View Full Version: Living Supercentenarians

The 110 Club > Other Supercentenarians > Living Supercentenarians


Title: Living Supercentenarians


Ben the Moderator - May 28, 2008 02:41 PM (GMT)
Here is a compiled list of living supercentenarians.

Neal - May 28, 2008 02:44 PM (GMT)
How relevant.

More posts to increase post count..

Felix - May 28, 2008 08:44 PM (GMT)
Well, here we are again ... it seems as if there could be a second round for this childish discussion with complaining about "grievances" in the quality of posts.

On the one hand ... making a link to the GRG-list is not just "increasing the number of posts". As it is said in the name of this forum. It is the "110 Club", so we are talking about Supercentenarians. Why not make a link to the official list of living Supercentenarians?

On the other hand ... to make a negative comment after every message posted to the Club, that might not be as qualitative as other messages, is "increasing the number of the own posts" (this way is does not take long to become a so-called "Top-Ten-Member") and it is definetly the wrong way to help making the forum a productive platform to discuss.

So, to give this post a "breath of quality" (and I know, it is really just a breath), lets contemplate the current GRG-list ...
As of May 26, 2008 there are 74 validated living SC in the world. That is the lowest number of validated living SC in 2008 (so far).
If you include all new validated SC, who were accepted within the last 12 month, the number of validated living SC on May 26, 2007 is 101! (after the passing of Lucille Meyer from the USA and before the 110th birthday of Marie Rouch from France). So, it is interesting to see the difference between these two dates. What will it look like in May 2009 for the (then) last year? I think the difference will no longer be 27.

By the way, the highest number of living SC at a given day for 2007 is 109 (between August 5 and August 13). For 2008 it is "only" 95 (so far we had this number five times, last on February 25). We can be sure, that will change as well within the next twelve month.

waalkwriter - May 28, 2008 09:19 PM (GMT)
well, the reason we have so few is that people have been slower than molasses validating new supercentenarians. Cases like Mathilde Aussant, Olympe Pidancet, Denise Fetrot, Betty Rutherford, Elsa Everly, Pinkie Galbreath, should ahve already been validated. Maria de la Soria-Berbel as supposedly already validated but has yet to be added to list, according to Filipe, the same was also said about Rutherford, but she is not on the list either. Emily Lavoie should have been confirmed, and at the least so should have Freida Tessemer. We should have over 80 supercentenarians right now, but the validation is just not happening. The last validation we have is from April, and she really just popped out of nowhere, one day she was just added on the list, she was never even on the unverified list. It took a long time to validate Dr. Denmark, when it shouldn't have, and it took months just to get Epsie Pike Wilson validated. As more new cases come in, and old ones are validated, I expect the total number of living supers to rise into the ninties.

These national record holders could celebrate there 110th birthdays this year:
1. Romanie Pollet, Belgium F
2. Marie Kraslova, Czech. Republic F
3. Delfino Borroni, Italy, M
4. Marie Edith Andre, Mauritus F
5. Gunda Harangen, Norway F

These people claim to already have, but are not even on the unverified list:
1. Ludwika Kosztyła Poland, F
2. Elena Bord(e)ian, Moldova, F

Hermina Dunz has yet to be confirmed.

Many more will probably

ryoung122 - May 28, 2008 10:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (waalkwriter @ May 28 2008, 04:19 PM)
well, the reason we have so few is that people have been slower than molasses validating new supercentenarians. Cases like Mathilde Aussant, Olympe Pidancet, Denise Fetrot, Betty Rutherford, Elsa Everly, Pinkie Galbreath, should ahve already been validated. Maria de la Soria-Berbel as supposedly already validated but has yet to be added to list, according to Filipe, the same was also said about Rutherford, but she is not on the list either. Emily Lavoie should have been confirmed, and at the least so should have Freida Tessemer. We should have over 80 supercentenarians right now, but the validation is just not happening. The last validation we have is from April, and she really just popped out of nowhere, one day she was just added on the list, she was never even on the unverified list. It took a long time to validate Dr. Denmark, when it shouldn't have, and it took months just to get Epsie Pike Wilson validated. As more new cases come in, and old ones are validated, I expect the total number of living supers to rise into the ninties.

These national record holders could celebrate there 110th birthdays this year:
1. Romanie Pollet, Belgium F
2. Marie Kraslova, Czech. Republic F
3. Delfino Borroni, Italy, M
4. Marie Edith Andre, Mauritus F
5. Gunda Harangen, Norway F

These people claim to already have, but are not even on the unverified list:
1. Ludwika Kosztyła Poland, F
2. Elena Bord(e)ian, Moldova, F

Hermina Dunz has yet to be confirmed.

Many more will probably

Greetings,

Let me say just this: I think that many persons comprehensively misunderstand the GRG list...the main purpose is to ensure, firstly, that we have a replacement candidate should the world's oldest person pass away. Do any of you kids remember the 'good ole days'...on Jan 11 1988, Florence Knapp passed away just 15 days after Anna Eliza Williams. Guinness at first gave the title to Maren Bolette Torp (later 7th-oldest), then Orpha Nusbaum, then Birdie May Vogt, then Jeanne Calment, then Carrie White.

In 2000, following the death of Sarah Knauss, the candidate search led to a ridiculous claim that a 107-year-old woman from Scotland was world's oldest (notwithstanding the fact that she was already dead). We saw reports that the titleholder was 109 (Lottie Elliott, Agnes Kinnear) and after three months, finally we had a winner...Eva Morris.

These events have not repeated themselves since the GRG became the primary (but not only) source for the Guinness 'oldest person' title.

Please note the GRG list includes a disclaimer that the true actual world count of supercentenarians should be higher.

Now, I ask: if the first and primary task is to ensure a steady transition of the #1 spot, wouldn't it make since to first investigate cases such as Mary Davis or Carrie Berrian? Those born in 1898 won't be in the running until 2012...so we have many years to get to them.

Also, in many cases we rely on volunteer work for validation. If Laurent Toussaint decides not to validate the French cases, and no one else has volunteered, then what?

Finally, what do you mean "Emily Lavoie should have been confirmed"...the family just e-mailed me to apologize for not sending anything yet. People have jobs and lives and other things to do. If you can't wait, well does not Wikipedia have a list of likely candidates? You could make your own list...but soon you'll run into issues: do I include cases only because I believe them to be true? Why do I believe in Frieda Tessmer? If we accept 'all' cases from Europe then what about the 116-year-old claim from Spain? Or how about Eastern Europe?

ryoung122 - May 28, 2008 10:40 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (ryoung122 @ May 28 2008, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (waalkwriter @ May 28 2008, 04:19 PM)
well, the reason we have so few is that people have been slower than molasses validating new supercentenarians. Cases like Mathilde Aussant, Olympe Pidancet, Denise Fetrot, Betty Rutherford, Elsa Everly, Pinkie Galbreath, should ahve already been validated. Maria de la Soria-Berbel as supposedly already validated but has yet to be added to list, according to Filipe, the same was also said about Rutherford, but she is not on the list either. Emily Lavoie should have been confirmed, and at the least so should have Freida Tessemer. We should have over 80 supercentenarians right now, but the validation is just not happening. The last validation we have is from April, and she really just popped out of nowhere, one day she was just added on the list, she was never even on the unverified list. It took a long time to validate Dr. Denmark, when it shouldn't have, and it took months just to get Epsie Pike Wilson validated. As more new cases come in, and old ones are validated, I expect the total number of living supers to rise into the ninties.

These national record holders could celebrate there 110th birthdays this year:
1. Romanie Pollet, Belgium F
2. Marie Kraslova, Czech. Republic F
3. Delfino Borroni, Italy, M
4. Marie Edith Andre, Mauritus F
5. Gunda Harangen, Norway F

These people claim to already have, but are not even on the unverified list:
1. Ludwika Kosztyła Poland, F
2. Elena Bord(e)ian, Moldova, F

Hermina Dunz has yet to be confirmed.

Many more will probably

Greetings,

Let me say just this: I think that many persons comprehensively misunderstand the GRG list...the main purpose is to ensure, firstly, that we have a replacement candidate should the world's oldest person pass away. Do any of you kids remember the 'good ole days'...on Jan 11 1988, Florence Knapp passed away just 15 days after Anna Eliza Williams. Guinness at first gave the title to Maren Bolette Torp (later 7th-oldest), then Orpha Nusbaum, then Birdie May Vogt, then Jeanne Calment, then Carrie White.

In 2000, following the death of Sarah Knauss, the candidate search led to a ridiculous claim that a 107-year-old woman from Scotland was world's oldest (notwithstanding the fact that she was already dead). We saw reports that the titleholder was 109 (Lottie Elliott, Agnes Kinnear) and after three months, finally we had a winner...Eva Morris.

These events have not repeated themselves since the GRG became the primary (but not only) source for the Guinness 'oldest person' title.

Please note the GRG list includes a disclaimer that the true actual world count of supercentenarians should be higher.

