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

Here are the records

Oldest Authenticated Centenarian-US State Records *as of Mar. 25, 2007 state name born died years days race sex record added

• Alabama Lucy Hannah July 16, 1875 Mar. 21, 1993 117 248 B F Sept. 9, 2003
• Alaska 1
• Arizona 1
• Arkansas Mary Randall Apr. 1, 1887 Nov. 12, 2000 113 225 B F Oct. 30, 2004
• California Mary McKinney May 30, 1873 Feb. 2, 1987 113 248 W F 1999
• Colorado Frankie Jones Nov. 16, 1892 Jan. 31, 2004 111 76 W F June 24, 2004
• Connecticut Mary Bidwell May 19, 1881 Apr. 25, 1996 114 342 W F 1999
• Delaware 1
• D.C. Ruth West Oct. 24, 1893 June 30, 2005 111 249 B M June 14, 2006
• Florida Carrie White Nov. 18, 1874 Feb. 14, 1991 116 88 W F 1999
• Georgia Carrie Lazenby Feb. 9, 1882 Sept. 14, 1996 114 208 B F Aug. 5, 2002
• Hawaii 1
• Idaho 1
• Illinois Wilhelmina Kott Mar. 7, 1880 Sept. 6, 1994 114 183 W F 1999
• Indiana Edna Parker Apr. 20, 1893 113* 340* W F Jan. 18, 2007
• Iowa E. Verona Johnston Aug. 6, 1890 Dec. 1, 2004 114 117 W F 2003
• Kansas Flossie Page June 12, 1893 Feb. 22, 2006 112 255 W F Feb. 9, 2006
• Kentucky Mary Anna Boone Feb. 10, 1887 May 13, 2001 114 92 W F Feb. 9, 2003
• Louisiana Bettie Chatmon Apr. 30, 1884 Aug. 16, 1998 114 108 B F Feb. 2, 2004
• Maine Fred Hale Dec. 1, 1890 Nov. 19, 2004 113 354 W M
• Maryland Pearl Bradford Mar. 22, 1892 Nov. 20, 2003 111 243 W F Oct. 27, 2003
• Massachusetts Mary Christian June 12, 1889 Apr. 20, 2003 113 312 W F
• Michigan Maud Farris-Luse Jan. 21, 1887 Mar. 18, 2002 115 56 W F
• Minnesota Delvina Dahlheimer Dec. 31, 1888 Mar. 13, 2002 113 72 W F
• Mississippi Bettie Wilson Sept. 13, 1890 Feb. 13, 2006 115 153 B F Oct. 8, 2003
• Missouri Emma Wilson May 12, 1870 Oct. 13, 1983 113 154 W F July 12, 2002
• Montana Emma Taylor Sept. 15, 1891 June 24, 2003 111 282 W F
• Nebraska Clara Huhn Jan. 28, 1887 Dec. 20, 2000 113 327 W F Sept. 24, 2004
• Nevada 1
• New Hampshire Nellie Spencer Aug. 24, 1869 Nov. 13, 1982 113 81 W F July 12, 2002
• New Jersey Alphaeus Cole July 12, 1876 Nov. 25, 1988 112 136 W M 1999
• New Mexico Anne Olsen June 23, 1891 Dec. 16, 2001 110 176 W F Apr. 20, 2005
• New York Grace Thaxton June 18, 1891 July 6, 2005 114 18 W F May 27, 2005
• North Carolina Maggie Barnes Mar. 6, 1882 Jan. 19, 1998 115 319 B F Sept. 8, 2003
• North Dakota Zela Burstad Oct. 7, 1893 Mar. 19, 2004 110 164 W F June 26, 2006
• Ohio Myrtle Dorsey Nov. 22, 1885 June 25, 2000 114 216 W F
• Oklahoma Margaret Russell Oct. 31, 1892 May 29, 2005 112 210 W F Aug. 5, 2004
• Oregon Geneva McNicholl Dec. 10, 1889 Jan. 22, 2002 112 43 W F
• Pennsylvania Sarah Knauss Sept. 24, 1880 Dec. 30, 1999 119 97 W F 1999
• Puerto Rico Emiliano Mercado Del Toro Aug. 21, 1891 Jan. 24, 2007 115 156 H M May 21, 2006
• Rhode Island Lydia Carvalho Jan. 21, 1892 Feb. 15, 2004 112 25 W F Nov. 24, 2004
• South Carolina Yettie Wilson Aug. 28, 1892 May 27, 2005 112 272 B F June 11, 2006
• South Dakota Berna Dupertuis Sept. 21, 1888 June 6, 2001 112 258 W F Dec. 30, 2006
• Tennessee Elizabeth Bolden Aug. 15, 1890 Dec. 11, 2006 116 118 B F Apr. 22, 2005
• Texas Margaret Skeete Oct. 27, 1878 May 7, 1994 115 192 W F 1999
• Utah Cleo Hinckley Oct. 13, 1890 Sept. 30, 2002 111 352 W F
• Vermont Jessica Swift Sept. 17, 1871 Jan. 2, 1982 110 107 W F July 6, 2002
• Virginia Mathew Beard July 9, 1870 Feb. 16, 1985 114 222 B M July 1, 2003
• Washington Bessie Waldern Oct. 1, 1887 May 8, 1998 110 219 W F Aug. 12, 2002
• West Virginia Ettie Mae Greene Sept. 8, 1877 Feb. 26, 1992 114 171 W F 1999
• Wisconsin Anna Balsiger Feb. 11, 1889 Sept. 14, 2001 112 215 W F
• Wyoming 1

notes 1. there is no validated record above age 110 yet established. 2. state listed is state of birth 3. only validated cases included.

Ryoung122 14:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it Ruth West or Corinne Dixon Taylor who holds the D.C. record? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good question: it should be Taylor though. Extremely sexy 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be Taylor. Note, however, the above data says 'as of March 25, 2007.' The Taylor case was added to the GRG lists after that date.Ryoung122 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

'By state of birth'

Please note that the above data is all by 'state of birth' and did not include the Corinne Taylor and Leila Shull updates. I do note that a few additional cases were added, whereby the person was born in another country...certainly not my preferred method because it creates a 'mixed' table of data, not strictly comparable.

Also, Jim Lincoln's claim is 'not validated.' Ryoung122 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag (Georgia)

The flag shown WAS for the 'country' of Georgia, not the state. Can someone fix this? Ryoung122 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently fixed already though. Extremely sexy 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While that was fixed, now when the list is reordered according state name, Georgia always appears first.Brainscar (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very odd indeed. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers, CP 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He is the best. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

More records

I think there should be records for all of the states because i bet there is a one 108 year old in each state. Please, add the people in to the missing states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.237.89 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest then. Extremely sexy 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Oriental" is a pejorative term

Why is the term "Oriental" even used in this entry? You wouldn't call a black person negro, so why use a term that many will find offensive? --GodfreyDaniels 23:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why is there the NAACP? You wouldn't call someone a 'colored person', would you?

Look, 'oriental' means 'eastern' literally; it connotes the 'Far East.' Calling someone 'Asian' is misleading, because Asia includes not just the Far East but also the Indian Subcontinent and the Middle East. Just because some neologism is trendy and popular doesn't make it better. Ryoung122 09:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, calling a black or colored person a negro really isn't offensive at all, or is it? Extremely sexy 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Moreover, calling a black or colored person a negro really isn't offensive at all, or is it?" Colored? Negro? Have I travelled back in time? Is this 2007 or 1907? GodfreyDaniels 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I find the term 'persons of color' extremely offensive. It is pro-actively stating that a certain group of people has a status that others do not (i.e. fail to live up to). It is also inaccurate: white is all colors mixed together; black is the absence of color. So the term is, quite simply, erroneous.

Look, 'oriental' means...EASTERN. OK? That's what it means. Anyone can find offense with anything, it doesn't mean offense is intended. Moreover, I find the current use of the term 'Asian' to be misleading at best. "Asia", in fact, originally meant "Asia Minor." I wonder if the terms 'Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid' would be better for your taste?Ryoung122 06:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Given discussions on the race column in other articles, I think it should be taken out. The literal meaning of 'oriental' is irrelevant as it's about how people perceive it in different cultures to your own. 'Negro' means black, literally. However no-one's going to say that any more. Race is also totally irrelevant to the article itself and is arbitrary. Race is something based on face value which is shown by how it is only ever divided by skin colour. You might as well add a column for hair colour and eye colour. It's unnecessary to have the column and I think it should be removed.SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Immigrant records

This section, at the moment seems quite purposeless. Why should it only include immigrants to the country? This section would be better if it was changed to reflect the oldest death in each state, or removed altogether. For example, the oldest person to die in Colorado was Linnie Jones at 111y, 326d. But she wasn't an immigrant - she was from Kentucky, so doesn't qualify to be added. What if we end up with a situation where the oldest immigrant to a state (let's say state A) is older than anyone ever born in that state, but not as old as someone born in a different state B, who later moved to state A. At that point I think it becomes misleading. The same can be said for the equivalent table on the Canadian Supercentenarians page. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Either the immigrants are excluded, or, which seems a better solution if possible, the list is exchanged for one listing the oldest dying in the state, whether born in another state or another country. For the purpose of this list, it shouldn't matter if the "immigrant" happened to be born in Kentucky or Germany. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)) Thinking a bit more on this, should this perhaps be included in the main table? States in which the oldest death was older than the oldest born there includes a second line in which that person is listed. I just wonder whether it would make the table too cumbersome and difficult to read. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Comment. One reason I support a listing "by birth" is that a person can be born only once, but could live in more than one state at the same time (Leona Tuttle) or move at age 110 (Charlotte Benkner). In addition, listing by place of residence introduces the possibility of someone moving simply to set a record in a state with a low record threshold. Listing by birth treats everyone equally and removes any possibility of manipulation. Further, the source of validation is usually tied to birthplace. As to the comment that Linnie Jones is the "immigrant record" for Colorado, stop a minute and consider what the term "immigrant" means: does it include only international migration, or is internal immigration included? It would not be that difficult to list, then, Linnie Jones as the immigrant recordholder for Colorado. Taking this to the ultimate conclusion, one could create a "table of records by place of death or current residence" (but many of those would be overlapping, and in addition, I don't think as much weight should be given to immigrant records because, as Louis Epstein has also argued, someone could live somewhere for just a few years, and not be the person who lived in the state the longest. The easiest/cleanest way to solve this problem AND avoid overlap (as the silly world's oldest person/world's oldest woman list on the oldest people article) is to have a main table of records by place of birth, and a secondary table of "immigrant records" (by place of death or residence, but only in cases where that record would exceed the common record). Thus Walter Breuning could be the "immigrant recordholder" for Montana.Ryoung122 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Part II. Listing by other means also runs the risk of an "original research" charge, as there is no source online that lists by place of death or residence.Ryoung122 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Part III. There is one more rationale for keeping the system as it is now...consider this: Walter Breuning was born in Minnesota, so could potentially, one day, be the Minnesota state recordholder (by birth). Likewise, Gertrude Baines, born in Georgia, is nearing the Georgia state record, even though she would be the California state recordholder if listed by place of residence (having one person holding more than one state record defeats the purpose of this table, which is to break up the U.S. data in European-state-sized parts for better comparison values). Mary Ray, born in Canada, could NEVER be a recordholder by birth for any state. Thus, there is a logical reason to have an "immigrant records" footnote for international, but not national, migration.Ryoung122 09:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Expand or delete I don't understand the immigrant records. Why are there only three? If they are going to be kept they need to be expanded to include other states. --Npnunda (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Part IV. I am sorry that some people STILL cannot understand that expansion for expansion sake is ridiculous. There are only three records listed because those are the only three states where a foreign-born immigrant would be the record-holder if they were counted. As mentioned earlier, if someone were born in another state (internal immigrant) they have the opportunity to break the record in the state they were born in, or the state they live in (should we list a "by place of residence"). That is REDUNDANT. There is no need for duplication. Listing ONLY THREE is SUCCINCT, EFFICIENT, and FAIR.Ryoung122 02:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally though I think it's unfair. The first table lists the oldest person by state of birth. The second table lists the oldest person ever to die in that state, so long as they were either born in that state, or in another country. I don't think duplication is really an issue. If someone was the oldest to die in state A and also the oldest who was born in state B, then they hold both records. I don't see the harm in listing those. We shouldn't be. As I mentioned in the first post, I think this table can be misleading as it looks like a list of the oldest person to die in each state. Secondly, what relevance does it have if it only contains immigrants to the country? Does it really matter that person X was the oldest immigrant to die in State Y? It's too exclusive for it to have any real meaning. It doesn't serve a purpose when it's made so succinct, and it is misleading because it can be misconstrued as representing the oldest to die in each state. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this section per the discusion on this talk page. It seemed unfair and did not have any real meaning. --Npnunda (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Npunda, I am extremely displeased that you attempted to delete the section, especially after I explained the rationale for it. If the list is by place of birth, then no foreign-born resident can take the state title...thus the point of the "immigrant records" section. One of Wikipedia's core policies is pluralism: i.e, representing multiple major points of view and allowing the reader to decide which version they like better. Thus we provided both versions, one that is native-born only and one that includes immigrants.

Again, I stil feel that "by place of birth" is the most fair, because someone could move around a lot (Gertrude Baines lived in Georgia, Connecticut, Ohio, and now California) and could "move" just to gain a record in a small state. Using place of birth removes any possibility of gaming the system. Someone who migrated internally would have a chance in the state of birth (thus Walter Breuning was born in Minnesota, so he could break the Minnesota record) but those like Mortensen could never be recognized without an immigrant addenda section.Ryoung122 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert, I'm sorry you feel that way. I did read your rationale and so did the others. If you look over the comments on this section you are the only one who understands what these "immigrant records" are. Myself, Yubiquitoyama, and SiameseTurtle think they are pointless and that is why I deleted it. Regards. --Npnunda (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to add an "oldest by state of death, be my guest. So long as the criteria are established.

Look, 7 divided by 3 leaves a remainder. Some order-freaks want everything to be perfect. You have to let go and accept that 7 divided by 3 leaves a remainder. Likewise, there is no one way to present this data that is fair to everyone. However, we can present the data multiple ways and that is fair to everyone.

Table A is basic: born in state? verified? age oldest? You've got the record.

Table B is basic: born outside the U.S., but died in a state? verified? age oldest? You're in the addenda section.Ryoung122 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is unfair to internal U.S. immigrants, make an "oldest by state of death."Ryoung122 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Last time I'm commenting on this today. The name of the article is "List of oldest people by U.S. state". The article in itself is about the United States. We have lists similar to this for other countries on Wikipedia per SiameseTurtles comment earlier. Also noteworthy is the rest of the article goes by the state a person is born in. For these reasons and also the table you added created more confusion then anything else is why I deleted it. I had no intentions of personaly offending you whatsoever and I'm really sorry that you feel the way you do. We will do this your way. I have requested a third party to look at the page. Until then I suggest we both go outside and get some fresh air. As for me I have to find my winter coat because it is -10. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my two cents on this issue. First off, there is no neat and simple way of making lists of people as people, unlike trees, tend to move. SO I think the goal here is to be comprehensive, but not to create a list or lists which are overly unwieldy. Second, we must ask ourselves what the sources say. And there, generally, the only significant places noted in terms of place, is birth and death. (And residence when the person in question is alive.)

But I think we should not be completely wedded to the notion that place of birth should be the main criterion to go by. But to go in the other direction - to have a separate list which has claimants by state of death would be too unwieldy. I think Robert's solution makes some sense, but I also think there is room here to note claims in states for people who died there.

How about an experiment - could someone mock up a list by state replicating what is already here, but with a note of some fashion indicating those people who while holding a record in one state by birth might also be the record-holder in some other state? SO, either with a footnote or some method of including it within the existing list? So, Alabama's record-holder who died in Michigan would be the oldest person to die in that state. Might be as simple as adding a line "Hannah died in Michigan and is the oldest person to die in that state." (I'm not sure if she was, but that's an example.) Might be a good exercise to make those sort of notes for those who would hold the records in other states.

Then, a separate list as Robert has it, of foreign-born people who would be the oldest person to die in a particular state, such as Ray (presuming she dies in New Hampshire.)

This just leaves out the few cases where someone who is not already on the page was the oldest person to die in a different state than they were born in. The alternate would be to ignore that suggestion for making notes for people already on the page and include the several people who are not already on the page who were the oldest to die in various states which have younger native claimants.

On the Canadian page, I did something like that. There, we have the various supercentenarians who hold the record for each province, then a list of the foreign-born claimants who have superior claims to anyone from those provinces. And I added a note for someone who had a superior claim for a province with no claimant, and who was not already on the main list. One of the claimants, the record-holder for Quebec, died in Ontario, but no note is made as there is a native Ontarian claimant and Meilluer is on the list already.

One more comment: Robert is worried that some might be tempted to "game" the system and move to a State with a "young" claim. I think this fear is grossly overstated. I can't imagine that many people pay huge attention to state records and unless Robert knows otherwise, I am unaware of people moving to secure "records" of some sort or another. Canada Jack (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Leona Tuttle was said to be the "oldest person in Florida," but she died in New Jersey (she had homes in both states). Thus, place of death and place of residence may not be the same, either. Also note that Charlotte Benkner, born in Germany, to the U.S. in 1896, lived in New York, moved to Pittsburgh, moved to Ohio, then to Arizona, stayed in Arizona until 110, then moved to Ohio again, where she died at 114. So, is she the Arizona state recordholder, even though she only lived there, and didn't die there?Ryoung122 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Since someone else has chimed in this is no longer technically a third opinion, but I find the issue interesting anyway. There are actually several sub-issues here, so I will address each of these, then explain my overall opinion.

Listing oldest people by state of birth

I think everyone involved agrees that this is the least confusing of the methods. As mentioned, a person is only born once. The (possible) downside is that only natural-born citizens can be included, which leaves out foreign-born citizens and aliens who are actually older. Additionally, states that are not yet 110 years old can not have records, and may not have them for a long time.

Listing oldest people by state of death

This list is slightly less confusing than the method above, but it has been argued (and I agree that it's possible, but don't know how likely) that people can "game the system" by moving to a state with a lower record. This method does not exclude inter- or intranational immigrants, but it could potentially lead to a "list of oldest people by U.S. state" which is entirely populated by foreign-born residents. It also brings up questions: do we include those who were just visiting? or those who have just moved? A consistent system would have to be defined to use this method.

There was an issue of not being able to find a source for this method, but I don't think that in and of itself is a good enough argument to go against choosing this method. Since these people do exist, there must be a way to verify their existance, it just might be harder than the one source we currently have.

Listing immigrants separately

I don't know if there needs to be a distinct segregation of "immigrants" from "non-immigrants". I see no compelling reason to make a list of only immigrants, particularly if the list is so short (and one is currently living -- do we remove them if they move back home?). However, I'm not opposed to the idea of listing immigrants in general.

