Talk:List of American supercentenarians

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of American supercentenarians article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 12 months

Mathew Beard was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 November 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of American supercentenarians. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Arbella Ewing was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 January 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of American supercentenarians. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Mamie Rearden was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 January 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of American supercentenarians. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Shelby Harris was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 November 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of American supercentenarians. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Charlotte Benkner was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 December 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of American supercentenarians. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

George Francis (supercentenarian) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 December 2007 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of American supercentenarians. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2010. The result of the discussion was redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Longevity Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

On 1 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Supercentenarians in the United States to List of American supercentenarians. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Amy Barnard born in North Carolina in 1750 is listed on the North Carolina census for slaves over 100 years of age. She is 110 in 1860. She is listed under her owner Joseph Barnard of Buncombe County, North Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnorman16 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

117 year old mr borne just released from prison is the oldest person in us that I can find.

Henry William borne 117 yrs old Charlotte nc 75.170.154.125 (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What proof? WordwizardW (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Branyas' age

Maria Branyas, who is living, should be listed as being 117 years and 2 days old today, but is showing up as 116 years and 363 days old. I can't figure out what's wrong to fix it. WordwizardW (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Elizabeth Francis' years and days old is also frozen. I would take over updating if I could be sure I was doing it right. Can anyone advise me? WordwizardW (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the two oldest living die, what then?

There are two living people on this list, one, the oldest born in the USA (and also the oldest in the world), and one, the oldest actually living in the USA (since the other one now lives in Spain). Will this list of the 100 oldest stay unchanging with no living people in it once these die? WordwizardW (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on when they die. The next person who may enter the top 100 oldest Americans is Naomi Whitehead, who would do so in about four months. Softmist (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secundina Camarena

Though I added Secundina Camarena to the list of 100 oldest known Americans in January, upon reviewing her GRG validation report, I feel that she should be removed. There are several details surrounding her case that are concerning:

The GRG claims that Camarena understated her age by 13 years possibly because her husband was 9 years her junior [and] she wanted to avoid social stigma from this. They also theorize that this would help keep the appearance of not being an ‘older mother’ which can be frowned upon in some cultures. Most importantly, though, they admit that these theories cannot be confirmed. Should we trust a validation shrouded in speculation?
The GRG had considered the case debunked before it was validated: Initially, some years ago, this case had been added to our ‘debunked’ list based on her obituary claim of being ‘only’ 100 years of age at death.
The GRG credits the Social Security Administration (SSA), presumably through which Camarena was listed with an 1891 (as opposed to 1904) birth year, as the primary source of her validation. However, several long-standing supercentenarian cases that the GRG accepted as validated from Kestenbaum's SSA study were later debunked, including "117"-year-old Lucy Hannah and "114"-year-old Mathew Beard.

All of this makes Camarena's validation at age 113 a bit dubious, in my opinion. If another organization (e.g., LongeviQuest) releases a report on the case, we can certainly revisit this, but for now, I don't think we can confidently list her as one of the "100 oldest known Americans." Softmist (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she should be added as she was recently verified. If she does in fact get debunked by the GRG in the future then it would be appropriate for her removal Adonis3000z (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the age of living people not advancing?

Why is the age of living people not advancing daily? I thought that was supposed to happen automatically. Something needs to be fixed. WordwizardW (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is happening again.WordwizardW (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The age wasn't advancing and the tie was no longer a tie. I corrected the ranking and the age advanced, but the columns aren't right, and there's no other living person for me to compare it to to figure out how to fix it. Could someone help me? Whoever was taking care of this is not doing so regularly any more, and I would take it over, but I don't have this quite right. WordwizardW (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My correction of the ranking has been reverted incorrectly to a tie when there is no longer a tie. The living person is now 4 days older than the person she was "tied" to, and is thus ahead of them in the ranking now now. How do I appeal this? I don't want an edit war, but this is clearly wrong. WordwizardW (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the living person still incorrectly tied with someone who died younger, but her age is stuck, not advancing day by day. I would fix it, but I was reverted when I did so before, merely because the columns did not look quite neat enough for someone. WordwizardW (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

revert?

Why was my edit listed as reverted? On Monday, the living person was tied with two others. This was correct for Monday, when I did it. It is now Tuesday, and whoever "reverted" my edit did not put her back below the two others, but ahead of them, as is correct for Tuesday. Please explain. My edit was right for the day it was made on, and the "revert" was not a revert, but showed the progression to the next day. Tomorrow, there will be another tie. for one day. WordwizardW (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]