Now, I ask: if the first and primary task is to ensure a steady transition of the #1 spot, wouldn't it make since to first investigate cases such as Mary Davis or Carrie Berrian? Those born in 1898 won't be in the running until 2012...so we have many years to get to them.

Also, in many cases we rely on volunteer work for validation. If Laurent Toussaint decides not to validate the French cases, and no one else has volunteered, then what?

Finally, what do you mean "Emily Lavoie should have been confirmed"...the family just e-mailed me to apologize for not sending anything yet. People have jobs and lives and other things to do. If you can't wait, well does not Wikipedia have a list of likely candidates? You could make your own list...but soon you'll run into issues: do I include cases only because I believe them to be true? Why do I believe in Frieda Tessmer? If we accept 'all' cases from Europe then what about the 116-year-old claim from Spain? Or how about Eastern Europe?

Comprehensively wrong, part II

I also don't like the comment about cases 'just popping out of nowhere'...cases do NOT just 'pop out of nowhere'...I am often sent cases and the information may not be made publically available right away. Did I not say I had over 400 unreleased validated cases? Most deceased, but some are alive as well.

Point 2...the GRG list is already dominated by Americans. Yes we can add more American cases, but it will only look more unbalanced. What we need is more participation from Europe and Japan. Why has Filipe continually validated American cases, but hasn't even done the man from Portugal born Jan 1898?

Point 3...we try to do validations in order...it may take a while for a case like Dr. Denmark because we have other cases ahead of her to do first. You do believe in equal treatment, don't you? Or should we 'play favorites' and just add the 'popular' cases first? I think, when you consider all these things, it takes emotional maturity to do what is right first and not what is popular first.

I really shouldn't even be telling you all this, except that there are good reasons for the slow progress of validations at the moment. The bottom line is that the GRG list should be viewed as 'incomplete election returns'...someone mentioned that if we wait a year, the 2007 list is now up to 100+ cases. So, if you want a real answer, wait a year...

Ok, enough for now.
:rolleyes:


waalkwriter - May 29, 2008 10:02 PM (GMT)
I feel like the fires of hell were rained down on me here. I was just saying it seemed like business was rather slow. :unsure:

ryoung122 - May 30, 2008 08:05 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (waalkwriter @ May 29 2008, 05:02 PM)
I feel like the fires of hell were rained down on me here. I was just saying it seemed like business was rather slow. :unsure:

It seems to me that, once again, those who dish out criticism can't take the blowback (paging Scott McClellan, anyone?). Did I use any words like "fires of hell"? Read what you wrote, it doesn't exactly sound too positive--"slower than molasses"--yet the GRG personnel operate 7 days/week, 365 days/year. What you said seems a lot more critical than a logical argument. Think of this like sports: often, a player gets mad at an umpire or referee...and sometimes umps or refs can be out of control. But the player often was over the line to start.

Now, if you want sugar-coating, I did support your attempt to save the Marie-Rose Mueller article on Wikipedia...so don't take things the wrong way. :D

waalkwriter - May 30, 2008 04:58 PM (GMT)
And on that note, I did almost get banned, and later was blocked from Brownhairedgirls talk page. I investigated her a little bit. I found that she, and about five other people who repeatedly showed up on the delete arugments in the Gerontology sections, were all connected to each other, and had some discussions on her tlak page. I accused her of vote stacking, and she didn't take it well. But, she was the one who marked almost everything marked for deletion. I also stated my opinion that her use of the notability rule was very arbitrary. Only information that she considered notable she gave weight. I think wikipedia should be a portal of information on all areas. She has been involved in deleting many articles I have written or contributed to, not just Marie-Rose Muellers. The only thing she hasn't touched are my political articles, which is no surprise since that seems to be her own area of work. B)

I must say, Robert, you must have been one hell of debator if you were on Debate Team. :lol:

Neal - May 30, 2008 06:02 PM (GMT)
And on a side note, if you think the GRG supercentenarians are going low, you may want to compare it to years like 2004 (where there were records) that make this year seem high.

I once saw a back-up page of table E on the GRG site from 2004, where they listed either Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper or Charlotte Benkner as the oldest. There were only 41 supercentenarians on it.

ryoung122 - May 30, 2008 10:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Neal @ May 30 2008, 01:02 PM)
And on a side note, if you think the GRG supercentenarians are going low, you may want to compare it to years like 2004 (where there were records) that make this year seem high.

I once saw a back-up page of table E on the GRG site from 2004, where they listed either Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper or Charlotte Benkner as the oldest. There were only 41 supercentenarians on it.

