This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anachronist (talk | contribs) at 21:36, 8 March 2011 (Combined WikiProject banners. The talk page header already has a Wikiproject banner, no need to add an additional note, particularly since the note may be archived). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:36, 8 March 2011 by Anachronist (talk | contribs) (Combined WikiProject banners. The talk page header already has a Wikiproject banner, no need to add an additional note, particularly since the note may be archived)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of oldest living people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on August 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Talk:List of living supercentenarians/Archives
Must be living (again).
People on this list must have evidence that they are alive. As that cannot be determined from day to day the only obvious point to establish this is when they reach a birthday. If there is no reliable citation for their most recent birthday then it is likely they are not alive, two months for this seems more than adequate. Keeping people on the list because there is no citation for their death is unscientific: failure to prove a negative is not the same as proving a positive. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Frank Buckles
Why is Frank Buckles on the Unverified list, his age is Verified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, he shouldn't even be on the unverified list as the article linking him reports his upcoming birthday, not confirming he in fact celebrated his birthday. But as soon as he appears on the GRG list or the Epstein listas "verified" (as spelled out in the intro), his name will be inserted in the main list Canada Jack (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There are other media reports that he in fact celebrated his (claimed) 110th birthday, so someone should fix the citation... I'm too lazy... Canada Jack (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I still can't find any which looks like it was actually written on his birthday, they all look like they were written beforehand. DerbyCountyinNZ 19:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's something: http://www.cbs59.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=93586 Czolgolz (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that one. But "Buckles will not be conducting interviews, said DeJonge, and won't be posing for the usual portraits in front of a giant cake ablaze with 100-plus candles. He won’t be taking calls from reporters, dignitaries and other well-wishers. Buckles doesn’t do much talking on the phone these days." suggests to me that it was written before his birthday, possibly more than a few days before. You'd expect a reporter would wait to see if he made it before it was published but you can never be 100% sure... DerbyCountyinNZ 22:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to actually "celebrate" your birthday to turn that age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- True, but you have to be living to turn that age, and the old link didn't confirm he was in fact alive on his birthday. Other reports confirm that. Canada Jack (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Cochabamba supercentarians
I'd like to add three media-reported supercentenarians to this list, from Cochabamba, Bolivia. These individuals and a dozen others are being honored in a public Centenarian event, have had their birth dates confirmed by the National Retirement System in Bolivia (Senasir), and are currently local media coverage including in major local newspapers. I doubt there is any contact between them and the GRG mentioned here. However, this list seems oriented to the GRG's categories. How exactly can they be added?--Carwil (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- If people are less than 113 years old you can add them into the "other cases" section. You need to provide the media citation with confirmation of birth date and the person is still living.Japf (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Add them all, or list the 113+ year olds here so they can be taken care of. Also add 108/109 year olds, or just list them all!!!!!!!!!!! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- If people are less than 113 years old you can add them into the "other cases" section. You need to provide the media citation with confirmation of birth date and the person is still living.Japf (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we know that the serious nature of this article will end soon, when the circus in ArbCom ends, but we don't need to loose temper. So, I will try to rephrase- there is a section in this article for unverified cases of people between 110 and 113 years old. Even they are unverified, they need a proper citation, telling the birthday and that the person is still alive. If the person is than 113 (dead or alive) years old put it on Longevity claims.Japf (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just to add that the case of Lola Ugarte viuda de Sandagorda was correctly placed in the article.Japf (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we know that the serious nature of this article will end soon, when the circus in ArbCom ends, but we don't need to loose temper. So, I will try to rephrase- there is a section in this article for unverified cases of people between 110 and 113 years old. Even they are unverified, they need a proper citation, telling the birthday and that the person is still alive. If the person is than 113 (dead or alive) years old put it on Longevity claims.Japf (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposed year ban on regular editors of this article
For those that are unaware, there is a proposal here that many of the regular editors of this article, including myself, be banned from editing any longevity related articles for at least 1 year after which they may request, once every 3 months, permission to resume editing. Most are also threatened with a 1 year "behavior restriction" for making "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith". 3 guesses who is responsible for this. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a nightmere!!! JJB should be banned for ever, and all the religious fanatics that spread like a cancer in the wikipedia. What pleasure does he have on destroying serious work? This is a test to wikipedia itself. Any result except forbidding JJB to rotten longevity related articles is a further step to endanger wikipedia as a reliable source.
