Talk:List of oldest living people by U.S. state

More data coming soon

One of my colleagues has told me he has records for some of the missing states. So, expect more fill-in's over the next few weeks. Ryoung122 21:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose 108- and 109-year-old women then? Extremely sexy 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting help needed

Formatting is not my strong suit, anyone want to help, be my guest. Ryoung122 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I did just that. Extremely sexy 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Florida - Albert Plummer? Onie Ponder?

Searching for quotes I couldn't find anything about this man being the oldest in Florida. Especially I wonder if anyone knows if Onezima Ponder (Onie Ponder) of Ocala has died the last three months (which is of course fully possible). I found her last mentioned attending a christmas concert in December sounding just fine, and since she is born 1898.09.03, it would mean she is older than Albert Plummer, if alive. Unfortunately I can find no quote of her being the oldest either, if she is. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, there are a few articles on the web about Albert Plummer. See for example the following link: http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=A9&Dato=20080222&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=802220804&Ref=PH

He very well may be the oldest living man in Florida. But the oldest person is most likely Onie Ponder at age 109. Of course, she did not appear in the news for the last few months. But I think, we would have heard of her passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.194.214 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Onie Ponder of Ocala, FL is still alive and will turn 110 on September 3, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.130.167 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your confimation, and let's hope she will actually make it: fingers crossed. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

North Dakota

Reference: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-168032442.html Regards. --Npnunda (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but it doesn't specifically state that she is the oldest in the state, which is the very problem of it, hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an article in the paper today about Mary. I found the link online and added it. She turns 110 next Friday. --Npnunda (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: let's hope she will make it. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

South Dakota

I changed from Neva Gist to Myrtle Bunting in South Dakota. The article first and foremost the reason for this is http://stwilliamscarecenter.org/activitiescalendar.aspx but as opposed to the one I cited (which is not as good, but from the same source), I think that page might change quite regularly.(Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Martha Rojewski Schafer

This woman is probably oldest in Wyoming, but I have a hard time finding good refs. At the official page of Secretary of State of Wyoming, there are pictures from her 108th birthday citing her as oldest and living in the retirement home Pointe Frontier, but not with a date and only calling her "Martha" (expand "Community events..." and scroll down to pictures) http://soswy.state.wy.us/SecretaryDesk/PhotoGallery.aspx. On the page of living Nebraskans over 107 (an official Nebraskan source) we have a probable "Martha", namely Martha Rojewski Schafer of Laramie County, Wyoming (Pointe Frontier is in Cheyenne in Laramie County), http://www.nehca.org/pdfs/Roster107.pdf. So in all probability this is the correct person and supposedly oldest in Wyoming. But hopefully someone can find a more direct reference...(Yubiquitoyama (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

Illogical thinking

Premise 1: No-one, to my knowledge, has ever been validated by GRG on their 110th birthday.

Premise 2: There seems to be an unwritten rule on this page that the only unvalidated people allowed on are those under 110.

Conclusion: On people's 110th birthdays they will have to be removed and then reinstated once they are on GRG.

Does this sound sensible to anyone? No, me neither, so could the pedants please think before they act. Either we make this list GRG only, or we have to allow unvalidated supercentenarian cases such as Susan Middleton. There's a citation claiming she's the oldest in the state (unlike for Richard Washington) so what sense does it make to have a mere centenarian with no evidence either.

It's different for Ohio, for instance. Since Ethel Johnson is proved to be 110 we shouldn't replace her with the unproved Rebecca Lanier. I notice that no-one took off Delpha Johnson who was 'only' 110, and lo and behold, she's now on GRG. Why is Middleton different? Because she's black? I'm not saying Middleton will ever be on GRG but until South Carolina has someone on there, she seems to be our best bet.

As for Virginia Call, the link had gone dead. But before it did, we had Robert Young saying he was 70% sure that she was 110 and therefore the oldest in Illinois. That is a lot more evidence than for many of the non-GRG cases. She's got an 82-year old grandson for christ sake. How young could she be? So if I find the citation again I see no reason why she shouldn't be back on. 89.242.218.62 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Yes there are some reports by newspapers/websites on this page and not just GRG. However, your own source isn't even sure about the age of Susan Middleton. It says "She may be as old as 115 nobody knows for sure". If you can find a source that verifies her age feel free to add her. --Npnunda (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am for your so-called unwritten rule to become a written rule. That is, only validated supercententenarians are on the list, plus those who are said to be oldest in news but has not yet reached 110. There will still be some judgment, but it should be kept to a minimum. As you say, the result is that a 109-year-old turning 110 will have to be taken off the list awaiting verification. This comes from us wanting to add sub-110-year-olds despite the fact that those aren't verified. The alternative, this judgment of who is closest to verification you seem to be a proponent for, simply does not work. The fact is that because of the grg, we all see 110 as a somewhat more important age than 109 and below, which also reflects in how 108 and 109 year-olds on this list who almost certainly are not oldest in state are kept (the citation needed ones) while 110+ers are not. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, though it seems silly, we should remove unverified claims from people who turn 110 even if they are already on the list. It does seem a bit pedantic to do that, but what we have to recognize is that once someone reaches 110, they have crossed a threshold that means GRG and others will assess the veracity of their claims. Simply put, there is a higher standard of proof and the page should reflect that. Not because that is our arbitrary whim, but because that is what the reality is in terms of gerontological research. Since other similar lists elsewhere on wikipedia make a strong distinction between claimed and verified, so should we. (Those which do not make an explicit point about this should, IMHO.) I agree this warrants a note at the top as this may not be immediately apparent to the casual reader, something like: Claims for people who have reached 110 years are assessed by gerontology research bodies and this list reflects their assessment of the veracity of claims past that age. Claims on the page for those under 110 may not have been so stringently assessed. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.33.10.92 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am of a mind not to add cases over age 110 that have not gone through a verification process, and certainly not those who have gone through the process and have been determined "unable to be validated." Hopefully cases which are 108, 109 etc... will be going through a verification process or submitted, whatever the process may be. I'm not in favor of removing someone who has been listed solely on the basis of having reached age 110. Also, in question, is the criteria beyond validation for listing someone. In Connecticut, where I reside, does the fact that Gertrude Noone is the oldest registered voter in the state assuredly make her the oldest resident; I'm not so confidant. TFBCT1 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Irma Schmidt is Connecticut's oldest resident (see above). TFBCT1 (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That sure is a long time to wait to be smug. However, Schmidt's status as CT's oldest is also based on her being the oldest voter. So you should be equally dubious about it. Mistakes happen. The Noone source was simply incorrect. As was the one I replaced it with, at your prompting. I wasn't the one who added Noone and others without citation. I'm just the person who tries to verify them. Verifiabilty over truth as we're always told. So if I'm going to be criticised for sources not being true then I just won't bother any more. And if I'd never added Schmidt in the first place then you wouldn't have had your moment of triumphalism. 195.171.111.194 (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Alabama record?

CNN has an article about a 112 year old artist, which if correct, is older than the 110 year old woman listed as the oldest person in Alabama. Frank Callaway supposedly was born July 2nd, 1896. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the Census he is only 93. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if he had not been debunked he would not be on, because Mary Gentry is on GRG. But don't be too harsh. He's obviously 'one sandwich short' and maybe really thought he was 112. If he has no family the people in the nursing home can't be expected to know. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

John Babcock and other cases

I'm removing John Babcock. All the articles about his 108th birthday and nothing to say he's the oldest person in Washington? Admittedly Google searches don't help because 'Washington' and 'oldest' obviously feature heavily in stories about him. So if I've missed something then reinstate him. I'll give the others a chance because they're a fair bit older:

Florence Poe is coming up to 110 but her 109th birthday was actually reported 2 years ago. That's too old for use here and anyway, Imagestation backed up the 1898 birth. We'll find out in a few weeks. Same for Onie Ponder. No dispute over her age, just whether she's Florida's oldest. Best citation I could find had her the oldest Daughter of the American Revolution. For Jacob Currence a MySpace had him oldest in WV which suggests that he actually is, but nothing citable.

As for the cited cases, Anna Pendley is not ideal, but the other sources only said her family thought she might be the state's oldest. Mary Schumacher's is poor but again, she has a birthday upcoming. Bart added the Evelyn Kozak source which I had rejected because it has her oldest in Pittsburgh. Nothing on her 109th yet but at least it's recent. 195.171.111.194 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Robert, the citation for Mary Schumacher is from the Grand Forks Herald. That is the 2nd largest paper in North Dakota. How is that a poor source? --Npnunda (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Marilyn Hagerty of the Grand Forks Herald. Mary Schumacher is still alive and she is planing another article for her 110th birthday. --Npnunda (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm Lee not Robert. My problem with the source is that it said that Mary Schumacher was the oldest person receiving care in North Dakota, which is not unequivacle. Good to know that another article is planned and hopefully it will say she is the recordholder. However if the more stringent standards for SCs are applied then she'll have to come off anyway. That's fair enough for the uncited Poe and Ponder, but Abeline Spiehs is rather well cited, so it would seem unfair for her. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

My humble apologies Lee. I was wrong about your name. I thought your name was Robert. I fould your user page. Seems you havent signed in for awhile User:Captain celery. The article won't say she is the recordholder. That is Zela Burstad. The state of North Dakota does not keep track of the oldest living person which is the case for many states so we have to find another source. I believe that Mary Schumacher, at 110 and in a state of 640,000 people, is the oldest in North Dakota. As far as SC, the problem with Susan Middelton for South Carolina was the article being used was not sure about her age http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/19/local_woman_turns31089/. The article says "She may be as old as 116. Nobody knows for sure". Hardly reliable as a source. If a different source is found I would support her being added. --Npnunda (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. I tend to accidentally log out and then can't remember my password. Living recordholder was what I meant, but yes, she is likely to be the oldest. As for Susan Middleton, it has proved more difficult to verify than Delpha Johnson, so that no longer seems an arbitrary distinction. But I still don't see why the Virginia Call case was lumped in with it. It is a partially verified case after all. Cecelia Ruppert has reportedly just turned 110 so maybe she will get on GRG quickly and take the Illinois record. But there was no claim, perhaps because they thought Call was older. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

It is interesting. I have no problem with Call being added to this page. Mary Schumacher will be added to the unverified list because she is not verified by the GRG either. --Npnunda (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Eddye Williams

I don't see any reason to remove U.S. cases for worrying that their death might have gone unnoticed. Most deaths in the USA will show up in the Social Security Death Index (over 2 million/year). There is a 95% chance someone will be in that.

My argument is that uncited material is to be removed and citations are obsolete after a year as per GRG. Therefore it was right to remove her. However the resourceful Yubiquitoyama has added a link which has her alive in November. Its not showing up for me, but if it needs fixing I'm sure someone will do it. 212.183.134.65 (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Clarice Pearson, Delma Kollar

The news article specifically mentioned the GRG, so supplanting Delma Kollar doesn't make a lot of sense. Whether she is born Oct 31 1897 or Oct 31 1898, that's still older than Ms Pearson.Ryoung122 05:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's perfectly sensible. However lots of people on Wikipedia are not sensible and may use this as a justification to replace Ethel Johnson with Rebecca Lanier etc. As long as you're prepared for that. 212.183.134.65 (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Rebecca Lanier was not cited by the GRG, so that is irrelevant.

Ryoung122 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, some people aren't sensible so it is relevant. It was just an example. 212.183.136.192 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Possible oldest in Arizona

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2008/12/26/20081226gl-nwvbirthday1224.html

Ryoung122 18:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

109 years old: http://www.abc15.com/content/news/westvalley/suncity/story/109-year-old-Sun-City-woman-makes-colonel-in/b8wcF2ABvUW5XnY1MJ8XTw.cspx

--87.5.233.132 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Verified supercentenarians

I took the liberty of omitting the unverified supercentenarians from this page as their presence here is at odds with the introduction which speaks of only verified claims being present on this page (which, of course, doesn't include those not yet 110).

Now, before someone rips my head off, recall that we take great pains here to distinguish between verified and unverified claims. While in all cases, as far as I can tell, there were no verified cases supplanted by unverified cases, it seems to me that to include these claims without in some way highlighting that they are unverified, smacks of original research and most certainly implies that, if it appears on this page, the claim is verified. So, either keep them off, or highlight the unverified claims in some manner. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

'Verified' is in the Wikipedia sense of the word - verification over truth. The citations you've removed all act to verify the claims, even though they are not 'Validated' by GRG. So it's not original research. The distinction is highlighted by that. Validated cases are cited with GRG. Unvalidated cases are not. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what the lede said: "It is a list of the oldest verified living people..." Sorry, Pistachio, but if pretty well every page on the general subject of longevity claims makes a hard distinction between "verified" and "unverified" and further defines that distinction one could look at this page and reasonably assume that every case on the page is "verified." I have not heard anyone claim that a newspaper report on someone's 111th birthday somehow indicates "verification." The only thing being "verified" is that there is a claim, not the claim itself which is what every other page on the general subject means by "verified." Even if you pretend that is not "original research," it is wholly inconsistent with what other similar pages do. I'll say it again, if we are to have verified and unverified claims on the same page, we must highlight those marks which are not verified so it is clear they are not verified. Canada Jack (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither of us actually know what was meant by 'Verified' on this page. Even if it wasn't obvious, 'Validated' clearly refers to GRG since Wikipedia doesn't employ such a term. So why is verified used to mean the same thing further up on the same page? And the sub-110 cases could be false just like Frances Street etc. 112 isn't much more outlandish than 108. None of these claims are for 120.

I realise the need to make Wikipedia idiot-proof. But it should be fairly obvious that some cases are accepted by GRG, and some are not (yet). I've no problem with someone improving this page. But what you're doing is stating a problem and not solving it. Then you're using it to justify removing content. If you want to make the distinction clearer then you do it. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Trouble was, the distinction - that these are verified claims - was there to begin with. So I solved the problem by simply removing the unverified 110+ claims. And I feel no particular need to include the unverified claims. As with the GRG etc., under 110 is not a concern.

The problem, pistachio, when I first came to this page, having been familiar with the other similar pages, I immediately assumed that "verified" meant that GRG or Guinness or Epstein had "verified" the claim. Then I noticed multiple references which, on other pages, typically refers to unverified cases.

It's not a matter of making the page "idiot-proof." It's a matter of a page actually giving the information it describes in the lede. And, frankly, it is a bit insulting to suggest, as you do in using such a term, that anyone who can't tell the difference between a claim verified by a gerontology group and one simply cited in the press, is an "idiot," or at least intellectually lazy when we have in the lede "It is a list of the oldest verified living people..." The reasonable assumption, even if one is not somewhat versed on the subject, is that all the people on the page are in fact the age claimed. The truth is, of course, that many are not verified.

AS for how one defines "verified," or "validated," this is a rather strained semantic argument. If you can't see the distinction between what I mean by "verified" and why a claim which says (as many papers this week reported) that someone turned 130 and is therefore citable for the purposes of wikipedia but is not "verified" or "validated," then I really don't know what else to say.

And as for me "stating a problem and not solving it," well, I am a bit mystified as to what you mean. Claims over 110 need to be verified to appear on this page. So I removed those claims. Problem identified; problem solved. (Though I might add a note saying that only claims over 110 need to be verified as per the gerontology organizations.) But I did more than that, I offered a solution recognizing that some (I am not among them) have a need to include those unverified claims nevertheless. And that is to identify those claims in some way, such as with a coloured background. Personally, I don't feel we should have unverified claims here, but I know that many here may feel otherwise. There is a way to accommodate those wishes if the consensus is to have them. I'm not going to build the page for your sake. I'm fine as it is. But, as it stood, the claims had to go. Canada Jack (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is all semantics. You seem to think that I've not understood your point, but I did straight away. Whether you accept my counter I don't know. You say I was insulting, but I could say you're insulting people's intelligence. These things work both ways. And I will never understand why a clearly false claim of 109 is acceptable, but a highly credible claim of 110 is not. When I first came to this page I tried to accomodate other people's edits as much as I could. Perhaps you felt you were doing the same, but I think you've ceased to.

Your 1st proposal of removing content isn't a solution. By that reasoning I should just remove pages I don't like. So your 2nd is much better. Presumably you chose the easier option. My easy option was to simply remove the word 'verified'. But you reverted it. So why shouldn't I revert your changes? However fair your objection to the page, in over a year, no-one has complained about it causing confusion except you. And the 4 cases weren't breaking Wiki rules, at least once 'verified' was removed. I was fine with that. So the burden of consensus is on you. You've provided a solution that keeps both of us happy. So again I say, build (instead of removing) it for your own sake, not mine. Don't have me do your work for you. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, if you want unverified claims on the page, then go ahead and put them in with the highlighting I suggested. I don't feel they should be here at all, period. And it matters not one whit if this page had existed for years in its present form. If the page is wrong, then it needs to be corrected. It was wrong, I corrected it. You want to improve it? Then I offered you a solution to do so so that it won't remain in its incorrect state. Simply omitting "verified" won't work either (see below).

Seems to me that there are some basics, judging from your response above, that you don't understand here in terms of what we do at wikipedia. For example: And I will never understand why a clearly false claim of 109 is acceptable, but a highly credible claim of 110 is not. What makes a claim a "highly credible" claim? Your personal opinion? Your personal assessment of the case? In terms of wikipedia, that's not good enough, we need a recognized arbitrator, the GRG for one, to make that assessment. And in case that puts your nose out of joint, we had to revert a note I put in on one Japanese super-c from none other than Robert Young because his opinion - well-regarded and expert-based as it was - was not not published by a reputable source.

As for the issue of 109-year-olds, I agree. If I had my druthers, they'd be removed as well. This page should be, if I was the one doing it, limited to verified claims which, by definition pretty well, are those people over 110. But I didn't as those over 110 are the ones needing verification, and those under aren't making claims that may be records.

And, as for simply taking "verified" off the page, then that opens the door to a lot of clearly false claims. Or very dubious claims. Like Smith 119, Lanier 117, Johnson 116, Washington 115. Or are we to rely on your personal assessment of which claims in the "unverified" file makes this page? Or are we to continually revert future insertions of some of those dubious claims with the rather lame explanation that some "unverified" claims are better than some other "unverified" claims? One could quite reasonably argue that NO unverified claims should be here if, somewhat arbitrarily, editors here pick and choose which "unverified" claims pass muster. And, more to the point, virtually each and every page on the subject of national records, oldest claims, etc., all stipulate "verified" claims are what are described. Claims which are dubious or not verified are flagged and highlighted in some manner, which was not the case on this page. Which I sought to correct.

What I have done is the simplest solution. And that is to limit the page to verified claims. The United States and Japan are two countries which have substantial numbers of verified super-c cases, so the "need" to have unverified cases to expand the lists is, arguably, slight. However, if you visit the Canadian page, Australian, Britain, you will see some efforts to include non-verified claims, and the manner in which they do it. I don't feel America's page needs to do this given the numerous verified claims. But, hey, go crazy! Canada Jack (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gertrude Baines not Californian record holder?

What's the reason for no gold on her name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurythmech (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is because "golding her" would be misleading. She IS the Georgia state recordholder (being born in Georgia). Yubiquitoyama (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Evelyn Ralston

Evelyn Ralston is kind of a problem. She is not verified, and she is not oldest among unverifieds. Rosa Wilkes of Chicago, Illinois (on the "unverified living SC:s"-page) is older (born 1898.10.10) http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-2189-casting-a-historic-ballot.html I suggest Evelyn Ralston is removed for the time being, awaiting verification of someone in Illinois, since the newsreport claiming her oldest is obviously questionable. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the GRG doesn't even begin the verification process until age 110, so that's not a relevant point for Ms. Ralston. However, for Rosa Wilkes, the claim is above 110 and no one has applied for a record.Ryoung122 03:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mostly thought of the purpose of this page. None of them are verified, so, as unverified claims are actually on this page (and to some degree, I think they should be), should we really add the non-oldest one, if neither have been proven false? Even if plus-110 people should not be added here unless verified (and I think that's rather reasonable), it seems rather absurd to add the oldest non-verified person who has yet to turn 110 and happens to claim they are oldest in the state.Yubiquitoyama (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

With regards to listing the oldest person living somewhere (it doesn't matter where): They will likely not be validated by the GRG or Guinness World Records before they turn 110. It doesn't make sense to delist someone as soon as they turn 110, so I believe unverified people over 110 should be listed, provided that: 1. There is no age dispute or discrepancy (ie. if it turns out they may be a year younger. 2. If someone younger than them has been verified by the GRG. We all know that news reports can give incorrect information. I would say have Rosa Wilkes listed, or at the least have Evelyn Ralston removed.

Ruth Lubrano (RI)

I don't know who the next-in-line is, so I can't edit, but Mrs. Lubrano has passed away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.80.140 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey

Possible record holder-- In 2003 I met an African American male living in Princeton, New Jersey that claimed to be 106 at the time, making him born 1896-1897. If he is still alive, he is the possible record holder for New Jersey.

Why would you assume that someone aged 106 you met 6 years ago is still alive? With an annual mortality rate of over 40% at that age, it's very unlikely!Ryoung122 16:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hillard Hudson

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/tuscaloosa/obituary.aspx?n=hillard-hudson&pid=136032400 here is a source 74.249.144.59 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The name is as rendered "HillIard". The 1900 census, 1920 census, 1930 census, and marriage record list his name as "Hilliard."Ryoung122 17:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So which spelling is the right spelling? 65.0.27.131 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

notability

Only 23 of the states have a name, out of 50, that's not even half, whats the point in having this article, if were gonna have it then shouldn't all the states have a name? 65.0.27.131 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this article ISN'T to make up information where it doesn't exist: it is to present information where it does exist. Better to report on 23 states than zero.

Ryoung122 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

True, I never thought of it that way, BTW will there be an investigation to find the oldest in those states where the oldest is unknown? 65.0.27.131 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

oldest woman in Virginia died http://www2.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/occoquan_woman_dies_at_age_107/49422/

65.0.27.49 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC) oldest woman in Virginia died http://www2.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/occoquan_woman_dies_at_age_107/49422/ 65.0.27.49 (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC) leona gleed died

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100208/NEWS01/702089872 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.30.85 (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Daisey Bailey

Should an article be made on Daisey Bailey? This is, of course, considering the fact that we must respect the individual's privacy when doing BLP. There does seem to be enough info of her on the Internet and she is notable for currently being the oldest living African-descent person. Brendanology^TalK 14:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I just found out that there IS an article on her after all. Sorry. Brendanology^TalK 09:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger

I think this page should be merged with the main US supercentenarians page. Other countries such as Canada and Britain have their territorial records on their main pages. We don't need a seperate page to list the state recordholders.

Also, The recordholders on this page are being listed based on state of current residence rather than state of birth. On the british supercentenarians talkpage Robert Young clarified that GRG categorizes these type of records based on state of birth rather than state of residence. As such, we should change this page to match GRG's criteria. As things stand now, some of the info on this page could be considered original research.Tim198 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I also suggested. I totally agree with this. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One shoe doesn't fit all. The USA accounts for about half of all supercentenarians and has 50 states. Canada and Britain only have a handful of region records on their pages - not enough for a full article, unlike the USA. The USA page was already too long and disjointed, and now even more so. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)