This is something I've considered, but I couldn't quite decide. I mean, how do we determine which cases would fit there? Wouldn't we arbitrarily decide that some claims will end up there because they "don't look old" or are from "a country known for longevity myths," and would we put other claims from certain countries in the "living" or "deceased scs" subforums because they seem true and are from a certain country (but ultimately end up being less true than some of the claims we've put with myths)?

I don't know, it feels... wrong to me. But maybe others disagree and do feel a claims section would fit.

Any input?

Posted by: @admin

This is something I've considered, but I couldn't quite decide. I mean, how do we determine which cases would fit there? Wouldn't we arbitrarily decide that some claims will end up there because they "don't look old" or are from "a country known for longevity myths," and would we put other claims from certain countries in the "living" or "deceased scs" subforums because they seem true and are from a certain country (but ultimately end up being less true than some of the claims we've put with myths)?

 

I don't know, it feels... wrong to me. But maybe others disagree and do feel a claims section would fit.

 

Any input?

The definition of "Longevity claims" is 115+ and unverified

Posted by: @admin

This is something I've considered, but I couldn't quite decide. I mean, how do we determine which cases would fit there? Wouldn't we arbitrarily decide that some claims will end up there because they "don't look old" or are from "a country known for longevity myths," and would we put other claims from certain countries in the "living" or "deceased scs" subforums because they seem true and are from a certain country (but ultimately end up being less true than some of the claims we've put with myths)?

 

I don't know, it feels... wrong to me. But maybe others disagree and do feel a claims section would fit.

 

Any input?

I think a claims section should specifically be reserved for claims that don't have early or mid-life documentation. So someone who isn't GRG-validated yet but has documents from an early age wouldn't be a longevity claim. This distinguishes cases like Oliver-Gabarró, Butariu, Wiggins, Welford, etc. from a claim like, say, Maria Strelnikova or something.

Posted by: @admin

This is something I've considered, but I couldn't quite decide. I mean, how do we determine which cases would fit there? Wouldn't we arbitrarily decide that some claims will end up there because they "don't look old" or are from "a country known for longevity myths," and would we put other claims from certain countries in the "living" or "deceased scs" subforums because they seem true and are from a certain country (but ultimately end up being less true than some of the claims we've put with myths)?

 

I don't know, it feels... wrong to me. But maybe others disagree and do feel a claims section would fit.

 

Any input?

We could adopt a similar approach to the gerontology wiki. 115-129 are longevity claims. 130+ are longevity myths. Until such time as validation attempts are made for those that fit into those categories, would it be a good idea to have a section for them? 

Posted by: @sailor-haumea

Posted by: @admin

This is something I've considered, but I couldn't quite decide. I mean, how do we determine which cases would fit there? Wouldn't we arbitrarily decide that some claims will end up there because they "don't look old" or are from "a country known for longevity myths," and would we put other claims from certain countries in the "living" or "deceased scs" subforums because they seem true and are from a certain country (but ultimately end up being less true than some of the claims we've put with myths)?

 

I don't know, it feels... wrong to me. But maybe others disagree and do feel a claims section would fit.

 

Any input?

I think a claims section should specifically be reserved for claims that don't have early or mid-life documentation. So someone who isn't GRG-validated yet but has documents from an early age wouldn't be a longevity claim. This distinguishes cases like Oliver-Gabarró, Butariu, Wiggins, Welford, etc. from a claim like, say, Maria Strelnikova or something.

I sort of agree here, but those claims are still unvalidated by any organisations unfortunately  

Posted by: @sailor-haumea

I think a claims section should specifically be reserved for claims that don't have early or mid-life documentation. So someone who isn't GRG-validated yet but has documents from an early age wouldn't be a longevity claim. This distinguishes cases like Oliver-Gabarró, Butariu, Wiggins, Welford, etc. from a claim like, say, Maria Strelnikova or something.

I also feel for this, especially because there are also 110-115 claims that have turned out to be false/unsolvable. (So they would fit with "claims".)

Posted by: @marco

Posted by: @sailor-haumea

I think a claims section should specifically be reserved for claims that don't have early or mid-life documentation. So someone who isn't GRG-validated yet but has documents from an early age wouldn't be a longevity claim. This distinguishes cases like Oliver-Gabarró, Butariu, Wiggins, Welford, etc. from a claim like, say, Maria Strelnikova or something.

 

I also feel for this, especially because there are also 110-115 claims that have turned out to be false/unsolvable. (So they would fit with "claims".)

At the gerontology wiki, these are titled supercentenarian claims. 110-114 but false. Maybe we could have a subheading for them too.

Posted by: @ollieukscfan

Posted by: @marco 

I also feel for this, especially because there are also 110-115 claims that have turned out to be false/unsolvable. (So they would fit with "claims".)

At the gerontology wiki, these are titled supercentenarian claims. 110-114 but false. Maybe we could have a subheading for them too.

A fair point that the two of you raise, but once more... wouldn't that make it seem that the GSCF is suddenly a team of experts and has deemed these cases false/claims/dubious, etc, even though scientific organisations haven't yet approved/confirmed these efforts to debunk those claims?

Or, more easily put, shouldn't the section be reserved to scientifically disproven claims?

[Or am I overthinking it / trying to be too politically correct?]

PS - Please only quote relevant posts, and not the entire history of the topic. This makes scrolling easier. Thank you!

@admin I’ll leave it to your discretion. I guess for me it’s just categorisation. Anybody over 115 is a longevity claim unless they are proved to be a true supercentenarian by validation efforts. Or at least that is how the gerontology wiki, Wikipedia, 110 club etc all have it set up. 

@ollieukscfan I've added a debunked/claims/myths section.

@admin thanks 😊 

[Admin: have moved the discussion about Aniţica Butariu here.]

Don Santiago Vicente Landaeta of Venezuela celebrated his claimed 116th birthday this week. Recent sources cite his birthdate as 29 May, 1907, while older sources cite his birthdate as 06 March, 1907. Apparently he could still walk as of March 2022. No disrespect obviously, but he looks more like 106 to me, not 116. His birthdate was probably miswritten as '07 instead of '17 or even '27. Anyways, here's the link.

Recent update on Manuel Reyes, who claims to be the doyen of Honduras. 

https://youtube.com/shorts/sCyTLLJ5kpo?feature=share

I found two sources, one claiming he was born on 15th October, 1912, and another saying he turned 111 in early 2023, giving him an estimated birthdate of January-April 1912. I contacted Rossell Posas, the person who is interviewing him to ask if he knows that Don Manuel may be the oldest living man in Honduras. If he responds, I will let him know it is free to apply for the record. I hope this case turns out to be true!