Comment: It it interesting to me that other pages, such as list of German supercentenarians, have the opposite issue: choosing to list "emigrants" together but with notes, or choosing to list them separately, as in Living National longevity recordholders. Berta Rosenberg is the oldest living German, but not the oldest living person in Germany. Germany's oldest persons ever were born in Germany, but died in the U.S, which also makes an issue for National Longevity recordholders.Ryoung122 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, there are persons such as Hermann Smith-Johannnsen: born in Norway in 1875; moved to Canada 1890; died in Norway in 1987 while visiting the old country. So, is he Norwegian or is he Canadian? The point is, there are arguments for both sides, and thus we could list things both ways.Ryoung122 13:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplication of records

Personally, I don't see a problem with someone holding more than one record. If someone is the oldest person ever born in Idaho and the oldest person ever to die in Oklahoma then so be it. So long as these are both records to hold, there's no reason one person can't hold both of them.

Duplication of content across pages

If there is a distinct overlap of content across Wikipedia pages, then the information doesn't need to be repeated here. In other words, if there is a page that already lists the oldest immigrants by state of death, then there's no reason to also include it here. I don't think there is any other page that has this information, however, and I don't think any information currently on the page exactly duplicates that found anywhere else in the encyclopedia (though please correct me if I'm wrong).

Final opinion
Based on my comments above, I think that oldest people should be listed by state of birth and by state of permanent residence at time of death. I think doing it this way combines the needs of consistency, reducing arbitrariness, and including foreign and locally born residents. If someone can think of an innovative way to combine these into one nice table, then these two lists wouldn't even need to be written separately. Perhaps you can list by state, and each state could have a line for each record. I'm not great with tables, but I could work up a very rough sketch of what I'm talking about if this description is confusing. JazzMan 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would be able to come up with a rough sketch I'd be game with it. I'm fine with the immigrants. We just need somthing more clear than the current format for them. --Npnunda (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I was thinking (with arbitrary values. Someone with more wikifinesse might want to have a look at it, because I just brute-forced my way through it (for one thing, sortable tables don't work with rowspans), but that's the general idea I was thinking. Again, you don't have to combine it into one table, or even take my suggestion at all, but that's what I was thinking. JazzMan 12:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

State	Birthplace	Name	Race	Sex	Birth	Death	Age
Alabama	Alabama	Lucy Hannah	B	F	July 16, 1875	March 21, 1993	117 years 248 days
	Arkansas	Mary Randall	B	F	April 1, 1887	November 12, 2000	113 years 225 days
Arizona	Arizona	Mary McKinney	W	F	May 30, 1873	February 2, 1987	113 years 248 days
	Colorado	Frankie Jones	W	F	November 16, 1892	January 31, 2004	111 years 76 days

Comment: The drawback to such a system above is that it makes it more difficult for state cross-comparisons, and makes some people listed more than once (Lucy Hannah, born in Alabama, died in Michigan), which messes up the demographics, making it appear there are two 117-year-olds when there was only one. To me, the real purpose of this table isn't really to focus on the recordholders per se: rather, it gives the message that states with a large population some 110+ years ago tend to have higher age records (New York, 114) than states that were sparsely populated (North Dakota, 110). Making a big, "one-size-fits all" table destroys that. Right now, the table is concise, easy to read, with a "remainder" of just 3 persons...so it is the most efficient. To me, my system was and is an acceptable compromise. The irony here is that Npunda is pushing an either/or: either take this further to the right (no immigrants) or further to the left (everyone all together). I don't see why a middle-ground approach is not the best. On top of that, the current system makes it easier to figure out who is an immgigrant recordholder (but putting them altogether wouldn't) and this system conforms with those employed with National Longevity recordholders and on the Oldest People page...which have been in place for about four years...and with the outside sources. So, I favor leaving things as they are, and adding footnotes to state records if needed.

My second-favorite approach is two separate tables of records..."by state of birth" and "by state of death". This would remove the issue of demographic double-counting and put the immigrants in for half-value--which is fair, since they died here but weren't born here. Note the media coverage of Mary J Ray, for example: some of it called her "from Canada" (Venezuelan report) while the Canadian Press mentioned that a "Canadian now 4th-oldest in the world." However, local coverage focuses on her being a resident of New Hampshire:http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2009/01/08/news/national/free/id_338111.txt

The same could be said for John Babcock.

OK, I think I've said enough for now.Ryoung122 14:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

After I think about it in the light of day, I think you are right about a combined table. Even if someone could make it sortable (which I don't think is possible), it's messy and hard to read. I tried to think of a better way to combine them, but I couldn't come up with anything.

If I've assessed correctly, the consensus is leaning towards two separate tables, one for "by state of birth" and one "by state of death"? It seems that both Npnunda and Ryoung agree (at least begrudgingly) and I of course agree since it was my idea :) If you don't agree, certainly by all means don't let me try and force it in one direction. JazzMan 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I really like the table you made. I have never had a problem with including the immigrants now that I know why they are on the page. I am not pushing for an either/or. I would like to have everyone together and I think the Table you made does that. regards --Npnunda (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really a very laid back person and really don't probably care about this as much as Robert does. I spend much less time editing wikipedia as he does. Robert is a also GRG researcher. My point being Robert I just feel the table on the bottom of the page is confusing. If you want to do two seperate tables. I'd be fine with it also. I normally am a person that strives to avoid conflict. I kind of thought that me and Robert just butted heads on this one. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Two seperate tables "by state of birth" and one "by state of death" would be fine with me. Thanks for your help Jazzman. --Npnunda (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of repeated information so if there are going to be 2 tables, I would prefer it if the second table only listed states where the record differs. I also quite liked the 'dual' table. The only thing I am against is a table only representing immigrants to the country (rather than to the state). SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'd prefer the dual table also. --Npnunda (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Idaho state recordholder

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11688

Meet Elsie Golcher, 400-case #47 (48 inc. Elnora Johnson, but that is unsolved):

Name: Elsie J. Golcher SSN: 551-70-7340 Last Residence: 97701 Bend, Deschutes, Oregon, United States of America Born: 29 Nov 1891 Died: 2 Mar 2003 State (Year) SSN issued: California (1963)

That's 111 years, 93 days.

The SSA study gives the parents as Mathias and Cora Jacobs, place of birth Idaho, and states that this case is validated with the 1900 census match.

Below, I double-checked and was able to find it myself:

1900 United States Federal Census about G Elsie Jacobs Name: G Elsie Jacobs [S Elsie Jacobs] Home in 1900: Kendrick, Latah, Idaho Age: 8 Birth Date: Nov 1891 Birthplace: Idaho Race: White Ethnicity: American Relationship to head-of-house: Daughter Father's Name: Mathias Father's Birthplace: Minnesota Mother's Name: M Cora Mother's Birthplace: Indiana Marital Status: Single Residence : Kendrick Town, Latah, Idaho Occupation: View Image Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Mathias Jacobs 35 M Cora Jacobs 28 G Elsie Jacobs 8 M Esther Jacobs 6 E Elenor Jacobs 4 G John Addison 59 Maggie Addison 20

View Original Record

View original image View blank form up arrow Save This Record Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Citation: Year: 1900; Census Place: Kendrick, Latah, Idaho; Roll: T623 233; Page: 1A; .

Merry Christmas!

Robert Young Moderator and Owner World's Oldest People

Dating style

This article deals entirely with U.S.-born or residing people, so why are the dates given using the international format (date, month, year) when Wikipedia guidlines clearly state you should use the American format for dating (month, date, year) for an article like this and the 2007 draft of the article itself was displayed on this talk page using American-style dating? I have strong reason to believe this should be rectified in the article. Wikifying the dates would also be nice, but is not imperative.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change it, be my guest. Obviously some European editors put it in Euro-style.Ryoung122 06:21, 11 March 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.Tim198 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Nevada resident

Annie Edwards Smith is the oldest Nevadan. According to here: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~motcogs/edwards_annie.htm Highlight the invisible text, copy, and paste it on Microsoft Word, and it will pop up, and it will say that she is their oldest resident verbatim. She 99 years, 11 months old at her death. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)