Jump to content

Talk:List of American supercentenarians/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Carrie C. White

I have located a picture of her in an old newspaper here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CwYSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ReoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2056,4754988&dq=carrie+white+116&hl=en --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Oklahomans

Here: [1] has an article on a man named Ruben Hopper of Oklahoma. He was born on August 13, 1903 in the state. Hopper is now 106. News OK says he is close to being Oklahomas oldest resident. In the article, it mentions possibly the 2nd oldest Oklahoman resident: Daisy Blackbird, who was born on January 18, 1902, age 108. Nowhere in the article is Martha Berryhill (oldest known OK resident) mentioned.

Also: Hopper married his wife in 1924, and she died a few years ago. So they can go on the List of people with the longest marriages page.

According to the SSDI, Velma (Jones) Hopper (13 May 1907 - 15 March 2006) was 98, same as the article states. The couple were married for 81/82 years. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Should't Puerto Rican supercentenarians (such as Emliano Mercado del toro) be included in these lists? While it isn't a State, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States and shouldn't be excluded.Tim198 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Daisey Bailey

After the death of Mary Josephine Ray, Daisey Bailey was the oldest American. As she died later that day it was just for a couple of hours, but I think she should be placed in the list after Ms. Ray and before Neva Morris. Guidje —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.72.206 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, she should not be added to the list. Why? Look at this:
  • Mary Josephine Ray - born May 17, 1895, died March 7, 2010
  • Neva Morris - born August 3, 1895, died April 6, 2010
  • Daisey Bailey - born March 30, 1896, died March 7, 2010

Bailey never was the oldest living American. Morris was still alive at the time and was older than Bailey, so she took the title from Mary Josephine Ray without dispute. BrendanologyContriB 08:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see Talk:List of American supercentenarians#Merge proposal and keep the discussion over there, in one place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Race

As a person who visited this article for the first time, I saw the "race" column and saw an "I" in it. I have no idea what this stands for and I assume I'm not the only reader who has asked that question. Perhaps a key of some sort is useful? I'll leave that to those who maintain this list, just thought they might like my perspective. Chris M. (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

She is Native American. I suppose someone put "I" for "Indian."Ryoung122 06:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Top 100 or Top 150?

Greetings, the UK and French lists go beyond the top 100 cases all-time. Shouldn't the USA list at least go to top 150 or perhaps 112+? The extra info. can be "hidden" so only those who wish to see the "full" list will see it.

Ryoung122 06:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Immigrant records

One has to be the "oldest" to be the recordholder, right?Ryoung122 07:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

There are two issues here:

1. The US State records table should only list "recordholders" or those who would be recordholders is an alternate system of reckoning is used (i.e., immigrants included). Thus, cases such as Amalia Barone wouldn't count, because her age is younger than Mary Bidwell, the Connecticut state recordholder.

2. If someone wants to list immigrants after the US main list of 150+ cases (112+), that would be appropriate...but the same age cutoff should be used. Thus, Amalia Barone could go there, but not those under 112. Why should we list people younger than 112 if they are born outside the U.S., but not if they are born in the U.S.?Ryoung122 07:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't need the immigrant records; it is suppose to be "oldest born" in a state. We should just remove the Immigrant records section; this is the only page that does it like that.
It's like saying Wilhelmina Kott, the oldest born in the state of Illinois, is 2nd oldest behind Carrie Lazenby, who was the oldest to live in the state. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that the GRG lists immigrant records, I think your editing is not well-thought-through. Part of Wiki-policy is pluralism, or the idea that multiple major viewpoints must be respected. That means that Wikipedia is not "winner take all." That's why we list addenda-lists for disputed cases. It allows the viewer/reader to decide.

Personally, a third list could be added: U.S. state records by place of death or last residence. I think the listing of just the 3 international immigrants takes up less space than a revamped place-of-death or last residence list. For example, Delma Kollar would be listed twice, both as the oldest person born in Kansas and the oldest resident of Oregon. But someone like Mary Josephine Ray would be listed only once.

Also, this "article section" was once its own article. Considering that about 53% of all verified supercentenarian cases are Americans (USAeans), I think it is quite unfair to treat each nation exactly the same. In fact, we don't...there's no list of oldest living persons from Nauru. We see even the Russia page was challenged as not being functionally needed. So if functionality, not nationalism, is the rule here, then I think we can functionally break this article into smaller pieces (un-merge) like it was.76.17.118.157 (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles to Un-Merge, International Immigrant Records, and "One size does not fit all."

Greetings,

Wikipedia is NOT paper...if this article is too large, it's because several articles were merged into one.

Form should follow function...we don't have an article "list of Antigua supercentenarians" because there have been no verified supercentenarians from there, and not even claims, to my knowledge. The point is, there's no need to artificially hold the United States to the same standard as all the other countries...since there is no one standard. Whether there's an article, or not, is dependent on whether there is sufficient sourcing and material to make an article.

The United States currently has about half of the verified supercentenarians, worldwide. That's more than enough justification for splitting this article into the three articles it was originally...perhaps into two.

In particular, the "state records" section could be split out.

Now, on to the main point: why should we have an international immigrant record section?

1. All persons born in the U.S. can qualify for one of the 50 state records (or D.C. record) but an immigrant could never qualify because, by definition, they were born elsewhere. Therefore, it makes sense to have an "addenda" that lists records such as Ito Konno Kinase, 113, of Hawaii.

Wikipedia's policies support listing multiple major viewpoints. One viewpoint is that records should be by place of birth; another is that records should be by place of death.

Now, if you want to list the 50 state records by place of death, that's an option.

But that would mean a lot of persons were listed twice, it seems simpler to just list the 3 international exceptions. That gives everyone who is ever an American a chance to be in the records. Without the addendum, the system is incomplete.Ryoung122 00:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Listing of overall U.S. supercentenarians

Wouldn't it be easier if we were to keep the top 50 U.S. supercentenarians, rather than 112+? Similar to List of European supercentenarians. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. is not a continent, it's a nation.

I suggest you could make a "List of North American supercentenarians," to be fair. Canada has 30+ cases, and there are a few cases from the Caribbean, even Mexico.

On the other hand, we have more than 100 cases listed for the UK and France lists. So, why should we have just 50 cases for the U.S.? Or even top 100, if the other nations are exceeding 100?

Ryoung122 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Lanier

Hi, I just wanted to bring this person to your attention based on the news stories that put her age at 119. I think she should be mentioned somewhere but I don't know how to go about adding her correctly. Brig Anderson (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Eddye Williams

Does anyone have a policy-based answer to the question I pose in this edit summary. If GRG wants to call this person's age "unverified" that's fine and dandy. Why must wikipedia follow suit? David in DC (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Collier

Oscar Robertson's great-grandfather Marshall Collier was born in 1838 and died in 1954 at the age of 116, the oldest person in the United States at the time of his death. Source #1, Source #2 I think he should be in this list. --bender235 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw this earlier today. Thank you for the interesting claim (of the past) about Marshall Collier. The mention of this case made me do genealogical research (for my curiosity's sake). It helped that Oscar Robertson provided a sample chapter of his autobiography on his website outlining his ancestry.
Back to your sources, it appears that #2 may be referring to #1 as it's paraphrasing #1 quite considerably but adding "allegedly" to... "the oldest living person in the United States at that time". The rest of the paragraph between the two sources looks like nearly word-by-word. During my quick research today, I found a great reference that can be used by other Wikipedia editors for the Oscar Robertson's article: Ebony magazine, dated March 1960.
Anyway, I don't know if we would be able to add this past claim to this list because this article seems only geared towards verified cases *except* the living ones. In any case, this past claim is for a claimed death age of 116, which belongs to the Longevity claims article. I see that you have already added Marshall Collier's claim there. I think that's all we can do at this time. Side note: For those who are interested in my original research results, I am able to debunk this claim. Marshall Collier's census matches indicate his family (and himself) were consistently reporting his birth year to be about 1863-1864, rather than 1838. This is possibly a mistaken family lore in where the family did not realize there was a missing generation in the family stories (i.e. Marshall Collier was telling stories about his father's stories in the first person, rather than narrating his own stories). Regards, CalvinTy 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice findings. Thanks for the comment. --bender235 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors FYI

Delma Kollar has died, source: Oldest Oregonian dies in Creswell-Kiwipat (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to have an Oldest Living American Man Table

The European SCs has a table for men, and thus the U.S. should have one as well, considering that it's population is about the same as that of Western Europe, from where almost all European SCs came from. Someone made such a table at the Data Section of the 110 Club for American men that continuously goes from 1978 to the present day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.31.187 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I already made one. :) Futurist110 (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

John Joe Begay

A case such as John Joe Begay was a one-star footnote case, not a pending-validated case. He should not be listed.74.160.66.239 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bernando Lapollo

Who added this man to the list? Robert Young states on the GRG page here that he's about 10 years younger than he claims he is and that his birthdate has been changed several times. 123.211.110.15 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is 112 Significant

Why is it significant to have a chart of persons from the United States who have reached the age of 112? Why not 111 or 113? Kona1611 (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Carrie C. White redirection

Carrie C. White redirects to this page, but she isn't mentioned anywhere. I propose that she is added under "People". --Marbe166 (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The GRG (Gerontology Research Group) no longer accepts Carrie White's case. See here: http://www.grg.org/Adams/CCCCC.HTM. If you want to create a separate Wikipedia article for her, go ahead, but since her claimed age is no longer accepted, I don't think that she should have an entry for her on this Wikipedia article. Futurist110 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Melva Radcliffe

The table Oldest American by state lists Bertha Cole (February 28, 1883 – August 19, 1994) with 111 years and 172 day as the oldest female for New Jersey. According to this obit in the Asbury Park Press and this article in The Star-Ledger it seems that Melva Radcliffe (March 3, 1901 – August 31, 2012) was 111 years and 181 days old when she died. Shouldn't she be listed instead? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

130 years old in 1969

When I was a child, I saw a television interview with a black man right after Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. They asked him what he thought about all the changes he had seen in his life and now a man was walking on the surface of the moon. The man said "Ain't nobody never been to no moon!" I've never forgotten that interview and decided to see if I could learn more about this man's remarkable life. I believe he was born into slavery in about the year 1839 (I don't think they were certain of his birthdate but they knew he was a full grown man in the Civil War). I was disappointed not to find this man listed in the article. 68.5.181.213 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oldest living man in the United States

I noticed that when I saw " Chronological list of the oldest living man in the United States" in this article, that Alexander Imich is listed as the oldest living man in the United States. However, I saw in "Oldest living American by state" that there is a man older than him that should have been listed on the oldest living american man list. Wash Wesley, even though he is still pending, is older than Alexander Imich, so can someone please put Wash Wesley on that list? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility of tables

Hi, I have tried to make the first table accessible and to comply with guidelines for not using color alone to convey information. I intend to slowly roll this out to the other tables as well and to remove the emphasis on color. I see there are a number of contributors to this article and others like it and I welcome all of you (and any readers out there) to help make similar changes to this article so that individuals with visual impairment may not only better read but also contribute to this collaborative project that is Wikipedia. Thank you. dsprc [ talk ] 17:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Baring some other fundamental structural changes to the article - I know of no other way to present the information as text and inline like the colors are, other than by using an additional cell in the tables - I view the removal of the additional cell as vandalism and censorship. If the cells are empty, populate them with data. Again, please improve this article and make it accessible to the visually impaired. Thank you. dsprc [ talk ] 20:21, 15 June 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#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut off point for tables

Hello,

Yet again, DerbyCountyinNZ seems to think that his opinion is the final say on everything by cutting the all-time list down to the top 100. If you want to make significant change like this, raise the issue on the talk page first and gain consensus. This isn't North Korea where everyone has to follow the orders of the mighty leader, so let's try to come to a democratic decision.

We want to try and maintain consistency across these articles without removing too much information. One option is that we could have a top 100 or top 200 list for each country - although some countries do not have 100 entries yet. Thoughts? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Beard

Please review this edit and edit summary. Why should wikipedia host this statement about the SSA recognizing the reported age? Why should wikipedia host this statement that the reported lifespan is not universally accepted? Neither statement is sourced. Together, they suggest someone is making something up or, at the very least, wrong. BLP doesn't apply, since Mr. Beard's dead. That's why I don't just delete. But the insertion of this kind of "data", on page after page of wikipedia articles in the longevity suite, demonstrates a thorough misunderstanding of (or contempt for) the wikipedia rules about how facts are supposed to be attributed. David in DC (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Says: (How do we know SSA recognizes claim? Who sez not universally accepted? Footnote illustrates, precisely, the sourcing problem in longevity suite of articles. Not enuf, on WP, for expert or hobbyist to assert data exists. A WP:RS must be cited.). Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Why no oldest living woman table?

Why is there an oldest living man, an oldest living person, but not an oldest living woman table? It comes across as sexist. Ca2james (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't those tables need a source stating that the person was the oldest living in the US at the time? It's a common problem in all these country longevity articles. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Any oldest living women table will be about 90% overlap with an oldest living person table so is redundant. I don't see it as a sexist thing. Legacypac (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It can be removed now. No one has added any sources since this post back in January so I don't believe they exist. Burden of proof falls on those who restore it. Will remove it when I jump on the puter unless someone beats me. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Beats you? Has it come to that? EEng (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Please be gentle. :-( CommanderLinx (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

State listing

When is Lucy Hannah listed for Alabama (where she was born) and not Michigan (where she resided) per this table? If we are only going by place of birth alone, then those who were born before statehood shouldn't count at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

why not put her on a special list of super old people that migrated from one state to another? Surely that would justify a whole page too? Legacypac (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is Frank Levingstone not listed as the oldest male born in North Carolina?2601:241:2:5F06:C447:30E7:49E9:B495 (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of supercentenarians from the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Mary Spingola

Mary Spingola died in 2014. Please remove her. 104.56.23.57 (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, provide a reliable source for this important claim of yours. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
According to correspondence between 110 Club member Ecad and Spingola's family, she died September 11, 2014. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Forums aren't a reliable source. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, there is no online obit as well, while she has been in the news regularly before! Extremely sexy (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing: Melva Radcliffe (NJ) d. at 111

My great grandma should be on this list, her wiki article was deleted shortly after she died but... She was 111 so should qualify!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/njs_oldest_residents_death_is.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.181.253.20 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Adele Dunlap

Please note an AFD took place a month ago and the end result was to delete the contents of the article, not merge it to this one. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Include: The claim that the AdD result is relevant her is a profound misunderstanding of policy. The AfD result it completely irrelevant to the inclusion of a section on Adele Dunlap here. Afd concerns only the notability of a person or topic for a standalone article. If an article on a person or topic is deleted, this in no way implies that all mention or inclusion of this topic must be scrubbed from Wikipedia articles. Whether a section on Adele Dunlap should be included here is a matter for discussion and consensus. Now, looking at the relevant section, her inclusion certainly seems appropriate, well source, and so should be included.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I may have read and understood wrong, but I thought that if the result of the AFD was to delete the contents of the article then it goes against that consensus to then recreate a mini-bio at at another article. My apologies if that isn't the case and I've read wrong. I'll support if there is consensus here to include and the mini-bio doesn't just duplicate information from the tables in this article. Pinging other users involved (@DerbyCountyinNZ, Bloger, TFBCT1, and CAWylie:) if any of you are interested. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Exclude There's nothing at the moment beyond the information in the tables. Just because she is the oldest in the US in insufficient, the tables cover that and an appropriate citation is sufficient for the reader to read up on any trivia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Include: I do see more info there than the table offers.
But more importantly I don’t see why she is different than the 20’somting other names that do have a piece besides the tables.
Bloger (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Many of those should be removed as well, for the same reasons. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of the entries in prose form are "the oldest in <name of state>". Hooray for them, but that is not relevant to a list by country page. I think when some saw "States" in the title, that's when the prose came. — Wyliepedia 07:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are two questions here. The first seems straight forward to me: should a short bio of Adele Dunlap be included in the list of short bios in the article? Sure, she is currently the oldest person in the US and older than many others already on the list. The second question is whether the section with short bios should even be in this article. This is less clear but my view in these gray areas is to error on the side of inclusion. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, the lead should give the oldest person (man and woman ever) then give the current oldest (irregardless of gender). The lead introduces the list, which is what this page is designed to be, not "oldest in a state" nor "oldest of a religion" nor "oldest emigrant/immigrant". — Wyliepedia 01:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

List of new super centurian from Kentucky: Ernestine Francis Garst , Sacramento, KY born July 16, 1906

Ernestine Francis Garst of Sacramento, Kentucky was born July 16, 1906

<http://riversidecareandrehab.com/hall-of-fame/ernestine-garst/> <http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/riverside-resident-garst-celebrates-her-th-birthday/article_c0769828-8e00-5773-bb9d-25b8993ba0c2.html>

Rtp24018 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2016

Add Centenarian: Emma Primas; Female; Born August 5, 1905; 111 years 83 Days; Birthplace Texas; Residence Texas Reference: http://www.houstonsun.com/2014/11/19/109-year-old-independent-woman-speaks-of-what-she-knows-for-sure/ Reference: http://www.houstonsun.com/2014/11/19/109-year-old-independent-woman-speaks-of-what-she-knows-for-sure/

Glenn Everett Rushing 16:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Both those references are the same, and refer to her being 109, not over 110, please provide a reference to show she reached 110 - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

Lucy Alice Forist F November 17, 1906 North Dakota California

picture of 110 birthday certificate from LA city council

Philrodd (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, new entries on the list must be referenced by a reliable source, such as a news article, dated after their 110th birthday. A picture of a birthday certificate is not enough. clpo13(talk) 19:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Allen Charles Jackson

Allen Charles Jackson and his twin brother Allan Ceascear Jackson (born 24 Nov 1903) are known as two of the oldest twins ever. Allan Ceascear is confirmed dead, but not Allen Charles. If Allen Charles really is living, then why is he not put in the list? Is it not possible to verify him as a living supercentenarian? Is he is living, he is 113 years old and the second-oldest living man after Israel Kristal. BjörnBergman 21:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of supercentenarians from the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah

Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:Permastub, I think Lucy Hannah should be merged here. Not to mention that recently, it has become doubtful that Hannah was how old the article says she was. 120.144.45.187 (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)The edit of this IP user is not a beginner user definitely, then this IP user is very likely to be a injusticely sock puppet of other account user.Inception2010 (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't see the point in a merge since all the information in the article is already in the tables. We don't need to create mini-bios if they just duplicate whatever is in the tables above. Only stuff you lose in redirecting is that she claimed to be a year older and was never the world's oldest person so I'd support a redirect instead. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Why not, she's as worthy as any other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.173.32 (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of supercentenarians from the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I can't see any reason why we would have a separate List of supercentenarians from the United States. They're both covering "people from the United States who have attained the age of at least 110 years". This article says there are "currently" 18 people; the other says there are 20 as at 29 June 2010. Something amiss there. Some work to be done, methinks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the other way around. List of supercentenarians from the United States has been around for ages, and for some reason someone has created this page. As 'American' can also mean the continents, it's less confusing to use the other article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I was not focussed at all on which came first or what the final name should be, just on the existence of 2 articles about the same topic. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of supercentenarians from the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Addding a person

I'd like to request an addition to the page (which I cannot do myself because of its semi-locked status). Please add my grandmother, Ella Gertrude Ellison, born May 16, 1908, Female, born in North Dakota, currently residing in Washington (state).

As a citation, here is an article from the Seattle TV station KING: https://www.king5.com/article/life/puyallup-woman-celebrates-110th-birthday/281-552652247

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptsbrian (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Emigrants

The article currently has separate lists for U.S. residents and American emigrants. However, the subject matter is "American supercentenarians", so that the places they have moved during their life should not matter to their United States nationality and ranking as supercentenarians. Therefore I suggest merging the list of emigrants with the main list of 100 oldest american people ever. A similar reasoning was recently applied to the French and Italian lists. — JFG talk 18:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No reaction; I have now performed the merge. — JFG talk 19:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

reinstate person to list

My mother, Icie Clark was removed from the list in November by Newhunter12. She is still living and will soon celebrate her 112 birthday. Could she be reinstated to the list. She was born in West Virginia March 12, 1907 and currently resides in Pennsylvania. The most recent article available online was from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette for her 110 birthday. The link is https://www.post-gazette.com/life/lifestyle/2017/04/05/110-years-old-ruddle-icie-birthday-reeds-creek-swissvale/stories/201704040073. Thank you. Jeanmcd10 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jeanmcd10: Thank you for the information. Unfortunately Wikipedia must rely on more than personal communications such as yours. Is there a chance that your mother may receive some press coverage when celebrating her 112th birhtday, or are you more likely to keep things private? Many families do not wish their elder members to be disturbed by media attention, while others enjoy the coverage. Out of respect for privacy, Wikipedia only mentions people that have indeed received some coverage by what we call reliable sources. Hope this helps, and warm greetings to Ms. Clark! — JFG talk 17:57, 23 February 2019
Thank you for your response. We don’t actively seek coverage but if something becomes Available I will provide it to you.Jeanmcd10 (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(UTC)

Hello, I'm a cousin to user Jeanmcd10 and new to the Wikipedia editing process. I found a birth certificate for my great aunt Icie Hedrick Clark and added her name and the citations to the supercentenarian list. I apologize for adding this without requesting first; I didn't understand the process. Would the birth certificate at http://www.wvculture.org/vrr/va_view.aspx?Id=3497766&Type=Birth be considered a reliable source? Should I remove the listing? Thank you. DDMcCl —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
A birth certificate is considered a WP:Primary source and cannot be used as evidence that someone is alive, or in this case, has been alive within the last year. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

McLaurin disputed?

With this edit, TFBCT1 stated that Virginia McLaurin's age is disputed, but we cannot check this information in the current state of the article. Could you please add a source documenting the dispute? — JFG talk 22:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source stating that there is a dispute over her age then any such assertion should be removed until there is. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Trim list of living

The list of living American supercentenarians is unreliable and starts looking like an indiscriminate collection of data. GRG only validates people aged 112+, so that sourcing for "younger ones" (aged 111 and 110) is doomed to be WP:SYNTHESIS of news clippings about birthdays. Then, upon their death, most people named here will completely disappear from this article, because the list of top 100 oldest people starts well over 113 years old. Consequently, I suggest to trim the list of living to people who have reached 112 years of age or more. In the current state of the article, that would keep 12 people there. We can also keep a few extra names in hidden comments, so they are ready to enter the list a few weeks or months down the road, when they reach their 112th birthday. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 07:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Maggie Kidd

The age of Maggie Kidd is apparently in dispute; if anybody has sources about her alleged birth date and the dispute about it, please show them. Today TFBCT1 said: removing Maggie Kidd, same reason as given on 04/22/2019, also when adding a disputed individual to a "verified" table, we have always deferred to the younger age ie Moses Hardy, Susie Gibson, Maggie Renfro etc...[2] That's fine by me, but it looks strange to readers that she is topping the list of living Americans while being omitted from the list of oldest Americans. Either we put her in both lists, or none. My preference would be for her to be in both lists, with a mention of the dispute over her exact age. What is the "younger age" in her case? — JFG talk 01:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"We" have not "always deferred to the younger age". As I have pointed out elsewhere the current resolution is: If there is an equally reliable source (i.e. NOT 110 club, Gerontology Wikia or any other GRG fan-site messageboard) which disputes her age, or gives a different age, then she is left out. If not then she stays in, both on the oldest people list and here as she fulfills the criteria for inclusion "Reliably sourced, old enough to be in the table, not older than the oldest living person as per Guinness, alive within the past year". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
There is some confusion about what is listed on this page. We have a list of purportedly "reliably sourced" living supercentenarians and we have a GRG verified tabled of the 100 oldest Americans. The living list has been eliminated on every other country page, most recently Japan on 04/06/2019. I propose removing that list as well here which contains the confusing case of Maggie Kidd eliminating any confusion. Most of these entries are already listed on the List of 100 Oldest Living People. I then maintain that Maggie Kidd be eliminated from the verified table with her disputed claimed age in that Alelia Murphy has been identified by the GRG as the oldest living American, not Maggie Kidd, and there is where the confusion lies. If there is no objection, I am going to execute these edits.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
So, to promote GRG bias in this article you've removed the living list because it has too many non-GRG entries and removed the non-GRG entries from the all-time list? You know how this will go, don't you!? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against removing the list of living from this page, because it is almost entirely sourced to local news of birthday reports, so that it fails notability on its own, and is probably missing many people in the real world anyway. Let's face it: turning 110 or 111 is no longer exceptional in some countries. — JFG talk 17:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Maggie Kidd, I have insufficient information to decide whether she should be included or excluded. What is the nature of the dispute on her age, and what sources back up either the claim of 114 years old or alternative birth dates? I'm afraif that if we simply remove her name, other editors will keep trying to add her again. This situation would be resolved if we could point to a source explaining what's wrong with her birthdate claim. — JFG talk 17:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The only report of her age as 1904 is her continued celebrations at this stated age from local news reports which contained several errors, such as she was the oldest African-American when Lessie Brown was still alive. The sources are not reliable nor is the claimed age. The GRG has not verified her age at 1904 or 1905, even though they are through year 1906 in the verification process and starting on year 1907. In the past, Maggie Kidd would be on a GRG “pending” list with dob 12/08/1905, but the pending lists were eliminated over 3 years ago. I don’t think anyone would be apt to place her on a “verified” list with the GRG identifying Alelia Murphy as the oldest living American and it stating so in the header.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. So we infer that she was actually not born in 1904 or 1905 from a lack of information, except for self-reporting of her age or the press echoing the family's claims? Nobody ever produced even a birth certificate or a census record about her? If that's the case, then yes she should be out, and we can add a hidden comment explaining the situation for future editors. — JFG talk 22:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Her claimed birth record stems from a 1950s Social Security record, but that falls into the realm of research. If there is no age confirmation within the first 25 years of life, there is no verification by the GRG.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense. I agree that we should remove her. — JFG talk 01:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
There is not justification for her removal based on the current criteria for inclusion. As per consensus established elsewhere, no differentiation is to be made between the GRG and any other reliable source provided the person meets the other criteria for inclusion, which Maggie Kidd does. Until/unless there is a reliable source which disputes or contradicts her age, she stays. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
We are being contradictory, as we cite Alelia Murphy as being the oldest American alive, and then we have a table listing someone else as older. TFBCT1 makes a good point that local media erroneously called Kidd the oldest African American even when somebody older (Lessie Brown) was widely known as alive. Looks like a case of unreliable local sourcing, insufficient to establish notability, let alone veracity. We have had some similar cases in French overseas territories; local papers have been tracking their local hero, reportedly from 1902, but nobody outside the local circle takes her claim as credible. Absent any wider recognition, Kidd should be moved to Longevity claims, or be marked as disputed if kept here. — JFG talk 15:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Who says Alelia Murphy is the oldest living American? IS there an actual source that states that explicitly or is it only because she's the oldest American on the GRG list? Per previous consensus quoting a list for someone being the (XXth) oldest in insufficient. If there is a source which states she is the oldest then it needs to be included. If there is another source claiming someone else is the oldest then both should be included with a description of the various sources. If there is no such source then the statement should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
As I had proposed earlier and concurred by JFG and with nobody dissenting, I am removing the list of living supercentenarians as it has been done on all other country pages. The criteria argued by DerbyCountyNZ only applies to the first list, not the second verified table. I am removing Maggie Kidd from the verified table of 100 oldest Americans in that she is unverified, her year of birth is questionable, and she is in conflict with Alelia Murphy who is recognized by the GRG as being the oldest living American by being older.TFBCT1 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is a reliable source published by the AP (which also ran in the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc) which states after Lessie Brown's death, Alelia Murphy is regarded as the oldest known living American. They cited GRG as their source. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @DerbyCountyinNZ, @JFG, @TFBCT1 Long comment, but worthwhile. Digging into the sources on Maggie Kidd over the last three years, a few things are readily apparent. The local news sources and other supposedly reliable individuals have been lying for years about various "titles" they say she possesses. Since at least 2016, they have claimed she is the oldest living black American, when there were multiple well known black Americans older then her even without factoring in the age dispute. They also falsely claimed since at least 2016 that Kidd is the oldest living resident of Georgia, when the reasonably well known and older Ila Jones of Georgia didn't die until Nov. 2017. Given the unreliable nature of these sources and the wealth of national sources (I'm not going to link them all) contradicting them by describing/validating individuals for years as possessing the distinctions only local sources placed upon Kidd, I'd say she should be removed from all articles she is presently in as there is clearly something fishy going on with her case and the people pushing it.
This source on Kidd falsely stated in 2016 that she is the oldest living black American and the oldest living Georgian. It cited the validators of Kidd's age titles (and many articles have repeated this) as Dr. Robert Rouse (It's actually Roush), associate professor of geriatrics at the Baylor College of Aging in Texas, author Doris Wilson and photographer Peter Cole. I searched the college's website and he is a professor there but his name was misspelled in the article so I initially didn't find him, the two authors I found named Doris Wilson wrote children's books and business communication books respectively, and the only photographers named Peter Cole I found photographed insects, nature, or art/junk. I also found nothing in a google search about the claimed book the author and photographer have supposedly been working on together for years, except in articles about Kidd, nor is there any reference to Kidd on the college's website despite nearly all the articles claiming the college/their employee has validated her age and later honored her around her 114 birthday.
Are the other two validators just so obscure that I cannot find anything about them or do they not even exist? Why has the professor's name been consistently misspelled in articles for years 12, which inhibits fact checking? Something is seriously off about this woman's case. I understand me looking at sources and making pronouncements is WP:OR, but is there not a point where an overwhelming weight of easily readable national sources outweigh provably and knowingly false echo chamber local sources? Newshunter12 (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Use of the word "falsely" implies "knowingly misrepresenting" for which there appears no justification. Inaccuracy as a result of ignorance, carelessness or lack of adequate research is not the same thing. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Correct. And even assuming that local sources are reporting that stuff in good faith, we can still discount them based on lack of weight when compared to sources that present a wider picture. Well-established facts about the existence of older African Americans, even in Georgia, instantly discredit the sources that claim she was the oldest. — JFG talk 11:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

George Francis (supercentenarian) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George Francis (supercentenarian). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — JFG talk 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Per the confusion there, I am explicitly arguing this minibio should be removed. He's no longer old enough to even be on the list, so having what is now a random supercentenarians minibio with no context is unhelpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Disputed cases

I think disputed cases should have a special color just to prevent confusion between them and validated cases that are not, just like on the Gerontology Wiki. Lucy Hannah and Mathew Beard are disputed.. Timothy McGuire (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Says who? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Functionality problem

There is a functionality problem with using rowspans on sortable tables, because sorting forces the code to insert the missing cells. In this case, the decision to have the first column use a different background from the rest of the row for living people produces an inconsistency when the extra cell is inserted by the sorting routine. That can be seen when any sorting is done, as Minnie Whicker's entry then gains a green cell in the first column. A decision needs to be made: you can have sortability and different colours in a row, or you can have rowspans and different colours in a row; but you can't have both. --RexxS (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

These are constantly evolving tables. Minnie Whicker’s entry will not have a rowspan when it is updated later today to the current day as her age progresses. The most this disparity exists is for a one day interval in the sorting and I think we’ve discussed this before and decided it’s best left as is.TFBCT1 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see the accessibility guidelines

MOS:COLOR and MOS:TABLECAPTION are normative across the encyclopedia. Please do not disregard them and make the site hostile to the blind. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As a screen reader user, I agree entirely and have reverted as such. There is more semi-related discussion at User talk:TFBCT1#Revert. Graham87 06:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with the concept. However, if it is done it must be implemented correctly, which it wasn’t and it must be done across all the longevity pages, not just one article.TFBCT1 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to go around to all the longevity articles and bring them up to date with the current format of this article.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
That would be very helpful, but please take note of MOS:BOLD and the functionality problem outlined below. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
There is now no difference from when I initially reverted these edits. So what is exactly needed for these accessibility guidelines?TFBCT1 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
TFBCT1, Something other than color. I have used italics. You could also use (e.g.) {{Dagger|alt=Living person}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, we need some kind of consensus as to what it acceptable. The “Bold” applied by one administrator was reverted by another administrator. Once we’ve decided what is acceptable for both longevity purposes and accessibility guidelines, I have already volunteered to implement them across the longevity pages. It would be nice if more longevity editors would join the conversation.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@TFBCT1, Koavf, and Graham87: The word "living" in the fifth column gives someone using a screen reader the information that the supercentenarian is still alive, so we're not conveying the information by colour alone. Nevertheless, if you want to be kinder to screen reader users, you should consider adding an asterisk (or {{dagger}}, etc.) after the name, with the key at the top showing that the symbol indicates a living person. It's not a good idea to use bold or italics for that purpose because screen reader users are likely to have switched off the voicing of bold and italics, so quite probably will not notice them – unlike a symbol like * which will be voiced, or {{dagger|living}} which is designed to voice the word "living" while displaying †. TFBCT1: please feel free to ping a few editors you know who might be interested. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Now that I recall, I believe this was an issue before and was determined to be resolved in that all tables that use color coding to denote “living,” also have a separate column to denote the same information. I also know that any attempt to use bold or italics for any reason have been systematically reverted. So unless any other editors voice an interest in making a change, I’m considering this issue closed.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Lucy Hannah" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lucy Hannah. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Lucy Hannah until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — JFG talk 08:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Delina Filkins

It appears like Delina Filkins is about to be removed from the list of the top 100 American supercentenarians, as Florence Carroll is also of age 113 years, 214 days as of today (for a joint 100th place). I think that she should still be mentioned in the article. She is significant as the first well documented case of a human reaching the age of 113 (the second one being Betsy Baker, 27 years later, the first recognized oldest person). Renerpho (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Living people should have their columns in green for easy identification.

Living people should have their columns in green for easy identification. This was the case less than 24 hours ago. What happened? WordwizardW (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The green came back, just as mysteriously. WordwizardW (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Transclusions

@Guarapiranga: Why do you want these pages to be transcluded? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

So that List of oldest people by country is kept up to date. In the version that you reverted to, it isn't. These longevity pages were in such disarray when I started editing them that the tables didn't even sort correctly. — Guarapiranga ☎ 11:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorting is nothing near as important as: Avoiding HUNDREDS of redlinks, keeping living people green, making sure that ties in age are accounted for, just manually editing the articles, et cetera. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the green shading issue, and removed the redlinks, but you reverted my edits anyway, Chicdat (e.g. Supercentenarians by continent (diff), Supercentenarians from the United Kingdom (diff), Supercentenarians from Portugal (diff)). It's pretty clear to me you're not acting in good faith. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, in your revision, several countries are overlapping. Don't do that next time. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Where do you see that? I don't. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I really dislike the turn that this page has taken. Omitting individuals who were born in US territories before they were part of the United States is a mistake, as the individuals became US citizens and in some cases served in the US military (e.g., Emiliano Mercado del Toro). Spacini (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This seems unrelated to this topic, Spacini; Emiliano Mercado del Toro is not the the latest revision before my edits. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Undoing recent edits to this article

Does anyone else support the undoing of all of Guarapiranga's recent edits to this article (not to mention on all other longevity articles, but that's another matter)? As can be seen from discussions here, on their talk page, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity, they have caused a vast amount of damage and disruption to articles they do not even understand or care to learn about. How does the community feel about returning this article to a pre-Guarapiranga editing state and restoring its name? Newshunter12 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Support 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Support. However, Guarapiranga seems, in the previous section, to be willing to undo their own work, although it is not in fact "Done." as Guarapiranga said it was. WordwizardW (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Me again. The case is even more urgent for reverting, as the ranking system is broken (see my comment in the section above). WordwizardW (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I fully support and have, in fact, stopped maintaining/updating all pages where these edits to ranking/syntax have occurred. These edits have been disruptive to the ranking process and updating process and have only allowed minimal support to sorting which in my opinion is less important.TFBCT1 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
TFBCT1 and Chicdat, you are needed, since Guarapiranga does not seem able to revert her own work correctly when she is trying to. Please see my note in the section above, about there now being 92 ranks for 100 people. This might be seen as correct from one point of view, if 8 people (who were tied with 8 others) did not have any rank at all, since their boxes are not merged with the people they tie with. ^^^^ Oops, I thought those were tildes. WordwizardW (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, on my Talk page, you said entirely the opposite:

Now that I understand your motivation, I’m sure we can work together and achieve the common goal. I thank you for your contributions.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 08:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Support Spacini (talk)

Why are ties suddenly resolved with dead people ranking above living ones?

