unverified from this page?
This page should just be for verified supercentenarians only. This page just turns into a mess house over the disputes of the unverified supercentenarians. I think that the unverified should be on a seperate article titled List of unverified living supercentenarians. It should have all the supercentenarians. It can be similar to the Longevity claims page because the longevity claims list displays tons of low income and high income countries. When i mean all, I mean the lowest of low income economy countries. This way, the disputes will be all over with. I can make the page now...that's if Robert Young and a few other good people (e.g. Tim 198, Siamese Turtle, and/or several others) like the idea. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That's what longevity claims already exists for. The problem is, with no standards applied the claims are so numerous as to not really warrant a list below age 113 (in my opinion).
The real purpose of this second listing is to list cases that have turned 110 and have a reasonable chance of future acceptance. While some disagree as to what standards should be employed (high income?), I think most agree that this second list serves a useful function.Ryoung12222:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, Ronnie Fairbanks had a CLAIM to birth in 1897, but no no proof of birth, and was thus NOT recognized as "one of the last three men born in the 1800s."Ryoung12222:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there no "verified" supercentenarians on this list born after December 13, 1899? It seems silly that all the younger people aged 110 have to be on the unverified list. Can this be changed?
98.234.188.71 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Japan
Italien
Vereinigte Staaten
Barbados
Griechenland
Schweden
Spanien
Syria
Schweiz
Frankreich
