Talk:List of the verified oldest people

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

New Spanish anonymous cases (M.A.C.C., and M.C.L.L.)

I really do think they should probably on this list. If they are in the article "List of Spanish supercentenarians", then they should be everywhere else on wikipedia. They have been validated with a valid source.