Longevity Top‑importance

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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	Biography
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

Talk:List of living supercentenarians/Archives

can someone find any information about this woman anywhere? Her age of 113 years 5 months is beginning to get really noticeable and still no information or birthday reports about her. Soon she will enter the top 100 oldest people ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.235.67 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really uncommon for japanese cases, but in this case it's even worse, since she is technically anonymous. Therefore her name never comes up around September, when the japanese have their respect-the-elders day. Instead she is just "113-year-old woman in Okinawa". Yubiquitoyama (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Hannah reached age 117 as "anonymous." Actually the Japan media did provide a little information: for example, that she is in a wheelchair. However, I don't think we need to create articles on people that don't want to be bothered with media attention. She is more a placeholder, so that people know where Tomoji Tanabe ranks (3rd-oldest in Japan, 12th in the world)Ryoung122 03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OLDEST POLISH people

These lists are proven records

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najstarsi_ludzie

for more information please contact Wolfgang http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Wolfgang/brudnopis http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Wolfgang/brudnopis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.218 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Italian names shortened on this list? And if the rational is being used which I believe is probably the case, why is it not being done similiarly to Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch names? TFBCT1 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel they should be on the list.Ryoung122 07:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Hawaii is "part of the United States" (legally..but Puerto Rico is not), "Guadeloupe is part of France." It is part of the EU and has representation in French parliament. Further, Eugenie Blanchard is a "French" woman and the doyenne de France, not just the island.Ryoung122 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This gentleman is listed on the "Surviving WW1 Veterans" page and is listed as being 111 (with a birthday of 25 February 1897). He is not, however, listed on either the verified or unverified list of supercentenarians. Should he be?

(Mekozak (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. My opinion. Unverified. WP:Bold Go ahead and add him. It will at least start discussion. --Npnunda (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. Ukraine isn't on the MEDC list. This looks like a reasonable case, but if we start making exceptions then this page will degenerate. 212.183.134.65 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]

Captain Celery is right. I didn't know it was a Ukraine case. It has to be a MEDC country so we can't add it. --Npnunda (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born Dec 26 1898, according to http://www.dailyworld.com/article/20081231/NEWS01/812310305/1002 Ryoung122 15:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Rein, born 24 March 1897, born in Silesia, Germany, living in Switzerland, should be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Rein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is on the unverified list. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real purpose of the "unverified" list on THIS page is to list cases that may be true but are not yet validated. Cases like Olympe Pidancet, Rosa Rhein, etc. all come from nations where the system of record-keeping is good, and there is a good chance the age claimed is accurate.

Cases like Virginia Call should be excluded because there has already been significant press mention that her age may not be the age claimed. In short, she belongs on the longevity claims page...where she is.

Ryoung122 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this same topic. Is there still the need to list Maria Dia Cortes, Rebecca Lanier, and Richard Washington? They already appear on the Longevity Claims page. They seem to overshadow the "verified" cases. Or do they need to be listed in both places because they have not been debunked? TFBCT1 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful. The same might have been said for Maria Capovilla, especially considering she was not from a MEDC country. I think cases should be removed if there is considerable conflicting information. However I do not think someone should be removed just because they seem too old. I often think that this list should include more countries. For example there are Eastern European countries which I think are likely to have genuine cases of supercentenarians, such as Poland. However I've never mentioned this before because they're unverified claims anyway (and likely to stay unverified even if they are true). SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't believe that removing a person from this page's unverified list discredits them; I would say that once a claimant reaches the claimed age of 113, the should be limited to the longevity claims page until verified. I don't believe it would do any harm, and there are several cases younger than Cortés, Lanier, and Wahington already on the claims page but not this one. Star Garnet (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are probably valid cases from other parts of the world, such as, China, India, or Brazil- even Indonesia, Pakistan, or Bangladesh based on their size (48.3% of the world) alone, but I don't think they will end up on either list because of either a history of false claims or no means of substantiation. On the unverified list I do feel that once individuals are 115+ there is less likelihood of the claim being valid. Not saying that there isn't the possibility that it is true. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We start listing longevity claims at 113, because at age 110, they would be too numerous. Here, with a slightly higher standard (must be a MEDC country), the purpose seems to be to list potential future verified cases that are too young for the longevity claims list but not yet verified. If a case like Maria Capovilla is on the longevity claims list and documents are sent in, then the case would still be accepted. Right now, we have an overlap with a minimum boundary on longevity claims (113 for living, 115 for deceased) and a minimum boundary on validated (110 for living, top 100 for deceased list, which is currently 113-something). For those that fall in the grey area of 110-112, not yet validated, but likely true, this list here solves that issue. For example, Rosa Rhein is probably a true case, and we are waiting on documents to arrive. Rarely does a validated case above age 112 emerge from an MEDC country, and almost never above 113. So I agree with a cutoff of 113. A compromise would be a cutoff of "not older than the oldest living person." A third choice? Not older than Jeanne Calment.Ryoung122 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest the arbitrary removal of potential supercentenarians from the "unverified" list; we had a nice system here that was relatively objective compared to the rest of the "oldest people" pages and I believe that it should remain that way. The criteria was: younger than Jeanne C. and from one of the MEDC countries. That presents a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria that is based off of a solid reason. Once we start saying "well it's unlikely that any case is older than the current oldest living person", we're entering our own subjectivity to the issue. To answer all the comments above, in order:

1. I agree, cases like Virgina Call should be excluded if they have received coverage in third party, reliable sources that their claimed age my not be true.
2. Yes, there is still the need to list the older people on the list for the pursuit of objectivity. They do need to be listed in both places because they have not been debunked. They're not harming anyone and they contribute to the objectivity of this page; we allow for the possibility that someone might pop up as older (as Siamese Turtle has pointed out, it has happened before). I don't understand what you mean about three or four names "overshadowing" a list of 90 people.
3. The longevity claims/myths pages are very problematic pages for reasons that I won't get into here, but comparing this page, which has some very well-reasoned (although imperfect and still somewhat problematic on a larger scale) standards to those isn't useful.

Bottom line, let's keep it is; there's no good reason to sully what this page has accomplished in terms of its (relative) objectivity because the top 3 or 4 unverified cases are likely false. Cheers, CP 06:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were you speaking to me? I merely had a question over 3 weeks ago and haven't updated again, or made any changes? In my opinion, it will cause confusion either way and I'm fine with it either way. My main concern was that we were not doing one thing in the case of Virginia Call and something entirely different for others. The other confusing element is having multiple cases older than the "oldest person in the world." I think my questions have been answered. Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking to everyone, actually. If you had a specific question there, it might have been answered in the process. Cheers, CP 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Star Garnet and do not agree with CP. If the purpose of the unvalidated list (but cases only from 'reliable' countries) is to list cases that will likely be validated in the future, it makes no sense to continue keeping cases above 113 (after three years, it's not very likely that they will be validated), especially when there is a longevity claims list for living claims 113 or older.

If the purpose of the list is to show that unvalidated claims are less reliable than validated claims, then it should be open worldwide...the problem with that is not rationale but actual circumstances...it would open a whole "can of worms" with too many potential cases...or would it? If the requirement is to have a citation, then it's not that big a problem, is it?

So, what we have now is a silly and unlogical mix, whereby we exclude some cases from unreliable countries but include unreliable cases from mostly reliable countries. Personally, one solution for me would be to open the "unverified" list to list any claim, worldwide, with at least a claimed date of birth, a citation to age 110 or older, but less than 113 years old. Since the 113+ longevity list on the longevity claims page is open worldwide, that would thus give a fair chance to everyone.Ryoung122 01:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which MEDC list is considered official for this page? Star Garnet (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the CIA advanced economy list, which has 35 entries. SiameseTurtle (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's incorrect. I think its actually the developed country list, because otherwise Teresa Hsu Chih would be on, and Katerina Heyman off. That might not be a bad thing given South Africa's track record. 213.190.165.49 (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]

Yes sorry I got that mixed up. I meant the list with 34 (as it says on the article). SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a standard should be set for the maximum age in which a person can be on the unverified list. And as 113 is the minimum for the longevity claims list, it seems logical to be a maximum for this page, whose purpose is not focused on claims, but rather accepted cases. I think that once a person reaches the age of 113, they should be removed from this list and put on the other, with a direct link to that list at the top of this page's unverified list. There are eight under Cortés, that are unlisted on this page, but, while six of them are from non-MEDC countries, two are Americans. Star Garnet (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Virginia Call has now died. She wasn't on due to her case being debunked to 111. But on that basis she should perhaps have been on anyway. Either way, its irrelevant now. The other case is Elizabeth Johnson who was in limbo. But an article about Gertrude Baines contains a messageboard posting that she was alive on Christmas Day, which it says was her 115th birthday, although it would have been her 116th.

So the source really isn't good enough for this page and possibly not for the claims page, although there is another posting by a 'Robert of GA', presumably Mr Young. But I wouldn't disagree with your proposal. However, consider that the sub-113 cases can also be disputed. Ruby Muhammad is not the age she claims. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]

Comment: there are several issues here, but two main ones:

1. Unvalidated cases are often listed to show the difference between poor-quality data (unvalidated) and high-quality data (validated data). This was done, for example, in academic papers such as this one: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/demography/v040/40.4rosenwaike.html

when the goal is to show the difference between verified and unverified, it makes sense to allow in all the bad cases. However, the current system fails this goal, as it concentrates cases from high-quality areas (MEDC nations).

2. Some cases come from regions/areas where the case is most likely true, based on past history/track record. However, many cases, especially those that just turned 110, have not yet been verified. It seems the purpose of this second list here is to list those "just over 110" cases from regions with a good track record of verification. If that's the purpose of the MEDC list, then the goal is not to allow in all cases but just those that appear LIKELY to be verified but have not yet been due mainly to their having just turned 110, waiting on documents to arrive, etc. If that's the goal, then surely if a case is not accepted by age 113, then the likelihood of acceptance decreases substantially. True, there are exceptions such as Maria Capovilla. However, the point of the longevity claims article is to provide the grey area between the most-likely true (110-112) and almost certainly false (130+), or longevity myths. Based on these goals, it makes sense to move cases that have not been verified by age 113 to longevity claims. It does not make sense to keep them here, as it mixes two incongruous goals.

Therefore, I have suggested two ways to fix this: if the main goal is #1, allow in all cases worldwide 110+ to the "unverified" list (that would be a mess). Given the longevity claims and longevity myths pages, this is also unncecessary. Logically, then, the goal here is goal #2: include likely-true but not yet verified cases, especially those that have just been discovered. Having a cutoff at 113 seems fair; it applies the same standard to EVERYONE. That is, even if Rosa Rhein isn't verified by 113, her case moves to "longevity claims." How can a "same for everyone" standard be less fair than a mixed-message bureaucratic jumble?

Ryoung122 03:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Robert that cases from MEDC which are first noticed on, or shortly after, a 110th birthday but have not been verified by the 113th birthday should be moved to the unverified claims page.

"list" not "page".Ryoung122 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely, but not impossible, event that a case is first identified after a 113th birthday it could perhaps be given 3 years here and if still not verified/debunked, then moved to the claims page.

I'm saying that the 113+ case can start out on longevity claims (presumption of guilt) but be moved to the verified list if verified.Ryoung122 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC:::I have no problem with that. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-MEDC cases of 113+ should go on the claims page. That still leaves cases between 110-113 from non-MEDC countries. Where is the best place for them (if anywhere)? DerbyCountyinNZ 06:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The argument is that unverified claims from less-reputable nations are too numerous to bother with until at least age 113. Since age inflation is common throughout history, it is only in the more-advanced nations where the systems of recordkeeping have been in place for more than a century that the highest claimed age comes down to a reasonable level (I suggest reading the Odense Monograph on "Exceptional Longevity from Prehistory to Present").Ryoung122 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I thought there might be too many! DerbyCountyinNZ 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is MEDC inclusive enough though? As we've seen in the past, there have been many validated claims from other countries such as Columbia, Ecuador. I bet people living in Slovenia or Puerto Rico today are living longer lives than people did in the UK 40 years ago and you can only expect countries like this to have a supercentenarian every now and then despite their relatively low population. Also, the CIA list that we are using has not been updated since 1999. I think perhaps we should move towards the World Bank high-income economies list (or something similar) as it encapsulates many of these smaller countries that otherwise go unnoticed on this list. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Maude Buckley of Texas, born Feb 8 1899?

Ryoung122 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Teresa Hsu Chih of China, supposedly 111 not on the unverified list? --Jkaharper (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. All this list is a collection of names, most of which are not notable enough to carry their own Wikipedia pages. Essentially, the top part is just a copy of http://grg.org/Adams/E.HTM and, while I think that it would be a little disingenuous to refer to it as a copy violation, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information or an archive of web pages. Before it had utility as a (somewhat) objective collection of potential supercentenarians there were not recognized by the GRG... now it's just "this is my opinion on who is really the age that they claim and who is a liar". That's a violation of WP:BLP in my eyes. So can anyone give me a reason why I shouldn't nominate this for deletion? And please, use Wikipedia policy, not personal opinions or feelings, because I've always thought that this list might be useful, so I don't need to be convinced of its utility, but that doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 16:04, 19 February 2009 of (UTC)

Comment: You are wrong on multiple counts, and your threats to delete sound like little more than sour grapes. To wit:

A. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information": the information on this page is NOT indiscriminate: rather, it's the other way around: you are upset BECAUSE it is a discriminate collection of information.

B. "Wikipedia is not an archive of web page." Since the list is dynamic and deletes cases once they die, it is NOT an archive. So that point doesn't pass muster, either. Of course, the GRG list DOES include an archive (who died in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, etc). But this list does not.

C. Claiming that this list was "somewhat" objective before is just flat-out wrong. As I clearly pointed out in my arguments, the part B section of the list suffered from a mixed-message approach: clearly, the goal of those who added part B was to include cases likely to be verified and added to the GRG list in the future. In the literature, the goal of "unverified lists" is to show the UNreliablity of unverified data. Here, we had a mixed-message approach: including only those cases from "developed" or "advanced" countries was an attempt to include cases likely to be true. However, as anyone knows the US is a large nation and, given that compulsory birth registration for everyone here began only in 1933, it's simply too much to assume that American cases are likely to be true.

D. The "longevity claims" page was designed to care for those claims in the gray area (not likely to be true, but still possible to be true).

E. Age cutoffs/limits made sense. Someone came up with the idea that cases above 113 are already listed on the longevity claims list, but not those under 113, so why not cut off the part B section at 113? This made sense because if the parameter of the list was to show "probably true" cases, or at least those that haven't been judged yet, then there is a big difference between someone who just turned 110 and their case hasn't been reviewed yet and someone whose case has been sitting for 3 years, 6 years, 7 years, etc.

F. If someone on the longevity claims lists has their case eventually verified, such as Maria Capovilla, then the case would be added to the "section A" part of the list. Thus, no one is excluded.

Now, I don't see how a "standard for everyone" is unfair. The cutoff at 113 is more fair than the cutoff by nation, which is more subjective.

I'm really disappointed in you, CP. I don't see why you insist on being on the wrong side of history. Comments like this one:

"this is my opinion on who is really the age that they claim and who is a liar". That's a violation of WP:BLP in my eyes.

seem to violate what you are accusing others of.

Excuse me? Let's review:

A. We left Ruby Muhammad on this list, even though the case is already questioned in reliable, third-party sources.

B. Someone developed the system that "if they are MEDC, then they are listed." Now, in my opinion, the 111-year-old man from the Ukraine was "probably" a true case. But we didn't go with opinion. We went with the standard that existed before the case was considered.

