Talk:List of supercentenarians by continent/Archive 1

Oceania a continent
Is there any authority describing Oceania as a Continent? This is a list "by continent". Alan Davidson (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that, it is now corrected to supercentenarians in Australia and Oceania. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 01:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * And I've reverted it. It is the term "Continent" which needs to be clarified. In the context of this article the term is used in this context. As Oceania includes Australia there is no point in using Australia/Oceania and therefore Oceania alone is appropriate. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 03:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Name change needed
This article is not a list of all supercentenarians by continent (and never will be), it is a list of the oldest people by continent. The name should reflect this. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open a move request. — JFG talk 22:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Source for life, source for death
With this edit you removed the only source we have stating that Sixta Aguinaga has died. Sure, it's self-published by one of her family members, but it's better than guessing that she's still alive. Especially as the source for her age is a newspaper clip of her 109th birthday from 2016. I suggest noting her dead, and keeping both sources, one for birth date, one for death date. — JFG talk 08:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I here you, but we can't do that. That is a self-published blog, so it fails WP:RS on two counts and is invalid for our use, even if true, which we don't know for certain. There is a source that is nearly a year old now that I added to other articles in July of last year, so that could be added to for now. The reality is unless we get a WP:RS about her death or continued life, she will need to be removed later this month when her most recent source becomes over a year old and simply stay off these lists. It might feel like a bummer to you, but it happens all the time, most commonly with Japan. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ABOUTSELF, we can cite this source from an immediate family member. Especially here this is not the only source describing this person, as we have RS independently stating her date of birth and publishing photos. — JFG talk 09:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about immediate family members there, only: "it does (must) not involve claims about third parties." The alleged grandmother is a third party and as far as I can tell under that guideline this source is invalid for our use. Am I missing something in the guideline that you see? Newshunter12 (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I interpret "self" as the family unit, one member alive talking about one member deceased. Yeah, that's stretching it, but what's best for the encyclopedia: listing a dead person alive or referring to her family to source her death? If that was the only source, I would not use it, but we have several other sources reporting on this person; we just need this one for the death date. — JFG talk 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I respect that you want to do what you think is best for the encyclopedia, but relying on only standard WP:RS is what is best for the encyclopedia, not opening the flood gates of allowing sketchy sources by crushing a square policy block into a round hole for one time gain. This one entry is not worth the damage this will do to the project. Look at the Japanese man we removed today. An editor took a junk source and said: well, it's good enough for me so I'll slap it on and pretend everything's all good. Such conduct needs to stop, not be perpetuated. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Japanese case was different: the source was fine, but it did not give an exact date. I have now restored him with an appropriate date range and an explanatory footnote. Regarding Mrs Aguinaga, it is utterly bizarre to keep her marked as living when we have an admittedly self-published source stating that she is dead. That's an WP:IAR case if I ever saw one. — JFG talk 02:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: opening the flood gates of allowing sketchy sources, I don't buy the slippery slope fallacy. Sketchy sources will be rejected as they always are. A full-page biography of a recently-deceased person by one of their close family members is not "sketchy": it's good enough to confirm the fact that the person has died, and her date of death. We rely on other sources for her date of birth, so there is no apparent dispute on her age. That's much better than listing a dead person as alive. — JFG talk 02:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @JFG Your edit on the Japanese entry was reverted by another editor. We do not know if that alleged relative is a relative or not. The source is self-published and a blog, so it is invalid for our use. In a few days, it will have been a year since she was last confirmed alive by a reliable source and after that, her entry can be removed. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose removal on the grounds that we have no recent proof she is alive, because we do have recent proof that she's dead, and she qualifies as a supercentenarian to be listed here. — JFG talk 14:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have reliable proof she is dead, which is why she has been on these pages for over half a year after her alleged death. To be listed on these pages, an individual needs one or more WP:RS stating specific birth and (if deceased) death dates. Since we have no WP:RS stating she died on day x, she does not qualify for inclusion in a few days. Please see WP:LISTEN and WP:BLUDGEON, as your love of the topic is preventing you from following longstanding policies and to argue in circles. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think that the content at Henry Burling is best suited as a minibio on List of supercentenarians by continent, either below the table or similar to the setup at Longevity myths. This guy seems to be notable enough to have somewhere, but there's nowhere near enough for a full article. A minibio seems perfect for just such a situation; there's not much, and what is there doesn't take up an inordinate amount of space. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This page does not have any mini-bios yet, and I don't think we should start adding any. I'd leave Mr. Burling where he is. — JFG talk 02:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently his article gives his age as 104, but that looks like like some OR and a primary source. Although he doesn't seem the slightest bit notable, there is consensus (with which I disagree) that anyone with an entry in the NZ Dictionary of Biography is notable! DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not something I know anything about, which is why I didn't just AfD the thing. He doesn't strike me as at all notable, but I'm just a damn Yankee. On the broader point, I could see minibios only for the African, South American, and Australian lists because there's nowhere else to put material that the larger continent/country lists could handle without difficulty. The longevity myths table does the job well, but I'm certainly not married to the idea or anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think allowing mini-bio's on this page is a bad idea and a place we don't want to go. He's not even old enough to be listed here. I agree with leaving that man where he is, though would AfD on WP:NOPAGE grounds be a possibility? Newshunter12 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt an Afd would succeed given the current consensus I noted above. I've given up arguing such cases. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 17:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This then brings up what his age is. The article says he was born in 1801 and 1807, if it's the latter he shouldn't be in these supercentenarian categories at all. Can someone more familiar with the source material figure out what's going on? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the Te Ara source states that he married at age 37 and already had 4 children, then went on to have another 4, it seems highly unlikely that the age given there is correct. I would guess that "1801 is a misprint somewhere for "1807" or "1811". Living to 100+ in NZ is extremely rare and no man has been independently verified as having reached that age. Unfortunately reports from that far back are more than likely based on hearsay and blindly repeated. Without a baptismal record we're stuck with uncertainty. If a reliable source (i.e. not Findagrave) were found giving a younger age then his categorization as a supercentenarian could be removed.  DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 08:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject meets WP:BIO and, since I've added another source, the GNG. My view is that the article should stay where it is. I oppose any merger and any redirect. I reverted the birthdate at the top of the article to 1801 as none of the refs say he was born in 1807. The 1807 date was affixed to the article without any sourcing by an IP in his only edit. schetm (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, newspaper archives from 1911 indicate his birth date precisely as 1 May 1801, and one vaguely as 1800, and both give his age as 110, so we keep 1801. That makes him a supercentanarian, and I have accordingly added him to the list. I see no need to create mini-bios on this list, the full Burling article can be left in place, and I'll close the merge discussion. — JFG talk 12:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeann calment shouldn't be marked as disputed
Why is Jeanne Calment marked as disputed when neither the GRG or GWR consider her to be so her and other than fringe theories being pushed by certain sections her case has not been called into question. In fact there's more evidence in support of her case than anyone else who has lived up to 110 + in history so if you mark Jeanne Calment as disputed then you would have to do the same with every other supercentenarian as well. The best thing to do would be to remove the disputed status of Jeanne Calment because there's zero evidence disputing her age and overwhelming evidence in favour of it. Daredevil xy (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Maria Kononovich (2)
There have been edit summaries for her removal that claim there is a dispute about whether her DoB is on the Georgian or Julian calendar. Can someone provide reliable sources which show this? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored her entry until a source is exhibited disputing her date of birth. Even then, the Gregorian/Julian difference is only a couple weeks, so she would still belong on the list, perhaps with a footnote explaining the issue. — JFG talk 22:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Maria Kononovich
I recently added an entry about Maria Kononovich, as a recent journalistic source covering her in great detail has emerged. The edit was reverted twice by invoking original research ("Look up the definition of OR"). I don't understand how a reliably-sourced entry entails OR. Besides, this is not the first report about Kononovich: she was listed here earlier following journalistic coverage in October 2018. The entry was removed without a rationale in June 2019. The usual practice for living supercentenarians is to remove them after one year has elapsed without new RS coverage or death report. The August 2019 coverage resets the clock until August 2020, and Kononovich should be included again. DerbyCountyinNZ also commented "No claim she is/was the oldest EVER", and I replied "No need to assert that a person is the "oldest ever" in their country, only that a recent report about her age is reliably sourced." — JFG talk 05:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I reverted the wrong one (in haste, d'oh). There being no particular criteria for inclusion in this article, any source which passes WP:RS can be included.  Have self-reverted and will revert the correct one.  DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 07:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. — JFG talk 22:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dexter Kruger
Dexter Kruger isn't on the list, but is old enough to appear, should I make the edit? He should be in the 28th position in the Oceania section, and celebrated his 110th birthday 71 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.133.122 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)