Talk:Centenarian/Archive 1

Untitled
Matilda Evans' page says she died in her 60s (1872-1935). This page said she lived to be over 100 (until 1975); she'd have to, to be listed here. Which is right? If her biography was right, how'd she end up here?

For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Quinquagenarian

"However, relatively (per capita) higher number of Americans make it to 100 than do Japanese." What??? Japan has 30,000 and has a population of about 130 million people. USA has 55,000 (less than twice than that of Japan) and has a population of 300+ million ( way more than twice Japans 130 million?). So how, per capita, more Americans reach 100??

Messages regarding information out of place in an encyclopaedia
Hi, annonamous user-- thanks for your contributions to articles about cenenarians. Please, however, be aware that we're trying to create an encyclopedia here, and please restrain your sense of humor from adding silly dubious things to the articles. There are plenty of other places on the internet for that sort of thing. Cheers, -- Infrogmation

Dear Infrogamation, from the "annonamous" user: It is an unexpected pleasure to see that centenarians (notable or otherwise) are recieving their share of attention here on Wikipedia. I must send my sincere apologies for the silly, crude and often hilarious comments I (and others) have often posted here. I would appreciate any new people you (and any other contributors) might come across and hopefully they could be added to the centenarian page on this website. Overall, I must state that Wikipedia by itself is a groundbreaking piece of work that hopefully will recieve noteriety in the coming future. I am hoping to start my own website soon (deicated to Notable Centenarians) and would appreciate any information you might come across! Ciao!--Longevitymonger

P.S: Read your "autobiography", and yes, your spelling isn't that great! But who's is??

List of "notable" centenarians
Thanks to everyone who has begun contributing notable centenarians to this particular section of Wikipedia. I have seen that a few persons have decided to add Kamato Hongo, Jeanne Calment and Mary Christian. I would like to thank who ever did it, but I have put their names in a seperate section called supercentenarians. Now, I (this is my personal opinion) believe that even though these persons have lived to an incredible age, none of them have done anything noteworthy during their lives (like Irving Berlin, James Swinburne or George Burns) except living to be extremely old. I there for would like to assume that they are undeserving of having an article written about them. If anyone wants to write an article about these particular persons, or comes across anymore of them, I would be more than happy to begin a new section dedicated to supercentenarians.

Again, I send my thanks to those of whom who are contributing notable individuals to this section! Longevitymonger

Well, Muhammad al-Muqri, who I just wrote about, served as Grand Vizier of Morocco at the age of 113, which would mean that he did something rather important. Danny

Your absolutly right in thinking so. As it turns out, I've seen an article in the 1970, 1972, and 1973 editions of the Guinness Book of World Records about Muhammad al-Muqri, which is sometimes spelled Mohammed el-Mokri. Interestingly, the article stated that he died at the reputed age of 112 years on September 16, 1957. There is no birthdate given for him either. There's also a picture of him, and he certainly looks to be over 100 years of age. I guess for now he'll have to be "a reputed centenarian". Anyways, thanks for putting him on the list. If you come across any more notable centenarians, be sure to include them like you did with al-Muqri. Thanks! Longevitymonger

Who is a "celebrity" centenarian?
Why is George Fruits (the last Revolutionary War veteran to die) considered an ad hoc celebrity, while Margaret Booth (film editor, most advanced age of recipient of an Oscar) is considered acceptable for the list? I don't see a clear standard here. Another example: Joseph Salemi. Can someone either come up with a clear standard, or I will put Mr. Fruits back on the list. -- hike395 04:49, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that the list is far from perfect as it is (Richard Mudd is another controversial person on the list), but I think you would agree that it would be a big shame if people would just start adding people with age records resulting in "legitimate" celebrities being drowned out. George Fruits for one clearly falls in the ad hoc category and might even be deleted. 213.73.161.245 04:59, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the concept of celebrity is very fluid and ill-defined. Given that the list is so long already, and given the bias of Wikipedia to being all-inclusive, I think we shouldn't artificially restrict centenarian celebrities to be defined to be celebrities who were celebrites before they were centenarians. -- hike395 05:08, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Well that's why I created a second list as a possible compromise. Feel free to move people if you think they don't deserve to be in the first list. 213.73.161.245
 * I don't think that a second list (as it is currently defined) is helpful. Here's why --- Either a user of Wikipedia will be willing to scan a big alphabetized list of centenarians, or else there should be a rational division of the list into sub-lists (something like artists, politicians, scientists, miscellaneous, etc.). A division of the list into "famous" people and "somewhat obscure" people is not helpful to a user: they may have to check in two different lists, which would be more overhead.
 * I have a proposal: if you (213.73.161.245) are willing to propose or make a clean set of sub-lists, I'll be happy (I'd even be willing to help sort into a set of sub-lists, although I do not know how to easily collaborate on the sorting without colliding). Otherwise, I would like to fold George Fruits back into the main list, until such a time that the list is split according to some clear criterion. -- hike395
 * How about extending the deceased-person-test in Criteria for inclusion of biographies: Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field and is not related to his or her high age? If anyone is going to have trouble answering this question for any particular person then this talk page would be the perfect place to discuss it. To me George Fruits clearly fails the test as he's just an arbitrary record holding war veteran. 213.73.161.245 06:06, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Let's be user-centric. Would a typical user, looking for the centenarian article, think, "I'm going to look for a list of famous centenarians whose fame is not related to their age?". I don't think that is likely or obvious. If you want to split it into two or more sub-lists (for ease of browsing), let's split it according to some criterion that is obvious to the user, with headers. Like List of ski areas. One possible criterion (which you are getting at, above), is why they are famous. Sub-lists could include, for example, "Artists", "Politicians", "Scientists", "Famous Solely Due to Their Age".
 * I can try and form such sub-lists myself, but it will be hours of work, and I am unwilling to invest it if it will be immediately reverted. Do I have your agreement to splitting the main list up, as long as I include the FSDtTA category? -- hike395 15:53, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes, no problem. Go ahead. -- 213.73.161.245 21:31, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Naruhiko Higashikuni
Naruhiko Higashikuni was only Prime Minister for 54 days: it seems like he is more famous for being a member of the Imperial Family of Japan, rather than being a government official. -- hike395 03:44, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Last sentence of the article:


 * Higashikuni is mainly remembered as Japan's first postwar prime minister.


 * I didn't believe the last sentence, but now I've googled Higashikuni, and it seems that most of the pages are about him as a PM, rather than a Prince. I concede the point. -- hike395

The Prime Minister is a minister/politician, not an official.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

More "Who should be in the list?"
Is there any reason why should be removed (both are centenarian)? --User:Docu
 * Abdul Majid Zabuli (1896-1998)
 * Katherine Young (born 1901)

As the user who initially began the centenarians list here on Wikipedia, I like to check back to see who has been added to the list. I agree that Abdul Majid Zabuli is listworthy, mostly because of the fact that he's referred to as the founder of Afgahnistan's banking system (this is only after doing some research on the man himself.) Katherine Young however is (this is in my opinion mind you) really not listworthy. Just because she's the oldest known Internet user (which is quite an accomplishment within of itself) doesn't really put her in the same echelon as Michel-Eugene Chevreul or Irving Berlin. Most of the persons ( I refer to them as local centenarians) that I've met who are 100+ years of age are probably very capable of using the Internet, but aren't "notable" in some fashion. Nearly all of the centenarians who are listed have left a mark on society in some way, whether it be in the Science, Entertainment, Political, Judicial fields. Not that notablity is a factor which is stressed highly (which it could be) I do agree that Young might fit into the miscellanious category. Anywho, I would like to thank you for finding them anyway, and if you feel different about adding Mrs. Young, please don't hesitate to ask. Longevitymonger


 * I understand and I agree with you that we should be prudent about listing people w/o articles on Wikipedia (e.g. Irene Wells Pennington, Jacques Gerschwiler, Abdul Majid Zabuli, which were removed). Wikipedia_talk:List suggests not to include them, though well researched lists such this make it more likely that someone will write an article about them. To make it easier to identify them, I started adding years to the list.
 * As I recall (I may be mistaken), but "known for attaining high age" is made for people noteworthy for this, I tend to think that Mrs. Young should be included there, unless the article about her is deleted as well. -- User:Docu

Centenarians and supercentenarians
I would like to point out that some of the information is copied verbatim from the GRG website. If this is going to be done, there should be a credit given to the www.grg.org website; otherwise this is plagiarism.

For example, the comments about centenarians in the U.S. ("a more reasonable 35 percent") is plagiarized from the GRG website.

I am the senior claims investigator at the GRG: you can reach me at ryoung122@yahoo.com.

I'm Louis Epstein,I post my Wikipedings from "12.144.5.2" as a rule. I maintain a worldwide list of authenticated supercentenarians mirrored by the Gerontology Research Group,Recordholders.org,and others,and maintain an international network of correspondents interested in the frontiers of human longevity from various perspectives.

Criteria for the Wikipedia centenarians list are fuzzy,but I'd like to invite Longevitymonger and other interested parties to contact me at le@put.com.


 * It is interesting to see your name here Mr. Epstein. I've been an avid follower of your work on the website at www.grg.org/calment.html for some time now and am always glad when a new supercentenarian is discovered. I reside in Chautauqua County, New York, a place where there are quite a few persons who are over the age of 100. We've never had a supercentenarian residing in this county, but a few have come close. One of these persons was Lula Mae Bechdel Clark (February 18, 1894-March 1, 2003). I was able to meet her personally in September 2002, but she was not in the best of health when I did so. There was one woman who resided in nearby Cattaraugus County, New York named Vera Zeilman (December 27, 1889-September 9, 2000) who lived to be 110. Anyways,if I find anyone who is nearing or is over the age of 110, I won't hesistate to contact you. Longevitymonger

Thomas Parr
What about Thomas Parr? He supposedly died at age 152 and is buried in Westminster Abbey. I assume he wasn't really 152, but everyone seemed to believe he was, at the time. Some info from Westminster Abbey Adam Bishop 18:19, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I added him. I hope the chosen form is appropriate. -- User:Docu

Many thanks to "12.144.5.2." for creating a separate supercentenarians page. The other was becoming quite crowded. Longevitymonger

Prominence Criteria
How well are we thinking through people who get added? I added Bishop Paschang because some people had added (and written articles for) a couple of local clergymen who died at 100,though they are not what I had in mind for the "Religious leaders" category. How prominent people were in their fields,and how far past the 100th birthday they got,should both be weighed.The businessmen I've hadded were from BIG companies...I haven't added three men I know chaired boards at age 100 because I don't think their companies were prominent enough.

As I noted in my comments on Talk:Super-centenarians,let's think carefully.

Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2

After reading the above comments by Mr. Epstein, I believe that a set of ground rules should be established for inclusion on the Centenarians list. So far, this is what I've come up with.

1. If you're going to include a person on the list, please make sure that person is somewhat notable. Although there is probably no centenarian (of Irving Berlin or Bob Hope) noteriety that isn't already on the list, please make sure the person has sufficient information ( birth/death dates, country or state of origin and what makes the person notable.

2. (I would like to stress this one very highly!!) If you are going to add a person to the list, please try to write some information for them on their own information page.

If anyone else has an idea to make this list better or any other comments, please post them on this page or my talk page. Longevitymonger

As far as criteria are concerned, I don't believe we should concern ourselves with identifying specific elements that individual centenarians need to meet. Instead we should just take them and analyze them on a case by case basis, as we pretty much have been doing thus far. Katagelophobia 21 Oct 2003


 * Please don't just delete persons without discussion. As you say, the list is probably complete in terms of people of Bob Hope fame, but those alone would make for a short list (if you want to separate them you can make a section "Most famous centenarians"), and I don't see why we should exclude less prominent ones as long as they are significant enough to have their own article here. --Wik 00:18, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

Famous Centenarians
Thanks whoever put in the redirect.

Anyone care to put in a bit on the history of the centenarian letters/telegrams etc - the first persons to receive them could be given a mention.

Jackiespeel 16:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Naruhiko Higashikuni
Naruhiko Higashikuni was only Prime Minister for 54 days: it seems like he is more famous for being a member of the Imperial Family of Japan, rather than being a government official. -- hike395 03:44, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Last sentence of the article:


 * Higashikuni is mainly remembered as Japan's first postwar prime minister.


 * I didn't believe the last sentence, but now I've googled Higashikuni, and it seems that most of the pages are about him as a PM, rather than a Prince. I concede the point. -- hike395

Centenarians and supercentenarians
I'm Louis Epstein,I post my Wikipedings from "12.144.5.2" as a rule. I maintain a worldwide list of authenticated supercentenarians mirrored by the Gerontology Research Group,Recordholders.org,and others,and maintain an international network of correspondents interested in the frontiers of human longevity from various perspectives.

Criteria for the Wikipedia centenarians list are fuzzy,but I'd like to invite Longevitymonger and other interested parties to contact me at le@put.com.


 * It is interesting to see your name here Mr. Epstein. I've been an avid follower of your work on the website at www.grg.org/calment.html for some time now and am always glad when a new supercentenarian is discovered. I reside in Chautauqua County, New York, a place where there are quite a few persons who are over the age of 100. We've never had a supercentenarian residing in this county, but a few have come close. One of these persons was Lula Mae Bechdel Clark (February 18, 1894-March 1, 2003). I was able to meet her personally in September 2002, but she was not in the best of health when I did so. There was one woman who resided in nearby Cattaraugus County, New York named Vera Zeilman (December 27, 1889-September 9, 2000) who lived to be 110. Anyways,if I find anyone who is nearing or is over the age of 110, I won't hesistate to contact you. Longevitymonger

Arbelia Wood
A woman in Michigan, named Arbelia Wood, claims to be 119 years old, but has no documentation to prove it. I have no idea where to list her on this page, she's just an old lady. RickK 21:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * When I spoke to the nursing home about three years ago when I heard of the claim,they said her file gave 1893 as a birthdate,and her brother/guardian is so much younger than she is there's plenty of room for her to be younger than that.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 05:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Living to be 100 probability
Approximately one out of every X people born in year n lived to see year n+100 for n =


 * 1845:
 * 1855:
 * 1865:
 * 1875:
 * 1885:
 * 1895:
 * 1905:

Georgia guy 01:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That statement is a tautology because X is not defined. Shawnc 02:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

well, not really: the claim (if I understand it) is that the proportion of centenarians remained constant at ten-year intervals over a sixty-year period. but yes, the proportion itself isn't defined. (nor is the population under discussion.  and if it's intended to apply world-wide, I don't think it's a testable statement, which means it's not actually a meaningful statistic or even an hypothesis, but simply an assertion of belief.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.67.155 (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Military commanders
Is the military commanders part of the list strictly for people in high positions (Generals etc.) or does it include 'ordinary' military personnel who made it to 100? --Ben davison 15:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Emphasizing Centenarians
Among the kind of person that needs to be emphasized in these centenarian lists, which kind makes most sense to most of you Wikipedians?? Live ones or those over 110?? Georgia guy 21:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I liked it when it emphasised those over 110. --Ben davison 22:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seemingly out of place paragraph
The paragraph beginning with "Reaching an old age has fascinated people for ages..." does not seem to be related directly to this article. I suggest that it be moved to a more suitable topic such as Ageing or Longevity myths. Shawnc 23:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to move it to Longevity, which seems to be an appropriate and neutral article to put it in. Shawnc 02:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Statistical error
The following statement in Future of Centenarians in the US section appears to have an error, probably in the number of leading zeros after the decimal:


 * Other highlights form the 2000 Census Report:
 * The most populous state in the nation, California, has the largest number of centenarian residents, 5,341 or 0.016 percent of its population.
 * The state with the largest percentage of centenarians is South Dakota, where 0.0033 percent of residents were 100 or over.''

The text claims South Dakota has the highest percentage at 0.0033. However 0.0033 is a smaller number than California's reported percentage of 0.016. --Dlodge 03:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I also notice the above error, so I removed the section on the 2000 census report completely. It is really not that relevent, morel like just some more data. Also the 50 to 55 age group onformation is off the subject.

Other highlights form the 2000 Census Report:


 * The most populous state in the nation, California, has the largest number of centenarian residents, 5,341 or 0.016 percent of its population.
 * The state with the largest percentage of centenarians is South Dakota, where 0.0033 percent of residents were 100 or over. South Dakota was followed by Iowa and the District of Columbia, although this is likely explained by a significant correlation of these jurisdictions with high emigration of younger people.
 * Of the five-year age groups, the [50-to-54] category had the largest increase, up 55 percent to 17.6 million, thanks to the "Baby Boomers''".  Arodb 01:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Henry Allingham
Is he a notable military commander in any way? Sure, he was one of the founding members of the RAF, but is that really notable when there were many founders of it? It does not seem like he was a famous military commander in any way.

Dr. J.A. Sage
In 1976, the second edition of a paperback published by Allen and Unwin, "Live to be 100 - and Enjoy it" was published by Dr. J.A. Sage. He was 96 at the time - does any one know whether he did live to be 100? ACEO 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He died the following year at 97. YourPTR! 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation
Where does the information regarding the number of US centenarians come from for the year 2005, and is it credible?

Update to numbers of such in Japan needed. See http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070915a4.html or http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20783691/ SFTheWanderer 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Places with most centenarians
I went to the Bodyworlds exhibitions and it listed a few places which have the most number of centenarians.

There were six such places in the world... I did not bother to list them since I assumed this information would be on the internet.

From memory the following places were listed: 1. West American (not sure exact place) 2. Sardinia (Italy) 3. Hanzo, Pakistan (can't find it!). 4. Some place in Japan 5. 6.

Can't remember no 5 and no.6

In any case it proves that information on this Wiki page is incorrect...

78.147.183.113 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Percent Over 65
Umm...There's a column in the "Number of Centenarians" that's labeled as "Percent over 65." Either this tag needs to be elaborated on or something is terribly amiss, as a centenarian must be one-hundred years old or more to be considered a centenarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.218.30 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Technology section
The section which talks bout how Centenarian people keep up with modern technology is extremely informal in my opinion. Does any one else agree? Perhaps it should be rewritten in a more formal style.

ChocoRokk (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Table - Number of Centenarians
This table requires some major editing, or it should be deleted. There are several problems. First, as someone else mentioned, the purpose of the "% of population over 65" column is unclear. Secondly, the layout of the table is unhelpful - for instance, it makes it look like the reader is supposed to compare Great Britain's centenary population in 1911 with the US centenary population in 1990, which makes no sense. Thirdly, the rate per million people is calculated based on which year's data? I am probably missing some other problems, but overall I found the table to be of poor quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.150.51 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

False claims/substitution
One topic which needs to be mentioned - particularly in light of recent reports from Japan - is the prevalence of false claims. It has always seemed to me that many of the claims of advanced old age are not only impossible to prove, but likely false. The claims of extreme longevity from Georgia in the 1930's was simply propaganda, and influenced by Stalin's (a Georgian) desire to live forever. Many other reports come from countries affected by war - or conscription. It was easy to avoid military service if you claimed to be your father or uncle. If records are lost, who is to say that your are not your mother or aunt? Many of the extremely old in Japan were seemingly not even substitutes - they were simply dead. In some third world countries it is seemingly fashionable to claim extreme age, even when most people die young. In New Zealand the average life expectancy of Maori is low, by western standards. Relatively few Maori live into their eighties even. Yet there are apparently a number of women well over 100. They may genuinely be, but most likely they have adopted their mothers identities. In conclusion, I am very sceptical of claims of extreme longevity.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a real problem in Japan.. The Government has been checking up on pensions paid to the very old, and has discovered that while many of them cannot be found, someone is cashing the checks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greece
The rambling commentary on ancient Greece contains a number of errors. For instance, the so-called Mediterranean Diet is a modern fad, with little to do with the Mediterranean, and certainly nothing to do with the diet of ancient Greece. Secondly military service was widespread amongst citizens, but only a minority of populations were citizens, and participation in wars were not almost universal, even if military service was.124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasons US has highest number of centenarians
The sentence "This statistic is partly a result of America's large population in 1890–1910, its large farm population a century ago, and its increased emphasis on long-term care facilities. " Seems to have several problems, are there any references that America had a larger than average farm population a century, or an increased emphasis on long-term care facilities, or more importantly, that these would contribute to having more centenarians today? 132.206.55.197 (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont know where any references are for the US's farm population, there has to be something. I Will look for some links. I do think that the population explanation given is incorrect. China has 4 times as many people and its nowhere near the US on this list. Dougy05050 (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

UN revises inflated number of centenarians
Clearly there were NOT 455,000 centenarians worldwide in 2010. United Nations Population Division has recently released the 2010 revision of the World Population Prospects data (on 3rd of May 2011).

According to the latest revision (which still seems to include inflated numbers for some countries), there were 316,562 centenarians worldwide as of 1 July 2011. 67,395 were males and 249,167 were females. Tables, in Excel format are found online here: Both sexes

Males

Females

US numbers are among those inflated. In 2009, about 49,000 centenarians were receiving Social Security, according to Annual Statistical Supplement, 2010 from Social Security Administration (SSA)

Data from US census 2010 have just been released. As of 1 April 2010 9,162 males and 44,202 females were enumerated as aged 100 years or more (NB! ages were not verified), totalling 53,364 people (hence not 70,490). Reference is found in census brief here (p. 4)

Celvin11 17:38 CET 10 July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Italy Statistics need Updating
The number for centenarians mentioned here is 11 years old, and says there are only 6,313 centenarians. However, according to this article Italian centenarians with reference to the Italian statistics institute - ISTAT, there are 16,145 in Italy as of 2010. Any chance this could be updated? --Arossmorrison (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)