C. All cases listed are cited in the media, and therefore are based on public information. Thus, BLP is being respected. In fact, let's consider this: Rebecca Lanier was probably born in 1905, based on census research. So, even listing her on the longevity claims page is giving her the benefit of the doubt. Listing her as born in 1892, as claimed, is giving her the benefit of the doubt. Thus, claiming that this page violates BLP is simply a not so.

D. You had ample time to comment on this, but when someone (Star Garnet) chose to make a change, you threaten to delete this. This seems like a violation of WP:OWN. As for me, I didn't create this article, and in truth if this is deleted, it will simply make people have to turn to the GRG list even more, so from a cynical point of view I should favor this article's deletion. However, from a practical standpoint my goal has always been to educate people as to how long humans live, and this page helps people to understand how long humans live, not just maximally but also in a demographic sense. Just looking at the data, one can see that with a sort of "top 100" approach, the population pyramid quickly folds from about 100 at age 110 to 50 at 111, 25 at 112, maybe 10 at 113...just one verified person at 114. This helps to disabuse both underestimates of age (is my 108-year-old grandma the oldest person in place X?) and overestimates of age "my grandma is 135!".Ryoung122 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The top part sometimes includes names which are on the Epstein list but not GRG. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]

Okay, so occasionally Epstein verifies a case before the GRG, at which point the list reverts to using the GRG as a source. So occasionally, it's slightly (but inconsequentially) different for a week. Cheers, CP 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's difficult to find policy that instructs us as to why an article should be kept, policies almost exclusively instruct us in what is not permitted. I would like to mention, though, WP:NOTPAPER. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can include more topics than Britannica can. Useight (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical standpoint, the section B, as listed, is quite valuable. It organizes into one listing a lot of cases from around the world that are featured in newspapers and other quotable sources. It includes a lot of "just turned 110" cases and so, ironically, may be help the section A list be more demographically balanced (since most of the missing cases are those that just turned 110). In short, this helps to close a loophole and, while not solving every issue, makes the picture of human longevity more complete. That alone is an encyclopedic task. Also, using the "110th birthday" test, most very-extreme claims start at a hard-to-believe age. For example, Tuti Yusupova's claim gained international attention at age "128". Where was this claim at 110? That's what I thought. Places like Uzbekistan are so behind, they are not even aware that a claim to 110 is significant. In fact, the most-recent claim sounded like it came from a first-ever government attempt to list all of the centenarian claims in the country. So, that's progress. But the "demographic transition" generally takes 100 years (as cited in the literature). So, by the year 2109, Uzbekistan may begin to produce quality data on supercentenarians.

Ryoung122 10:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CP is absolutely correct. This page could be replaced with a link, so it is superfluous as expressed by CP. We should ignore the emotional outpouring of Ryoung, it makes no sense. Is there anyone else, otherwise we should delete this. Is this an improvement on the source site? Orderofthehouse (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this account did not exist before today, and could be viewed as a "meatpuppet."Ryoung122 06:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unverified list on this page could easily be moved to the Longevity claims page, and indeed it would make sense for it to be there rather than here. Such a move, along with the fact that the top 10 women and men (or 110+ if <10) are on the Oldest people page, would make this page redundant. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Derby, you are missing the point. Throw the emotions out the window and let's consider the facts:

Validated Supercentenarian Cases (Data Analysis) as of June 15, 2007 *data below does not include living cases mortality rate age number surviving deaths yearly Cumulative 123 0 122 1 -1 100.00% 100.00% 121 1 0 0.00% 99.90% 120 2 -1 50.00% 99.90% 119 3 -1 33.33% 99.80% 118 3 0 0.00% 99.70% 117 5 -2 40.00% 99.70% 116 10 -5 50.00% 99.50% 115 23 -13 56.52% 98.99% 114 62 -39 62.90% 97.69% 113 126 -64 50.79% 93.76% 112 264 -138 52.27% 87.32% 111 508 -244 48.03% 73.44% 110 994 -486 48.89% 48.89%

Age 110 is not "extremely rare" (perhaps very rare) but age 115 certainly is.

The whole point of the "longevity claims" article and list are that there are quite a number of claims to extreme age that cannot be verified AND range from somewhat to highly unlikely to be true. Many of the cases on the "List B" on this page are, in fact, LIKELY to be true, based on evidence already existing.

Secondly, there is the issue of the claim in context: if someone claims to be 110, even 111, that is not claiming to be the world's oldest person, and therefore less controversial. If someone claims to be 115, 117, 122, 125, 132, etc we are going from "oldest living person" to ages never reached. Where do we draw the lines? To me, drawing lines at ages is more fair than by nations. Having age 110-112 as a sort of "waiting list" to see if the case will be verified makes sense. If a claim gets to 113 and is still not verified, it makes sense that we can begin with a value judgment: less likely to be true. If a claim gets to 131, virtually impossible to be true.

The bottom line is that CP claims that "BLP" must be respected...let's be fair here. We begin at age 110 with giving a sort of "neutral" perspective for cases in List B. Especially if the case gets to a point where they are older than the current oldest living person AND not accepted, then there is a reason to consider the case in a "grey area." The problem with "older than the oldest living person" cutoff is that, sometimes, a Jeanne Calment will come along. Should we then think that 119 is true, simply because it's less than Calment? A cutoff of 113, or 115 if you want to be generous, seems like a reasonable compromise.

Thirdly, the GRG list, or any list that has criteria for applications, is going to be somewhat exclusionary. When the field of age verification research began in the 1870s with William Thoms, he compared the UNVALIDATED claims from folklore with the VALIDATED claims from life insurance policy holders. The result? True, every extreme case from folklore proved false or unvalidatab (with a woman aged 106 mentioned as the oldest possibly-true case he reviewed), but based on life insurance policies and proven records alone, Mr Thoms could not identify anyone older than 103. Now, is that how long people lived back then? We know today that age 108 was achieved in 1837. Hence, there is also a risk of being overly skeptical.

The goal of Wikipedia is to present a pluralistic approach to discussion that employs major viewpoints. Here, we have:

A. The first list, a sort of "skeptics list" with the GRG list.

B. Cases not yet verified but "recently discovered." Note that the track and field governing body, if an apparent world record is set, calls the record "pending," often for several months, until officially accepted. Here, a list B should be in the principle of "pending."

C. The longevity claims list: let's face it, if three years have gone by an a record has not been accepted, then it's no longer "pending." When it comes to extreme age claims, it makes sense to have a level 3, "longevity claims," that are a sort of backburner case...not proven true, but still possible.

D. Finally, the longevity myths list: cases 130+ are far beyond the realm of considering them anything more than scientifically frivilous. But, just as there is a view that accepts religious beliefs, so it makes sense to report on the BELIEVED age of extreme claims, both for historical reference and also for those persons interested.

The current Wikipedia lists on verified, pending, grey area, and far-out cases is a four-viewpoint approach that allows the reader to choose which level of belief they want to go with. Thus, there is reason to keep this list. Discussions of what approach should be used are still malleable, but first the issue needs to be resolved as to why.

Now, might I also interject that the "last living veterans" lists to SOME are violations of Wiki policy: "original research" or what have you. Also note that there are levels of cases:

A. Officially accepted cases--such as Harry Patch

B. Unofficial but documentable cases--such as French veterans who served "less than 3 months"

C. WWI-era cases--possibly veterans by interpretation of service, such as Aarne Arvonen

D. Unlikely claims--the person made a claim in the media, such as William Olin or Jim Lincoln, but the case is unlikely to be true.

E. Outright frauds--cases such as Merlyn Kreuger, which have been debunked.

I realize now that for both WWI-veteran lists and "Oldest People" lists, we have the first four categories covered, but not an article on the 5th category: debunked cases. Perhaps we should be ADDING, not deleting, an article. Why? The purpose of a "debunked cases" page is to show how common it is for a case to be false, and how expert debunk it. Let's not forget that all this existed before I was even born. Walter Williams claimed to be the last Civil War veteran at 117, but his claim was debunked in 1959 by a NY Times reporter.Ryoung122 06:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first list is an amalgamated list from 2 sources, which as a whole is not published elsewhere. The second list is certainly not a violation of WP:BLP. It does not state that these people are lying, nor does it imply that. Wikipedia has to be impartial, and articles must adhere to WP:NEU. As such, until these people are verified, they must be listed as claims. As I'm sure you know, there have been many exaggerated claims in the past and we need to be aware of that. The list itself is well cited. I have personally made this section more comprehensive, rather than being exclusive as it was under just the CIA list. I think it's very important for people reading about the oldest people to understand the demographics of the oldest living people. It's also needed to put the longevity claims, and claimed supercentenarians into context. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alwine Werner

Germany`s oldest living woman, Alwine Werner (born 10. November 1898)should be added. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%84ltester_Mensch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for Alwine Werner and obviously we can't use Wikipedia as a source. Also, should we be adding Ukrainian-born cases like Werner, Buhler and Lutzko? It's not one of the listed countries, and for good reason. Or are we counting country of residence as the criterium? In which case Teresa Hsu could be added, if anyone can get a handle on how old she is claimed to be. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]

I was actually going to list Hsu when I made the change, but could find no confirmation of her last birthday. Cases on here should have confirmation of that. Teresa Dosaigues may have to be removed if there's no confirmation. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took Myrtle Jones off last year for the same reason, and she was later verified. The same could be said for Pogonowska. WOP shouldn't really be used. As for Hsu, she could be 111, 110, in her hundreds, or in her nineties. So many articles, but none specifically about her last birthday. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]

Melinda Harris

Melinda Overton Harris claims birth May 4, 1896, and was confirmed alive within the past year:

Melinda Overton Harris looses son Message List Reply | Forward | Delete Message #11866 of 12315 < Prev | Next >

Dear all,

Melinda Overton Harris has lost her son William McAdoo Miller Jr. aged 88 back in May 13, 2008. I remind you that she claims to be aged 112, but our research so far has only been able to confirm age 111 based on the 1910 Census match.

You can read her son's obituary here:

http://philadelphiatribune.v1.myvirtualpaper.com/ThePhiladelphiaTribune /2008051701/?page=28

Confirmation that she indeed reached her 112th birthday on May 4 could also be found in Craven County minutes:

http://www.cravencounty.com/minutes/BC2008/RG050508.pdf

Filipe Prista Lucas Ryoung122 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Jamais Mildred Jamais, born in Georgia about February 15, 1899 (the story is a bit confusing), turned 110 a few days ago in Florida:

http://www.tbnweekly.com/pubs/clearwater_citizen/content_articles/021809_cit-04.\ txt Ryoung122 03:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only should there be a summary, but also a "supercentenarian per capita" analysis. The summary does several things. First, it points the reader as to where the cases are coming from (geographic distribution). Second, it helps the reader gain some demographic understanding. It makes sense that the U.S., with 300+ million persons, would have more supercentenarians than Japan, with 127 million, or France, with 64 million. However, the general population is often quite misinformed. In the past, there was an assumption that "Japanese lived longer" so they should have the most. Finally, it can help give the reader some information about what is missing, what is not there. Clearly, data is mostly missing from Africa, South America, Asia...areas of the world that did not keep good records for 110+ years.Ryoung122 07:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be done then the section must discuss other reasons for discrepancies between countries, such as lack of documentation, poor reporting, and immigration. While the data may suggest something about countries that produce higher numbers of supercentenarians per head, it's open to debate whether that is what the data shows due to the other aforementioned factors. Secondly, the data would be changing quite frequently. Ignoring immigration and emigration, what really matters is not the population now, but the population 110+ years ago.SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is jumping the gun as there are currently "only" 88 or so verified centenarians, but we might as well clarify this now. Assuming that there is a relative flood of confirmed cententarians which brings the total to over 100 in the relative close future, say the next year or so, will we be listing each and every one of them, or will we only be listing the top 100 living people? Personally, to be consistent with other pages, I say we just list the 100 oldest living. Canada Jack (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]