So that's an 80% increase in just four years (41 to 74)...it just seems that no one has noticed the growth...until now. :D

waalkwriter - June 5, 2008 02:02 AM (GMT)
But on another note Robert, I am offended by your remarks. You seem overly defensive. Surely a world famous Gerontologist has the security to take a little unfounded criticism a little lighter, afterall I'm just a scrabbler from nowhere Lousiana, with no formal training or experience in the field. As said though, you're defensive, overly aggresive, and you really give the impression of looking down and spitting on people whenever you argue with them, even when it's just a harmless, simple issue, that could be handled very calmly and politely.

As for Scott McClellan's book, I've read it, it was very good, but it told me nothing I didn't already know. I knew that Bush cherrypicked information to justify the Iraq War. The whitehouse blames the CIA, saying, they gave us false information, waa waa, boo hoo. Not true. The CIA gave conflicting intelligence reports the whole time, some suggesting different things, many suggesting no nuclear weapons. Experienced foriegn policy expert Joseph Wilson, who was an ambassador under four presidents, Republicans and Democrats, was sent to investigate the Nigerian "Yellow Cake" claim. After an extensive investigation, his report concluded their was absolutely no foundation or merit to the rumor. Then Bush says evidence has been found to verifty the Yellow Cake report. He wrote an editorial to dispute the "evidence" Bush said had been found. Not that Bush would now anything. His staff has said he does not like to read security reports, as evidenced by the report on the threat of an AL-Queda attack on America that laid unread on his desk while he was on vacation in Crawford Texas, just months before 9/11. What he does, is have neo-con insiders give him verbal briefings. Anyway, back to point, just months after that Scooter Libby leaks the identity of his wife, who was a covert agent, ending her distinguished career as a CIA agent, nad possible endangering any agent she had worked. Why? To try to discredit Wilson by suggesting his wife set up the trip was basically the goal. That alone is good evidence. There is much more though.

I may not be an expert on Gerontology, but Politics, this is my field, and not probably not yours. I served in Washington for a time as a Senate Page, working on the Senate Floor. I read through 10 to 40 pages of political reports a day, consult campaigns occasionally, and am a guest poster on political sites. My raw knowledge of politics confounds some people who have worked with it for years. I live in Louisiana, but can state a redistricting plan for New York, that uses my knowledge of the voting patterns of it's individual counties to create an all Democratic Delegation with several Republican leaning and swing districts. I can name and indentify every US Senator, their state, their party, the year they were elected, and even their opinions. I can do the same for at least two hundred U.S. Representatives, and have an extensive knowledge of U.S. Congressional Districts. At age 13 I wrote a policy and campaign essay to Sen. Blanche Lincolns office, they offered me an internship before they found out I was too young, and they were very surprised to find out so. Blah blah. Enough about politics. This really should be in the Lounge Room, but I felt it better to address your statements here, where they were made.

Ben the Moderator - June 5, 2008 02:26 AM (GMT)
waalkwriter, I find your political experience fascinating. I, too, have been involved in politics very much so at my age, and would love to speak with you more about the subject.

waalkwriter - June 5, 2008 05:45 PM (GMT)
Thank you. I'd love to talk politics anytime. This is not a political site so I have not wanted to clug it with such things. If you'd like to email me, my e-address is waalkwriter@gmail.com. I know, it's so unoriginal. The truth is I use practically the same username and password for all of the my online accounts, at least most of them. I didn't even come up with it, my grandfather did for my aol account years ago. I just took a liking to it.

I did not know that you also had a diversity of interests as well. It's always fun to find someone else who is interested in politics. ARe you on RedState? I also hope that I have not started a flame war of posts with Mr. Young.

ryoung122 - June 7, 2008 01:11 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (waalkwriter @ Jun 4 2008, 09:02 PM)
But on another note Robert, I am offended by your remarks. You seem overly defensive. Surely a world famous Gerontologist has the security to take a little unfounded criticism a little lighter, afterall I'm just a scrabbler from nowhere Lousiana, with no formal training or experience in the field. As said though, you're defensive, overly aggresive, and you really give the impression of looking down and spitting on people whenever you argue with them, even when it's just a harmless, simple issue, that could be handled very calmly and politely.

As for Scott McClellan's book, I've read it, it was very good, but it told me nothing I didn't already know. I knew that Bush cherrypicked information to justify the Iraq War. The whitehouse blames the CIA, saying, they gave us false information, waa waa, boo hoo. Not true. The CIA gave conflicting intelligence reports the whole time, some suggesting different things, many suggesting no nuclear weapons. Experienced foriegn policy expert Joseph Wilson, who was an ambassador under four presidents, Republicans and Democrats, was sent to investigate the Nigerian "Yellow Cake" claim. After an extensive investigation, his report concluded their was absolutely no foundation or merit to the rumor. Then Bush says evidence has been found to verifty the Yellow Cake report. He wrote an editorial to dispute the "evidence" Bush said had been found. Not that Bush would now anything. His staff has said he does not like to read security reports, as evidenced by the report on the threat of an AL-Queda attack on America that laid unread on his desk while he was on vacation in Crawford Texas, just months before 9/11. What he does, is have neo-con insiders give him verbal briefings. Anyway, back to point, just months after that Scooter Libby leaks the identity of his wife, who was a covert agent, ending her distinguished career as a CIA agent, nad possible endangering any agent she had worked. Why? To try to discredit Wilson by suggesting his wife set up the trip was basically the goal. That alone is good evidence. There is much more though.

I may not be an expert on Gerontology, but Politics, this is my field, and not probably not yours. I served in Washington for a time as a Senate Page, working on the Senate Floor. I read through 10 to 40 pages of political reports a day, consult campaigns occasionally, and am a guest poster on political sites. My raw knowledge of politics confounds some people who have worked with it for years. I live in Louisiana, but can state a redistricting plan for New York, that uses my knowledge of the voting patterns of it's individual counties to create an all Democratic Delegation with several Republican leaning and swing districts. I can name and indentify every US Senator, their state, their party, the year they were elected, and even their opinions. I can do the same for at least two hundred U.S. Representatives, and have an extensive knowledge of U.S. Congressional Districts. At age 13 I wrote a policy and campaign essay to Sen. Blanche Lincolns office, they offered me an internship before they found out I was too young, and they were very surprised to find out so. Blah blah. Enough about politics. This really should be in the Lounge Room, but I felt it better to address your statements here, where they were made.

Regarding the below comments, I'd like to note that I stayed on-track with a logical argument (the GRG list is now 80% higher than four years ago seems like an improvement to me). Your response is little more than a personal attack. I do like to give people second and even third chances but I there comes a time when I will have to draw the line and cease communication with you if this continues. Considering you started the current negativity with negative remarks about the GRG, you SHOULD apologize, and also re-read what you wrote and realize that you really don't have reason to take offense. Did I say "you are ugly, you are stupid, etc.?"

As a girl said to me recently, what you said is little more than an 'alpha-male' response...so suddenly this is 'personal' and your experience as a page makes you a world's leading expert in politics? I also note that first you argue that you are just a 'nobody' from Nowhere, Louisiana, but then argue that you are a world expert on politics. You can't have it both ways.

However, the truth is, we are all human and though humans are competitive and try very hard to be the best, we are all more alike than different. One thing you need to learn is to measure your actions by the same standard you measure others. Your choice of words about me: "defensive, overly aggressive, give the impression of spitting on people"...sounds like you. Compromise does not work if both sides are not willing to give something. Not only were your original comments way out of line, like a bad movie review they go around to others. Should I just let others think that the GRG isn't doing a good job just because you spout off some negative comment?

And actually I am well-versed in politics...know who William Natcher was? One thing we learn in politics is that, in order to be a successful politican, one has to be skilled in the art of not telling the truth. Getting along with others and making other people believe in them is a key to success. I am no politican. I said from the start that my mission was to "educate people as to how long humans really live." So far I think I have been successful in that endeavor, like me or not. I am not here to win a popularity contest. I am here to get to the truth about the maximum human life span, to put out reliable data that people can use. I'm sure those people who make wild promises...like "drink this potion and live to 150" are far more popular, as they fleece you.

P.S. I don't see anything 'light' about your entire message. If you are 21 I'm simply say go get a drink or something.



But on another note Robert, I am offended by your remarks. You seem overly defensive. Surely a world famous Gerontologist has the security to take a little unfounded criticism a little lighter, afterall I'm just a scrabbler from nowhere Lousiana, with no formal training or experience in the field. As said though, you're defensive, overly aggresive, and you really give the impression of looking down and spitting on people whenever you argue with them, even when it's just a harmless, simple issue, that could be handled very calmly and politely.

plyjacks - June 7, 2008 01:27 AM (GMT)
Dear waalkwriter,
Please stop saying things about Robert. I'm not trying to me mean but you need to treat others how you would like to be treated. I'm going to ask you nicely okay. As for now I'm locking this thread to be safe.




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards