Talk:Supercentenarian/Archive 1

Initial text
The article should be here. The term is more often written without hyphen. Someone delete this page so that the other can be moved here. --Wik 05:33, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nonce word?
This is a nonce word coined for Wikipedia no? Debased coinage. An amusing conceit though. What's the real Latinate word for a hundred-and-ten-year-oldian? User:Wetman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2003 (UTC)

No,this word has been around for years,and the sense of over-110-year-old dates back over a decade at least.(It occurs in both hyphenated and unhyphenated forms,I included the less common hyphen just to defeat the former redirect to the "centenarian" article.I have maintained a collated list of documented supercentenarians for close to five years now,mirrored by the Gerontology Research Group(grg.org),Recordholders.org,and others.9 I'm not clear of a bona fide Latin term for anyone short of 125 (quasquicentenarian) which has never verifiably been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2003 (UTC)


 * It would really be helpful if there were, or could be created, terms for people in their 11th and 12th decades. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:07, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Anyway,I think we need to agree criteria for listing here.We can't list all 640-plus documented supercentenarians...the listed ones have to be particularly noted among supercentenarians,just as the people in the centenarians article need to be particularly noted among centenarians.(I think Latour is too young,and would like to know more of her documentation). Exaggerated/undocumented claims,like Elizabeth Israel(from Dominica,claims birth Jan 1875),Maria do Carmo Geronimo of Brazil(1871??-2000),Omer Abbas of Malaysia,Rahim Khan/Habib Miyan of India(both men claiming over 130),the old Soviet claims like Shirali Mislimov(1805??-1973),newer ones there like that Chechen woman I deleted,the Vilcabambans and the Hunzukuts...they don't belong on a list with documented people. I've worked with scholars all over the world trying to establish validations.

People can write to me at le@put.com to get copies of my whole list,join my supercentenarians email list,and discuss cases.--Louis Epstein,known here as "12.144.5.2" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2003 (UTC)

I just saw on the news that Elana Slough the oldest living American, has died at the age of 114. She lived through 21 presidents and 7 U.S. wars. The title now passes to 114 year old Charlotte Benkner of Ohio. Longevitymonger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevitymonger (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2003 (UTC)

Elena Slough(I contributed an article on her) was 114,but Charlotte Benkner turns 114 next month.--L.E./12.144.5.2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2003 (UTC)


 * This has the look of a silly made-up word, used only by a handful of people, for a few years. Super means ‘over’, not ‘ten’.  The number CX (110) is centum [et] decem.  ‘Centenarian’ comes from the distributive form centeni.  The distributive form of CX is centeni [et] deni.  A sensible coinage from this would be something along the lines of  ‘centenidenarian’.  But do we really need a separate word for each of these milestones?  Can't we just say ‘people over the age of 110’?  It would be far better English.  This (Wikipedia) is a battle of lovers of trivia versus lovers of culture, education and good sense.  — Chameleon 09:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Stealing a table
I'm tempted to copy the "CHRONOLOGICAL OLDEST LIVING LISTED PERSONS (Since 1959)" table on this page: http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html

Read Feist v. Rural -- I contened that the table, a compilation of fact, is not itself subject to copyright laws. Anyone disagree? Raul654 10:54, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am Louis Epstein,the compiler of that list.As it stands I'd rather see it linked to than copied...as Ralf Laue,the webmaster of that site,regularly posts updates I send to my list of correspondents interested in the frontiers of human longevity,it would be easier to let those updates happen than import each new version.

L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2003 (UTC)


 * Point taken. At the end of the partial listing here, I put in a link to that page. --Raul654 00:19, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please...no "Habib Miyan" (some of the stories about the same man gave his name as "Rahim Khan"),no Elizabeth Israel,no Omer Abbas,in this article.There are plenty of unproven claims to be older than Mitoyo Kawate,but without proof,the "Longevity myths" article is where they belong. No point in our picking and choosing between people who get a credulous reporter to file a story.And it makes the timelines worthless if we do!--Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2003 (UTC)

Age groups
Do you know of any special names for people of various age groups?? Here is a table of names, the last few of which I have coined:

The oldest age group one has ever lived to be up to this moment is a mega centenarian. At whatever article of Wikipedia is appropriate, you may put a list of things that doing can help a person live long (e.g. don't get nicotine or anything that can cause you to be a smoker.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.114.134 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the coined names look silly,and without any accepted meaning of the elements included.I have seen uncentenarian for 110-119,duocentenarian for 120-129,trecentenarian for 130-139...etc. proposed,which at least refers to the number of decades;I do like quasquicentenarian for 125,sesquicentenarian for 150,and bicentenarian for 200.But as a practical matter we don't need these gradations for the moment.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2004 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your comment, the names in the above table really aren't as silly as they seem. With the exception of the last 3, these names (excluding "centenarian" came from the game called Atomica at http://www.popcap.com; it uses these for combos, and this is the only place I've ever seen distinct prefixes used as substitutions for repeated "super". For the last 3, the reason is simply so that the list can stop at an easy-to-remember 200 rather than a harder-to-remember 170. I was out of real prefixes, and so I chose to use simply prefixes formed by following M in the alphabet. Another thing is that it can be unclear to decide whether "trecentenarian" can mean 130 or 300, so it really isn't a good name for 130. Still another thing is that it is probably a good thing that the coined names in the above table don't include "tera centenarian" for a reason mentioned at Talk:Terabyte. 66.32.153.114 01:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (Can not interpolate lines with Lynx so continuing this will be difficult) "trecentenarian" (130s) is not the same as "tricentenarian"(300s).The use of "mega" and "giga" when they are prefixes denoting 10^6 and 10^9,and casual use of "ultra" and "hyper" (in broadcasting ultra high frequencies are below super high frequencies),are unscientific.As is the max-nax-oax-pax.175 would make one a "terquasquicentenarian",if you want another real-Latin derivation.But given the death rates in these age brackets we are a long way from needing any new terms!--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2004 (UTC)

What about those of us who plan to live forever? What do we call ourselves? &rarr;Raul654 00:52, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

What do you think, Raul654?? User 66.32.134.170 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.114.134 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2004 (UTC)

Optomists :) &rarr;Raul654 01:04, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no plans to die,Raul,but we need to earn our age group references before we get them.--L.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2004 (UTC)

Deaths affecting lists
The recent deaths of the oldest living persons are a bit depressing.We now have no living person proven to be over 114 for the first time since the 1980s! I hope the longterm trend to lengthening lifespan reasserts itself but I don't know who will carry the flag up the list again.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I volunteer :) &rarr;Raul654 04:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you're a way from qualifying for the list,as am I.:)Would like to see the records rise before too long!--L.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Compare...
Compare the above table with the list of numbers at Names of large numbers. The latter goes extremely high, to a point there is not at all likely a reason for it to go. In contrast, the above table in this discussion page stops at age 200 because I estimate the oldest age it is possible for a woman to live to be (do not confuse with the oldest age a woman has ever lived to be) to be between 150 and 200 years. Anyone who disagrees with this (i.e. thinks it is possible for a woman to be alive over 200)?? Any other interesting tables ANYWHERE on Wikipedia to compare?? 66.32.153.198 18:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well,you provoked me into posting my own system for naming extremely large numbers into the Talk page for that article.The fact is that the death rates for supercentenarians are so extreme that most of those who lived to turn 114 were dead within seven months!On the other hand,there are scientists who sincerely believe that advances now contemplated will lead to people now alive lasting thousands of years,which would make discrete names for EVERY decade look ridiculous.(And there is no real method to your list;the Latin prefixes as for undecillion to novemdecillion would be prepended to -centenarian if there were a real need for it which there is NOT.--Louis E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, they would properly indicate 101 to 109, not 110 to 190. 66.245.98.229 14:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * No they wouldn't...they would indicate ages measured by 11 to 19 complete decades.(Perhaps undecagenarian,duodecagenarian...etc would be clearer?)--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2004 (UTC)

The moral of the story is...
The moral of the story is:

Don't simply coin names that you consider fine just because of how YOU view them. There could be other people who might view these names differently in a way that suggests that they're silly. 66.32.81.163 22:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Living thousands of years
Living thousands of years?? Louis Epstein wrote above that there are people who now think it is possible to live thousands of years, but this can make planet earth overpopulated in that we don't have enough water or space. Any opinions about this?? 66.245.27.105 21:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * My response would be that such advances would be coupled with others that would vastly expand human habitat beyond this planet.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2004 (UTC)
 * You might also imagine we might cease reproducing, or that only a few people could afford the necessary treatments to live indefinitely. Titanium Dragon 12:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

People by year
Based on the recently added categories year of birth/death, the following report is available: People_by_year/Reports/Oldest. It's being used to complete missing categories and to check the ones already added. It shows also people in category:Supercentenarians younger than 110 years. -- User:Docu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
There are a number of inconsistencies with people mentioned here who are claimed to be the oldest living person in the world, and others who are also on the list, who are clearly older. These need to be cleared up. CryptoDerk 05:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC) Could you point out specific examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.162.6 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2004 (UTC)

Edit wars today
Twice today I've removed excessive disclaimers inserted by Marcus2 (in his former numeric incarnation he added others which were acceptable,but today's batch seem obsessed with minimizing the significance of documented age claims entirely).As I said in a comment the first time,if we don't regard what we know as important,there is no point in calling anyone a "recordholder".Some of us work for years to get age claims properly documented,and a "but we don't really know anything" response is really bothersome.I have contacts all over the world doing their best to uncover every possible case.

On the other hand,I strongly believe that so long as a claimant remains anonymous,the validation of the claim should be regarded as insufficient to merit listing because it is not open to outside scrutiny.(For similar reasons,unlike Robert Young,I oppose the listing of Maria Laqua and Lina Zimmer).A number of cases are "taken on faith" based on government reports,but in Japan for instance you can go look at records;in Germany you can't.If the "anonymous French lady" is to be considered truly bona fide,it must come at the expense of her anonymity.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

Supercentenarian &rarr; Oldest person
Which does the article look like more to you, an article on the concept of living to be 110 or an article on lists of oldest people of a specified kind?? Georgia guy 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am neutral as to the proposed move, while it does have a list of oldest persons element, it is not exclusively a list. My biggest concern is whether "supercentenarian" is actually a word, since I have yet to find it in a dictionary, and as it does mean "over 110 years of age" it just means "people over the age of 100" (from super- = above, or over; and centenarius = of a hundred), a quality for which the term centenarian already adequately applies.  On spec, and seeing how other words are put together artificially in English from Latin roots (like sesquicentenarian...which is already reserved for people over 150), I'm pretty sure the term for someone over 110 years would be decicentenarian. Further, to counteract a statement from the article... Strauss and Howe didn't really set out to popularize a term about over-100 individuals (actually, their book doesn't really broach the subject much at all), instead, their work was nothing more than a pitiful attempt to take Thomas Carlyle's writings and lectures on On Heroes And Hero Worship And The Heroic In History  (which were based largely on trying to identify with strong European autocrats through a post-Napoleonic worldview) and try to justify American hegemony and its growth over the ages. Lastly, as an aside, I do not feel that Oldest person is the proper name for the article, as it is an article about and list enumerating oldest people. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The term is part of the larger scheme of terms for senior citizens, as seen at supercentenarian in the table on the right. Any candidate for 'oldest person' is a supercentenarian.


 * Responding to the issues raised by ExplorerCDT above, in a google test it's clear that 'supercentenarian' is a term that is in use (3,800 hits), while 'decicentenarian,' though possibly more correct, has no been picked up . See also this medical dictionary entry, and this table of the "Emerging SuperCentenarian Population."--Nectarflowed 06:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Split into two (short) articles, supercentenarian and oldest person: the article seems to break down into two separable parts, the first discussing supercentenarians and the second discussing who was the oldest person. While the oldest person in the last 100 years or so was over 110, there are likely to be historical records of people who were reputed to be the oldest person but not over 110. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A quick run through looks like every person listed on the page was 110 or over. IMO splitting the article would take a somewhat decent article and split it into two stubs that would never become full articles and would necessarily contain duplications.--Nectarflowed 15:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Neutralitytalk 22:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tables
Per my edit summary, please would User:12.144.5.2 and User:4.250.177.182 discuss here whether the article should use tables. For my money, the table are 100% clearer than long bullet-pointed lists.

Also further to my comment above, perhaps we should consider whether the tables should be moved out to a separate page, Oldest person. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Aloan, you you so much for your tables, I bitterly resent Mr. Epstein's vandalism to anything he does not agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.14.74 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2005 (UTC)

Please please PLEASE minimize use of tables!!
OK,I am not reverting your table-izing vandalism YET,but please be aware that ANY use of formatted tables is EXTREMELY unfriendly to Lynx,in which I do all my web work whenever possible.

So you're saying that even though YOUR choice of software doesn't function properly or efficiently, you refuse to change it to something better (because you're resistant to change) and therefore want everyone else to bear the burden of your intransigence. Why not just try another software, as these posts have suggested? (Ryoung122 07:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Anything in table format is MUCH harder for me to edit,and remember that I can not interpolate lines or cut and paste,I have to manually retype an entire article below anything I insert into it if there isn't enough space.Bullet-pointed lists are IMMEASURABLY easier to work with on the editing side and appear virtually identical on the reading side to anyone with a text browser. If this article becomes dominated by tables it becomes impossible for me to work with,which may thrill Robert Young but would annoy me no end after all the work I have put into it.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - I didn't realise that tables were such an issue for Lynx users; however, for anyone using a graphical browser, information in tabular form is often much easier to read than a long bullet-pointed list, particularly when each bullet point has the similar information in the same order (name, country, dates, etc). Isn't it possible to use vi or ed or another text editor to circumvent your inability to interpolate lines or cut and paste?  Does it help if you edit sections rather than the whole page?  I'm afraid I've not used Lynx on Wikipedia - User:Austin Hair may be able to help -  I think he uses Lynx.


