Talk:List of the verified oldest women/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

I do not agree that it is original research to publish a sub section of a list. Whether it be men , women, undisputed cases, disputed cases, or the many different nationality sub sections that are listed, American, British, Italian, etc. Perhaps the page would benefit with an addendum of the disputed cases for reference? TFBCT1 (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

With men and women and nationality, the differences are certain. When it comes to disputed cases, some may well be true, and some false. The best way is to include all of them. They have been accepted by the sources we cite and they should be accepted based on that. It's certainly in violation of WP:POV. We should not be deleting cases accepted by the GRG and Guinness. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: a long-established case can be overturned, but this is usually accomplished by publishing a paper or something. For example, the Pierre Joubert claim to "113" years old in 1814 was "verified" in 1878 by Canadian researchers. This was pulled in 1990 after publication of a refutation.

The reason the Izumi case has not been pulled is that there has been no publication of a convincing counterargument. Leaking "Izumi was really only 105" to the newspapers is not the proper procedure for refuting a case. In other instances, the refutation was uncertain. For example, the counterclaim that Carrie White was "only 102" could not be verified with certainty.Ryoung122 04:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - 3 cases in dispute or 4?

A bit of a revert-war going on here... I counted the number of cases in dispute on this list, and I see three: Carrie White, Kamato Hongo and Anitica Butariu. With the first two, published reports indicate they may have been younger and might therefore have not made it to this list, and with the third, her age has not been verified via presentation of documents to international gerontologists.

I suspected that because Martha Graham's precise day of birth is not known, that therefore a 4th person was added, but in her case - correct me if I am wrong - there is no dispute she was born December 1844, and her claim is accepted. Indeed, if we go to the "100 oldest persons" page, it seems there is no problem with her age there, as there are six other candidates with disputes about their age, and Graham's would be the seventh. So why a different standard here?

Let's be clear about what a "dispute" is and under what circumstances we should put an addendum for that person's claim with an undisputed claim. A "dispute" is where there is a question about a person's actual age which brings forward the possibility that the person in question was actually younger than the 100th person on the page. Or where a person is said to have questionable verification. So, a simple issue of discrepancy - where a person may have been, say, 114 or 113, does not require an addendum if the lower age is still old enough to be on the page. The only question with Graham is whether she died at 114 circa 180 days or 114 years circa 210 days, both ages easily on this page.

And let's be clear on a further point, as this came up before. It is not enough to question a particular claim. That "question" has to be published somewhere so we can cite it. In terms of Martha Graham, the only note we have is a question about the precise day of birth, at least that is what we have in the note. Until such time as we also have a reference saying something like "her case's veracity is in dispute" then we don't need an addendum for her claim until the 100th person surpasses her oldest possible age. Canada Jack (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is a dispute over her date of birth. Her date of birth comes from her claimed age at death of 114.5 years, which is roughly 114y 180d (infact she/the family weren't sure about her age and it was given as 114 or 118 on her final birthday). That's been extrapolated back from her date of death to estimate her date of birth. Compare that to the standards of today. Census data to back up the claim hasn't been found.

The GRG doesn't list Graham on the tables, except for the table for false/exaggerated claims which says she claimed 118, and her being aged 114 is "probable".

Having tried to validate some people mentioned in the early Guinness Record Books. One of whom I found an article about in a newspaper stating that the chap had been 105 5 years before his death, but died at 112. He was (and I quote) "active, alert, and in manner most independent, in no way showing any sign of age, still less of great age; his sight and hearing were quite good". Sound like a 112 year old man? I also don't rate Isabella Shepheard's chances. These two cases, and Martha Graham were originally listed as footnotes in Guinness and I do not believe they were fully verified. From what I remember, these cases were claims that had been submitted, and Guinness had suggested they might have been aged 114 (Graham) or 109 (Shepheard). Wikipedia says we should use reliable sources, but these Guinness footnote cases do not appear to stand up under scrutiny. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood it that she in fact was found on the census, but that since the census only lists month of birth and not date of birth, the approximate day count of 180 days was provided. But whatever the facts are in this case, as I said above, we can't simply declaring some cases "disputed" without a) ensuring they are in fact disputed and b) saying as much in the notes. As it stands, on this page and on the other page, Graham's claim is not disputed. And her family claim that she was older doesn't make this a "dispute" by the definition I offered above. Only lack of agreement on whether her claim is authentic would.

Perhaps we need a clarification on this particular case, because if it is in dispute, then this list should have 4 in the addendum, and there should by 7 on the other page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see #104 has been added. I've again reverted it, as, and I am repeating myself now, there is no indication in the footnote that there is a dispute with her age. Anyone coming across the page will will see no justification for 4 people on the addendum otherwise. So, omit #104, or supply a citation. Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a check and Graham is on Epstein's list. As for GRG, contrary to what you said above, Siamese, she appears on numerous lists, though not on all expected lists. So, she is on Table A [1] and, notably, without any of the notes which accompany other claims; Table B [2]; Table CC [3] which, notably, seems not to come straight from Epstein (as the other lists do) yet does not include the Graham case as one disputed. Perhaps Robert can clarify the status of what, exactly, is at dispute with Graham and whether the fact her relatives' claims of her being 118 has any relevance on whether her age is accepted or not. (I fail to see the relevance, frankly.) Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert says that in Graham's case, she was confirmed with a 1900 census match, which listed her month of birth as December and year of birth 1844. And that confirmation was accepted (I assume by Guinness) at the time. However, he points out, such a match would not be considered a confirmation today as the census was more than 20 years beyond the event in question - her birth. The only problem I have is that I can't find any comment on this outside of Robert's and the inference because she seems to be missing on some of GRG's lists that she is not accepted. While that may be enough for some, I feel we need something explicit TO establish that Graham is not universally accepted as being confirmed. (We ran into this problem when Robert voiced doubts on the Mitsu Fujisawa case in January.) As you may note, I went to the trouble yesterday of supplying links to every disputed case, save for the Beard claim. So if someone could find that for Graham - I've asked Robert to point me in that direction too - then we could add a note here, reinstate the 104th person, and add a 107th person to the "100 oldest people" page. Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Women/Person/Men

Some redundancy is needed. The media have many, many times confused "oldest man" or "oldest woman" with "oldest person." Thus, a disclaimer is needed, especially on this page as it is more obvious on the "oldest male" page that this is not a list of the oldest persons.Ryoung122 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Can't we just combine the two categories? Come on. --75.170.40.194 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page?

Why do we need a page entitled "List of the verified oldest women"... this is essentially the same thing as List of the verified oldest people, except with the 10 males removed and 10 females added. I don't particularly agree with the List of the verified oldest men, but at least I see how it's a substantially different list and the intersection of "male" and "supercentenarian" is a non-trivial aspect. Since the majority of supercentenarians are women, however, this is a trivial intersection. To continue my previous comparison, there's a reason why there's a reason that we don't have a List of Caucasian astronauts; the majority of astronauts have been Caucasian, so there's no reason to have them drawn out in a list. Cheers, CP 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But if this page is to stay, then why is there the extra criterion of only undisputed claims. Seems to me that the format of the page should match the format of the other two pages where some claims in dispute though verified are included. 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This page only lists 8 people who aren't on list of the verified oldest people. I do not see why this page is necessary. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the list ought to stay, but combine it on one page with the List Of The Verified Oldest Men. How do I formally make a proposal for this?? --75.170.40.194 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper Redirects

Greetings,

Why is Olivia Patricia Thomas redirected to "List of Supercentenarians from the Americas" instead of "List of Supercentenarians from the United States"?Ryoung122 06:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anitica Butariu

I opened this discussion on the all-time 100 people list...

I am now removing the text I identified as being Original Research, as the lone editor to raise an objection has not supplied a source for the note which he apparently inserted. Further, the inclusion of his note has necessitated a further note to the birth claim being questioned, viz “rank disputed” even though no source has been produced to make the point he makes and the editor, it would seem, is the sole source “disputing the rank.”

The text in question notes that Anitica Butariu/Batariu was born in Romania, a country which did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until the 20th century, hence her reported date of birth might be as per the old Julian calendar and therefore inflated by 13 days.

As the policy explicitly states: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

1. The original thought (which is the potential discrepancy, not Romania’s adoption of the Gregorian calendar) is not attributed to any reliable source.

2. The analysis (Romanian authorities have not explicitly stated whether they accounted for a calendar conversion) is not attributed to any reliable source.

3. The synthesis (combining birth information of Anitica Butariu with historical data regarding when and how Romania adopted the Gregorian calendar) is not attributed to any reliable source.

4. The position being advanced (a possible error with Butariu’s date of birth) is not clearly advanced by any cited source. Canada Jack (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitsu Fujisawa

I think we need to delete Mitsu Fujisawa who had lived 27 leap years while Fannie Thomas had lived 28 leap years. It is not necessary to keep 101st line. IMHO. --Vesailok (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As per the sources, the rankings are by years and days, not days, so she is tied for 100th. Besides, as I have noted in previous discussions on leap year issues, ranking people by days incorporates a margin of error of nearly two days (depending on the time of day someone was born and died), so quibbling about a ranking based on a day assumes an accuracy here greater than the margin of error. Canada Jack (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Eunice Sanborn

Is there a valid reason for her deletion from this list, since her case is verified, or should she be put back? Seanette (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Page protect?

We have a problem with persistent edits from 114.134.156.175, deliberately breaking the automatic update of ages of those still living, then altering days apparently on whim. I've also seen this IP doing the same thing on the corresponding page for oldest men. Seanette (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Almihan Sayit

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 Almihan Sayit recognized as oldest person in China OR Woman, 127, crowned oldest person in ChinaRandNoel (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Years may be of different lengths due to the presence or absence of a leap day within the year, or to the conversion of dates from one calendar to another

Whose ages are of different lengths due to the conversion of dates from one calendar to another? Omitti86 (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for merge

I request that this article be merged with List of the verified oldest people. I don't keep track of just oldest "women", and I don't think we should, either! Deaths in 2013 (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

These "Oldest verified" lists are useful for more than just keeping track of the progress of individuals.

Let's say I wanted to compare the 50th oldest woman to the 50th oldest man, or I want to compare the mortality rates for the oldest men and oldest women - I wouldn't be able to do that if the lists were merged.

Although there isn't a huge difference between the "100 oldest women" and "100 oldest people" lists, I think that it's important to keep them separate.

Plus, there are a few women who are on the "100 oldest women" list but not on the "100 oldest people" list.

Cheers,

Ollie231213 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Original research?

The birth and death dates for the people listed in this article are not referenced. Every article must be reliably sourced and verifiable which means every entry must contain inline references. This is especially true for information about living persons or the recently deceased. Please note that just knowing that someone has died is not a sufficient reliable source to include that information. If reliable sources are not added in a reasonable amount of time I will tag this article for deletion. Ca2james (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Living

If the green colo(u)r means "Living", it is superfluous to repeat this information in the column "Death date". A dash would suffice. Xakepxakep (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I like the pea green color for extant, or still living, or still flourishing (in history). Think: these elders, these ladies have been flourishing - on our spinning planet - for 115 years and more. MaynardClark (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The color is not needed. The word "Living" instead of a date is fine. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a list of the 100 ? verified oldest women

The list contains, as of 10 March 2017, 101 verified oldest women. Xakepxakep (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And which one of the 3 in 99th place would you remove? --Marbe166 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's better to change the number 100 to 101. And the best is that the number is calculated automatically and inserted in the proper place(s). I don't know how to do this. Otherwise, I would. Xakepxakep (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's better to leave it at 100. It's a 100-deep list, not a 101-deep list, even though at times when several people are tied for 99th or 100th or what have you the total number exceeds 100. Does this really have to be spelled out? Come on. Canada Jack (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Emma Morano

Presumably dead: https://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_en&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1920&bih=1071&tbs=lr%3Alang_1en&q=oldest+woman+died+15+april+2017&oq=oldest+woman+died+15+april+2017&gs_l=serp.3...7025.14460.0.14614.20.20.0.0.0.0.239.2583.1j13j3.17.0....0...1.1.64.serp..3.16.2421...0j0i22i30k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i13k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.RT2NtJjcLI4 Xakepxakep (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Categorization discussion at Talk:List of the verified oldest men

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of the verified oldest men#Category:Lists of supercentenarians . This is a discussion about whether Oldest People, List of the verified oldest women, & List of the verified oldest men should be listed at Category:Lists of supercentenarians instead of Category:Lists of oldest people since all the individuals on each list are supercentenarians Peaceray (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ties

Besides ties (as of 7 May 2017) at positions 48, 60, 69, 73, 84, 90, 95 and 100, there are (as of 7 May 2017) several other ties — at 10/11 and 43/44. Are ties for dead persons only?!? Here (as of 7 May 2017), at least, obviously not: [[4]] Xakepxakep (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

February 29, 1900

It shows an error that there was no February 29, 1900,

That's correct. 1900 was not a leap year. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)