- The discussion is too large. What can I do to help wikipedia?Japf (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Shigechiyo Izumi
Shigechiyo Izumi should be removed from all wikipedia pages as his claim is no longer being accepted by any reliable source. Guinness dropped the case in the 2011 edition and Robert Young confirms here that GRG has as well. Epstein has also removed him from his list.Tim198 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
WOP citations
As per the recent ArbCom decision, and the clarification here, WOP can no longer be used as a citation for people included in the unverified list in this article. They will therefore need to be removed. Any person with no other citation claiming to have celebrated a 110th birthday will also need to be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The forces of stupidity wun. My colaboration in articles related to longevity has ended today.Japf (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the following people who had no non-WOP citations. If a citation can be found claiming a 110th, or more recent, birthday they can be added back in. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Charlotte Flowers
- Yvonne de la Tour
- Eddye WIlliams
Now we have the start of the deletions:
Charlotte Flowers
Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.
Yvonne de la Tour
Recently discovered, so not possible to have documentation.
Eddye Williams
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/DC-WOMAN-TURNS-110-80662422.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113002998.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403886.html
have been deleted from the Misplaced Pages lists.
These are real people, notable for their longevity and other reasons.
Contrary to what has been stated beforehand, these people are now being removed from LISTS not from articles.
Now the censorship kicks in, and now the knowledge is deleted.
And now we have the rule of the idiots. Cam46136 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
- No, what we have is the wkipedia policy that a reliable citation must be provided. WOP is no longer considerd to be a reliabe source. Simple. DerbyCountyinNZ 06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that's true. Most idiots are simple. Cam46136 (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
- Make sure you tell that to the people that made the decision then. DerbyCountyinNZ 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it not make sense to push for more debate and a proper outcome here before jumping in with the scythe? Melissa.vp198 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's an ArbCom decision, there has (presumably) been plenty of discussion already. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question for DerbyCountyinNZ. Is it possible to place Eddye Williams back on the list?
- Are references from NBC and two from the ‘Washington Post’ considered to be reliable sources? Cam46136 (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
- Absolutely. As long as the report mentions that she has celebrated her 110th birthday I don't know of any reason that prevents her inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Corrections
Greetings ~ I have some corrections to suggest for the unverified section:
Add: María Cruz Bustamante Morales (Oct 31 1899) Chile
Add: Maria Rosa do Sacramento (Dec 31 1899) Brazil
Add: María Leonor Melchor Navarrete (Dec 29 1900) Mexico
Remove: Benedicta Rodríguez (Aug 04 1900) Colombia - has not yet had a confirmation of reaching 110 (the report on her was from May 2010)
Gabe A (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Morales: Article states that according to a register, she was born in 1906.
- do Sacramento: blog
- Navarrete: blog
- Rodríguez: removed (as of now).
Blogs can't be added here, which is why I added the two (now three because of Rodríguez to here. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nick Ornstein: Please stop edit warring
Per WP:BLP, WP:3RR doesn't apply, but edit-warring does no one any good. So I'm making my plea here: These are living people. Louis Epstein's OHB list is not a reliable source. It fails WP:RS and it is specifically excluded in the Notability and sourcing guidance at the WOP WikiProject page. If you don't like that, please try to generate a new consensus on the WOP talk page. But on a page about living people, to revert the replacement of genuine reliable sources with ones that are not, is serious business. It's childish, too. Please comply with the rules. David in DC (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Childish? WP:NPA. → Brendan 09:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Louis Epstein list was considered to be reliable source by consensus in the WOP WikiProject page. It was Arbcom (supposely composed by intelligent people) that have decided this stupidity.Japf (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- L.E. agrees:On my talk page, he summed up the real problem(s) better than I could ever hope to. And then blithely reiterated them. David in DC (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposal on Sortable Tables
If the months in the table dates are shortened to 3 letter abbreviations (Jan, Feb, Mar, etc.) then the wikitables can be made into wikitable sortables. Shortening the months would allow the table to detect them as dates, thus making it sortable in chronological order (Currently it doesn't recognize the format '01 January 2001' as a date, but it recognizes '01 Jan 2001'). This would also give the option to sort by country, gender, or any categories in the current columns. Gabe A (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- This has been tried before. It does not work when there are tied ranks. DerbyCountyinNZ 07:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
viuda de …
Re: the recent removal of viuda de surnames: It's a bit blithe to treat all "Spanish speaking countries" as a unit on this issue. Family name#Spanish-speaking countries discusses a variety of conventions. Despite a year living in Cochabamba, the exact convention here is not clear to me. Nor is the convention that might be embraced by women born around 1900. I can say that local media have clearly presented viuda de … as a part of these women's names, not as an explanatory or parenthetical note. Further, their inclusion reduces ambiguity and aids in readers specifying these individuals. As such, I'm restoring the text.--Carwil (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Categories: