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

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Talk:List of living supercentenarians/Archives

I have heard of this man who served as an Indian Scout for the United states Calvary. He is the last living veteran of the Punitive Expedition that fought for the United States .The Punitive Expedition was a war we had with Pancho Villa from 1916 to 1917 in northern Mexico. He was born in the Arizona territory on January 12,1898 . He is now 112 years old. After he was released by the U.S calvary in 1917 he went back to Northern Mexico and has been their ever since. If this is true and may people have told me that it is, he is the third oldest man alive in the world . The oldest living veteran in the world. The last man do do a calvary charge with the U.S army in war time. Please if anyone has this mans location please post it.24.14.70.179 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are full of it :D. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO you have information proving or disproving? Or are you showing just your own stupidity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Red Hawk was incorrectly typed, whatever. Anyway, there is a John Red-Hawk and John Redhawk on Ancestry. You are correct. It says that a John Red-Hawk lived in South Dakota during the 1910s in an Indian census. (See here: http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2&gsfn=John&gsln=Redhawk&_81004010=1898&msbpn__ftp=Arizona%2C+USA) Ive seen this message every day, and I just wanted to say something. You are certainly correct IP. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good there is proof then in the records. I need his address or location in Mexico to track him down and interview him. He is 112 years old and probably has little time left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know it's the same person as the person alive today? Canada Jack (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the purpose of the interview . To find out all information on this man possible before he dies. Track down discharge papers from U.S calvary units involved in the war. To see if he as any items used in war. To talk to persons in the area of Mexico he lives at. TO track his life as much as possible. The key thing is to find where he lives in Mexico. When I have an address or location then the rest can happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive heard of that IP before. I think it's in Illinois? Anyway, are you really going to travel from Illinois to Mexico to interview him? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know where he lives now in Mexico. My research assistant Is going home to Arizona for spring break .He will cross into Mexico and go to the city of Aconchi Mexico . John Red hawk lives close to this town but has no phone or address . He must live like they did 80 years ago. He was very hard to track down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does he work for a newspaper service? If he is tracked down, will your research assistant make an article on him? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No he does not work for a newspaper. He works for me to track down people who claim to be 110 years old . This is research he is doing for me to get his degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Redhawk may be the last living link to the Mexican Revolutionary War. Juan Carlos Vega, the last recognized survivor, died March 30th 2010, he was 109. Very sad.

• http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/669742.html Template:Es icon Just use Google translate.

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information has been collected and is in the process of being verified. Waiting on records from the United States Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh! Thats excellent. I cant wait until he is in an article! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified by United States Army that Army records for the Punitive expedition were destroyed by fire in St Louis on July 12, 1973 . They are going to forward the information on to other sources in attempt to verify information I sent to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.173.71 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply once you obtain the records. Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can John Redhawk's status be updated regularly? Like once a year or so? Has your assistant been visiting him years prior? he doesn't always travel to Mexico for Spring break does he? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place, it's neither a blog nor a forum. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on a reply back from the National Archive Washington D.C on a discharge paper and 3 pictures presented. When I find out if they match units with government records that were in the Punitive Expedition. I can post for the general public. I also have sent a baptism record from 1931 when he became a Christian that states his age was 33 years old to the Catholic Church for verification. When I have reply's from both you will be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.192.24 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do you have your own website? Can the photos, documents etc. be posted there? Great work! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user on the Italian Wikipedia with the name of 'Pascar' quoted "Arena falso caso". Which translates to Arena case false (or veisverse).

Is there any proof that her age is false? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should think this is proof enough. "Pascar" is the short form of the name of one of the Italian GRG validators. Brendanology^ContriB 04:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm you it was a "false case", no Maria Carmela Arena aged 110 exists in Italy.--Pascar (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Although the U.S. Public Records Index match for Gertrude Weaver fits, I'd like to mention that the ages cited often are understated, because women tended to lie about their age in the past.

For example, Beatrice Farve is listed as born in 1905...but that's not possible if she were listed as 5 years old in the 1900 census.

I don't mind someone putting her on the "likely younger than claimed" lists but I have a feeling that as more information comes to light, her final age and year of birth may be different.Ryoung122 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you (and Nick Orstein as well) both think that she shouldn't be included because of what the public records index says then I guess I have no choice but to accept your opinions and move on.

We'll also need to remove the following people as well, based on the information in the index.

Annie Leverett/Leverette is said to be only 99 years old.

In the citation for Leverett it says she first saw a plane as a "child" as "World War I was fixing to start". This could be 1914, or 1917 if referring to the US entry into the war. Which means that if she was she actually born in 1898 she would havew been 16 or 19, which is hardly a "child". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Ross-Lambert said to be 108 years old.

Naomi Conner said to be 119 years old. (this seems absolutely ridiculous, but it does mean that she doesn't meet the criteria for the page)Tim198 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of claims that have evidence (equally or more credible than the claimed source) that the claimed age is incorrect. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What site did you use? US Search? If you did, it says Frank Buckles is 99 years old and Nellie Vallery is 106. The US Search screwed both their ages because if Nellie Vallery's age had changed in July, she would probably be 107. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop it with the original research. While a census match would be an important indicator of age, search indexes such as US Search are not...they are often not updated for years or contain incorrect information. They are little more than mailing lists.

(Later edit by CalvinTy: The sentence above me was already present; i.e. it is not signed so it looks like I could have written the above, but not the case, just a FYI.) I was looking for Annie Leverett(e)'s entry and now see that Tim198 removed her on 20 August 2010 [removal of entries)]. Since it was agreed that the U.S. Public Records Index is not a reliable source, why were those entries not restored? CalvinTy (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Weaver should be on this page, as her claim to 112 has NOT been shown to be false by a reliable counter document. As for 119, that's above the 113+ cutoff and would go to longevity claims. Ryoung122 04:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, before July 15 on Nellie Vallery's birthday, US Search displayed her age as being 105, and now it says that she is 106. See photo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nellie_vallery10493.png

I think a gap of 2 years is okay, but over 2 like Annie Leverette, Vallery, Weaver, are exaggerating. Their birth dates on their need to be looked at. SiameseTurtle said that 2 census matches were found for Ivory Lambert. One saying that she is 108, and another saying 110. In my opinion, Lambert should be the only added.

Robert, you said you found Weaver's DOB was to be in 1904. I think US Search updates her age regularly. Did you purchase money to find her records on there? You should check a few other "disputed" cases on there.

Of course, on Ancestry, a census had Fannie Butens birth year as 1901. But an older census said 1899. US Search is just sticking with one census. Similar to Lambert. Has anyone found census matches for Conner and/or Vallery? Even Leverette?

Also, Conner is claiming to be 110 in her most recent article. I don't know why her age is recorded as 119. Is it common for the site to make type-os? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Nick regarding Ross-Lambert. We should definately consider the 1920 census match on her to be more reliable than the 1930 match (since it's closer to the time of birth). I do hope that somebody will eventually be able to locate the 1900 and 1910 census matches on her though. Without those, it's not really possible to say anything definitive about her real age.

Regarding Naomi Conner, if you go to message #14691 on the WOP yahoo group you'll find that Filipe Prista Lucas found a POSSIBLE match on Naomi Conner in the 1920 census indcating that she was 18 years old at the time (and thus if true would make her only 108 years old at this time and NOT a supercentenarian) This evidence is admittedly a little thin, though.Tim198 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim,

I think we should add Naomi Conner back. A census said she was 108. That's pretty close, and it's not even the 1900 census. Leverette should only be removed in my opinion. I think Vallery as well because US Search has her as age 106. Im not sure about her yet, although thanks to that site, Nellie's maiden name or either middle name is Wallace. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please keep in mind that this article is about living people. If we are to remove someone then there should be hard evidence. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally consider a census match "hard" evidence (however, the earlier the census, the closer to the birth event, and not all censuses are correct) and something like the US Public Records Index "soft" evidence.Ryoung122 05:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Swedish correspondants said she moved to Sweden not too long ago. Her name appears in the Swedish National Register here: It even includes exactly where she lives (e.g. address). http://www.ratsit.se/BC/ReportSmall.aspx?ID=qEQWdEbn2DOKjdDtknCxSpTL76FroMz0ht50iQNqjKE

But could this be similar to Japan's National Register? According to a recent article (posted on WOP here [1]), there were tons of Japanese claimed centenarians who appear in National Registers (some aged 150-200 years old at max) and just rot. Luckily, Japanese authorities removed the tons of cases that have been dead for a long time.

Angele DeFreine of Belgium, who's family "claims" to be updating her status to Peter Vermaelen (aka makila) via phone, but her name doens't appear in the Belgium National Register. Sort of the opposite of Saro Dursun.

I believe that Dursun is dead, as well as the 4th and 5th oldest (Juana Hernandez, born 24 June 1900 & Jwani Yaukhan, born 1 July 1900, respectively) in Sweden who are (probably) immigrants. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been even a photo of Saro Dursun or an individual story about her, only citations from the national register which are often outdated (the person may have died a long time ago).Ryoung122 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the swedish GRG-correspondent in contact with the family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.203.34 (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely an example somewhat like the japanese ones, although slightly different. The most common reason for a ghost name in the Swedish registry is a foreigner who moved out of the country without the authorities being aware of it. I suppose there might be pension fraud and other reasons as well, but that seems less common (at least for the most extreme ages). Likely the third oldest Swede is 108-year-old Ester Johansson in Tingsryd. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

According to the International Database on Longevity, two Spanish anonymous 114-year-olds have been verified, both of whom would be old enough to be on this list.

http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm

Ryoung122 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that she was never added to the list?

110th birthday report here > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/14618

Her DOB is not certain. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there is occasionally some cross-over between the above article and this one regular editors may like to provide some input into the former as this has, again, been edited in a somewhat POV fashion which may not be consistent with that of the vast majority of users. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello,

I have been adding the oldest person by (province, state etc.) in several country supercentenarian articles. I have been trying to add the oldest person born in a certain place in the country. And Paolo S. (aka Pascar) from the Italian wikipedia has a different perspective; he adds the oldest person to live in a particular place.

And on the Italian supercentenarian article, Paolo agrees with adding cities. I think that cities is being too precise; too much information. I know that the Nordic countries have municipalities because they don't have anything bigger than that, Italy has regions.

• • Now, some other articles have kept it as oldest born in place. It has always been kept that way here on the English wiki (e.g. Canadian supercentenarians/Australian supercentenarians). Also, British and American supercentenarians have 2 sections in "Oldest per place"; Oldest living people per "X" and oldest ever born in "X".

• My view: Oldest born in particular place in country=recordholder and no cities!
• Paolo S.'s view: Oldest to live in particular place in country=recordholder and cities be included!

What is your opinion on this. I'd like to hear everyone's view. Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to me supercentenarians are not just numbers, so if you report their provenience (city) it is a good thing. If you don't have data for supercentenarians of some countries you cannot cancel data from the others of other countries, it isn't a good reason. Then a record of a region is the oldest person in that region. An example: Rosa Rein, born in German Empire (now Poland), was doyenne of Switzerland. Lazzaro Ponticelli left Italy when he was 9 and was the oldest living man in France, a record in France. So Serafina Naccarato, born in Calabria, was a record (the oldest person, the doyenne) in Marche Region, not in Calabria. Finally I'm not from Italian Wikipedia (that doesn't exist, Wikipedia in Italian exists), I'm from Wikipedia. --Pascar (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that oldest person by city would be too specific, bordering on trivia. Oldest person by region would depend on the official staus of that region. In the US oldest person by state is obviously perfectly reasonable, but oldest by region (ie groups of states, if they could even be agreed upon) would not. In other countries I expect it would be extremely difficult to identify the oldest person in even a majority of regions (counties in the UK for instance) and such a list would be too incomplete, and too frequently out of date, to be worthwhile. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is the difference between State of the U.S. and Region of Italy or of France. A Region in Italy is an administrative entity with borders, so if you know where a person was born or died... where is the difficulty???--Pascar (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now that Region is the actual term for the recognised political subdivisions of Italy, more or less equivalent to the States of the United States. I'm still rather dubious as to the encyclopedic (as opposed to minority user interest) usefulness of an article on the oldest persons by region in Italy. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the table about the Italian regions, tell me if it is better in this way. --Pascar (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the page of the german supercentenarians you made the list of the oldest people born in the Bundesländer according to the actual borders without including people aged less than 110 years. In most cases that could be useful, but we have Ottilie Aleith who died in Thuringia aged 109 years 347 days. So she seems to be the oldest person ever who died in Thuringia as no thuringian became a supercentanarian and it is nearly unbelievable that a second person should have died in Thuringia less than 18 days before his/her 110th birthday. Does anyone knows if she was born in Thuringia? If so, we should add her as oldest known person ever born in Thuringia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.185.132 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea Paolo; this could be the idea for all country supercentenarian pages. I just removed the flagicon. Of course, his idea about having a good idea is my opinion. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo, we probably shouldn't have made it "out of or in" with the emigrant/immigrant/indigenous supercentenarians; we are, as Robert calls it "dumbing down the language"; this isn't simple wikipedia, which is for children. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget my previous comment, it just needs to be oldest born in region. It is like having an immigrant section of oldest per region if immigrants were included in section; similar to US supercentenarians page. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NickOrnstein#Please_don.27t_.22dumb_down.22_the_language What do you think?--Pascar (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a few things discussed. In my opinion, people should be removed if they are exaggerating their age, especially if a gerontologist/professional (e.g. Robert Young) brings it up. We already removed one "supercentenarians" due to what we (Wikipedians) thought she was exaggerating (Hsu Chih).

• Kashi Ram Rai: Keep off; Robert Young said that he has a "rounded-off birthdate".
• Teresa Hsu Chih: Remain off; too "physically active" to be a supercentenarian.
• Andrew Hatch: Remain off; too "young" to be a supercent, but most of all, census found an Andrew Hatch born in his home town in 1922.
• Michael Tsyunyak: Keep; has a document (2nd photo from the left seen here: [2]) indicating his birth date. His age has been doubted. But I am having trouble trying to read his name on it. For some reason, the certificate he received (in the 3rd photo from the left) has the correct translated name via Google Translate, but on his passport the name looks sort of different, yes?
• Maria Carmela Arena: Remain off; Italian GRG correspondent Paolo S. (aka Pascar) said that she was a "false case" and also said that "no Maria Carmela Arena aged 110 exists in Italy". (I have one thing to say about that: Who in the right mind would make a birthday article on her when she NEVER existed in the first place, shouldn't that person get in trouble? Was she a paper error?)
• Mansoor Pazargad (longevity claimant): Robert Young said that he "comes from Iran, and it's possible there was some confusion converting Islamic dates to "Western" dates".
• Albert Plummer: Keep (when status at age 110 is reported); Marc Muir (aka CalvinTy) found a 1945 Florida State Census having Albert's age as 45 (supports 1900). With much experience from (past) supercentenarian claimant cases, Robert stated that "Cases like this often sound suspect (working-class jobs; little or no education; moved around alot).

People shouldn't be removed if they receive conformation (e.g. one day prior to their 111th birthday), and be removed one month later. It doesn't make any sense.

Clara Schonholzer (for example) hasn't had an update on her status since December 2009 and she is still on the list, and DerbyCountyinNZ says (in accordance with the rules above in an earlier discussion) that a supercentenarian must be removed if they don't get an update within 1 month on their most recent birthday.

In other words, I believe Gertrude Weaver should remain on the list because on her last update, she was already a (claimed) supercentenarian. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for inclusion in the first place is a report that the person has actually celebrated their 110th birthday (the day before is not good enough as people have died on their actuall birthday). While there are users who keep track of these things it seems excessively complicated to keep track of how long it is since the last report that someone is alive. Deaths can go unreported for many months. It makes more sense to have a criteria that the most recent birthday must be reported and if it isn't within 1 or 2 months then they should be removed. Given that to be included here someone must in fact be "living" and that we can't confirm that anyone is still living day by day a simple time limit is the best option. As the majority of people here do not have there own article we are not restricted by WP:BLP in deciding whether someone should be removed because there is insufficient proof that they are in fact still alive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the criteria should be if an unverified supercentenarian doesn't get update within 1 year and 2 weeks, they should be removed. 2 weeks extension from their birthday to await a report, sometimes birthday reports aren't always immediately on their birthday. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a lot of this. It doesn't matter if a case is suspect; that's not our job here. It matters if the case meets the definition for inclusion on this list. For the "unvalidated" list, that is a report claiming an age of 110-112 with a claimed date of birth. This shouldn't be Nick Ornstein's opinion. Personally I think the Michael Tsyunyak case is junk, but he should be listed unless/until evidence emerges that he is not the age claimed.131.96.194.45 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% opposed to this nonsense. An update NEED NOT be a story about a birthday to confirm that someone was alive within a reasonable amount of time. If that is an issue, how easy would it be to add a "last updated" column along with the source?

So the Gertrude Weaver article precedes her birthday by two days?

http://www.camdenarknews.com/news/localnews/2010/07/02/holiday-is-112th-birthday-for-local-woma-88.php

That's NO reason to delete unless the person hasn't reached 110 yet, and the claim here is 112.Ryoung122 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, I am entitled to my own opinion, just like anyone else. I forgot to add people's thoughts on the Tsyunyak case above that he lacks signs of "extreme age". Ok, after hearing everyone's thoughts on the Ukrainian case, I have doubt in it as well. I added the extra info above on him, my apologies. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't remove cases based on our opinions. I think we should only remove a case if there's actual evidence (such as birth certificates, census records etc...) to suggest a persons exaggerating.

What's really the main problem here is the criteria used for the unverified list (and this is something that's been discussed many times). If we went back to using the HIE criteria then many of the questionable cases could be excluded from the page. I really think we need to consider a re-vote on that.Tim198 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Hsu Chih was removed based on Wikipedians' opinions, she is going back on the list. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works on consensus. If enough editors feel that certain information should not be included then it isn't. There needs to be consensus to establish what criteria is used for inclusion/exclusion; there appears to be none for this article at the moment. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Hsu Chih was removed from the list a while back based on Wikipedians' opinions, she is going back on the list. But a problem: Some sites list her birth as 1900 (http://www.xici.net/d130514043.htm), as opposed to articles stating 1898 (Some say 1897, but that was an error). Any thoughts? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one reason she was removed in the first place! If there is no agreed year of birth then she shouldn't be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gerentology list shows Toku Yamaguchi at 49th but this page doesnt show her anywhere. Is she a new validated? Williamb (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest in the prefecture where she live(d) showed that a person younger than her is now listed as the oldest. We can assume she is deceased, but not necessarily because it never sad that she actually died. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so basically you are saying you know better than the Gerentology foundation. Williamb (talk) 07

06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically he is saying that, per consensus, people who are directly or indirectly confirmed as dead can be removed from the wikipedia list without waiting for the often slow updating of the grg. If you have another view on this, start another thread about it here on talk, but personally I don't think that should be necessary. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed her, yet again, because the citation [3] states she is 106 and maybe 110. This is the entire citation:

BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) - Rose Axlerod celebrated her 106th birthday Thursday at the Weinberg Campus in Amherst.

According to Senior Services, Rose is the oldest known person in Erie County. And though 106 is definitely a special age, Rose may actually be even older.

When Rose came from Russia to the United States in 1904, documents from her birthplace had conflicting information, and she may actually be 110.

Rose is a retired history teacher from Buffalo Public School 82. Her wish for her birthday? Go to Las Vegas.

This really isn't good enough for inclusion in this article (even given the pretty slack standards that are being used). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, cases that have a problem keeping their story straight shouldn't be kept here. That's why Flossie Carter was removed in the first place. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 06:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to Gertrude Weaver, they say that she has a 1900 U.S. census record, and we are keeping her here. So why in the crap is she here and Rose Axelrod not? Axelrod should stay on until further notice. Axelrod deserves to go up here. Weaver is up here because of the same "excuse" - Proving to have a document, but no "show". --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented above in the discussion of Weaver that if the evidence against her claimed age was at least as credible as that for it then she should be removed. There hasn't even been a credible citation for Axelrod being 110. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know this was several months ago, but I still have an unanswered question to ask: Why is it that she is currently listed on the verified supercentenarians page as "Frederica Sagor Maas", even though she used to be listed as just "Frederica Maas" when she was still on the unverified list back in July? Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 08:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't want my opinion, but I think the editor just deceided to use her full name, dont worry your head off about it. Longevitydude (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since she's not famous only for being supercentenarian, the article about her was created in 2008 with her full name. Perhaps the change of name in the list was only to avoid the "[[Frederica Sagor Maas|Frederica Maas]]" thing.Japf (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On here, sources aren't cited properly, eg. "Report on John Jones' claimed 110th birthday". Should we keep it this way with this article and others? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't John Jones dead, why would he be on this article, besides if there not verified then it is just a claim. Longevitydude (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Jones died over a year ago, so he shouldn't be on the "living" list.Ryoung122 22:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

The "as of" wording, with the date given, is needed due to the time zone difference. One can see whether the age given is as of their time, or a hypothetical time. I note that with Eugenie Blanchard living in the Caribbean but the "as of" being London time, her age is wrong 25% of the time (6 out of 24 hours).Ryoung122 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]