This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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'd like to add three media-reported supercentenarians to this list, from Cochabamba, Bolivia. These individuals and a dozen others are being honored in a public Centenarian event, have had their birth dates confirmed by the National Retirement System in Bolivia (Senasir), and are currently local media coverage including in major local newspapers. I doubt there is any contact between them and the GRG mentioned here. However, this list seems oriented to the GRG's categories. How exactly can they be added?--Carwil (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If people are less than 113 years old you can add them into the "other cases" section. You need to provide the media citation with confirmation of birth date and the person is still living.Japf (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add them all, or list the 113+ year olds here so they can be taken care of. Also add 108/109 year olds, or just list them all!!!!!!!!!!! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we know that the serious nature of this article will end soon, when the circus in ArbCom ends, but we don't need to loose temper. So, I will try to rephrase- there is a section in this article for unverified cases of people between 110 and 113 years old. Even they are unverified, they need a proper citation, telling the birthday and that the person is still alive. If the person is than 113 (dead or alive) years old put it on Longevity claims.Japf (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that the case of Lola Ugarte viuda de Sandagorda was correctly placed in the article.Japf (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those that are unaware, there is a proposal here that many of the regular editors of this article, including myself, be banned from editing any longevity related articles for at least 1 year after which they may request, once every 3 months, permission to resume editing. Most are also threatened with a 1 year "behavior restriction" for making "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith". 3 guesses who is responsible for this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nightmere!!! JJB should be banned for ever, and all the religious fanatics that spread like a cancer in the wikipedia. What pleasure does he have on destroying serious work? This is a test to wikipedia itself. Any result except forbidding JJB to rotten longevity related articles is a further step to endanger wikipedia as a reliable source.

The discussion is too large. What can I do to help wikipedia?Japf (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shigechiyo Izumi should be removed from all wikipedia pages as his claim is no longer being accepted by any reliable source. Guinness dropped the case in the 2011 edition and Robert Young confirms here that GRG has as well. Epstein has also removed him from his list.Tim198 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per the recent ArbCom decision, and the clarification here, WOP can no longer be used as a citation for people included in the unverified list in this article. They will therefore need to be removed. Any person with no other citation claiming to have celebrated a 110th birthday will also need to be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The forces of stupidity wun. My colaboration in articles related to longevity has ended today.Japf (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following people who had no non-WOP citations. If a citation can be found claiming a 110th, or more recent, birthday they can be added back in. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Charlotte Flowers
• Yvonne de la Tour
• Eddye WIlliams

Now we have the start of the deletions:

Charlotte Flowers

Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.

Yvonne de la Tour

Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.

Eddye Williams

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/DC-WOMAN-TURNS-110-80662422.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113002998.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403886.html

have been deleted from the Wikipedia lists.

These are real people, notable for their longevity and other reasons.

Contrary to what has been stated beforehand, these people are now being removed from LISTS not from articles.

Now the censorship kicks in, and now the knowledge is deleted.

And now we have the rule of the idiots. Cam46136 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

No, what we have is the wkipedia policy that a reliable citation must be provided. WOP is no longer considerd to be a reliabe source. Simple. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's true. Most idiots are simple. Cam46136 (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

Make sure you tell that to the people that made the decision then. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not make sense to push for more debate and a proper outcome here before jumping in with the scythe? Melissa.vp198 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ArbCom decision, there has (presumably) been plenty of discussion already. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for DerbyCountyinNZ. Is it possible to place Eddye Williams back on the list?

Are references from NBC and two from the ‘Washington Post’ considered to be reliable sources? Cam46136 (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

Absolutely. As long as the report mentions that she has celebrated her 110th birthday I don't know of any reason that prevents her inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ~ I have some corrections to suggest for the unverified section:

Add: María Cruz Bustamante Morales (Oct 31 1899) Chile
Add: Maria Rosa do Sacramento (Dec 31 1899) Brazil
Add: María Leonor Melchor Navarrete (Dec 29 1900) Mexico
Remove: Benedicta Rodríguez (Aug 04 1900) Colombia - has not yet had a confirmation of reaching 110 (the report on her was from May 2010)
Gabe A (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Morales: Article states that according to a register, she was born in 1906.
• do Sacramento: blog
• Navarrete: blog
• Rodríguez: removed (as of now).

Blogs can't be added here, which is why I added the two (now three because of Rodríguez to here. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, WP:3RR doesn't apply, but edit-warring does no one any good. So I'm making my plea here: These are living people. Louis Epstein's OHB list is not a reliable source. It fails WP:RS and it is specifically excluded in the Notability and sourcing guidance at the WOP WikiProject page. If you don't like that, please try to generate a new consensus on the WOP talk page. But on a page about living people, to revert the replacement of genuine reliable sources with ones that are not, is serious business. It's childish, too. Please comply with the rules. David in DC (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Childish? WP:NPA. → Brendan 09:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Epstein list was considered to be reliable source by consensus in the WOP WikiProject page. It was Arbcom (supposely composed by intelligent people) that have decided this stupidity.Japf (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L.E. agrees:On my talk page, he summed up the real problem(s) better than I could ever hope to. And then blithely reiterated them. David in DC (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the months in the table dates are shortened to 3 letter abbreviations (Jan, Feb, Mar, etc.) then the wikitables can be made into wikitable sortables. Shortening the months would allow the table to detect them as dates, thus making it sortable in chronological order (Currently it doesn't recognize the format '01 January 2001' as a date, but it recognizes '01 Jan 2001'). This would also give the option to sort by country, gender, or any categories in the current columns. Gabe A (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tried before. It does not work when there are tied ranks. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the recent removal of viuda de surnames: It's a bit blithe to treat all "Spanish speaking countries" as a unit on this issue. Family name#Spanish-speaking countries discusses a variety of conventions. Despite a year living in Cochabamba, the exact convention here is not clear to me. Nor is the convention that might be embraced by women born around 1900. I can say that local media have clearly presented viuda de … as a part of these women's names, not as an explanatory or parenthetical note. Further, their inclusion reduces ambiguity and aids in readers specifying these individuals. As such, I'm restoring the text.--Carwil (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

warum fehlt hier johannes heesters--Niemann80 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diese Seite ist für das Leben SUPERCENTENARIANs. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC, I saw your question in your recent diff about whether "... video of Today Show birthday greetings a WP:RS? Is it a Copyright violation?".

I was curious myself and found out the following:

Use of video links

"Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not verifiably uploaded by the copyright holder.

External video links

Links to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites must abide by Wikipedia's External links guidelines (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections.

Restrictions on linking external links

"Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work."

Cite video template

"Editors can use the cite episode template to cite specific television programs. The cite video template can be used for movies and other visual media."

Looks like the gist of all of the above is that as long as we can verify that the original video on Today Show on MSNBC's website is theirs, not from a YouTube video where an user could have uploaded the same (or similar/edited) video, which would be a copyright violation. After confirming WP:V, then we can use the template of citing a video to appropriately cite the source hosting the video. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the video is on MSNBC's own web site. The stuff about YouTube applies to YouTube videos. So, no, it's not a copyright violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got time to check atm, but wasn't there a previous discussion about the Today Show with the conclusion that it was not a reliable source? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sorta remember that, too. But couldn't cite it. That's why I left it in with a query in the diff. David in DC (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was so hard to find is that the list of archives with dates is not complete (and I can't find how to update it)! The discussion is here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno how to fix the archives either but I'm grateful to DCiNZ for excavating in them to dig out this thread. It was illuminating, and fun to read. Gee, willikers, everything used to be so civil hereabouts until the horrible, inexpert interlopers invaded the garden with their juvenile weed-whackers, huh? <--- Note to the humor-impaired. This is called irony. (Alanis Morrisette's misuse of the term, notwithstanding.)

Thanks, also, to TQFK for explaining why the issue is not about copyright. Narrowing issues helps.

On the merits. I see arguments on both sides, but the more convincing, in my view is that Today Show birthday greetings, whether delivered by Willard Scott or Al Roker do not qualify as reliable sources.David in DC (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back to this discussion after a few days. @AQFK, correct, since the Today Show video is on MSNBC's website, we can assure to ourselves that it is verifiable and a reliable source. Apologizes if I was not clear, but yeah, I was using an example of "user uploading a YouTube video of the same Today Show" and stating that would be a case of a copyright violation. Cheers, CalvinTy 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links to the historical debate about Today Show, DerbyCountyinNZ. It definitely was illuminating. My concern is that when something is a reliable source, such as a major news website (such as MSNBC) due to their presumed vetting process, but then there is a part of website such as Today Show where some Wikipedians are saying to the effect of "yes, the main site is a reliable source, but this small corner of the website is not reliable because of reason X". I'm sorry, but I'm quite concerned about that. If we trust MSNBC's vetting process and consider them a reliable source, then why can't we do the same with content on a part of their website, such as Today Show?

In a sense, the birthday video greetings by Willard Scott on the Today Show (been running for decades) are akin to a local newspaper saying on their website this week, "Congratulations to our resident, Mrs. Z, who turned 108 yesterday!". We can use that as a reliable source that a fictitious Mrs. Z is likely alive this week, and that this would be a "current claim". I saw Canada Jack making several good points in that 2009 discussion, but they appear to focus on whether Today Show vetted the birthday announcements or not, which is overkill, I believe, since we already classified a national news website as a reliable source & should apply to all their content (I guess?). Regards, CalvinTy 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the argument hinges not on whether the Today Show is a reliable source, but whether a weatherman with no particular credentials outside of delivering weather reports can be considered a "reliable source." If we just say "if it appears on the Today Show, that counts as a reliable source," then include the reports. If we say that there is nothing newsworthy coming from a weatherman within the show and therefore HE is not a reliable source on this non-weather subject, then we don't include the reports. Canada Jack (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lax standards of what qualifies as a "reliable" source as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is still hard to see how a weatherman who gets a tip from just anybody (i.e. no indiciation that they are reliable themselves in any way) can be considered a reliable source, even for the unverified claims in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with CJ and DCiNZ. It's entirely consistent with WP:RS for parts of a website to be reliable and others not. The editorial process involved goes to determining if the particular source, ie, the Willard Scott/Al Roker greetings are reliable. Just because other things hosted at msnbc.com are reliable, does not necessitate the editorial judgment that everything on msnbc.com is reliable. This is where flexibility, editorial discretion and collaboration come into the process.

Check out WP:NEWSORG. Here's a partial quotation

Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis.... Being known as a mainstream news source does not automatically make said source reliable.... Even for reputable sources, there are various articles which may not be reliable. Having corroborating sources increases the chance the information is reliable, but beware of the practice of "churnalism", especially in print media....

Hard to get more on point than that, in regard to our current discussion.

BTW, welcome back CT. You are an exemplar of what I consider to be the only true marker of adulthood --- the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Your four daughters are most fortunate, as are your fellow editors here. David in DC (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely true that reputable outlets contain errors. However, the section of the "news" we are talking about isn't even pretending to be "news" per se. It's simply a family-friendly happy birthday greeting. This contrasts with other reports on aged persons in papers and other media where the age of the person is the news story, even if that age is not corroborated. That is the distinction here. Canada Jack (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected -- WP:NEWSORG says it all; it's quite true that even reputable reliable sources will have errors from time to time. Wikipedia as a whole recognizes that and that is why it has been said, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." In light of that, I can see why people legitimately can question specific information stated inside a reliable source. I guess my last comment would be that while Today Show's birthday greetings (whether it's by a weatherman or by a gerontology expert) may not be vetted at all, it still could be a tertiary source for a "living claim", not using it as the "sole source" as that would not be acceptable to the consensus here. By the way, David in DC, thank you for the kind compliment. Cheers, CalvinTy 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not the level of vetting by the Today Show, it is this is not "news" per se, the greetings merely appear on a "news" show. We don't have the same issue with newspapers as these sort of things appear as a news story. I suppose if we were to cite a classified ad in the births/deaths section of a paper, celebrating an anniversary or an important birthday, we'd be on the same shaky ground in arguing that, as this appears in a newspaper, it is citable. Sure, but it's not a news story. Canada Jack (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we come to a decision on whether or not to accept Today Show birthday greetings as a reliable source for this article? I say not. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're acceptable as a sole source. The one place on this page they appear is as a second footnote for a particular entry. The first is sufficient, so I see no harm in leaving the second there. If Willard were the only "source" being cited, I'd be moved to delete it and request a cite to a reliable source David in DC (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I imagine there's a fair amount of cross-editing between this list and other similar lists but if not I just wanted to bring this person to your attention based on the news stories that put her age at 119. I think she should be mentioned somewhere but I don't know how to go about adding her correctly. Brig Anderson (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is not verified, and recent reports put her date of birth as post 1900. As a debunked case she does not even qualify for the Longevity claims article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference on Rebecca Lanier, while this is WP:OR, I have posted my analysis on this claim on The 110 Club forum here (copy & paste the link): http://z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=1848 so that others can be more aware of this claim and see whether we can "resolve" this claim by other Wikipedians finding out any additional information to formally prove or debunk this case. Regarding her inclusion in the longevity claims article, I actually think she should be placed there because she is a living claimant and we "only believe" that she is actually born in March 1905 or 1906 based on two Census records. That should not be considered as a "formal debunking" of the claim yet without more information about her early family life. Regards, CalvinTy 15:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding flag icons on this article, I am recommending reverts by everyone (myself, included) to be paused for the time being while MOS:FLAG guideline may be revised per current discussions at Village Pump (policy) here. More specifically, there is a current discussion about whether flag icons should be in longevity lists since the MOS:FLAG guideline only covers infoboxes, not lists.

While I am of the opinion that flag icons with country names next to flag icons are redundant (and that flag icons can be removed from lists), it is preferable that everyone do not make any premature moves until the appropriate guideline is updated first. Cheers, CalvinTy 14:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline does not need updating to justify removing flag icons on lists of living people. That's why I started here. Please see WP:FLAGBIO. Unless one argues that FLAGBIO applies only to info boxes and ledes (a level of hair-splitting wiki=lawyering I hope this won't descend to) the current guideline amply justifies the removal of the icons here. David in DC (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole pedantic use of MOS to justify edits which are really unnecessary is beginningto look like a lot of ********* **** (shades of JJB). Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia; use of highlighting and flags can be used without being detrimental to wiki as a whole and is actually useful in the context of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a collaborative editing project as large as wikipedia, following the Manual of Style is not a small matter. Discussing and implementing it is not pedantic. And I'm at least marginally less annoying than JJB. The edits are not unnecessary. They are very necessary. They mark compliance with the rules of the road. And they bring uniformity to an area where the Manual of Style is quite explicit.

As to "Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia; use of highlighting and flags can be used without being detrimental to wiki as a whole and is actually useful in the context of this article," this is the wrong place for that argument. Please join the discussion on this at the Village Pump or make a proposal on the MOS talk page devoted to flags. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FLAGBIO makes it clear that flags should not be used in a "biographical article"'s "introduction or infobox" to display "birth or death information" (all quotes). Firstly, this is a list, not a biographical article. Secondly, it's in a table, not in an introduction or infobox. And finally, it does not display birth or death information, but the country of residence. Thus, there are no grounds for removing the flags from this article based on this policy. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, now you're wikilawyering. This isn't a "biographical article", yes, but it's a list of BLPs, which requires the exact same amount of scrutiny. Secondly, and more importantly, it's not conveying any additional information. All it's doing is dramatically increasing the size of the page without adding anything to it. Finally, common sense should apply here; like David in DC says, and back to my point about wikilawyering, the purpose of FLAGBIO is to prevent bloat like this from turning up in articles. It can still cause a great deal of confusion, and lead to nationalist problems; no one in their right mind would ever tell an Okinawan, for instance, that they're Japanese. It can be misleading, which is exactly why FLAGBIO exists; to prevent exactly these sorts of situations. We should be following the rule's intent (which I've described above) instead of trying to interpret it literally. The burden here is on those wanting to include the flags to determine exactly what useful information they convey; I've now gone through what the pitfalls are. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Whether or not some other longevity articles are "bloated" is irrelevant to this article. If other article are bloated (e.g. List of oldest people in the world) fix them, don't use it as an excuse to make unnecessary adjustments to this article. 2. This article is not "bloated" by the use of flags, the difference is insignificant. 3. There is no "misleading" of information by using flags in this article. They are actually a useful means of identifying the country of residence of a person, in fact anyone with a basic knowledge of flags (which should be within the capability of the average wiki user) would probably find it quicker and easier to identify a country by the flag than the written name. 4. Throwing up MOS, FLAGBIO, COMMONSENSE and BURDEN looks more like wikilawyering to me than those against this change. (And we're back to JJB style editing again). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can bet that the flags are a major reason as to why the article has gained a lot of fame, compared to other longevity articles. Flags have stayed on here for years. I will always support having flags. Flag make visually make it easier for the viewer to see. I can care so much less about the rules on this issue. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, policy-based arguments will be more convincing here. Also, since a lot of longevity articles and lists bombard the reader's eyes, I'm not sure how they make this one stand out, except that perhaps readers (i.e. David in DC and myself) find it a lot more annoying than the rest. But to keep this from becoming the same old people, we do have some conversation going at the village pump, so hopefully we can get some outside perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bombard" is your guys opinion, just like I find it "visually easier" for me. It would be good to hear more. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]