 * In any event, I am slightly offended that you casually use the word "vandalism" (an act motivated by hostility to the arts and literature of a culture, or willful destruction or defacement of its built environment) to describe a good-faith effort to improve the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Over 95% of the world uses either IE or other browsers compatible with these tables (Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape). That you choose to be in the extreme minority is your personal choice, but don't force your edits on others for your own convenience. That in itself is selfish, considering you actually FAVOR using tables at the GRG site (when others have to do the work for you).

We can reach a compromise by either using a split ("see also national longevity recordholders") where you can focus primarily on the background info, or integrating tables above with text below.

The tables, of course, came from Guinness World Records, which in the 2005 edition continues the tradition of tables. (RYoung) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RYoung122 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2005 (UTC)


 * Um,I don't think you understand quite what I'm responding to here.ALoan didn't just put back the national-recordholders table (which I oppose in large part because it repeats information and repeats links) but turned ALL the lists into formatted tables that are impossible for me to edit easily.Any Wikipedia article that presents data as formatted tables is substantially harder for me to edit than one that doesn't.Anyway,I can see that some people are interested in who the oldest person from country X is,and I think the separate article presents a lot more information than the table does.But an article that is concerned primarily with the extremes of human longevity as such should minimize the importance attached to nationality.I always felt the one-person-per-country approach of Guinness was a weakness,though a list of recordholders is better than no information.--L.E./12.144.5.2 22:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I know exactly what you're responding to here.

Let me suggest a compromise solution:

USE TABLES FOR ALL LISTS EXCEPT FOR THE " OLDEST LIVING PEOPLE" LIST.

Let's face it, the "oldest living person" list changes about once a year, on average--all the previous recordholders are dead! The "oldest living man" and "National Longevity recordholders" usually change only once or twice a year. Therefore, a TABLE is fine for those lists.

However, the "oldest living people" list changes quite prequently,usually once a month. Therefore, I suggest not using tables for that one (but we could maybe put the numbers at the beginning, such as

1. 2. 3.

OK?)

The vast majority here prefer the tables, and your suggestion that crooked lines are easier to read is silly. (Ryoung122 07:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))
 * The tables make the lists enormously harder for me to edit...and they don't make it easier for anyone to edit.I prefer going back to the previous setup of using a table ONLY for the list of oldest-living-persons.(The one going from Calment to Van Andel at the start of the lists).--L.E./12.144.5.2 20:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further responses
I see some more responses I didn't notice came in after I posted the above.I called the table-infliction vandalism because for my purposes it drastically UNimproves the article.The term may be more appropriate to the total wipeouts repeatedly done to the National longevity recordholders article but in any event,an article with the data presented in tables is a flying triple jump backwards as far as I'm concerned.As for the GRG site I wish they would just use the HTML PRE and /PRE commands to present the data exactly as I send it.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 22:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible for you to switch over to the "Links" browser? It's text-based like Lynx, but it does a much better job of rendering tables. --Carnildo 18:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * What tables look like rendered in Lynx is not the problem (I find that differs most depending on version and terminal drivers).The work I have to do editing Wiki code multiplies massively if something is in table format,for no useful result as a reader.Essentially,the presence of formatted tables in this (or any other) article makes it not worth my while to edit.--L.E./12.144.5.2 06:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there is a useful result for the reader - the tables are about 100% clearer for me than the bullet point lists. I'm sorry that it makes it difficult for you to edit, but most other editors don't seem to have the same problem, and most other readers seem to see the tables as a positive change.


 * I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to edit tables - do other Lynx users have the same problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I expect so.Anyway,the tables are NO clearer to me,and the editing process MUCH uglier.Not impossible,but it imposes a chore on me for the exclusive and dubious "benefit" of others.It doesn't look like I can get through to you how important it is to me to get RID of those tables,but it really,really,really is important to me!--L.E./12.144.5.2 04:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I just tried editing tables in Lynx, Links, and Links2, and editing them in lynx was something of a pain. Links and Links2 do a much better job. --Carnildo 05:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * How much would ever have been contributed here if no-one had ever shared their knowledge "for the exclusive benefit of others"? Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 14:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly more is likely to be contributed when people's preference as to their contributions' formatting are respected.Some of Wikipedia's naming conventions are vandalism.(As is using HTML commands for dashes when there are perfectly good hyphens on your keyboard).--L.E./12.144.5.2 15:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, there seem to be at least three of us who prefer the tables, and only you who does not, but the aim here is to find a consensus. You say that the rendering of the tables is not a problem, so presumably it is only the editing issue that is your real concern. Carnildo suggests using another text browser like Links or Links2 - have you tried that? does that help at all?

If you are not going to respect consensus on issues like the Manual of Style and Naming conventions then I'm not sure how much good it is going to do continuing this discussion, particularly when you revert the page while we are still discussing it (see below). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mass reversion
If you wish to edit an article, you really should avoid undiscriminatingly reverting all other recent changes merely because they came after the edit you object to. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 14:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The proposal is not a general proposal to treat it as vandalism, it's an attempt to end a long-running and particularly silly edit war. --Carnildo 18:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway,as I said on my own talk page,my revert-edit was more discriminating than you give it credit for.Besides removing the formatting I object to I also removed the self-promotionally arbitrary link to the NanoAging Institute,which has no specific stature in the study of supercentenarians,removed some useless repetitions of information,and added a couple of other links (one of which Susvolans refined and restored,the other he did not).--L.E./12.144.5.2 21:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Again reverting to Zerbey,"

This is a fiction promulgated by Louis Epstein, that this "version" is one by Zerbey. In fact, this version was a modification of a Louis Epstein mass reversion. To claim that Louis didn't do it is the height of disengenuity. Mr. Epstein continues to not care that his mass reversions are deleting the hard work of many. Who added Julia Doughtery? I don't know, but it was part of the communal mass effort (along with Sinedia etc) that Louis keeps destroying. (172.158.117.104 08:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Not a modification, actually, but a reversion to Louis Epstein’s version. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Massive list of reasons for modified mass reversion
To the best of my ability,I will post this explanation and a new modified "mass reversion" of the article simultaneously.If an "edit conflict" is triggered by someone else working on either article or talk page while I am,the simultaneity will fail,but at least I'm trying.As noted,I am not being "undiscriminating",each and every change is made for a reason,here's a list of changes and reasons.


 * Remove table formatting:The bone of contention right here.I don't see that the passing convenience of someone whose only participation in this article has been to insert the formatting and cause massive inconvenience to someone who has done a lot of work on the article should suffice to make it immune to reversion no matter how long discussion continues.Abandoning the browser I have used and promoted for over a decade is a bit much to ask casually.

Louis, the problem is YOU. You don't want to use spaces in sentences, you want to be difficult, you don't want to compromise, you won't change even if 99% of other users don't agree with you. Guinness used tables, and you got the whole idea from them, anyway(Ryoung122 07:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))
 * I don't see anyone suggesting any form of "compromise",only urging me to surrender.--L.E./12.144.5.2


 * Remove HTML dashes:The Susvolans pet practice,which like table formatting I see as pointless byte-bloat.Since eventually the Wiki code is supposed to interpret hyphens as HTML-dashes,stick to hyphens now!
 * Restore link to Herkimer County:Why not?
 * Restore specification of Jeanne Calment's lifespan:It's the record.It's relevant.
 * Remove Table of National Recordholders:Most of the information in this table is things that have already been stated earlier in the article,repeating links to articles that were already linked earlier in the article.The rest of the data is more informatively presented in the new separate article.

NOT true! First of all, nowhere else mentions "emigrant recordholders." Nowhere else mentions the national longevity recordholders. Since the table was made first, it's YOUR article that is the duplication. While I see some benefit to giving further explanation to the decision-making for each record, you seem to once again treat the page as a "pet project" that only you can edit--which is bad for all of us. (Ryoung122 07:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)).
 * The emigrant recordholders are covered in the separate article.Most people in the National Recordholders article are referred to as national recordholders,and linked to,earlier in the Supercentenarian article and don't need repetition.--L.E./12.144.5.2 19:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Change Link from One GRG Table to Page With All of Them:Provides access to more information,tables of mine and of Robert Young's.Identifying GRG may tie in with today's front-page Wall Street Journal article...which mentions Robert and not me.

First of all, the main reason the "Table E" link was chosen is because it was the "living list." I didn't add the link, and your accusation that it was a tie-in with the WSJ article is silly. You have tables on the GRG, don't you? They could easily have mentioned you, but they didn't. Sorry to burst your balloon, but those decisions weren't made by me. (Ryoung122 01:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)).


 * Remove Link to NanoAging Institute:The inclusion of a link to this group is totally arbitrary.The group has no particular prominence with regard to supercentenarian research (someone also added a link to the Centenarian article,equally arbitrary).

Rare agreement! NanoAging has little or nothing to do with the supercentenarians article. (Ryoung122 07:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

There are many groups doing research into extending life but there's no reason to link them all and there are better places to discuss them.

They can form their own article, "maximum human life span", and debate what the maximum is and whether it can be changed. (Ryoung122 07:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)).


 * Note that I am NOT pouncing on everywhere I disagree with Robert and putting things my way,or deleting the link to his Yahoogroup

First of all, a Yahoo group reflects how the "owner" runs it. I have run a clean ship, no spam, and the group is the best inside source for information on supercentenarians, bar none.

Your own link at www.recordholders.org could also be deleted! At my Yahoo group, tables are provided that the user can download. In addition, I have the largest collection of supercentenarian photos available anywhere on the web, including the GRG. (Ryoung122 07:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

though I have never linked any article to pages featuring my own efforts,any such link in Wikipedia having been put in by someone other than me,as with User:Raul654 linking to my table here (see above on this talk page).(Does any Wikipedia article link to any Yahoogroup?)
 * Refine locality links under Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan in oldest-persons table:So it works and people see information.

I'm not naive enough to think this will do anything to calm these disagreements.But I want people to see that I act with careful thought,not a random egotistical meatax.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that. Useful suggestions are brushed aside for anything that doesn't agree with the "Epstein" way, including naming conventions, punctuation, etc. (Ryoung122 07:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)).
 * The usefulness of certain suggestions is something on which we clearly disagree.--L.E./12.144.5.2 19:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth "Pampo" Israel
Anyone heard of this Dominican woman. She is said to have lived till 127. Mandel 16:40, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * She has her own article (Elizabeth Israel), which examines the claims about her age. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 17:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maria Olivia da Silva
According to [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&ncid=816&e=1&u=/ap/20050304/ap_on_fe_st/brazil_oldest_woman this Yahoo! News story], Maria Olivia da Silva of Astorga, Brazil is 125 years old, which would make her "the oldest living woman in Brazil and possibly in the entire world." Further, "Guinness may have an official statement on Friday." InterruptorJones 19:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This claim is simply not credible--first, the "lie" that the family has a birth certificate; these are only copies made within the last 5 years, of "records" from the 1970's; original documentation for this case is non-existent.

Further, it smacks of bias to include this likely false claim when many other false claims have been made in the past. Why not make "world's oldest claimant" page whereby all the pretenders can be featured together, for those people who insist that UFO's exist (claiming to be 125, out of the blue, is the scientific equivalent of a UFO sighting--too bad the public doesn't understand science). (172.157.195.243 10:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC))


 * Given that only seventeen people at most have been documented as reaching 115,and one would expect only one in a thousand of those who reach 115 to reach 125,one has to treat this claim (apparently designed to promote a Brazilian competitor to the Guinness Book) with extreme suspicion.If actually as old as claimed,she would have been oldest living person ever since the death of Jeanne Calment over seven and a half years ago...why would she only come forward now after nine others have been recognized as holding that title?(Meanwhile,GET RID OF THOSE HIDEOUS TABLES!!!)--Louis E./le@put.com/04:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obaid Maburak bin Suwaidan Bal-Jaflah
In a book by Leland Gregory entitled Chronicles of Human Stupidity, the story is told of Mr. Bal-Jaflah dying shortly after the first and only visit to a doctor in his life. The alleged age of Mr. Bal-Jaflah? 135!

What do we make of this? An error? A hoax? A fraud? An urban legend? Clearly, if this story is true, Mr. Bal-Jaflah would blow away all previous record holders (including Mme. Calment), but the book does not cite sources, and doesn't even give dates of birth and death. All it says is that Mr. Bal-Jaflah lived in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. And Google hasn't heard of this guy either, unless he's gone by another name. Anybody know anything else about this story?142.161.206.70 04:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it may belong in Longevity myths but it's certainly never been subjected to research,and the body of knowledge argues that it be treated as extremely unlikely.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An observation
The figures in this article seem to suggest that survival is very close to halved for each year after 100. Has this been commented on by any researchers? Securiger 15:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Closer to 100 the mortality rate is well below that (a little over half those who make it to 100 now reach 102).But most who make 114 don't last another 7 months!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Louis, if you have some survival tables for this age range which you would be willing to add, that would be an extremely valuable contributuion to the article IMHO. Securiger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Securiger (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have much survival data between 100 and 110.In the meantime,the "war" over formatted tables in the article (I CAN'T STAND THEM!!!) has left me rather soured on contributing anything.I expect Robert,who is always promoting his interpretations(which he sees as representing the common good) over mine(which he labels selfish ego) would only replace my data with his anyway.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 05:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Louis, I DO think it is the "common good" to use spaces between a period and the start of the next sentence. Yes, it is selfish ego to expect everyone else to change for you. (ROBERT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2005 (UTC)


 * I still don't get what's wrong with tables. True, if you're using Lynx as your web browser, you don't get any benefit from them, but they're not that hard to maintain, either, and they really make the article easier to view for people with graphical browsers. --Carnildo 06:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * They make the article much harder for me to edit.And I think the article suffers by being more tables than text.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 15:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How do they make it harder to edit? Are you using a screen reader or braille display? --Carnildo 19:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I use Lynx (browser) and do all my Wiki-editing typing by hand in webforms.The table formatting introduces numerous additional characters I have to work through in order to edit anything within them,as well as markedly reducing the information content as a visible fraction of what I see.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 23:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, if you joined the 99.99% of the population using updated software, you wouldn't have this problem...yet you expect us to suffer for your inability to adapt to change. (ROBERT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

Problem
How come no one has been focusing on this article for 4 full weeks?? What happened?? Georgia guy 14:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Claims
In my view, this page is for verified record holders, not for people who make unverified claims. I'll leave it to others to decide whether Benito Martinez holds a verified record or just makes a claim. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is enough .. why u follow the Guinness hegemony... they DON'T OWN HISTORY OR "RECORDS" He should go in >Among the oldest ever and >Among the oldest living, 2005 (113+). Just because guinness corp hasnae invested in Benito Martinez's name ... it don't mean it's ain't worthy of inclusion.. Passport says 1880 - big claim. I am looking for more stuff on web but medical confirmation AND backing by his gov counts for a lot. If U think it false propaganda by cuban gov.. u may well be bias. Hospitals and people are used regulary in US/european political campaigns.. doesn't mean subjects are not unwell..???!!! - max rspct 16:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Max, you need to STOP this non-sense campaign. Who died and made you the arbiter? Where is Benito's birth certificate? Marriage certificate? What year was the passport issued? Why can he not remember his "early years" in Haiti? Why does he have "no family" which could place his age in context? Why is he being promoted like Castro, like a Soviet-era Shirali Mislimov (claimed 168 in 1973)? This case is a DISRESPECT to every validated supercentenarian. This case, with NO PROOF, fits all the hallmarks of a FALSE claim, namely:

1. The age claim starts out as "oldest ever" 2. No proof 3. Illiterate 4. Used as a nationalist/ideological tool 5. Male (90% of real supercentenarians are female, and the real males tend to be 110-113 years old) 6. Immigrant, difficult to trace history 7. Only "proof" of age is a delayed passport

Note that Benito probably came to Cuba to avoid being in the Haitian military. He likely added 20 years to his age. While others have spend years researching this field, you come along and think you know what you're talking about. The BBC promotes these cases as a "circus show"---like a UFO sighting.66.64.156.146 28 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)


 * The documentary evidence standards are NOWHERE CLOSE to being met in the Martinez case!A recently-issued passport from a man who has NO documents before 1920 does not prove he was born in 1880.The government of Dominica issued Elizabeth Israel a birth certificate saying "1875" in 2000...but there's no evidence to back it up from anywhere close to that date.Today we have Maria Olivia da Silva and her claim,and the Habib Miyan-aka-Rahim-Khan claim of 1878 from India...NO RECORDS OF THE PERSON IN CHILDHOOD EXIST...and without them it's hard to take a claim far in excess of documented records (having survived years of enormous documented death rates) seriously.(P.S.:The Guinness book looks to me for validations,not vice versa)--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed the Benito Martinez entry again, perhaps this would be better placed in Longevity myths? It would be nice if it where true, but even his doctors disagree that he is 125. It seems more of a Cuban propoganda stunt to me. Please prove me wrong. Zerbey June 30, 2005 21:50 (UTC)


 * I have removed it again, as the “medical evidence” has not been referenced either here or in his own article. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is ONE issue that Louis and the sensible users can agree on: Benito a BIG NO! Note that the Benito claim is being pushed by Max Respect, who is an admitted Marxist. Longevity should be defined by science, not by ideology. The facts of the matter are clear: no birth records for Benito, no proof he's anywhere near age 125. I haven't seen Puerto Ricans use Emiliano as "proof" that they have magical water or longevity island. Let's stop this nonsense now. And don't forget longevity myths exist in the U.S., too. Just last week it emerged that Walter Hickman of TN, who claimed to be 116 years old, was only 99 years old...when documents were located.

What is Benito afraid of, that he can't tell anybody anything about his family? (172.135.110.54 05:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC))

Gerontology Research Group at UCLA
The LA Times had a recent article on the Gerontology Research Group [www.grg.org] at UCLA and a local resident who just turned 112. . Blank Verse  &empty; 11:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confilict with Geert Adriaans Boomgaard article
So I was clicking about and found that this article states that Geert Adriaans Boomgaard was the earliest supercentenarian who has substantial scholarly acceptance, however the Geert Adriaans Boomgaard article itself states: was the second internationally recognized supercentenarian in the world after Thomas Peters (1745 - 1857).

As I do not know which is correct I wont be changing either article but though I might point it out so someone who knows can fix the conflict. Dalf | Talk 02:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear: the scientific/demographic community accepts Geert Adriaans Boomgaard as the first supercentenarian generally accepted by scientists:

PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality Countries File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Thus the current emergence of supercentenarians (Robine and ... Joubert (except G A Boomgaard and HK Pluncket) and of the case of S Izumi. List 2 ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf -

The Thomas Peters case came from the Guinness Book, which had long remained an editorial footnote before ill-advisedly promoted to the "Dutch record" in the 1980's (yes, I was involved in that now-regrettable advice to elevate him from the footnotes).

The bottom line: Boomgaard is the first in the "skeptics" version; the Epstein "public" version lists Peters first. (Louis wants to pressure Guinness to investigate further or retract the claim).172.135.110.54 05:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC regarding article formatting
There is a long-simmering revert war over the use of tables versus lists in this article. It's an unproductive waste of time to go back and forth; the issue needs to be resolved. There are two aspects to the question.

The first is ease of editing. Some editors find tables more difficult (for a few, much more difficult) to edit and maintain than plain lists.

The second is ease of use. There is an open question about whether tables or lists are easier for our readers to use and comprehend. This should be discussed here, and hopefully some resolution can be reached.

In my opinion, ease of use considerations should trump ease of editing, except under the most extreme circumstances. This is an encyclopedia, and it should make every reasonable effort to convey information to its readers as clearly and concisely and possible. I have no comment at the moment on which format (lists or tables) is easier to read, but I will be following the discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As someone unfamiliar with the history of this page, I assume the edit war is about whether thetext version or the table version is the best format. Correct? If so, My comments is to go with plain text. Tables are good for comparing entries and noticing patterns in the noise. I imagine most readers won't be reading this to do detailed analysis of longevity, so they won't be needing tables. The few folks who are doing research to discover any trends in the data would probably be better off cutting and pasting the text into their own spreadsheet or writing a parser. FuelWagon 21:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What it boils down to is that the main editor of the article uses a web browser that displays the list and table forms identically, so he sees no benefit from the extra effort of maintaining the table form. The rest of us use web browsers that display lists and tables differently, so there is a benefit to the table form. --Carnildo 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the history of this article, so I may be misunderstanding what you want comments on. You're talking about whether it should be in a format like this:

xxx Oldest recognized living man xxx (plain text)
 * Shigechiyo Izumi (June 29 1865 (?) -Feb 21 1986), oldest man recognized by Guinness Book of World Records
 * Joe Thomas (May 1 1875-Dec 14 1986), American from Louisiana
 * Herman Smith-Johannsen (June 15 1875 -Jan 5 1987), cross-country skier
 * Alphaeus Philemon Cole (July 12 1876 -Nov 25 1988), engraver

or a format like this:

xxx Oldest recognized living man xxx (table format)

correct? FuelWagon 22:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No reply. Assuming the above assessment is correct. Therefore, going back to my original comment that plain text, rather than a table, seems much more consumer oriented, regardless of whatever it might benefit the editors. FuelWagon 23:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Date format
The current article has become inconsistent with respect to the format of dates.

In some places, the format 14 February 2004 is used, in others it is February 14, 2004.

For users who have a specific date format preference set, both sets of dates below will render identically. (If both of the lines below look the same, then you have specified a preference in your settings. If they are different, then you haven't set a preferred format.)


 * 14 February 2004
 * February 14, 2004

We should be consistent throughout the article in which format is used; it looks sloppy to users who haven't specified a preference when we flip back and forth between formats. (This includes most of our readers.) Flipping back through the page history, the earliest uses of linked dates seem to favour the February 14, 2004 style, so we should probably continue to use that format. I will try to get around to updating the article later this week if nobody else jumps on it first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah&mdash;never mind. Until the revert war about the tables is cleared up, there's no point to me fixing the dates. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The image
Anyone else think that the image of Ann Pouder at the top of the page (also the only image) should instead be of the current oldest person? Also another comment, though unrelated, is that the tables are inconsistent in who they recognize: Oldest Recognized Living Man accepts Shigechiyo Izumi (even starting with him) while National Longevity Recordholders quite contrarily assumes him to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.184.180 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Izumi
This is also a followup on the previous comment. Some anonymous contributor(s?) put Izumi in several tables as though he were officially recognized. However, the rest of the page seems to disagree on this. I removed Izumi yesterday from the table "By nationality" but someone (else?) put him back without discussion. I do not want to get into an edit war, what do other people think about this situation? --Rob 08:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I want some proof. I'm trying to assume good faith, but given no citation of fact for Izumi, he stays omitted until someone can cite a source.--chris.lawson 23:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Guinness says Izumi is legit. That's proof enough for me. And to the anon, thanks for citing a source. Much appreciated.--chris.lawson 01:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

People that don't know the subject should find something else to do. The Shigechiyo Izumi case is disputed by scientists; even the Japanese man who sent the case to Guinness says he regrets that he did so. Guinness, for its part, says the supposed documentation is "lost" but won't drop him until someone "proves" that he is false, or the Japanese government admits as such, officially. While unlikely to happen, even the Japanese newspapers noted that his age was disputed. This is coming from people with doctorates, not the typical web-poster.

Age 100 and Counting One man, Shigechiyo Izumi, is often reported as having reached the age of 120 before his death in 1986 in Japan, but his age has not been verified. ... www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8420 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Happy 122nd birthday! Oldest person in the world and news about ... In fact, work by John Wilmoth indicates that Izumi may have only been 105 when he died, meaning that Jeanne may have outlived Izumi in 1980. ... www.wowzone.com/calment.htm - 17k - Cached - Similar pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.156.146 (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

China
Do mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan truly have no longevity record holders in modern history. This seems somewhat surprising considering the enormous population percentage in the region...but the economic history of China is probably partly or wholly responsible --Dpr 08:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On October 4, 2005, The Epoch Times reported that the oldest living people in Miaoli, Taiwan is 109 years old.  Mhwu 23:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, what it means is that Chinese records, partly due to the wars of the past century, are incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.156.146 (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The wars and social turmoil of the last century are less of a factor than the fact that Qing China didn't have record keeping for the masses that could have propagated through such upheavals to the present. For this reason, there aren't likely to be verifiable Chinese supers born on the mainland for some time. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Capovilla is critical
Any reverting to remove the Capovilla authentication--which renders everything on "world's oldest" for the last year and a half ridiculous--is absurd.And I do believe that the material from the other fork that I remove by reinstating the simple format and removing the dead links,extraneous material,and non-consensus cases is best kept out of the article!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn’t it time to delete Louis Epstein’s fork from the history so he can’t edit the page uncooperatively again? Susvolans ⇔ 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Louis, cool the hyperbole. Capovilla was and can be added without destroying a year and a half of consensus material. → R Young  {yak ł talk } 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * However,the deletion of that "consensus material" would vastly improve the article.(If versions can be deleted from history,that's another strike against Wikipedia).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent French edits
Recent Franco-philes have been adding cases like this one. STOP!!!


 * Tériihaérétéi Taaora || 14 June 1873 || 3 January 1991 || 117? || Oldest male supercentenarian

This case was NEVER accepted by Guinness. "Disputed" status means the case was once accepted as authentic but has now been called into question. The above case does not fit that description...Teriihaeretei Taaora's claim to 117 has NEVER been accepted as authentic by either Guinness or the French government. Lists of VERIFIED French cases explicitly do not have this one.

If anything, this case could be added to longevity claims.

A second issue is one of French territoriality. Like it or not, the French government considers Martinique, Guadeloupe, New Caledonia, etc. to be part of France. Citizens of these areas are counted as part of France's population. In addition, they have the right to vote. This does not compare with Puerto Rico, where the population is NOT counted as part of the US population, and where citizens do NOT have the right to vote. If one insists on these extra cases, why not make a separate article on French longevity?

→ R Young {yak ł talk } 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Article status
Anything on what new to put in this article?? Now it talks about history of people living 110+ years. Anyone know of any new sections?? Georgia guy 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Embellished?
This comment within the article about Jeanne Calment seems out of place to me: While her stories of meeting Vincent Van Gogh or attending the 1885 funeral of Victor Hugo might have been embellished. It just sounds a little pejorative & POV to me to suggest that she embellished the truth without citing any reliable sources to back this up, whether it was likely or not. And with that phrasing especially so, where the context of 'might' could be taken to mean they actually were embellished, rather than just possibly, as in something like: 'While the girl might have been prone to making up stories, at least she didn't steal'.Number36 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say I agree with you. Extremely sexy 10:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I've changed it, as the oldest supercentenarian ever the reference to her could be added to a little if anybody was so inclined I suppose, to reflect that notability, but since, at the moment, the article on her is linked, the information is there for anybody looking.Number36 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my dear friend: good job. Extremely sexy 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Outdated link
I have deleted an outdated link which at one time led to the Open Record Book list of World's oldest living people, but now it led to a page talking about the World's Hottest Chili Pepper. I am not sure where the page went, so it would be good if someone can find it and put it back.--Leo628 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New claim for supercentarian
In the Leamington Spa Courier of June 7th, a front page article appeared called 'Woman celebrates 110th birthday'

viz.: "Every birthday is a surprise for a Leamington resident who turned 110 this week. Annie Elizabeth Butler celebrated her birthday on Monday - making her one of the oldest people in the country.

Mrs Butler, who still lives alone and cooks for herself, has lived through two World Wars, the invention of the television and witnessed technology transform the world.

She was born in Barford in 1897 during the reign of Queen Victoria while Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister.

She moved to Warwick after marrying Edward in 1922. The couple lived there for 20 years with son Peter, who is now in his 70s.

Mrs Butler, nee Allen, was a trained tailor and her husband worked as a dispatch rider in the First World War. They later lived in Whitnash until Mr Butler retired in the 1960s."

etc. etc.

I note that Mrs. Butler is not listed in your list of supercentenarians. Should she not be there? Thanks you90.196.95.45 07:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well: since this is a brand new possible case, documents have to be provided in order to be able to validate her. Extremely sexy 16:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * British validations are provided POSTHUMOUSLY by the government, but while still living by Guinness...but only for the titleholder. No big deal. This case can wait, as we have many cases older than this to do first.Ryoung122 06:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

effect of leap years
Just a note of caution when referring to ages in years and days. Someone born in 1896 on may 1st at 00:01 in the morning will have lived for 10 calendar years + 1 leap day on may 1st 00:001 in 1906. But someone born on may 1st 00:01 in 1906 will have lived 10 years and two leap days on may 1st 00:01 1916. Similar minor effects could arise depending on how close to (and whether before of after) leap days people are born. The upshot of this is, that if, when examining records of longevity, people have lived the same number of years and days (or very similar), then an examination of leap years/days may be necessary to come to an accurate comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.134.254 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace records
Here is some data from the Palace about the number of telegrams sent out to centenarians plus:

The figures for 2007 were:

100 - 5,117

105 - 302

106 - 160

107 - 75

108 - 32

109 - 24

110 - 7

111 - 2

Is it worth putting this info in the article? Peterlewis (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You might try the List of British supercentenarians article...but remember also there's a chance that a person died less than a month before their birthday but after the telegram was already mailed/sent, so the telegram numbers tend to inflate the real number of persons that reached that age. Ryoung 122 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, there may be some survivors who had not applied for the telegram, or whose relatives/carers did not apply either. The procedure involves returning a form and a copy of the birth certificate to BP. We know the process becasue we recently did it for our father aged 105, who has good propects for further telegrams. Peterlewis (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening
The opening "reached the age of 110 years or more" does not need the words "or more". A person over 110 has still reached 110 and is still a supercentenarian. You do not cease to be a supercentenarian by exceeding 110. Orderofthehouse (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
It's original research to only publish the undisputed cases: Our sources list the disputed. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening 2
In the opening it is stated that 1/1000 centaurians (100) reach the age of supercentaurians (110), 1 in 50 supercentenarians live to be 115, and 1 in 70,000 centenarians lives to be 120. According to this data, 5/7 people who reach 115 become 120. (1/1000=110, 1/50000=115, 1/70000=120) Is this what is meant? Because it seems rediculously high to me. Taketa (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't know where the "1 in 70,000" comes from, but I would suggest you delete it as simply "made up". I'm sure the number is far lower...there are over 150,000 centenarians living today and zero are verified to be even 115 years old currently. Ryoung 122 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In April Gertrude Baines reached 115 years. Dinprog (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

110-year-old dies in Corvallis, Oregon
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2009/03/26/news/community/4aaa04_pearson.txt Might not be big news but there must be a table somewhere on the site she could be added to. Also, there needs to be some consolidation of supercentenarian-related articles on here. I mean, hell, does "Supercentenarian" and "Supercentenarian tracking" really need to be two different articles? --75.170.40.194 (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammatically incorrect edits
Will the person who keeps making minor edits which are subsequently reverted by me and others due to them being incorrect please stop it? Vans74 (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

115-116-117
I find these statistics rather odd: 2% of supercentenarians survive to 115, 0.7% to 116 and 0.4% to 115. That suggests that while only 0.7/2 (35%) of 115 year olds survive to 116, a whole 0.4/0.7 (57.1%) of 116 year olds survive to 117. Surely you get more likely to die the older you get? Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that the numbers are unreferenced in the article, so there's no way to know what the source of those figures is. The table in the following section (which purports to include only 'verified' supercentenarians, but again fails to cite a source for its information) should give you a clue as to why those numbers might look odd.


 * Using the 'verified' table, there are sixteen individuals who died between the ages of 115 and 116; five who died between 116 and 117; two who died between 117 and 118; none at all who died between the ages of 118 and 119; and one death between 119 and 120. That shouldn't lead one to conclude that there's something particularly safe about the age of 118.  Rather, these statistics are based on a very small number of people.  With such a tiny sample, one gets a lot of scatter.  Again using these data, one could draw the patently absurd conclusion that by reaching 118, one has a two-out-of-three shot at 120. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A good point, thank you. In fact, the two entries do vaguely make sense - of 26 total 115 year olds, 10 made it to 116 and 5 to 117; so the ratios could be 38% 115-116 and 50% 116-117. This does make the percentages rather irrelevant though, in terms of gauging the likelihood of surviving a particular year.


 * I have changed the tags from "dubious" to "citation needed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree; I'd be inclined to go even further. With the possible exception of the '2% of centenarians reach 115' claim (which might have some weight of numbers behind it) the statistics are based on samples which are so tiny as to be virtually meaningless.  We could probably drop the passage in question from the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Delete?
This page should combine to the page List of the verified oldest people. For 1, the list isnt necessary because on the List of the verified oldest people, it contains all of the information about all the supercentenarians on this page, also theres an additional 85 supercentenarians added. All information is referenced as well. Signed, User:NickOrnstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well this one is about the phenomenon of the supercentenarian, perhaps it's a candidate merge target for supercentenarian tracking or supercentenarian Research Foundation and perhaps the list should move to one of the list articles under this topic, but this one ought logically to be about the base thing. A &sect; on the sex difference is called for I should think. Striking that there isn't a single male European super but twenty some odd females. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that males tend to have shorter lifespans than females, if all other factors are equal, I'd say it was to be expected. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Demographics
Surely this page should focus more on the demographics of supercentenarians, rather than focussing mainly on 115+? As this is about all supercentenarians, I think the page should include some sort of information about preponderance of supercentenarians at 110, 111, etc. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi supercentenarian
Is there also a word "semisupercentenarian", for those who have reached the age of 105? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. However, if it must be done, I think the way to do it would be:
 * Hemisupercentenarian = 105
 * Hemisemisupercentenarian = 102.5
 * Hemisemidemisupercentenarian 101.25


 * WP:NORly Yrs, S  B Harris 20:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Supercentenarian
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Supercentenarian's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GRGEE": From List of British supercentenarians: Table EE (100 Pending GRG Cases) (as of 8 February 2011) Retrieved 11 May 2011. <li>From List of German supercentenarians: List of Pending cases</li> <li>From List of Norwegian supercentenarians: TABLE EE PENDING GRG CASES. Retrieved 1 August 2011.</li> <li>From List of living supercentenarians: </li> <li>From List of supercentenarians from the United States: Table EE Pending GRG Cases Retrieved June 2, 2011. Important note: these cases are backed by at least one document supporting the reported age but lack the three documents necessary for "validation".</li> <li>From List of Spanish supercentenarians: TABLE EE PENDING GRG CASES Retrieved 17 May 2011.</li> <li>From List of Japanese supercentenarians: Table EE (100 Pending GRG Cases) (as of May 15, 2011) Retrieved 15 May 2011.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hanna Barysevich
This news story and many others claim that Hanna Barysevich is 117 and therefore the oldest person alive even before the death of Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper. Apparently "she'd never thought of applying for the distinction". Worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurble (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Untitled
For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Quinquagenarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonP (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2005 (UTC)

Alimihan Seyiti
Does anyone have any other verifiable sources for Almihan Sayit? There have been numerous USA news stories regarding her. "127-year-old woman from northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has been crowned the country's oldest person by the Gerontological Society of China." but I haven't seen any Chinese sources yet. Search engine results are similar to this. RandNoel (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As with the numerous other reports in the media of persons claimed to be aged far older than the oldest (living) independently verified people, she is now included in Longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoax ?
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/2013/11/17/125-year-old-Palestinian-man-tells-memories-from-peaceful-days.html 94.111.126.71 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can conclude that this is a hoax, but after Googling his name, I don't see any reliable sources that verify the purported age.I am One of Many (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just another unverified and unverifiable claim which belongs in Longevity claims. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Longevity
I have done research, and I think the maximum age anyone can reach so far is 116. It is true that once a supercentenarian reaches 116 1/4, there seems to be a "longevity limit", and Besse Cooper, Elizabeth Bolden, Jiroemon Kimura, and Tane Ikai all did not make it to even 116 1/2. Ikai came super close, but no one since Maria Capovilla (1890-2006) has come close to Ikai's age, with the exception of Misao Okawa, who is approaching her age.This "longevity limit" means that Okawa may not reach Tane's age or even 117, although she is the seventh oldest person ever and she has a will to keep going like an Energizer battery. (173.17.92.61) (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your original research has no place in wikipedia, please don't waste other editors time with this sort of contribution. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies
There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Morbidity
I came across an interesting article on morbidity in supercentenarians, so I summarized their major findings. This article could use more sources on the health and morbidity of supercentarians. I'll try to add scientific sources overtime as I find them. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The result could just be an artifact from the increasing mortality.
 * About 10% of supercentenarians survive until the last 3 months of life without major age-related diseases as compared to only 4% of semisupercentenarians (age range 105–109 years) and 3% of centenarians.
 * Phrased differently, supercentenarians die faster from age-related diseases, while the younger centenarians have a better chance to survive those diseases for more than 3 months. This should not be surprising. --mfb (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tables here and at List of the verified oldest people
The tables are nearly identical - the table here lists both country of birth and death, the other one just death, but apart from that they are the same. To reduce updating effort, I suggest to merge them. Include the table here in the other article or include the table from the other article here.

I also thought about a template that can do some sorting updates, but without Lua it probably gets messy. --mfb (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The table here is superfluous, it is merely a partial CONTENTFORK from the main list. It is essentially a baseless (there is no given justification for listing people who lived to 115 or older) piece of fanfluff and should be deleted. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 00:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Redundant table that already exists in another article. As stated, why is the cutoff 115? Why not 114 or 110? Support deletion of the table. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lede
What is wrong with the recent changes made by (not all are currently present in the article):
 * 1) "is a person who had turned 110 years old". Is awful English and worse than the existing, and perfectly clear "someone who has lived to or passed his/her 110th birthday"
 * 2) "someone who has lived to or passed his/her 110th birthday" Awful English
 * 3) " a very rare condition of advanced longevity" Awful English using the inappropriate word "condition"
 * 4) "a status only few hundred people worldwide are believed to hold" Vague, and as it is uncited, potentially violates OR
 * 5) " Supercentenarians comprise only about 0,1% (or 1/1000) of all [[centenarians]" Vague, and unless a specific text can be quoted from the given citation (unfortunately not available online), also potentially OR
 * 6) "Even rarer is a supercentenarian who reached 115; only thirty-eight persons in history were confirmed to live to such age" Poor use of English, potentially violating WEASEL, and no apparent justification for iunlcuding a random cutoff in the lede.

In short, none of these changes actually improves the article, and much violates WP:LEDE. The lede might actually be improved if some of the sentences were rewritten to conform to a reasonable standard of English and the appropriate Wiki guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Soviet era and Biblical supercentenarians.
I recall during the 70s hearing about high percentages of people, or indeed whole villages, in the Soviet Union were living well over 100. It was dismissed at the time as Soviet propaganda which was proven at the end of the Cold War. But this info should be included briefly, even if only to discredit the legend. The other "source" of legend is the Bible, with claims ranging from a dubious 130 years up to a ridiculous 900 for others. --Dmol (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How many verified supercentenarians?
This article says there are 52 verified cases, yet it links to a page listing 100 verified cases. What's the correct number? --2605:A000:D141:3800:9450:4878:E749:C80 (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the information for Jeanne Calment was a fraud for when she died her daughter arranged the documents to officially be interred instead of her mother and assumed her mother's identity Lelio73 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I personally also think that the information about Calment is ... strange, considering that the pattern is so way outside of the statistical norm compared to others, I believe it may be too early to state that it is a fraud. It will require extensive and systematic testing to reach this conclusion and so far I have not seen this being done either (and I am aware of the articles that stated so in the last time, it's just not yet well double-checked). 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:7AA0:255D:4602:ABA7 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Definition of a supercentenarian
I understand that anyone who reaches his/her 110th birthday is a "supercentenarian". But, if someone dies, is that person still considered to be a supercentenarian or not? The article is not completely clear. As far as I understand, the definition includes those who are already dead as well. It would help if the main article could make this more clear too, so we visitors do not have to double check, even if it may be obvious for others, it is not always obvious for even others visiting wikipedia. 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:7AA0:255D:4602:ABA7 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Donnchadh Ó Hámsaigh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnchadh_%C3%93_hAmhsaigh If I did it correctly he lived to 112. What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prague1648 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This does not belong on this talk page. Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 09:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)