Why are ties suddenly resolved with dead people ranking above living ones, and people who died more recently over people who died longer ago? WordwizardW (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you give an example, WordwizardW? — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Right now, 74 (dead) and 75 (living), and 95 (dead) and 96 (living) but the living will keep going up, so that won't last. Other ties which are ranked consecutively instead of as ties, between two dead people are: 35/36, 43/44, 46/47, 51/52, 58/59, 62/63, 72/73, 81/82.
Sorry for forgetting the tildes. WordwizardW (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Right now, 74 (dead) and 75 (living), and 95 (dead) and 96 (living) but the living will keep going up, so that won't last.
Indeed. So is it even worth merging cells for only a day?
Other ties which are ranked consecutively instead of as ties, between two dead people are: 35/36, 43/44, 46/47, 51/52, 58/59, 62/63, 72/73, 81/82.
Those are readily apparent by seeing that their age at death is merged in one cell. I replaced the old row numbering bc:
  1. {{Row indexer}} doesn't work in the mobile app; and
  2. Indexing via css (which is what {{static row numbers}} does) allows sections of the table to be transcluded elsewhere (e.g. List of oldest people by country).
— Guarapiranga ☎ 06:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I keep track of living people going up the ranks. It was much easier to keep track visually the way it was. More fun. Living people tying and passing the dead is noteworthy, and it happens often, even though each example lasts only a day. I don't understand the technical things you said, but I liked the way it was before, and when two or three people are tied, it makes no sense to give them separate consecutive ranks. That's inaccurate. Since it worked fine before, I don't see why it couldn't be put back that way. Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordwizardW (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
There,  Fixed. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. However, for some unknown reason, I still see ties ranked consecutively instead of as tied ranks (35/36, 43/44, 46/47, 48/49 (omitted before),51/52, 58/59, 62,/63, 72/73, 81/82) and after midnight, there will be a tie between a living person and the dead. WordwizardW (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
And the dates are still in DMY notation. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I had done it, but DerbyCountyinNZ reverted it. I just fixed it again. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
And I've reverted you again. I don't know where you get the "don't tie numbered ages" idea from, but these are people not numbers, therefore they have tied ranks. Do it again and I will take you to ANI for disruptive editing. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
It's me who doesn't know where you got that from; my edit summary said don't number tied ages[1]--and that's exactly what I did--not "don't tie numbered ages" (whatever that means). Now you reverted--again!--to the version in which tied individuals are given different ranks (as WordwizardW pointed out). It is you who's being disruptive! — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know who did what, but Maude Harris, a living person, is currently ranked #74, although she is a day OLDER than #72 and #73 who should be tied, but are not. She should be #72, while they should both be tied for #73. This is definitely broken, no matter what standards one adheres to. Please revert to before all these changes that are not working! WordwizardW (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There, reverted (and promoted Maude Harris, who obviously only surpassed the other two in the last 24h). — Guarapiranga ☎ 11:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Part of the complication is that I am no longer maintaining/ updating this table, nor Supercentenarians by continent due to the unprecedented changes in ranking and syntax. Invariably, there will be many discrepancies unless someone commits to updating these tables on a daily basis.TFBCT1 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Maude Harris, who by the old system should have been #72, is now shot up to #64. Every tie now shows one person with a rank, and the tied person below has no rank. There are currently 8 ties (all dead people), and only 92 ranks for 100 people. WordwizardW (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Though there are now 100 ranks, ties are still ranked consecutively, and María Brañas Morera, a living person, is ranked below two tied dead people that she has outlived. WordwizardW (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. That is not the case seconds after I made that comment. She is now between the two, who are not tied. Perhaps I am confused—certainly something is going on beyond my comprehension. WordwizardW (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:static row numbers does the ranking automatically, without the need of manual maintenance. My reasons for replacing the old ranking with it were:
  1. As the template page alerts, the previous ranking mechanism doesn't work in WP's android app, and breaks VisualEditor.
  2. As the ranking is done in the stylesheet, it allows for tagged table rows to be transcluded to other tables, with no conflict of ranking at the target table.
It currently has the option to not rank rows specified by class=static-row-header, but I understand you wish, while not ranking tied rows, it counted them nonetheless. It shouldn't be too hard to add a class type for that, WordwizardW. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is Maude Harris (living) tied for #71, below the dead person Fred Hale, while Mila Mangold is ranked as #97 above #98 Amalia Barone even though they are also tied in age? WordwizardW (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Beacuse someone (and I'm not bothering to check who) stuffed up the entry for Mangold; which I have now fixed. For future reference for all concerned, ties go in chronological order which means that a living person tied with a deceased person(s) always goes below. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice for recent Longevity edits by User:Guarapiranga

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it any more. Has it been resolved by Guarapiranga being blocked from editing Longevity articles? WordwizardW (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
No, it was closed without any Admin comment. If they resume their disruptive editing I will go back to ANI and request they make some judgement. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus to revert the undiscussed moves. There may also be consensus for moving from "American" to "United States" but this is less clear and should be discussed in a subsequent RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

– I am at my wit's end with Guarapiranga, who has made many controversial edits to longevity articles without any prior discussion. Guarapiranga has edit-warred many times with me, DerbyCountyinNZ, Newshunter12, and others to reinstate their changes over and over again. Particularly contentious were their edits to completely change the tables used and to do many different things to attempt to change the ties in age. Guarapiranga's first edit of this kind was to move "List of Fooian supercentenarians" to "Supercentenarians from Foo" which was completely undiscussed. Should Guarapiranga's moves be reverted or not? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The reasons for the move are:
  1. It allows use of templates such as {{flag+link}}, e.g.:
  2. Having the page start with Supercentenarian makes it easier to find it when searching for pages on this topic, as it will be listed in the search box as soon as one types Supercentenarian.
Particularly contentious were their edits to completely change the tables used and to do many different things to attempt to change the ties in age.
You mistook error for ill-intent (you should always wp:assume good faith though). That's resolved anyway.
I am at my wit's end with Guarapiranga, who has made many controversial edits to longevity articles without any prior discussion.
(emphasis mine) That's not how Wikipedia works. — Guarapiranga ☎ 12:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
If I had the tools, I would've reverted all those page moves you made, based on that you didn't go the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per my recent argument at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity about the extensive damage by Guarapiranga to longevity articles and their evidence based complete lack of experience or understanding of these articles before they went on a mass editing/renaming spree. Guarapiranga has renamed these pages each three times and counting in recent days, and it's time these articles were restored to their community backed (see above conversation about how the community feels about Guarapiranga's changes) form. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

—Question—This page contains one person who was born in the USA who now lives in Spain, and others who were born in other countries who died here. I don't know whether citizenship has been required to be on this page or not. I should think that someone who lives here, but is not a citizen should be included. What title would make it clearest? "American" implies citizenship. "In the United States" might make it seem that the person who moved to Spain should not be included, although I think she should be. WordwizardW (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Also, "American" might be objectionable to those who live in other countries in the American continents who consider themselves American, and dislike the USA trying to hog the word. WordwizardW (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@WordwizardW Neither this article nor any of the other supercentenarian articles have ever had citizenship based inclusion criteria, which is not something feasible or worth pursuing. "List of American supercentenarians" perfectly encapsulates what this article is about: a list of supercentenarians who were born in or moved to the United States of America. I guess it's just the nature of the recent mass disruption of both the visible pages and underlying coding that it makes it easy to doubt everything now. All was well! Newshunter12 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support MOS:LISTS clearly defines these as lists (little prose, mostly tabled names) so they should be titled accordingly. Also, would support List of United States supercentenarians over "American." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Of course it's a list--is anyone disputing that?--but MOS:LISTS doesn't require its title to spell out it is so, when it's implied by the title: Supercentenarians from X. While it is "common practice" to title list articles as List of X (WP:LISTNAME), it's also common, and just as befitting, to give them the shorter, more succinct, and equally precise title, e.g.:
I don't mind either; just think the new naming has the benefits outlined above (I haven't yet seen here listed any drawbacks, or forfeited benefits of the previous scheme--just that some editors are upset by change). — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
It would help matters, if you'd stop making unilateral page moves. It's quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
What wp:policy is it in breach of, GoodDay? AFAIK, unilateral edits is precisely how WP works (I'm afraid wp:policies and guidelines don't care about editors' feelings). — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
No it absolutely is not. BOLD is a method of editing, which if it fails, like this situation, you must then come to a WP:CONSENSUS, and another method to reach that is WP:BRD. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:BRD is precisely what I referred to, Bison X. I made the edits, they were reverted, now we're discussing them. What's the grievance? — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Learn & play by the rules. If not, ya could end up getting ejected from the game. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:BRD is the rule of the game, GoodDay. What rule are you talking you about?? — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
You were Bold, then got Reverted & now you must Discuss , to seek a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Precisely. And here we are, discussing it. So why all the outrage? Why are you calling for my block at ANI? What rules am I not playing by, GoodDay? — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I haven't called for your block. Just a topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"Just" 😂
And yet you can't point to a single "rule" I'm not playing by. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
You go ahead then, continue unilaterally changing articles & see how far it gets you. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Support Complies with WP:LISTNAME. Spacini (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When/how often is the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) listing updated?

When/how often is the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) listing updated? The youngest American supercentenarian on their list has just been added to the list of 100. I'd like to know how soon it might be before more might be added, since there are likely many more in existence than they have actually validated. WordwizardW (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is Maude Harris tied at 66 with someone a day younger, rather than at 65 with someone her age?

Why is Maude Harris tied at 66 with someone a day younger, rather than at 65 with someone her age? WordwizardW (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is Mila Mangold (living) currently ranked BELOW someone who died a day younger? Yesterday, she was tied with that same person but ranked separately ABOVE her. WordwizardW (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Bessie Hendricks (living) is also currently ranked separately ABOVE someone else, dead, that she is actually tied with. WordwizardW (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, she's ranked BELOW someone dead that she's actually tied with. WordwizardW (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Today, the 85th rank has a dead person (Mary Christian) tied with a live person (Mila Mangold) wh is one day older. The 94th rank has a dead person (Opal Thompson) tied with a live person (Irene Dunham) who is also one day older. Obviously, these should not be ties. Why does this keep happening? WordwizardW (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned before, MORE THAN ONCE, this list is updated manually. The person that usually does it has not done it today. Either try updating it yourself or come back later and someone might have done it by then. Otherwise, STOP wasting peoples time with these repeated complaints. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I thought the manual updating was only to undo Guarapiranga's damage, before they stopped, and that it was usually automatic. If I can figure out how to update things myself, I will, as needed. At what time, Eastern, do things advance? WordwizardW (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is Ceccarelli on the list, when the Gerontology Research Group has not certified her as genuine? The very article listed as the source for her being on the list states, "Scientists with the Gerontology Research Group in Los Angeles post — at grg.org/WSRL/TableE.aspx — an authoritative, constantly updated ranking of the world’s two dozen or so oldest people. ¶Ceccarelli is not on that list." WordwizardW (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this to be in a new section. WordwizardW (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Continuation the list

I beg this list goes on in one of two following ways: to include a) people with at least 112 years of age, or b) 150 people, regardless of their age. I understand that continuation the list and adding some more rows is not an easy task; but I'm pretty sure that the hard-working editors of this page, esp. TFBCT1 and Smartboy78, will be able to do it. In addition, we are aware of the status of some other lists relating to the supercentenarians of many other countries. I wish you all good health, and with special thanks, indeed. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is Ceccarelli on the list, when the Gerontology Research Group has not certified her as genuine?

Why is Ceccarelli on the list, when the Gerontology Research Group has not certified her as genuine? The very article listed as the source for her being on the list states, "Scientists with the Gerontology Research Group in Los Angeles post — at grg.org/WSRL/TableE.aspx — an authoritative, constantly updated ranking of the world’s two dozen or so oldest people. ¶Ceccarelli is not on that list." WordwizardW (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

How about we remove Ceccarelli and restore the person that got bumped (Anyone remember her details?) since Ceccarelli is not verified? WordwizardW (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A new person, Erna Zahn, has again been added to the list even though she has not been verified by the Gerontology Research Group (https://grg.org/WSRL/TableE.aspx). She and Edith Ceccarelli should be removed, and the people who were dropped from the bottom of the list (Anyone know who they were?) restored. WordwizardW (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hazel Plummer has also been added, although the Gerontology Research Group has not certified her as genuine. This makes three people now who have bumped people off the list who were legitimately confirmed. Does anyone know how to delete them and restore those three? WordwizardW (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Erna Zahn deceased August 9 2022

https://www.mvfh.org/obituary/erna-zahn She is tied with two other people on the list at 114 y 117 d. I don't know how to edit ties, so I figured I'd post here. Avengingbandit 18:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Annabelle Holblinger is not a validated supercentenarian.

Annabelle Holblinger is not a validated supercentenarian. She should not be on the list. See https://grg.org/WSRL/TableE.aspx. WordwizardW (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@WordwizardW Just like every other supercentenarian page by nationality, this list is not exclusive to "validated" supercentenarians. Softmist (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_American_supercentenarians/Archive_2&oldid=1194959024"